# Smt. Sunita Gupta & Anr v. Smt. Prem Gupta & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 2243
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-09
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 277 of 2026
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sunita-gupta-anr-v-smt-prem-gupta-ors-54909
- **Pages:** 23

## Text

_Characters 0–39,905 of 76,543. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39905 for what follows._

4 All. Smt. Sunita Gupta & Anr. Vs. Smt. Prem Gupta & Ors.
2243
CONCLUSION :

64. Thus, the upshot of the reasoning recorded above is that a normal decree passed by a
competent Court of law against a company can be executed only against the judgment debtor
company and not against its shareholders/directors unless ingredients of lifting the corporate veil is
established, however, an award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be executed
against the party or any person claiming under them.

65. Finding that all the material on record clearly suggests that from the initial stage of
inception up till the conclusion and in fact till the winding up of respondent no.2, it was the
petitioners who would fall within the phrase persons claiming under them as used in Section 35
of the Act, thus, I have no hesitation in holding that the order of execution passed by the
Commercial Court does not warrant any interference in exercise of powers under Art. 227 of the
Constitution.

66. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed with direction to the Executing Court to
execute the decree with all expedition forthwith.

67. Direction(s) given by the Commercial Court on 29.08.2025 & 31.07.2025 shall be
complied with, with all expedition by the petitioners.

68. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to put in word of appreciation for Ms.
Rajshree Lakshmi, Research Associate for her dexterity in research and superlative assistance in
drafting this judgment.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 2243
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 277 of 2026

Smt. Sunita Gupta & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Prem Gupta & Ors. ...Respondents

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether a plaint seeking declaration that immovable property standing in the name of the
mother is HUF property could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that it
discloses no cause of action and is barred by limitation?
(ii) Whether, at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is
required to confine itself to the averments in the plaint and the documents relied upon by the
plaintiff?
2244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(iii) Whether a plea that the property was purchased from the nucleus of a Hindu Undivided
Family, despite standing in the name of the mother since 1966, disclosed a triable cause of
action in the absence of any prima facie material regarding the existence and nucleus of the
HUF?
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs, who asserted co-ownership since birth but instituted the suit nearly
six decades after the purchase of the property, could avoid the bar of limitation by pleading
refusal to share rental income from the year 2022?

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Cause of action -
Limitation - Scope of enquiry.

HELD: While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is required to examine the
averments contained in the plaint together with the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. The defence set up
in the written statement or the documents produced by the defendants cannot ordinarily be looked into.
However, if from the plaint itself it is evident that the suit is barred by law or discloses no enforceable cause of
action, the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold. [Paras 34 to 45]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11(d) - Limitation - Declaration of coownership in alleged HUF property - Property purchased in 1966 in mother's name - Suit
instituted in 2025 - Rejection of plaint.

HELD: The plaint itself disclosed that the property had been purchased in the exclusive name of defendant
no.1 through a registered sale deed dated 11.04.1966 and that the plaintiffs claimed to be co-owners since
birth. Having attained majority decades earlier, the plaintiffs could have asserted their alleged rights within the
period prescribed by law. Institution of the suit in the year 2025 seeking declaration of co-ownership was ex
facie barred by limitation. The plea that the cause of action arose only in September, 2022 on refusal to share
rent did not revive or extend the limitation for seeking declaration of title. [Paras 46 to 54]

Hindu Law - Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) - Property standing in name of female member -
Burden to establish HUF nucleus - Absence of prima facie material.

HELD: A mere assertion that the consideration for purchase flowed from the nucleus of a Hindu Undivided
Family is insufficient. Where the plaint itself failed to disclose any prima facie material regarding the existence
of the HUF, its income, or a sufficient ancestral nucleus capable of purchasing the property, and the registered
sale deed recorded the mother as absolute purchaser, no enforceable right in favour of the plaintiffs was
disclosed. [Paras 46 to 54]

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14 - Property purchased in name of Hindu female -
Absolute ownership - Effect.

