R. Arumugam vs PR. Palanisamy and P. Gopalakrishnan

Hon''ble Mr. P.R. Shivakumar, J.—The second defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. Plaintiff in the original suit

O.S. No. 322 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, is the first respondent herein and the first defendant in the original suit is the

second respondent in the second appeal. The suit was filed by the first respondent PR. Palanisamy against the appellant herein and the second

respondent: 1) for a declaration that the document dated 06.09.1994 registered as document No. 104 of 1994 purporting to cancel the will of P.

Rangaswamy Gounder, father of the first respondent/plaintiff dated 07.12.1983 registered as document No. 59 of 1983 on the file of Sub

Registrar, Singanallur, in which Masathal and Subbathal signed as confirming parties, to be null and void and not binding on the first respondent

herein/plaintiff; 2) for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein/second defendant from in any manner alienating, encumbering or

parting with possession of the suit property described in schedules ''A'' to ''E'' in the plaint; 3) for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant

herein/second defendant from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the first respondent/plaintiff in respect of the

suit properties and 4) for cost. After service of summons in the original suit, the appellant herein/second defendant entered appearance and filed an

Interlocutory Application I.A. No. 1215/2007 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for the rejection of the plaint. The learned Subordinate

Judge, Tiruppur, after hearing, allowed the said petition and rejected the plaint by his order dated 31.10.2007. As the rejection of the plaint under

Order VII Rule 11 CPC is deemed to be a decree, the first respondent/plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No. 163/2007 on the file of the Principal

District Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, by judgment and decree dated 16.06.2009, allowed the appeal, set

aside the order of the trial court and dismissed I.A. No. 1215/2007 with a consequent direction to the trial court to restore the suit on file, frame

issues and dispose of the suit in accordance with law. The said judgment and the decree of the lower appellate court dated 16.06.2009 are

challenged in the present second appeal on various grounds set out in the Memorandum of Grounds of second appeal.

The facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are as follows:

i) One P. Rangaswamy Gounder had two wives by names Masathal and Subbathal. He had purchased the properties described in plaint schedules

''A'' to ''E''. The property described in plaint Schedule ''B'' was purchased jointly in the names Rangaswamy Gounder and his second wife

Subbathal. The property described in plaint ''C'' schedule was purchased in the name of Masathal. The property described in plaint ''D'' schedule

was purchased jointly in the names of Rangaswamy Gounder and his first wife Masathal. In order to avoid any future litigation in respect of his

properties, Rangaswamy Gounder, during his life time, executed a Will on 07.12.1983 and got it registered as document No. 59 of 1983 on the

file of the Sub Registrar, Singanallur. Though some of the suit properties had been purchased jointly in the names of Rangaswamy Gounder and his

first wife or the second wife, as the case may be, in the above said Will, the said Masathal and Subbathal were given only life estate. Subsequently,

the second wife of Rangaswamy Gounder, namely Subbathal died in the year 2006. Rangaswamy Gounder, Subbathal and Masathal had no

issues. The first respondent/plaintiff PR. Palanisamy is none other than the son of the other sister of Masathal and Subbathal. While so, a document

purporting to cancel the said will of Rangaswamy Gounder came to be executed by Masathal and registered as document No. 104/1994.

Masathal also died on 14.07.2007. Claiming that he got knowledge of the said cancellation deed dated 06.09.1994 only in June 2006, when he

was asked to sign the said document as confirming party, he has filed the suit for a declaration that the deed of cancellation dated 06.09.1994

registered as document No. 104/1994 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Singanallur is nonest, null and void and shall not bind the first respondent

herein/plaintiff.

ii) The appellant/second defendant, who is the brother''s son of Subbathal and Masathal, on receipt of summons, filed an interlocutory application

in I.A. No. 1215/2007 for the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The application was allowed by the trial court and the plaint

was rejected. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the same, set aside the order of the trial court and directed restoration of the suit to

file for disposal according to law. Thus the second appeal has been filed in this court challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate

court.

The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

In law whether suppression of material facts entitle a defendant to have the plaint rejected as one lacking in cause of action?

Can a registered deed execution of which is admitted be declared as void without seeking to set aside the same?

Under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of plaint, can admitted facts be taken into account when it is beyond the plaint averments?

