The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a recent judgment, has held that a partition suit cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) merely on the ground that the plaintiffs may not be entitled to a share under succession laws. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari ruled that the question of entitlement to a share is a matter for trial and does not render the suit itself “barred by any law.” The court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a trial court’s refusal to reject a plaint in a seven-year-old partition suit.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a partition suit (O.S.No.162 of 2016) filed by Gundapu Vijaya Madhavarao and another (plaintiffs/respondents) before the XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The suit sought partition of property originally belonging to their grandfather, Sri G. Manikyala Rao.
The suit proceeded to trial, and after the plaintiffs closed their evidence and the examination of the first defense witness (DW.1) was complete, the suit was at the stage of cross-examination of the second defense witness (DW.2). At this juncture, nearly seven years after the suit was filed, some of the defendants (petitioners) filed an application (I.A.No.1348 of 2023) under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint.
The trial court dismissed the application on March 20, 2025, observing that the question of the plaintiffs’ entitlement to a share was a matter to be decided after the trial. The trial court also noted that in a partition suit, all defendants are treated as plaintiffs, and the suit could proceed for partition among the defendants, especially since the 5th defendant had already filed an application to be transposed as a plaintiff. This order was challenged before the High Court in the present Civil Revision Petition.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioners (original defendants 1 to 4 and 6), represented by Sri Y.V. Sitarama Sarma, argued before the High Court that the suit was expressly barred by law and the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Their central contention was that the suit property was the self-acquired property of the plaintiffs’ grandfather, Sri G. Manikyala Rao, who died in 2002. They submitted that under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiffs, being grandsons, have no right to succeed to the property in the presence of their father (the 5th defendant). Therefore, the suit was not maintainable.
The plaintiffs (respondents) had contended before the trial court that the suit was maintainable and the question of their share could only be decided after a full trial. They argued that the application for rejection was filed at a highly belated stage only to protract the litigation.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari began the analysis by examining the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which allows for the rejection of a plaint. The court affirmed the settled legal position that for deciding such an application, only the averments in the plaint can be considered.
The judgment extensively discussed the meaning of the expression “barred by any law” under clause (d). Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhargavi Constructions vs Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, the Court stated, “The expression ‘law’ in ‘barred by any law’ in clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C. includes not only legislative enactments but also the judicial precedents, is by now well settled.”
The Court then applied this principle to the facts of the case. It held that the petitioners’ argument concerning Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act relates to the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim, which must be adjudicated during the trial based on evidence.
In a key observation, the Court stated, “The suit, in the event the plaintiffs not entitled to any share in the plaint schedule property and so not entitled for partition may be dismissed, but on that account it cannot be said that the suit is barred by any law.”
The Court further emphasized the unique nature of partition suits, where defendants also hold the character of plaintiffs. It concurred with the trial court’s reasoning that even if the plaintiffs fail to prove their share, the suit could still proceed to partition the property among the defendants. The pending application by the 5th defendant to be transposed as a plaintiff was also noted as a relevant factor.
Addressing the delay in filing the rejection application, the High Court observed that while such an application can be filed at any stage, the timing in this case was significant. The Court noted, “…the learned Trial Court is right in observing that filing of the petition at such a stage and when one of the defendants i.e. 5th defendant had already filed application for his transposition as plaintiff, which was pending for consideration, was strange and peculiar which deserved dismissal.”
Finding no illegality or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.