HELD: The registered sale deed conferred title upon defendant no.1 in her individual capacity. In the absence
of any prima facie material establishing that the property belonged to a Hindu Undivided Family, defendant
no.1 was to be treated as the absolute owner under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the
plaintiffs failed to disclose any legally enforceable right to challenge her ownership. [Paras 46 to 54]

Civil Procedure - Cause of action - Artificial pleading to overcome limitation - Rental income
dispute.
HELD: The plea that the defendant stopped sharing rental income from September, 2022 did not constitute an
independent cause of action for seeking declaration of title where the plaintiffs' own case was that they had
been co-owners since birth. In the absence of any documentary material supporting previous sharing of rent
or co-ownership, such pleading was merely an attempt to bring an otherwise time-barred suit within limitation
and did not create a fresh cause of action. [Paras 52 to 54]
4 All. Smt. Sunita Gupta & Anr. Vs. Smt. Prem Gupta & Ors.
2245
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Appellate
interference.

HELD: Since the plaint itself disclosed that the plaintiffs had no subsisting cause of action and that the suit
seeking declaration was hopelessly barred by limitation, the trial court rightly exercised jurisdiction under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC in rejecting the plaint. No interference under Section 96 CPC was warranted. The
appeal was accordingly dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial court affirmed. [Paras 54 to 56]

First Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
affirmed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
P.V. Guru Raj Reddy Rep. by LRs. v. P. Neeradha Reddy and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 331 - relied
on; Shailesh Kumar v. Vibha Gupta, 2025 SCC OnLine All 6320 - relied on; Shreya Vidyarthi v.
Ashok Vidyarthi and Others, (2015) 16 SCC 46 - relied on; Om Prakash Gupta v. Radhey Shyam
Gupta, 2026 (1) AWC 874 - relied on; Sunil Kumar Dublish v. Ramesh Chandra Dublish and
Others, 2026 SCC OnLine All 310 - relied on; Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. and Another v. Union of India
and Another, (2011) 9 SCC 126 - relied on; Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)
(Dead) through LRs. and Others, (2020) 7 SCC 366 - relied on; Rajendra Bajoria and Others v.
Hemant Kumar Jalan and Others, (2022) 12 SCC 641 - relied on; The Correspondent, RBANMS
Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 793 (2025 INSC 490)
- relied on; Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315 - referred to; Liverpool &
London S.P. & I. Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and Another, (2004) 9 SCC 512 - referred
to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Limitation Act, 1963; Specific Relief Act, 1963;
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (held inapplicable).

List of Keywords
Rejection of plaint; Cause of action; Limitation; Hindu Undivided Family (HUF); HUF nucleus; Coparcenary
property; Property standing in the name of mother; Registered sale deed; Section 14, Hindu Succession Act,
1956; Absolute ownership of Hindu female; Declaration of title; Co-ownership; Fiduciary capacity; Gift deed;
Rental income.

Case Arising From
Judgment and decree dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Agra in
Original Suit No. 59 of 2025, Smt. Sunita Gupta and Another v. Smt. Prem Gupta and Others.

Appearance for Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri Ved Prakash Shukla
For the Respondents: Sri Kushagra Vaibhav Singh and Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 96 CPC against the
impugned judgment and decree dated 10.7.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no.
11,Agra in O.S.no. 59 of 2025, Smt.Sunita Gupta and another vs. Smt.Prem Gupta and others,
whereby the application no. 27-C of defendant no.1 and 2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been
allowed and consequently, the plaint has been rejected.
2246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Plaint case

2. The plaintiffs who are the daughter and son of defendant no.1 Smt. Prem Gupta and
sibling of defendant no. 2 Smt.Anju Gupta filed O.S. No. 59 of 2025 with the averments that
plaintiffs and defendant no.1 and 2 are the members of the HUF who are originally resident of
Mahavir Ganj,Aligarh. There was an ancestral house of their grandfather late Babulal Gupta , who
was having a business of Aadat. Their father Omprakash Gupta left Aligarh and joined service as
Senior Asst. in the office of the Joint Development Commissioner(JDC) Agra much prior to 1955
and thereafter, married defendant no.1 in or about 1955 who was very poor,hand to mouth person
and was totally dependent upon their father. It was further submitted that their grandfather
Babulal Gupta also winded up his business from Aligarh and distributed the money to their
sons.

