Plaint Rejection Principles: Mixed Questions of Fact and Law Pertaining to HUF Property Require Trial

The Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) filed a suit for partition, rendition of accounts, and permanent injunction regarding property No. F-4/16, Model Town, Delhi

The plaintiff alleged the property was purchased in 1957 using joint family funds and subsequently treated as Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property under the Karta, Respondent No. 2

In 2014, Respondent No. 2 allegedly demolished the structure and denied the HUF's existence, claiming exclusive ownership

After issues were framed and during the stage of plaintiff’s evidence, the Appellant (Defendant) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, arguing the suit lacked a cause of action and was barred by limitation

The learned Single Judge dismissed the application on 15.01.2026

1. Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) for failure to disclose a cause of action regarding the existence of an HUF

2. Whether the suit is ex-facie barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11(d) given the alleged lack of joint possession since 1990

3. Whether the Appellant can seek rejection of the plaint after providing an undertaking not to alienate the property, which obviated the plaintiff's need to establish a prima facie case for interim relief

The court primarily applied Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, which mandates the rejection of a plaint that fails to disclose a cause of action or is barred by law

It relied on the principles from Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association and Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, holding that the court must only examine averments in the plaint, not the defense

It further invoked T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, stating the power to reject a plaint is a drastic measure and should only be used if the suit is manifestly vexatious

Regarding limitation, it adhered to the rule that the bar must be apparent on the face of the plaint

The Court reasoned that the plaint specifically pleaded the acquisition of property via joint family funds and its treatment as HUF property, which constitutes a clear cause of action

It held that the Appellant’s arguments—that no HUF exists and that the property was not joint—are matters of defense and mixed questions of fact and law that require a full-fledged trial

The Court noted that since trial had already commenced and evidence was being led, triable issues had clearly been raised

Regarding limitation, the Court found that the cause of action allegedly arose in 2014 when the Karta asserted exclusive ownership; therefore, the bar of limitation was not apparent on the face of the plaint

Finally, the Court observed that the Appellant's prior undertaking not to dispose of the property precluded them from seeking a threshold rejection after gaining a procedural advantage

The Court held that disputes regarding the character of the property and the subsistence of the HUF are matters for trial, and the suit is not ex-facie barred by limitation

No order as to costs was made