Gujarat HC Upholds Rejection Of Sons’ Suit Challenging Father’s Land Sales, Finds No Birthright In Property Inherited From Grandfather

The plaintiffs challenged registered sale deeds executed by their father, defendant No. 1, in favour of defendant No. 3 on 16 and 24 November 2004. They claimed rights by birth in the suit lands as ancestral property and instituted the suit on 13 February 2007.

The plaint pleaded that block No. 215 had belonged to their grandfather, who bequeathed it to defendant No. 1 by a Will dated 15 November 1980; block No. 214 was owned by defendant No. 1.

The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, and the First Appellate Court affirmed that decision. The plaintiffs brought this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, also challenging the costs imposed by the First Appellate Court.

Under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, a plaint may be rejected if, on a meaningful reading of the plaint and its accompanying documents, it does not disclose a cause of action; under Rule 11(d), it may be rejected where the suit appears from the plaint to be barred by law.

Section 100 CPC confines a second appeal to cases involving a substantial question of law; factual findings are not ordinarily disturbed unless, among other things, they are perverse or contrary to settled law.

Under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property inherited by a male Hindu after the Act’s commencement generally devolves as his individual property, rather than becoming coparcenary property in which his descendants acquire a birthright; Section 6 applies where the property is coparcenary property.

The Court relied on Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567, and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204, on the effect of inheritance under Section 8.

A bare assertion that property is ancestral or belongs to an HUF does not suffice: material particulars and foundational facts must be pleaded.

The Court did not decide the limitation question, holding that it became immaterial once the plaint was found to disclose no cause of action.

Applying Order VII Rule 11, the Court considered the plaint on a meaningful reading and did not rely on the defendants’ defence.

As pleaded, block No. 215 had passed to defendant No. 1 under his father’s Will or, alternatively, by succession after the grandfather’s death; on either basis, the plaintiffs had not pleaded facts establishing that it was coparcenary property. The Court therefore held that the property was not shown to confer a birthright on the plaintiffs under the post-1956 succession regime.

For block No. 214, the plaint likewise lacked material particulars showing how the land, owned by defendant No. 1, was ancestral.

The plaintiffs consequently had no pleaded right to challenge the sale deeds, so the plaint failed under Rule 11(a); deciding limitation was unnecessary.

The Court also upheld the First Appellate Court’s costs order, reasoning that it was not an award of compensatory costs under Section 35A CPC and that the appellate court had given reasons for imposing costs in light of the litigation’s conduct.

The second appeal was dismissed in limine, without costs; the lower courts’ decisions were confirmed, and the civil application for stay was disposed of as not surviving.