Rajasthan High Court

Rakesh Kumar S/O Ram Kishore vs Lacchya S/O Kanhaiya on 2 March, 2022

Bench: Sudesh Bansal

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 23/2022

1.         Rakesh Kumar S/o Ram Kishore, R/o Gadhora Tehsil
           Sikrai Distt. Dausa, (Raj.)
2.         Ram Kishore S/o Mulya, R/o Gadhora Tehsil Sikrai Distt.
           Dausa, (Raj.)
3.         Keshanti W/o Ram Kishore, R/o Gadhora Tehsil Sikrai
           Distt. Dausa, (Raj.)
4.         Mantesh S/o Ram Kishore, R/o Gadhora Tehsil Sikrai
           Distt. Dausa, (Raj.)
5.         Kajod Mal Meena S/o Kanhaiya, R/o Gadhora Tehsil Sikrai
           Distt. Dausa, (Raj.)
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                        Versus
1.         Lacchya S/o Kanhaiya, R/o Gadhora Tehsil Sikrai Distt.
           Dausa, (Raj.)
2.         Badri Prasad S/o Shriya, Resident Of Sikrai Tehsil Sikrai
           Distt. Dausa (Raj.)
3.         Ramesh Chand S/o Mool Chand, Resident Of Bandadi,
           Tehsil Nangal, Raajavataan, District Dausa.
4.         Sub-Registrar, Bahravanda, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.
5.         State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Sikrai.
6.         Late Mulya S/o Kanhaiya, R/o Gadhora Tehsil Sikrai Distt.
           Dausa, (Raj.)
                                                                     ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Prakhar Gupta
For Respondent(s)             :



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                         Order

02/03/2022

Petitioners-defendants have preferred the instant revision

petition assailing order dated 10.11.2021, whereby and

(2 of 6) [CR-23/2022]

whereunder their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

seeking rejection of plaint on the ground of non-disclosure of

cause of action, has been dismissed.

The counsel for petitioners submit that the plaint does not

disclose a cause of action and a clear right to sue does not vest to

the plaintiff, hence such plaint should be nipped in bud and

rejected under Order 7 rule 11 (d) CPC. The counsel for

petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments in case of

Baru (since deceased) & Anr. Vs. Tej Pal and Ors. AIR 1998

All 230 and Rajendra Bajoria & Ors. Vs. Hemant Kumar Jain

& Ors. Civil Appeal Nos.5819-5822 of 2021 decided on

September 21, 2021.

The copy of plaint is not available on record, however the

counsel for petitioners have provided copy of plaint for perusal of

this Court. By perusal of plaint as a whole, it transpires that this is

a case where plaintiff defendant No.5 and defendant No.6 namely,

Lachhya, Mulya and Kajod Mal are three brothers, who have

decided their movable and immovable properties equally and each

has his independent and separate 1/3 share. It is averred that

defendant No.6 Kajodmal is an unmarried and old person of 77

years and have no natural heirs of first class. The plaintiff, and

defendants No. 1 to 5 jointly take care and look after of

defendant No.6, in his old age. The defendant No.6 too treats the

plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 as his legal successors and

earlier he had divided his agriculture and residential property with

plaintiff & defendant No.5; he made a declaration on affidavit

dated 04.06.2020 before Notary Public to give his 1/3 share to

plaintiff and defendants equally but later on it came to knowledge

of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 to 5 have got registered

(3 of 6) [CR-23/2022]