3. It was further averred that after the marriage of defendant no.1 with their father
Omprakash Gupta, their father purchased disputed suit properties, which are mentioned at the foot
of the plaint, from the fund of the HUF in the name of his wife defendant no.1 Smt.Prem Gupta,
in love and affection and in trust for the benefit of himself and all his family members from
Smt.Munni Devi through registered sale deed dated 11.4.1966 which was subsequently registered
in the office of sub-registrar Agra on 09.6.1966, hence the property in suit is HUF property, in
which the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 and 2 have equal share.

4. It was further averred that at the time of the above sale deed, the plaintiff no.1 was about
3 years old and plaintiff no. 2 was in womb and defendant no. 2 was not in existence. At the time of
purchase of property of schedule 'A' it was residential house consisting of 2 rooms with tinshed and
lobby on the ground floor. Thereafter, their father raised 3 storeyed building consisting of 17 rooms
from the HUF fund.

It was further averred that at the time of purchase of another property bearing Nagar Nigam
no. 5/13,was in the nature of plot.Thereafter, their father also raised a residential house on it
consisting of 4 rooms on the ground floor and one store,latrine-bathroom on the 1st floor from HUF
fund.

5. It was further averred that the defendant no.1 i.e.mother of the plaintiffs is a housewife,
having no Stridhan with her and no source of income, all the investment in purchase of the
property and raising construction on it was made by their father only from the ancestral
nucleus i.e. from the HUF funds.

6. It was further averred that the plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1 and 2 are residing in
house no. 5/13 in 7 rooms and remaining 10 rooms are rented with different tenants, from which
defendant no.1 is receiving about ₹ 50,000/- per month as rent on behalf of all the heirs of Late
Omprakash Gupta. It was further averred that the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 and 2 are living
in house no. 5/13 Madia Katra,Agra since very inception and part of the property in suit is
rented,which is realised by defendant no.1 for herself and other co-owners.
4 All. Smt. Sunita Gupta & Anr. Vs. Smt. Prem Gupta & Ors.
2247
7. It was further averred that the marriage of plaintiff no. 2 was solemnised in the year
1986 thereafter, the father of the plaintiffs completed the constructions of the plot no. 5/13-A and
since then plaintiff no. 2 is residing in the house with his family.

8. It was further averred that their father Omprakash Gupta being the Karta of HUF
realised the rent of 10 rooms from the tenants till his death and after his death, the rent is being
realised by the defendant no.1 for herself and for the benefit of the HUF. It was further averred that
the plaintiff no.1 and defendant no. 2 are residing in house no. 5/13 Madia Katra,Agra since very
inception as co-owner and being the member of the HUF, and have equal share in the properties in
suit. It was further averred that all the rent realised by the defendant no.1 was in representative
capacity in which plaintiffs have equal share, the defendant no.1 used to give lump-sum
amount to the plaintiffs and defendant no. 2 in lieu of their share in rent upto the month of
October, 2022 but thereafter, the defendant no.1 failed to give any amount to the plaintiffs and
when the plaintiffs demanded their share of rent then the defendant no.1 became furious and told
them that the properties are in her name and threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs and has also
started to negotiate its sale with different persons. The plaintiffs further asked the defendant no.1 to
give the details of the rent since the month of September 2022 to which she refused.

