Plaint cannot be rejected partially where triable issues regarding private partition and injunctive relief exist.

The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming ownership of land at Nandpora, Nigeen, Srinagar, through adverse possession

They alleged that following an arbitral award in 1971, which was made a Rule of Court, the property was privately partitioned in 1982

They claimed to have fenced and occupied a portion of the land belonging to the defendants' predecessor in 1985-86, asserting that their possession became adverse in 1994

The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, arguing it disclosed no cause of action as the parties were co-owners and no "ouster" was pleaded

The Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint on 31.07.2024

The plaintiffs appealed this rejection to the High Court

1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action sufficient to withstand an application for rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC

2. Whether a plaint can be rejected in part when the plaintiff seeks both a declaration of title and a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction

The court applied Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC, which mandates the rejection of a plaint that does not disclose a cause of action

It relied on the principle that while determining a cause of action, only the averments in the plaint and documents filed under Order VII Rule 14 are to be considered, not the defense's written statement

Regarding the claim of adverse possession among co-owners, the court noted that while possession of one is usually possession of all, the plea of "private partition" creates a triable issue of fact

The court applied the precedent from Kum. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy (2024) and Sejal Glass Ltd. v. Navilan Merchants (2018), establishing the rule that a plaint cannot be rejected partially

The High Court found that the Trial Court erred by pre-judging the status of the property as "joint holding" without a trial

The court observed that the plaintiffs specifically pleaded a "private partition" following the 1971 arbitral award

Since the award did not prohibit private partition, the question of whether the property remained joint or was partitioned is a factual issue requiring evidence

Regarding adverse possession, the plaintiffs provided specific dates (1985-86 for fencing and 1994 for maturity of title), which constitutes a valid pleading of a cause of action

Furthermore, even if the claim for adverse possession were legally weak, the plaintiffs' claim for a permanent prohibitory injunction to protect their admitted physical possession remains a valid and separate cause of action

Since a plaint cannot be rejected in part, the entire rejection was held to be legally unsustainable

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 31.07.2024, and remanded the case to the Trial Court with directions to frame issues based on the pleadings and proceed with the trial

The court reaffirmed that where a plaint reveals triable issues of fact—such as the existence of a private partition—it cannot be summarily rejected at the threshold