LAWS(MPH)-2007-5-78

VIJAY GOYAL Vs. MADANLAL GOYAL

Decided On May 14, 2007
VIJAY GOYAL Appellant
V/S
Madanlal Goyal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII rule 11, CPC by the trial Court.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as under:

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Vinod Bharadwaj, Advocate argued that suit against the coparcener for injunction is not maintainable. During the life time of the father, plaintiff has no right in the property. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of apex Court in the case of Commissioner, Wealth Tax v. Chandra Sen [AIR 1986 SC 1753], and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar [AIR 1987 SC 558]. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1956") rights of those coparceners were saved which were existing on the date of commencement of the Act. Plaintiff's father has inherited the property in his individual capacity and right of succession will be governed by section 8 of the Act of 1956. Therefore, plaintiff has no cause of action and trial Court rightly rejected the plaint.