Case analysis of Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar v. Krishna Nandan Singh & others [Civil Appeal Number- 6760/2019]

Introduction

This case of Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar @ Sarwan Kumar Jaipuriyar v. Krishna Nandan Singh & Others highlights Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This case states that the plaint can be rejected if it is manifestly vexatious, meritless and also if it does not disclose clearly the cause of action or in this case the right to sue the other party.

A cause of action would not be established by the mere consideration or possibility that a right might be violated in the absence of a justifiable foundation for that right. In this case, the application of the appellant was allowed as per Order VII Rule 11 and the plaint of the first respondent was rejected.

The need for action is the infringement of a right or breach of an obligation, and it comprises all pertinent facts supporting the assertion of the right and the claim for the breach, i.e., some action performed by the defendant to infringe, violate, or breach the right or obligation.

A right cannot exist without a correlative obligation that may be upheld in court. A right cannot exist without an upholdable obligation.

Facts of Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar v. Krishna Nandan Singh & others

• In this case, there were three brothers who were the owners of the ancestral property that was divided among them. Also, they had been paying taxes for their shares.
• The first respondent filed a case against the appellant Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriya and Anil Kumar, the second respondent. The second respondent had sold the property of his share to the appellant through a registered sales deed dated 25.01.2016. The partition deed was not challenged in the court, the third brother was even the party to the suit.
• The first respondent pleaded that the second respondent had sold the portion allotted to him to the appellant.
• The first respondent filed a suit as claiming that the sale deed is void ab initio and the privacy of the first respondent is affected and destroyed by this sales deed and the property being sold to the appellant by the second respondent.

The first respondent claimed that he has the right to repurchase the property sold by the second respondent as a right to pre-emption and as per the Memorandum of Partition dates 2008.

• The memorandum of partition 2008 does not mention any right of pre-emption. Under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the right of the second respondent is an undisputed legal right. The second respondent’s ability to exercise the right granted to him by a contract or a statute was not restricted. This isn’t claimed or mentioned in the plaint.
• The third portion owner, Sunil Kumar Mehta also sold and transferred his portion through a sales deed in 2009. This deed was not challenged and questioned by the first respondent.
• The court had questioned how through the sale deed by the second respondent the rights of the first respondent are getting infringed and this affects him but the sales deed by Sunil Kumar does not.
• The plaint was said to be filed on three grounds firstly, the sales deed is void ab initio; secondly, the right to privacy of the first respondent is getting affected and thirdly, the first respondent has the right to pre-emption. There were the material facts placed the first respondent in the plaint against the appellant and the second respondent.

Issues in Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar v. Krishna Nandan Singh & others

• Whether the plaint filed by the first respondent is maintainable or not and does it disclose the cause of action or not?
• Whether the application of the appellant maintainable or not?

Judgment in Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar v. Krishna Nandan Singh & others

The Court held that the first Respondent has no pre-emption rights under the record.  Right of pre-emption arises in the case of Intestate property (ancestral property) and here property is in partition and it has been in exclusive possession and ownership of an individual. So, the owner has the exclusive right to sell or dispose of his property in the way he wants.

The Court also observed that the portion assigned to Respondent No. 2 became his sole and exclusive property, a legal position that is not even disputed or contested by Respondent No. 1 in the plaint.

The Court determined that the relief requested—a directive to the second respondent to complete and file a sale deed in favour of the first respondent and to deliver ownership to the first respondent—does not disclose any cause of action in the plaint.

There is no legal right that either the plaintiff or the first respondent may use or enforce.

A correlative duty that may be upheld in court must exist for a right to exist.

Without an upholdable duty, a right is impossible to have.

Ownership refers to a set of rights, which typically includes the freedom to exclude others and transfer the property as one sees fit, subject to any contractual responsibilities that have been agreed upon or owner-imposed legislative limitations.

The pleadings in the current case fail to show a violation of a statutory right or a breach of a contractual duty that would result in an enforceable right in a legal setting.

The claim would not be disclosed in the plaint if there were no such right or claim.

The application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code filed by the appellant is allowed and the plaint preferred by the first respondent is rejected as it discloses no cause of action. There shall be no order as to costs.

In the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. And Another v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, it was explained that the term “cause of action” refers to all of the facts that the plaintiff must establish to obtain a ruling and redress from the defendant.

In T. Arivandanam v. T.V. Satyapal and Another, the Court has held that if “the plaint is manifestly vexatious, meritless and groundless, in the sense that it does not disclose a clear right to sue, it would be right and proper to exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908”.

A cause of action would not be established by the mere consideration or possibility that a right might be violated in the absence of any justifiable foundation for that right. Meaningful reading not a formal reading of the plaint must be done to extract meaning.

Conclusion

As a sum up, in this case as was already noted, the plaintiff omitted all relevant information from both the original and modified plaints. He claimed to be the original owner of the property when he filed the lawsuit, but this was proven to be false by his own admission in the reply already mentioned.

Only to establish a phony, tenuous cause of action, important facts were withheld from the court. Therefore, I believe the claim is likely to be dismissed for lack of cause of action rather than under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of T. Arivandandam (above).

Therefore, this case majorly highlights that when a cause of action has not arisen for the aggrieved the plaint can be rejected by the court as per Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The plaint will not be maintainable on false grounds by the respondent in this particular case. Hence, the plaint was rejected and the application by the appellant was maintained by the court.

This article has been authored by Suhani Gupta and Pulkit Pareek.