M R KRISHNAMURTHI Vs. CHANDAN RAMAMURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "cpc"), the defendant No. 1 has prayed for the rejection of the plaint on three counts:- (1) Limitation ; (2) The plaint does not disclose any cause of action ; and (3) The suit is vexatious and frivolous.

(2.) THE main prayer in the suit is for declaring the compromise decree dated 30. 01. 1987 passed by this court in Suit No. 1970/1986 filed by the plaintiff"s mother (Ms Shyamla Pappu) against Late Mr M. K. Ramamurthi (MKR) as being null and void. A declaratory decree is also sought declaring that defendant No. 2 is not the daughter of MKR and that the defendant No. 1 was not the wife of MKR. Interestingly, a declaration is also sought that the decree dated 18. 12. 1985 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dissolving the marriage between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 is null and void. Several other prayers have also been made, but these are the main prayers.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the son born out of the alleged wedlock of his mother and MKR. As such, being a co-parcener, he is entitled to his share in the property bearing No. A-16, Niti Bagh, New Delhi. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time when the compromise decree dated 30. 01. 1987 was passed, the plaintiff was a minor and as his interest was not placed before the court, the said decree is liable to be declared as null and void, inter alia, in view of the provisions of Order 32 Rule 7 CPC.