Calcutta High Court: In a revisional application challenging the impugned order dismissing the application of the petitioner for rejection of plaint, a single-judge bench comprising of Bivas Pattanayak,* J., dismissed the civil revisional application and affirmed the lower court’s decision not to reject the plaint. The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s arguments and held that the case will proceed for trial on the issues raised in the suit.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the plaintiff-opposite party 1 filed a suit for declaration and injunction against petitioner-defendant 1 and proforma defendant 2. Plaintiff claimed ownership of land through a gift deed from her husband (proforma defendant 2). The husband allegedly transferred the same property to petitioner through sale deeds before the gift deed’s registration. The plaintiff challenged the sale deeds as fraudulent, void, and illegal in Title Suit No. 68 of 2021.
The petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that Section 47 of the Registration Act does not apply to compulsorily registrable gift deeds. The petitioner argued that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act due to the absence of a prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds. The plaintiff argued that being a non-executant, she sought a declaration and court fees should be computed accordingly. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Ghatal, Paschim Midnapore, vide order dated 23-06-2022 in title suit dismissed the application for rejection of plaint. The petitioner filed the present revisional application challenging the impugned order.
Contentions
The petitioner argued that the deed of gift is not covered by Section 47 of the Registration Act and should not operate from the date of execution. It was contended that the plaintiff’s suit, without seeking cancellation of sale deeds, is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. It was contended that the plaintiff undervalued the suit to avoid ad valorem court fees. It was stated that the declaration regarding the records of rights is barred under Section 51C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. It was lastly contended that the plaintiff has no cause of action, and the suit is collusive.
Court’s Observations
The Court referred to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and noted the restrictions on considering the application for rejection based on the petitioner’s allegations. The Court applied the principle that a registered document operates from the date of execution under Section 47 of the Registration Act and upheld the validity of the gift deed. The Court held that since the plaintiff is a non-executant, seeking a declaration is appropriate, therefore, rejection under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is not justified.
The Court dismissed the argument with regards to undervaluation of suit based on precedents and upheld plaintiff’s valuation as per Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act. While rejecting the contention that declaration regarding the records of rights is barred under Section 51C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, The Court stated that the rejection of a part of the plaint is not permissible under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The Court opined that the petitioner’s argument with regards to fraud and collusion are the questions of fact to be established during the trial.
Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the revisional application, upholding the trial court’s order. The Court directed that the issues raised by the petitioner should be decided during the course of the trial.
[Amit Begwani v. Ranu Parui, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 324, order dated 15-01-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Bivas Pattanayak
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Sakya Sen, Mr. Tarak Nath Sarkar, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty, Mr. Manabendra Thakur, Mr. Swarup Kr. Ghosh, Counsel for the Opposite Party 1
