AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on admission.
This revision has been preferred under section 115 of
CPC against the order dated 19.1.2017 passed by Civil
Judge, Class-II, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in Civil Suit
No.13-A/2015, whereby the objection of petitioner/
defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
It is argued by learned counsel for petitioner that in
plaint the plaintiffs have not clearly stated when the cause of
action arose. The plaint does not disclose cause of action.
As per Order 7 Rule 11 CPC where it does not disclose a
cause of action, plaint shall be rejected. The trial Court has
wrongly dismissed the objection of petitioner in this regard.
The petitioner has filed the copy of the plaint and
written statement. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for
declaration of their share in disputed land alongwith partition
and possession. It is pleaded that the defendant no.1 has
got the entire land mutated in her name without notice to
plaintiffs. Against this mutation the plaintiffs have preferred
proceedings before revenue authorities. The defendant
no.1 is denying the right of plaintiffs.
Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Church of Christ
Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs.
Ponniamman Education Trust [2012(4) MPLJ 578] in para
8 observed as under :-
"The cause of action is a bundle of facts
which taken with the law applicable to them
gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the
defendant. Every fact which is necessary for
the plaintiff to prove to enable him to get a
decree should be set out in clear terms. It is
worthwhile to find out the meaning of the words
"cause of action". A cause of action must
include some act done by the defendant since
in the absence of such an act no cause of
action can possibly accrue."
Whether the plaint discloses the cause of action has
to be decided by taking averments in totality and by
assuming them to be factually correct. The principle of
taking full and comprehensive view of pleadings has to be
applied.
Thus, as per averments of plaint, it appears that the
disputed land is joint family property of the plaintiffs and
defendant no.1, in which plaintiffs have share and the
dispute arose when the entire land was recorded in the
name of defendant no.1.
Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of M.Venkataramana
Hebbar Vs. M.Rajagopal Hebbar (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 43)
held that :
"A co-owner can cause severance
in the status of joint family by
expressing his unequivocal intentions to
separate. Such intention can be
expressed even by filing a suit for
partition."
One can seek partition anytime from joint family
property. No limitation is prescribed for filing of suit for
partition. Therefore, it is not necessary to state when first
time the cause of action arose. In the dispute relating to
partition of property the cause of action arose continuously.
Therefore, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in
rejecting the objection of the plaintiff, which has been raised
at the time of final arguments, after completion of evidence
of both the parties.
Thus, this revision is dismissed.