Appellants' Plea for Rejection of Suit Denied; Court Affirms Cause of Action and Dismisses Limitation Objection
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging a lower court's decision to allow a partition suit concerning joint family properties. The appellants, Vibhuti Jauhari and others, sought the dismissal of the suit filed by Anita Munjal, arguing the absence of a cause of action and claiming that the suit was barred by limitation.
The division bench, comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, examined the appellants' application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which sought to reject the plaint on multiple grounds. However, the court determined that the plaint adequately disclosed a cause of action for the partition of joint family properties and that the reliefs claimed were not barred by the statute of limitations.
The case revolves around two properties-the Bathla Property in Delhi and the Gurugram Property in Haryana-alleged by the plaintiff to be acquired from joint family funds. The appellants contended that the properties were solely owned by the late Vinay Jauhari, supported by registered documents, including a Will and a Gift Deed, which they claimed conclusively vested ownership in Vinay.
The court, however, emphasized that the determination of ownership and the source of funds for the property acquisition raised complex factual issues necessitating trial. The judgment highlighted that the cause of action in partition suits is recurring and crystallizes upon the refusal of a demand for partition. It also noted that the limitation for such suits is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows claims within three years from when the right to sue accrues.
The court's decision underscores the principle that, at the stage of assessing an application under Order VII Rule 11, the court must restrict itself to the averments in the plaint and not engage with defenses or disputed facts. The ruling affirms the adequacy of the plaintiff's pleadings to sustain a partition suit and dismisses the appellants' objections as premature, reaffirming the need for a full trial to resolve the disputed issues.
The decision reaffirms the legal standards for rejecting plaints and emphasizes the necessity of a trial in complex property disputes involving joint family claims, setting a precedent for handling similar cases in the future.
Bottom Line:
Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of plaint - Grounds such as absence of cause of action and bar of limitation were examined - Court held that plaint disclosed a clear cause of action for partition of joint family properties and reliefs claimed were not barred by limitation at this stage.
Statutory provision(s): Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Vibhuti Jauhari v. Anita Munjal, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2826718
