Ramlal Maniram Navdhinge v. Maniram Patiram Navdhinge And Others

This is an appeal by plaintiff whose plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.

2. Facts shorn of details are as under:

3. The parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff is the son of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is also the son of defendant No. 1 while defendants 3 and 4 are sons of defendant No. 2 and defendants 5 to 7 are the daughters of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff submits that the suit property originally belonged to his grand father Patiram. After his death the property came in the hands of his father defendant No. 1. He submits that it is, therefore, an ancestral joint family property. The plaintiff has therefore acquired interest in the property along with defendants 1 to 7. Plaintiff requested the defendants to effect a partition but they avoided. On the other hand defendant No. 1 executed gift deed in favour of son of defendant No. 2 and also in favour of defendants 5 to 7. He executed those gift deeds on 16-3-2004. It is contended that defendant No. 1 has only 1/7th share in the suit property and therefore he was not competent to gift the entire property to defendants 3 to 7. Gift deeds according to plaintiff are therefore void ab initio. Since no partition had taken place and if the defendants intend to transfer their share in the suit property they are bound to give preference to the plaintiff. Plaintiff submits that he has such a right under section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. Plaintiff submits that he is interested in acquiring the entire property. According to plaintiff cause of action for this suit arose when he made an offer under section 22 in favour of defendants and they declined that offer. Further according to him cause of action arose when defendant No. 1 executed gift deed in favour of defendants 3 to 7. Plaintiff by this suit seeks a decree for declaration that the gift deeds dated 16-3-2004 are void and they should be cancelled and further a declaration that he has a right to purchase the suit property under section 22 of the Hindu Successions Act and for injunction.

4. The defendants in the suit after service of the summons appeared and filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code contending that the suit is barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code and it was therefore liable to be rejected. The defendants in the said application contended that the plaintiff had instituted Civil Suit No. 168 of 2004 seeking same reliefs. He has made reference to the gift deeds which according to him were void and the cause of action for that suit was based on the execution of the gift deeds. The defendants submit that since the earlier suit was filed entire claim should have been included in that suit and that having not been done this present suit is barred by Order 2, Rule 2.

5. The learned Judge of the trial Court found that the suit was barred by Order 2, Rule 2 and he accordingly rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code. Being aggrieved by that order this first appeal has been preferred.

6. I have heard Shri Karmarkar learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Khapre and Shri Joharapurkar learned counsel for the defendants.

7. Rejection of plaint is a decree as defined in Civil Procedure Code. The plaint is rejected by the learned Civil Judge holding that the suit is barred by Order 2, Rule 2-3 Civil Procedure Code and therefore the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge of the lower Court has not dealt with the aspect if the suit is barred under Order 23, Rule 1(4) of Civil Procedure Code which is sought to be urged now.

8. There is no dispute that the present appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant No. 1 initially being Civil Suit No. 168/04. He later added rest of the present defendants in that suit. It was alleged by the plaintiff in that suit that property in suit was an ancestral property in the hands of defendant No. 1 his father. It was also alleged that defendant No. 1 his father by two separate gift deeds dated 16-3-2004 gifted the suit property to two sons of defendant No. 2 and his three daughters defendants 3 to 5. The plaintiff contended that his father went on promising him to give his share but did not. He, therefore, sought injunction and declaration that he has a right in the suit property. The plaintiff i.e the present appellant during the pendency of Suit No. 168 of 2004 instituted the present second suit being Special Suit No. 917 of 2006 on 5-9-2006. In this Special Civil Suit No. 917/06 plaintiff/appellant has made identical pleadings except that he makes an additional pleading that he has a right of pre-emption under section 22 of the Hindu Successions Act. He contends that he had issued notice to defendants giving out his intention to purchase but they did not respond to the notice.

9. The first Suit No. 168 of 2004 was withdrawn by the plaintiff on 16-3-2007. It is apparent from the order that it was dismissed for want of prosecution. No permission it appears was sought to withdraw the suit and the Court had not granted permission to institute fresh suit on the same cause of action. Order reads as follows:

:ORDER:

In view of the Pursis filed by the plaintiff at Exh. 48 and he does not want to proceed with the suit. Hence, suit stands disposed of for want of prosecution. No order as to costs. Parties to note.