The arguments advanced by Mr. P.L. Narayanan, learned counsel for the appellant, by Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel for the first

respondent and by Mr. M. Guruprasad, learned counsel for the second respondent were heard. The materials available on record were also

perused.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the list of grounds enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint is not

exhaustive and suppression of material facts, which would amount to abuse of process of court, should also be taken as a ground on which the

plaint can be rejected. Based on the above said submission, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that a well considered order made by

the trial court was wrongly interfered with and set aside by the lower appellate court.

Per contra, Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that unless the defendant seeking rejection of plaint is

able to bring the case within any one of the clauses found in Rule 11 of Order VII CPC he cannot succeed in getting the plaint rejected. It is also

his contention that the question ''whether a plaint can be rejected or not?''-has to be decided based on the averments made in the plaint and the

documents filed along with the plaint and not based on the defence plea made in the written statement or the documents produced by the

defendant. Learned counsel for the first respondent also contends that abuse of process of court or suppression of material fact or even the

question of maintainability of the suit, if it does not fit in any one of the clauses of Rule 11 of Order VII, may, at the best gives rise to a trial of such

an issue as a preliminary issue and the same cannot be projected as a ground for rejection of plaint.

Though Thiru. P.L. Narayanan, learned counsel for the appellant, would have argued vehemently that the plaint of the first respondent herein,

namely the plaintiff, deserves rejection on the ground of suppression of fact and abuse of process of court, he has fairly conceded that the appellant

cannot bring the case within the ambit of any one of the clauses found in Rule 11 of Order VII CPC and only in tune with the same, he has argued

that the grounds enumerated in Rule 11 are not exhaustive and suppression of fact and abuse of process of court should also be added to the

grounds found mentioned in Rule 11 of Order VII CPC as the grounds for rejection of plaint. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for

the appellant relied on the judgment of a learned single judge of this court in Poppat Jamal and Sons Vs. N.M. Venkatachalapathy @ Babulal and

N.M. Krishnamoorthy, . In the said case, in a suit filed on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai for a permanent injunction restraining the

defendant therein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff therein in respect of the suit property, an application came to

be filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. On the dismissal of the application by the trial court, the defendant approached

the High Court by way of a Civil Revision Petition and the learned single judge of this court allowed the Civil Revision Petition with the result that

the interlocutory application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejecting the plaint was allowed and the plaint was rejected. The claim of the

plaintiff in the said case was stated to be based on an unregistered will dated 13.10.1948, which came to be noticed by the plaintiff therein from an

old box in the year 2002. The learned single judge was of the view that since the will had not been probated, the same could not be marked as a

document. The suit had also been based on an order of the High Court dated 15.04.1943 passed in O.A. No. 553/1943, by which, the sale made

in favour of the first defendant therein was allegedly set aside. However, the plaintiff therein did not produce a certified copy of the order passed

by the High Court in O.A. No. 553/1943. On the other hand, the first defendant therein/revision petitioner had produced a certified copy of the

order dated 15.04.1943 passed in O.A. No. 553/1943 to show that the said application filed for setting aside the auction sale made on

02.02.1941 had been dismissed. In the said case, the claim of the plaintiff was based on two documents: 1) an un-probated will dated 13.10.1948

and 2) an order of the High Court dated 15.04.1943 passed in O.A. No. 553/1943 setting aside the auction sale made on 02.02.1941. So far as

the first document was concerned, admittedly the same was not probated and hence the same was held to be inadmissible for want of probate. So

far as the second document was concerned, though the plaintiff therein had recited that there was an order setting aside the auction sale, he had not

chosen to produce a certified copy of the same along with the plaint and on the other hand, the first defendant therein was able to produce a

certified copy of the said order, by which the original application No. 553/1943 filed for setting aside the auction sale had been dismissed. Under

the said circumstances alone, the court came to the conclusion that the plaint pleadings did not disclose cause of action and the cause of action

pleaded therein was only illusory. Of course, the court in the said case had opined that the incorporation of a plea, as if the auction sale had been

set aside, was fraudulent and the same would be a ground for rejection of plaint based on the defence plea made and the document produced by

the first defendant therein.

