A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where its claims raise triable issues.

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration that the Will dated 5 August 2022 allegedly executed by Late Shri Ram Prakash Anand was null and void, along with partition, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction.

The plaintiffs claimed that Ram Prakash Anand’s properties, including Plot No. A-28A, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, had been acquired and developed from ancestral funds and compensation received by his father, Late Shri Lal Chand Anand, after Partition.

They further asserted that the defendants were children from Ram Prakash Anand’s second marriage, allegedly contracted during the subsistence of his first marriage, and claimed a share in the properties as legal heirs.

After the plaintiffs demanded partition, the defendants allegedly informed them of the disputed Will, which the plaintiffs challenged as forged, fabricated and executed when Ram Prakash Anand was medically incapacitated.

The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of vague pleadings, bar under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, and limitation.

1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action despite the defendants’ contention that the pleadings regarding ancestral funds, savings and acquisition of the suit property were vague?

2. Whether the suit was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act on the basis that the property stood in Ram Prakash Anand’s name?

3. Whether the suit appeared, from the statements in the plaint, to be barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC?

4. Whether the disputed questions concerning the character of the property, the plaintiffs’ shares and the validity and legal effect of the Will required adjudication at trial rather than summary rejection of the plaint?

The Court applied Order VII Rule 11 CPC, particularly clauses (a) and (d), under which a plaint may be rejected only if it does not disclose a cause of action or if the suit appears from the plaint itself to be barred by law.

Relying on Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn., Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, and Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property, the Court held that the plaint must be read as a whole and that only its averments, not the defence, are relevant at the Order VII Rule 11 stage.

Under Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, a cause of action comprises the material facts necessary to obtain the relief claimed, and the Court must assume the plaint’s factual averments to be correct for this limited purpose.

The Court also relied on Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia, reiterating that a plaint cannot be rejected where its pleadings raise triable issues and that the Court must not conduct a mini-trial at the preliminary stage.

Order VI Rule 4 CPC, requiring particulars in cases involving fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence, was held by the Court to have no application to the plaintiffs’ partition claim.

The Court held that the plaint contained specific foundational assertions that Lal Chand Anand had received compensation after Partition, that the family possessed ancestral funds, that Ram Prakash Anand’s properties were acquired from those funds, and that the plaintiffs were denied their claimed share after the disputed Will was disclosed.

These assertions, if proved, could establish a right to seek partition and challenge the Will; therefore, the plaint could not be characterised as disclosing no cause of action.

The alleged lack of documentary detail concerning events occurring before Independence went to proof and could not justify rejection of the plaint at the threshold.

The Court further held that whether the property was acquired from ancestral funds, whether the Benami Act applied, and whether Ram Prakash Anand had the legal competence to bequeath the property were disputed factual and legal questions requiring trial.

On limitation, the Court noted that the plaintiffs issued a legal notice seeking partition on 23 August 2022 and filed the suit in 2022, while the denial of their claim allegedly arose upon disclosure of the Will; consequently, the suit did not appear ex facie barred by limitation from the plaint.

The Court emphasised that these matters could be raised and adjudicated while framing issues and conducting trial, but not through an Order VII Rule 11 application.

The questions concerning the source of funds, the nature of the property, the plaintiffs’ entitlement, the defendants’ status and the validity and legal effect of the Will were left open for trial.

The suit was directed to be listed before the learned Joint Registrar for further proceedings on 14 October 2026.