{"id":244261,"date":"2021-02-23T16:15:16","date_gmt":"2021-02-23T10:45:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=244261"},"modified":"2021-03-05T12:00:49","modified_gmt":"2021-03-05T06:30:49","slug":"right-of-succession","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/","title":{"rendered":"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Madhya Pradesh High Court:<\/strong> Rohit Arya, J., dismissed a revision petition which was filed after the dismissal of Petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.<\/p>\n

The respondent\/wife and three children were plaintiffs in the suit seeking relief that they were entitled to half share of the property managed by petitioner. Suit had been filed on the premise that marriage was solemnized between them 17 years ago, they were blessed with three children. Since October 2019 petitioner had ousted plaintiffs from the home and prior to that, he used to come home in a drunken state and picking up fights with his wife and also used to physically assault her. To add pain to the injury, he had also kept a lady with him by the name Pushpa and was living like husband and wife, gradually he started creating the third party right in the existing properties managed by him.<\/p>\n

In the aforesaid backdrop of factual matrix, wife and children (now respondents) had filed the suit alleging mishandling of the property and alienation thereof to their prejudice with the assertion that they were entitled for their share in the property. The petitioner had in turn filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC styling himself to be the exclusive owner of the properties allegedly self-acquired by him.<\/p>\n

The Trial Court had rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC opining that only plaint averments were to be seen for deciding such an application, it further had held that the claim of share in the properties or right of succession were not pure questions of law instead they were mixed question of law and fact. Unless parties lead evidence in support of their pleadings, said questions could not be answered.<\/p>\n

This Court while dismissing the revision held that the trial Court had applied correct principles of law while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and there was no illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 115 of CPC.[Rajesh Vishwakarma v. Sapna Vishwakarma, 2021 SCC OnLine MP 388<\/b><\/a>, decided on 19-02-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Rohit Arya, J., dismissed a revision petition which was filed after the dismissal of Petitioner’s application under Order <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[29785,31554,3590,45270,31620],"class_list":["post-244261","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-law","tag-order-7-rule-11-cpc","tag-property","tag-right-of-succession","tag-section-115-cpc"],"yoast_head":"\nMP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Right of Succession\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Right of Succession\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-02-23T10:45:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-03-05T06:30:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/MP-high-court1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/\",\"name\":\"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-02-23T10:45:16+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-05T06:30:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Right of Succession\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC | SCC Times","description":"Right of Succession","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC","og_description":"Right of Succession","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-02-23T10:45:16+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-03-05T06:30:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/MP-high-court1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/","name":"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-02-23T10:45:16+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-05T06:30:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Right of Succession","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":315600,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/29\/civil-court-jurisdiction-barred-by-section-85-of-waqf-act-cal-hc-allows-application-under-order-vii-rule-11d-cpc-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":244261,"position":0},"title":"Civil Court lacks jurisdiction over Waqf Property disputes: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"February 29, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court held that \u201cin order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law, it is the statement in the plaint which will have to be construed.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":260477,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/21\/law-on-rejection-of-plaint\/","url_meta":{"origin":244261,"position":1},"title":"Law on Rejection of Plaint | Contents of plaint or Examining sufficiency of plaint? Del HC explains the bounden duty of Court","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 21, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Prateek Jalan, J., expressed that, For the purposes of an order under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court must come to the conclusion that the plaint is required to be rejected. Present petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution for directing against\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":154074,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/04\/karnataka-hc-declines-relief-article-226-light-alternate-remedy-available-s-115-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":244261,"position":2},"title":"Karnataka HC declines relief under Article 226 in light of alternate remedy available under S. 115 CPC","author":"Saba","date":"December 4, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, a Single Judge Bench of BV Nagarathna, J. held that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":302820,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/03\/evaluation-of-suits-legality-in-application-under-order-7-rule-11d-of-cpc-calcutta-high-court-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":244261,"position":3},"title":"How to evaluate a suit\u2019s legality in application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC? Calcutta High Court answers","author":"Ritu","date":"October 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"When evaluating an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), the court should determine whether the suit is barred by law based on the allegations in the plaint taken as true.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":218666,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/27\/mp-hc-plaint-filed-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-can-be-rejected-based-on-grounds-mentioned-in-rule-11-or-if-the-cause-of-action-has-not-been-disclosed\/","url_meta":{"origin":244261,"position":4},"title":"MP HC | Plaint filed under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC can be rejected based on grounds mentioned in Rule 11 or if the cause of action has not been disclosed","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 27, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: Prakash Shrivastava, J., dismissed the revision petition filed by the respondents under Section 115 CPC where they challenged the order of the Trial Court, whereby their application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. The respondents had filed the suit for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":358545,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/01\/owner-entitled-to-return-of-original-documents-under-order-13-rule-9-cpc-telangana-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":244261,"position":5},"title":"Who is entitled to return of Original Documents, party who produced it or the owner? Telangana HC clarifies Order 13 Rule 9 CPC","author":"Editor","date":"September 1, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The petitioner had averred that the intent of Order 13 Rule 9 of the CPC is to ensure that documents, once they have served their purpose in litigation and are no longer required by the Court, should be returned to their rightful owners.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"return of original documents","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/return-of-original-documents.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/return-of-original-documents.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/return-of-original-documents.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/return-of-original-documents.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244261","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=244261"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244261\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244261"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244261"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244261"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}