The said view expressed by the learned single judge in the said case is quite contrary to the well established principle that a plaint can be

rejected only based on the averments made in the plaint and the defence plea made and the documents produced by the defendants should not be

taken into consideration in deciding an application for rejection of plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is pertinent to point out that fraud

has not been made as one of the grounds for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. For better appreciation Order VII Rule 11

CPC is reproduced here under:

Rejection of plaint The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the

Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by

the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9;

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless

the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the

valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would

cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

Madras High Court amendment to clause (c) reads as follows:

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written on paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff does not make good the

deficiency within the time, if any, granted by the Court;

A reading of the said rule will show that neither suppression of fact nor misrepresentation, not even fraud, has been made a ground for rejection

of plaint. Even the rule does not include abuse of process of court as a ground for rejection of plaint. Clauses (a) and (d), which deal with absence

of disclosure of cause of action and the suit appearing from the statement to be barred by any law. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action

for the suit or not, has got to be decided only based on the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint. The

cause of action alleged may not be true or may be a deliberate falsehood. The court dealing with a petition under Order VII Rule 11 cannot go into

the question whether cause of action alleged in the plaint is true or false and take a decision based on the defence plea taken by the defendant or

based on the documents produced by the defendant. On the other hand, there may be cases in which the plea made in the plaint itself having the

effect of destruction of the plea regarding the cause of action and making such plea regarding cause of action illusory. Only in such cases, the court

has to decide whether the cause of action alleged in the plaint is real or that the plaint has been drafted in an intelligent manner to camouflage an

illusory cause of action as a real cause of action. A cause of action alleged in the plaint being illusory different from the cause of action alleged in the

plaint being false. Only in the former case, the court can reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and not in

the latter case.

Citation of a false cause of action, fraud, misrepresentation or the filing of the suit being an abuse of process of court, can, at the best, be

projected as a preliminary issue. All questions, which can be decided as preliminary issues, cannot be made as grounds for rejection of the plaint

unless the ground is brought within the purview of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The distinction between the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule

11 CPC and the dismissal of the suit on a preliminary issue should be kept in mind. In case of rejection of plaint, the same will not bar a fresh suit.

Rule 13 under Order VII CPC provides for the same, which reads as follows:

Where rejection of plaint does not preclude presentation of fresh plaint The rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds herein before

mentioned shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action.

But the dismissal of the suit on the question of maintainability and on the other hand, based on the decision regarding a preliminary issue operates

as a bar for a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Even the question of jurisdiction and a bar created to the suit by any law for the time being in

force, if it is raised in the defence plea that cannot be the ground on which the plaint can be rejected unless the attraction of such a bar is manifest

from the pleadings made in the plaint. Without the aid of the defence pleadings or any other document, the statements made in the plaint themselves

should make it appear that the suit is barred by any law for the time being in force as contemplated in sub clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII CPC.

If such a question of attraction of a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force is raised in the written statement or the defence

plea, the same can be tried as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2) of CPC. This position has been made clear in a number of judgments

by the Hon''ble Apex Court and it shall be sufficient to refer to some of the recent judgments of the Apex court.

In Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, the Hon''ble Apex Court has opined that the ground for rejection of

plaint, Order VII Rule 11(d) shall get attracted only where the statement as made in the plaint without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is

barred by any law for the time being in force.

In Kamala and Others Vs. K.T. Eshwara Sa and Others, the Hon''ble Apex Court has viewed that to fit the case in Order VII Rule 11(d), a

decision has to be made from the averments made in the plaint and no amount of evidence can be looked into for the invocation of Order VII Rule

11(d) CPC. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:

Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be

drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given

case, an application for rejection of the plaint may be filed on more than one ground specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a clear finding to that

effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint. For

that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a court can be invoked at different stages and

under different provisions of the Code. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is one, Order 14 Rule 2 is another.

For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues on merit of the matter

which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the court at that stage. All issues shall not be the subject-matter of an order

under the said provision.

The principles of res judicata, when attracted, would bar another suit in view of Section 12 of the Code. The question involving a mixed

question of law and fact which may require not only examination of the plaint but also other evidence and the order passed in the earlier suit may

be taken up either as a preliminary issue or at the final bearing, but, the said question cannot be determined at that stage.

It is one thing to say that the averments made in the plaint on their face discloses no cause of action, but it is another thing to say that although

the same discloses a cause of action, the same is barred by a law.

In Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh and Others, , the Hon''ble Apex court, relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court [namely C. Natrajan

Vs. Ashim Bai and Another, , Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Others, , Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hede and Company, ,

Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Others Vs. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Others, , Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others Vs.

Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others, Saleem Bhai and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , once again reiterated the same view

that for the rejection of plaint, only the averments made in the plaint can be looked into. The relevant paragraph containing the observation is

extracted hereunder:

The law has been settled by this Court in various decisions that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has

to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendants in its written statements would be irrelevant.

The view of the Hon''ble Supreme Court indicated supra shall be enough to answer the first and third substantial questions of law against the

appellant/second defendant. The mere suppression of fact alone shall not be the ground for holding that the plaint lacks pleadings regarding cause

of action. When a plaint contains clear pleadings spelling out the cause of action, the question whether such a cause of action is true or not cannot

be the scope of enquiry in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Whether there is any suppression of material facts, can be ascertained

only from the pleadings made in the written statement and the evidence to be adduced by the parties. This court holds that suppression of material

facts alone shall not entitle a defendant to have the plaint rejected as one lacking in cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The first

substantial question of law is answered accordingly against the appellant.

By now, the law has been well settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court that while considering an application under Order VII Rule

11 CPC, the court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendants in their written statements would be irrelevant

and that no amount of evidence can be looked into for invoking the power of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. As such,

rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be made taking into account the facts, which might have been admitted during

discovery, interrogatory or evidence. Such admissions, may, lead to the dismissal of the suit on a preliminary issue or on merits in consideration of

all the issues, but the same will never amount to a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, when the same is beyond the scope

of averments made in the plaint. The third substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

""Whether a registered deed execution of which is admitted can be declared as null and void without a prayer for setting aside the same"" is the

meaning of the second substantial question of law formulated at the time of admission. The same pertains to the sustainability of the prayer for

declaration in the absence of a prayer to set aside the document. By no stretch of imagination, the same can be construed as a ground for rejection

of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In the present case, a will executed by P. Rangaswamy Gounder was sought to be cancelled by his first

wife Masathal after the death of Rangaswamy Gounder and also after the death of Subbathal, the second wife of the said Rangaswamy Gounder.

The will made by Rangaswamy gounder on 07.12.1983 was registered as document No. 59/1983 on the file of Sub Registrar, Singanallur. Though

the properties described plaint ''B'' schedule had been purchased jointly in the names of Rangaswamy Gounder and his second wife Subbathal and

the plaint ''c'' schedule property had been purchased in the name of Subbathal and the plaint ''D'' schedule property had been purchased jointly in

the names of Rangaswamy Gounder and his first wife Masathal, all the plaint schedule properties were dealt with in the said will, as if Rangaswamy

Gounder had the absolute power of disposal. As per the plaint averment, the said Masathal and Subbathal had also signed the will as confirming

parties. Under such circumstances alone, document No. 104/1994 came to be registered on 06.09.1994 as one executed by Masathal purporting

to cancel the will of Rangaswamy Gounder dated 07.12.1983 registered as document No. 59/1983 on the file of Sub Registrar, Singanallur after

the said will had come into force on the death of Rangaswamy Gounder. Claiming that wife of Rangaswamy Gounder, namely Masathal, had no

right to cancel the will made by Rangaswamy Gounder after the same came into effect on his death, more so, when no power of such cancellation

had been given to Masathal, the first respondent/plaintiff has chosen to seek a declaration that the deed of cancellation allegedly executed by

Masathal on 06.09.1994 is not only null and void, but also not binding on the plaintiff. We can''t say that there is no cause of action for seeking

such a declaration. Whether such a prayer for declaration without a prayer for setting aside the registered document is sustainable, is yet another

question, which does not pertain to the realm of consideration in a petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Hence the second substantial question

of law is also answered accordingly against the appellant. The mistake committed by the learned trial judge in going beyond the scope of

consideration contemplated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC by taking into consideration the defence plea and also holding that the plaint was liable to

be rejected on the ground of suppression of fact and abuse of process of court, was rightly interfered with and set-right by the lower appellate

court. There is no defect or infirmity in the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. No case for interference with the same has been

made out and the second appeal deserves dismissal as there is no merit in it.

In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.