K. T. GOVINDE GOWDA Vs. K. N. RANGASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) The order challenged before this Court is to the application filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC wherein contended that the property inherited from female cannot be an ancestral property and therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable. It is further contended that the suit is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties and the properties. It is also the contention that the suit is filed by producing false family tree and narrated false and fake stories which is not maintainable. The said application is resisted by the plaintiffs on the ground that whether the property is an ancestral and joint family property or self-acquired property as claimed by the defendants is a disputed fact and the same cannot be decided in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The Trial Court having considered the grounds urged in the application as well as in the objection and also the citation which has been relied upon by the defendants, in detail discussed and comes to the conclusion that the defence of the defendants cannot be decided in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 and only, the Court has to look into the plaint averments and said opinion is formed by the Trial Court is based on the settled principles of law. Whether the property is an ancestral and joint family property or it is an inherited by female members has to be decided only on merits.

(3.) The other contention is with regard to non- joinder of necessary parties and the same also has to be considered at the time of trial. The Court has to look into only the averments of the plaint and on perusal of the plaint averments, in paragraph 14, cause of action has been stated and it is also specifically pleaded with regard to seeking the relief of partition. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and hence, no merit in the revision petition.