adoption deed dated 07.07.2020 from the defendant No.6 by

taking benefit of his old age and ailing mental condition. Through

their adoption deed defendant No.1-Rakesh Kumar (petitioner

No.1 herein) has been alleged to be adopted by defendant No.6

(petitioner No.5 herein) whereas on that date, defendant No.1 was

of 23 years old. In order to hide age, a forged document of

adoption deed dated 28.08.2007 has been prepared and

submitted before Sub-Registrar. It has been averred that adoption

deed is an illegal and void document, which adversely affects the

rights of plaintiff. In case, the adoption deed is declared as null

and void, the property of defendant No.6 would devolve upon his

natural legal heirs including plaintiff. The defendant Nos.1 to 5

want to divest the plaintiff, from the property of defendant No.6

and have prepared their adoption deed in question. In order to

examine the pleadings of plaint for the purpose of cause of action,

a meaningful reading of entire plaint is necessary. Few relevant

paras of the plaint are reproduced herein under:-

5.";g gS fd izfroknh la 6 dtksMey }kjk iwoZ esa Hkh fnukad 04-06-2020 dks ,d ^'kiFk i= esa vius lEiw.kZ [email protected] ds fgLls dks oknh ,oa izfroknhx.k la 5 ds cjkcj cjkcj fgLlksa esa ckaVus dk o mDr lEiw.kZ [email protected] izfroknh la 6 ds fgLls esa ls Lo;a ds fy, nks ch?kk Hkwfe viuh Hkj.k iks"k.k] jksVh] diM+k o vU; [kpZ gsrq vius ikl j[k yh o mlds vafre laLdkj esa Hkh nksuksa oknh ,oa izfroknh la 5 }kjk czgeHkkst o vafre laLdkj ls lacaf/kr jhfr fjokt vkfn dk fd;s tkus dk mYys[k dj ,d LVkEi dherh [email protected]:0 ij egsUnz ehuk lk{kh ds le{k vius mDr of.kZr mn~ns'; dks ifjy{khr djrs gq, uksVsjh ifCyd galjkt ehuk ,MoksdsV fldjk; ds le{k jftLVªj lhfj;y ua- 1190 fnukad 04-06-2020 dks rLnhd djok;k tkdj oknh ,oa oknh ds ifjokjtu o izfroknhx.k la 1yk 5 o muds ifjokjtuksa ds e/; mits vkilh fookn dk fuLrkj.k dj fn;k ftlls izfroknh la- 6 dtksM+ey dh LosPNk ls fd;k x;k mDr of.kZr caVokjk lkfcr gksrk gS ysfdu izfroknhx.k la 1yk 5 }kjk mDr ^'kiFk

(4 of 6) [CR-23/2022]

i= ds rLnhd fd;s tkus ds ckn fnukad 07-07-2020 dks izfroknh la 6 dtksM+ey dh vlkef;d chekjh o ekufld vlUarqyu o cqtqxhZ;rk o vLe;d vlj dk uktk;t Qk;nk mBkrs gq, izfroknh la 1 dks nŸkd vf/kfu;e esa ugha vkus ds ckotqn Hkh QthZ xkSn ukek fnukad 28-08-2007 dks QthZ nLrkost ds :i esa nŸkd vf/kfu;e esa vkus ds fy, izfroknh la 1 jkds'k dh mez dks fNikrs gq, mDr of.kZr jftLVMZ xkSn i= tks mi iath;d cgjko.Mk ds le{k is'k fd;k x;k FkkA ftls mi iath;d cgjko.Mk }kjk rLnhd dj tkjh dj fn;k x;k tks dh dkuwuu% xyr gS o dkfcys ^'kwU; o fujLruh; ;ksX; gSA

