Agency(Karnataka): In a significant ruling, the High Court of Karnataka has set aside an order of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shidlaghatta, and allowed a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), rejecting a plaint in Original Suit No. 1 of 2010. The plaint, filed by the respondents 1 to 6, sought a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction over a disputed property, claiming inheritance through an alleged adoption.
The petitioners-defendants had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ claim of ownership based on an adoption deed had already been negated by the jurisdictional Civil Court in previous suits, which had attained finality. The Trial Court had dismissed the application, stating that there was a dispute regarding the question of facts and law, which could only be decided after trial.
During the proceedings, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners argued that the First Appellate Court had already modified the decree passed in a previous suit, holding that the plaintiffs’ father was not the adopted son of the original owners of the property. Furthermore, in another suit filed by the deceased father of the plaintiffs, the Trial Court had held that he failed to prove his adoption. Therefore, the present suit, seeking a declaration of ownership based on the alleged adoption, was manifestly vexatious and meritless, without disclosing a clear right to sue.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the properties and parties in the previous suits and the present suit were different, and the causes of action were also distinct. Therefore, the principles of res judicata would not apply. Additionally, even if the suit for declaration was not maintainable, the plaintiffs could still maintain the suit for permanent injunction based on possession.
After careful consideration of the submissions made by both parties and the relevant legal provisions, the High Court observed that the plaintiffs had explicitly claimed ownership of the suit property based on the alleged adoption of their father by the original owners. However, they had conveniently omitted to mention that their father’s adoption had been unsuccessfully challenged in previous suits, with the First Appellate Court and the High Court upholding the decision that he was not the adopted son.
The High Court emphasized that Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the CPC enables the rejection of a plaint if it fails to disclose a cause of action. Since the plaintiffs’ claim hinged on the unproven adoption, and their father had faced adverse decrees twice affirming that he was not the adopted son, there existed no valid cause of action to initiate the suit. Allowing the suit to proceed would amount to an abuse of the court’s process.
Furthermore, the High Court noted that the suit property consisted of vacant land, and possession follows title. Given the absence of a cause of action for maintaining a suit for declaration, it could be inferred that the defendants, being the petitioners, were in possession of the suit property as its rightful owners, having acquired it through a registered sale deed. The plaintiffs’ argument that a suit for permanent injunction remained maintainable even if the suit for declaration was not viable held no merit and lacked substance.
In light of the discussion, the High Court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their right to sue, and there existed no valid cause of action for filing the suit. Consequently, the plaint fell within the purview of Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the CPC and deserved to be rejected. The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order of the Trial Court, and rejected the plaint.
The judgment serves as a reminder that plaintiffs must establish a clear right to sue and disclose a valid cause of action in their pleadings. The Court will not hesitate to reject a plaint if it appears to be manifestly vexatious and meritless, even if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action. The decision also highlights the importance of disclosing all material facts in the plaint, as omission of a single material fact can lead to an incomplete cause of action, rendering the plaint defective.
