PRAHLADSINGH RAMKHILAANSINGH Vs. SUDHIR J. BHALEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question agitated in these appeals is as to whether the learned trial Judge erred in law to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code My answer is in the affirmative for following reasons. The case of the appellant (Original Plaintiffs) is that they are legal heirs of Prahladsingh Ramkhilavan Singh. Their father claimed as Tenant of the premises described as 'Stable with surrounding open land at Final Plot No. 113 and 114 at TPS V Scheme Vile Parle (East)'. He disclaimed Lessor's right by refusing to pay rent for 12 years and claimed ownership by adverse possession. Second defendants in S.C. Suit no. 3856 of 1999 and S.C. Suit no. 3857 of 1999 were his servants residing in the stable permitted as gratuitous licensee. They were not in possession or occupation of any premises. They had filed suit against the plaintiffs in the court of small causes being suit no. 3164 of 1981 and 3165 of 1985. First Defendant decided to develop the property and had entered into agreements with second defendants in the suit to provide flats to them admeasuring 260 Sq. feet carpet area to each of them, in the proposed building of the proposed society. The Plaintiffs claimed declaration that agreements between the Defendant no. 1 and second defendants are bad, illegal, unenforceable and will result in to loss, injury to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also prayed for perpetual injunction against the Defendants. According to the plaintiffs, they will have allotment of three flats in the proposed building. Following issues were treated as preliminary issues to be decided by the learned Judge.

(2.) Learned trial judge without giving opportunity to the parties to adduce any oral evidence held that the plaintiffs are jealous of the second defendants that they will get two flats in the proposed building. According to the learned Judge of the trial judge the plaintiffs have no cause of action to sue the defendants. According to the learned trial Judge the plaintiffs were not entitled to challenge the agreement between the first and second defendants and therefore the learned Judge, without recording any evidence upon issues framed ordered rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil procedure. Hence appeals.

(3.) The provision of Order 7 R. 11. Rejection of plaint reads thus:-