6. ;g gS fd izfroknhx.k 1 yk 5 }kjk vius mDr of.kZr n`"d`R;ksa dks fNikus dk gj laHko iz;kl fd;k ysfdu oknh dks mDr of.kZRk ?kVukØe dh tkudkjh izkIr gksus o laKku esa vkus ls iwoZ gh izfroknhx.k la 1yk 5 izfroknhx.k la 6 dtksM+ey dh vlkef;d chekjh ekufld vlarqyu o cqtqxhZ;rk dk gokyk nsrs gq, bZykt djokus gsrq t;iqj ys x;sA tgk¡ ys tkdj izfroknhx.k la 1yk 5 }kjk izfroknh la 6 dks vius ikl lnks"k ifjjks) esa j[k j[kk gS og oknh o oknh ds ifjokjtuksa dks mlls rRle; ls gh feyus ugha fn;k tk jgk tcfd oknh o oknh ds ifjokjtu izfroknhx.k la 1yk 5 ds lkFk lkFk izfroknh la 6 ds fof/kd okfjlku gSa bl rjg izfroknhx.k la 1yk 5 dk mn~ns'; vxj Qfyr gks tkosxk o izfroknh la 6 dk fu/ku gks tkosxk rks oknh dks viw.khZ; {kfr dkfjr gksxh ftldh iwrhZ fdlh Hkh dnj laHko ugha gks ikosxh blfy, Hkh mDr of.kZr xkSn i= ceqdkfcys oknh ^'kwU; o fujLruh; gSA 8- ;g fd izfroknhx.k la- 1yk 5 dh oknh ,oa oknh ds ifjokjtuksa ds izfr vdkj.k }So"krk o cn;kUrh ,oa csbZekuh dh Hkkouk ?kj dj x;h gS ftlds QyLo:i izfroknhx.k la- 1 yk 5 }kjk izfroknhx.k la 7 yk 8 ds lg;ksx ls izfroknhx.k la 6 dh py vpy lEifRr dks gMi djus dh fu;r ls o oknh dks viw.khZ; {kfr dkfjr djus ds m~n~ns'; ls vkijkf/kd "kM;a= jprs gq;s o izfroknh la 9 yksd lsod ds le{k feF;k mez ds lEcU/k esa rF;ksa dks fNikdj fcuk mez dk vdu fd;s nRrd vf/kfu;e ds foifjr tkdj mDr jftLVMZ xkSn i= fnukad 7&7&20 esa QthZ xkSnukek i= fnukad 28&8*2007 izLrqr dj izfroknh la 1 ds gd esa rLnhd djok fy;k gS ftlds ckn oknh }kjk izfroknx.k la 1 yk 5 dks le>kbZl djus o voS/k

(5 of 6) [CR-23/2022]

jftLVMZ xkSn i= dks ^'kwU; djok;s tkus ds fy,sa xzke lekt dh fefVzx cqyok;s tkus ds ckn Hkh izfroknhx.k la- 1 yk 5 xzke lekt ds iap iVsyku ds cqyok;s tkus ds ckotqn Hkh xkze lekt dh fefaVx esa ugh vkdj ,sykfu;k oknh o oknh ds ifjoktuksa dks viuh jlw[k o iz'kklu esa Åph igqp gksus dk gokyk nsdj /kedh nh fd os izfroknh la 6 dh py vpy lEifRr dks mDr voS/k jftLVMZ xkSn i= ds tfj;sa oknh ds gd esa vkbZ gq;h izfroknh la 6 }kjk ckgeh :i ls ckVh x;h py o vpy lEifRr ftlesa oknh }kjk iq[rk jgokl o [kke ckMk fufeZr dj j[kk gS dks gMi dj nhxj O;fDr;ksa dks cspku dj ykHkkfUor gksdj jgsaxs tks dh ceqdkfoys oknh izfroknhx.k la 1 yk 5 dkfcys 'kwU; o fujLruh; gSA 9- ;g gS fd okndkj.k fnukad 3&2&21 dks mi iath;d egksn; izfroknh la 9 ds dk;kZy; ls mDr xkSn i= fnukad 7&7&2020 dh Nk;k izfr izekf.kr izkIr djus ls mRiUu gksdj okn i= vUnj fe;kn Jheku ds le{k izLrqr gSA **

It is trite law that the plaint as a whole must be read to

examine the accruing of cause of action and right to sue to the

plaintiff. It is also clear proposition of law that truthfulness and

correctness of cause of action is different from disclosure of cause

of action in the plaint. In order to bring the civil suit for rejection

under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC, the case for non-disclosure of

cause of action is to be made out. In the case at hand, from

perusal of pleadings of entire plaint, it may not be said that plaint

does not disclose a cause of action. As far as

correctness/truthfulness of the cause of action is concerned, the

same is subject matter of trial and should be examined after

recording the evidence of both the parties at the time of deciding