10. The material question is whether the instant suit is barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that bar of Order 2 would apply where the first suit is already decided on merits. He contends that bar of Order 2 would not apply where the first suit is withdrawn. The very objective of Order 2 is that parties should not be vexed twice for the same cause i.e where two claims can be clubbed together they cannot be split and defendant cannot be forced to face the litigation twice. Therefore, if defendant is required to face the litigation twice when the entire matter could have been decided in single suit he should not be required to face another suit. In the instant case provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 would not at all apply. Plaintiff has withdrawn the earlier suit unconditionally and he has instituted a fresh suit. Therefore, it could not be said that defendant is required to face two litigations one after the other and/or even during the pendency of the first suit. There is only one suit pending now. Nothing has been decided in earlier suit. It is not that after the decision of earlier suit again second suit is filed on the same cause of action, nor is it that different questions are agitated in two different pending suits simultaneously. The plaintiff cannot continue two suits seeking different reliefs arising out of same cause of action but he can certainly withdraw one and continue the other if both were pending simultaneously that is why there is a provision in the form of section 10 of Civil Procedure Code. Section 10 permits the Court to stay the subsequently instituted suit if first suit is pending between the same parties involving the same question. Where therefore first suit is withdrawn it cannot be said that the defendant would be vexed if the second suit is continued. Shri Khapre the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 relied on a decision of this Court in Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Gmbhy v. Hindustan Lever Limited, 2002 (1) Mh. L.J 453 : 2002 (Supp.) B.C.R 674. The facts of the case were different. In that case the second suit was filed at Bombay and the first suit on similar facts was filed at Delhi and it was also pending. Here the first suit is withdrawn immediately and only second suit is continued. To my mind the bar under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code would apply where either two suits are pending simultaneously or when the earlier suit is decided and fresh second suit is instituted on the same cause of action. In the instant case now only one suit is pending and is being prosecuted. At the most in such a case the provisions that would apply is Order 23, Rule 1. If similar suit is instituted without permission Order 23, Rule 1 would bar the second suit. If in the instant case provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 were to apply then Order 23 would be redundant. The provisions of Order 23 necessarily apply to cases where suit is withdrawn. The Legislature has therefore introduced bar on second suit at two places for two different reasons. If the Order 2, Rule 2 were to apply where first suit is withdrawn there would not have been necessity to have provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 sub-rule (4) in the Code. Where first suit is withdrawn the provisions of Order 23 alone would apply. Second suit in the instant case was not barred and the learned Judge of the lower Court fell in error.

12. Shri Karmarkar the learned counsel for the plaintiff had placed reliance on many decisions reported in:

i) Deva Ram v. Ishwar Chand, (1995) 6 SCC 733 : AIR 1996 SC 378, ii) Sidramappa v. Rajashetty, (1970) 1 SCC 186 : AIR 1970 SC 1059, iii) Deva Rama v. Ishwar Chand, 1996 (1) Civil. L.J 343, iv) Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair, (2004) 3 SCC 277 : AIR 2004 SC 1761 v) Bengal Waterproof Limited v. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company, (1997) 1 SCC 99 : AIR 1997 SC 1398, vi) 1963 Mh. L.J 817 : AIR 1964 Bombay 42 (V 51 C 6) At Nagpur, vii) 2004 (4) Civil L.J 825, Bombay High Court, viii) AIR 1975 Rajasthan 14, (ix) AIR 1977 Punjab and Haryana High Court, x) AIR 1978 Orissa 203, xi) I.L.R 1988 Bombay 1024, xii) (1970) 1 SCC 761 : AIR 1970 SC 987, xiii) AIR 1990 Kerala 112, xiv) AIR 1980 Allahabad 277, xv) AIR 1999 Punjab 254, xvi) 2007 (5) Mh. L.J 663, xvii) AIR 1998 Bombay 127.

13. These decisions lay down a law that Order 2, Rule 2 would subsequent suit on the same cause of action seeking reliefs arising out of the same cause of action. I do not think it necessary to deal with them since such proposition is not in dispute.

14. The next point that needs consideration to mind is whether the plaint at all discloses cause of action or not. Although the learned Judge of the lower Court has held suit to be barred by Order 2, Rule 2 and therefore he rejected the plaint I find that rejection of plaint on that count was not proper, but then I find that in any case plaint needs to be rejected for non disclosure of cause of action. The learned counsel for the appellant contended before me that the suit is based on a totally different cause of action inasmuch as it is based on a right of preemption. He contended that plaintiff/appellant had issue a notice to the respondents/defendants informing them his willingness to purchase the property and they did not respond, hence the present suit is filed. He submitted that his claim is based on the provisions of section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. The plea of accrual cause of action under section 22 of Hindu Succession Act in the instant case has to be stated to be rejected. Section 22 read thus:

Section 22: Preferential right to acquire property in certain cases - (1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an interest in any immovable property of an intestate, or in any business carried on by him or her, whether solely or in conjunction with others, devolves upon two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule, and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his or her interest in the property or business, the other heirs shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred.”

15. It is thus clear that section does not apply until successions opens. Defendant No. 1 father of the plaintiff is still alive. It is only heirs of deceased who get a right under section 22. Since the father is still alive and the property is said to be ancestral and not self acquired in the hands of father, there is no application of section 22 at all. It must therefore be said that atleast on this count the plaint does not at all disclose any cause of action.

16. Even in respect of other claim it could be said that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. It may be pointed out that plaintiff himself comes out with a case that the property in the hands of his father had come to him from his grandfather. It is thus admittedly an ancestral property. Plaintiff seeks to set aside the gift deed executed by his father defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 father could be said to be ‘Karta’ of the joint family and he has a right to transfer the property. If therefore plaintiff wants to challenge such transfer he can challenge it only to the extent of his share and he can do it only by filing a suit for partition and then praying for setting aside the gift deeds. Therefore, until a partition is sought there could be no setting aside of alienation for the alienation could be set aside only to the extent of share of the plaintiff and that cannot be done unless the suit for partition is filed. Since the plaintiff does not make a prayer for partition and separate possession carving out his separate share the facts as stated do not constitute a cause of action. As a result plaint is liable to be rejected on this count. Although I do not concur with the reasons given by the learned Judge of lower Court I find that the rejection of the plaint was proper. In the result I find no substance in the appeal. It is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.