Kaluram And Others vs Laxminarayan And Others

Birendra Kumar, J

The defendants/petitioners are aggrieved by refusal of their prayer to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC by order dated 29.03.2022 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 26/2019.

The prayer was on the ground that the relief sought for could not have been granted and the plaintiffs/respondents have got no cause of action.

The case and claim of the plaintiffs is that Daulat Ram and Surja Ram S/o Girdhari Ji were owner of khasra no. 735 area 16 bigha 13 biswa. They, through their holder of power of attorney Gopal Das, sold the said property through a registered sale deed dated 23.09.1991 to the plaintiffs. The plot is situated in Village Jhalamand in the District of Jodhpur.

Defendant/petitioner Kalu Ram S/o Jassa Ji forged a power of attorney said to be executed by Jassa Ram S/o Bhagha Ji in favour of Kalu Ram and Kalu Ram scrupulously carved out different plots on khasra no. 735. Plot No. 204 was sold to defendant Geeta, plot no. 204-A was sold by Kalu to defendant Dhiya, plot no. 205 was sold by Kalu to Abla Devi and plot no. 206 was sold by Kalu to defendant Bachhi Devi. The plaintiffs asserted that when the plaintiffs visited the plot, they found that the new purchasers have made construction over there. Though their vendors had no title to transfer the said property. In the circumstance, the plaintiffs prayed for recovery of possession and injunction against the defendants.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the plaintiffs were not a party to the sale transaction, they cannot challenge it especially when the sale transactions were not in respect of the same land (khasra no. 735) which the plaintiffs claim. The plaintiffs have not prayed for any relief for cancellation of power of attorney in favour of Kalu Ram.

Evidently, the plaint discloses cause of action for the suit. None of the grounds mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are made out. On perusal of the entire plaint, it cannot be argued that the plaintiffs have come up with a fictitious and imaginary case without any substance in it and as such the suit was just to harass the defendants. Besides other issues, the issue that would be adjudicated in the suit is whether Jassa Ram S/o Vaga Ram had right title and possession of the plots sold by their holder of power of attorney Kalu Ram. The second issue would be whether those plots were carved out on khasra no. 735. Only on adjudication of these issues consistent with the pleading of the petitioners, the suit might be dismissed on final adjudication or it might be decreed if the plaintiffs proves the case and claim pleaded in the plaint. Therefore, this is not a fit case wherein the plaint would be rejected.

Accordingly, this revision petition stands dismissed as devoid of any merit.