Summary
The Supreme Court restored the partition suit in respect of Schedule A property and dismissed the application for rejection of the plaint. Read as a whole and assumed true at that stage, the pleaded nominal sales, reconveyances and continued joint-family possession disclosed a cause of action. The High Court improperly prejudged disputed merits. Independently, Order VII Rule 11 does not permit rejection of only part of a plaint.
Issues
- Whether the partition plaint disclosed a cause of action despite the pleaded earlier sale.
- Whether a plaint could be rejected only for one schedule of properties.
Provisions considered
- Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The plaint and relied-on documents had to be considered meaningfully as a whole, without trying disputed merits; partial rejection for Schedule A was impermissible. (¶ 6–12)
Held
- At the rejection stage, the plaint must be read as a whole and its assertions taken as true to determine whether a cause of action is disclosed. Defence merits and an evidentiary determination of truth do not belong to that inquiry. (¶ 6–7)
- The nominal-sale, reconveyance and continuing-possession pleadings could support partition if proved. Their correctness and the plaintiffs’ heavy evidentiary burden remained for trial. (¶ 8–10)
- The High Court erred by assuming the earlier sale was complete and acted upon, thereby prejudging the disputed title rather than testing the pleaded cause of action. (¶ 10)
- Order VII Rule 11 permits rejection of the plaint as a whole or not at all. It could not be used to remove Schedule A while allowing the same plaint to proceed for Schedule B. (¶ 11–12)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside, rejection application dismissed and suit restored for Schedule A as well. Expeditious trial requested because of the suit’s age; parties to bear their own costs.