9. It was further averred that on 23.1.2025 the defendant no. 3 Ferhan Khan with 4 other
persons contacted the plaintiffs and informed that he is going to purchase the disputed property
from defendant no.1 and asked the plaintiffs to vacate the properties and otherwise threatened them
with dire consequences. The plaintiffs told the defendant no. 3 that they are the owners in
possession of the disputed property jointly with their mother defendant no.1. The plaintiffs
immediately on the same day contacted their mother defendant no.1 and enquired about the
impending sale to which no satisfactory answer was given by her but later on, the defendant no.1
asked the plaintiffs to leave the house and also threatened that she is the absolute owner and shall
sale the disputed properties. The plaintiffs requested their mother not to sell the disputed properties
but their mother was adamant to sell it to defendant no. 3 or any other person of her choice.

10. It was further averred that on 24.1.2025 the defendant no. 3 with some person again
came to the disputed house of the plaintiffs and threatened them that they will take possession of
the disputed properties forcibly after purchasing the properties. The plaintiffs tried to register FIR
regarding this incident ,but they could not.

11. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.1 has no right to sell any
share in the disputed properties to defendant no. 3 or any other person, since the disputed property
is of HUF in which as members, the plaintiffs have also got right title and interest since inception
and they are also residing peacefully with their families and defendant no.1 is under obligation to
give details of the rent received by her and also to give rent to other co-owners. It was further
averred that the plaintiffs have preferential rights to purchase the share of other members of HUF in
suit property, since they are the owners in possession and have every right to protect their
properties.

12. In the above backdrop, the plaintiffs have claimed the following reliefs :-
2248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (A)That a decree of declaration that the property in suit is HUF property and plaintiffs
and defendants no.1 and 2 are members of the said HUF and have equal share in suit property and
are also entitled to equal share in rent and decree of permanent prohibitory injunction be passed in
favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant no.1 not to transfer or alienate the properties in suit to
the defendant no. 3 or to any other person without partition and restraining the defendants, their
associates, agents or any other persons claiming through them from interfering in the ownership
and possession of the plaintiffs in property in suit by changing the nature of property in suit or by
dispossessing the plaintiffs or by any other manner whatsoever.

 (B)Decree of mandatory injunction to give account of rent realised from tenant since
September 2022 and defendant no. 1 be directed to give share of rent of property in suit along with
18% interest per annum since September 2022 to the date of actual payments.

 (C)The cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendants.

 (D)Any other relief to which the Hon'ble Court deems and proper in the circumstances of
the case be also granted to the plaintiffs against the defendants.

 Defendants application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC

13. The defendant no.1 and 2 moved an application no. 27 C under Order VII Rule 11
read with 151 CPC with the averments that according to the plaint the disputed property was
purchased by defendant no.1 through registered sale deed on 11.4.1966 and the plaintiffs have also
alleged that the cause of action for filing the suit has arisen on 11.4.1966. It was further averred that
the disputed property was self acquired property of the defendant no.1, hence the plaintiffs have got
no cause of action for filing the instant suit. Further, the plaintiff 's suit was time barred and was
also barred by Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act since the plaintiffs have not claimed the
efficacious relief of cancellation of gift deeds executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant
no. 2. With these averments, it was prayed that the plaintiff 's suit be dismissed under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC.

Objections filed by the plaintiffs against the above application of the defendants

14. The plaintiffs averred that the sale deed dated 11.4.1966 was executed in favour of the
defendant no.1 in fiduciary capacity and as trustee for the benefit of all the members of the HUF.
The issue of limitation is mixed question of law and fact which cannot be a ground under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC. The alleged gift deed was not in the knowledge of the plaintiffs at the time of the
filing of the suit. Further, the gift deed was nullity from inception upto the extent of the share of the
plaintiffs in the disputed property. Since the disputed property is of HUF the plaintiffs are its coowners since their birth and defendant no.1 has got no right or authority to transfer the share of the
plaintiffs to the defendant no. 2 or any other person by alleged gift or in any other manner of
transfer. Hence, the plaint cannot be rejected on this ground also. It was averred that the application
of the defendants was misconceived and was liable to be rejected with cost.

Reasoning of the trial court
4 All. Smt. Sunita Gupta & Anr. Vs. Smt. Prem Gupta & Ors.
2249
15. The trial court opined that in the sale deed dated 11.4.1966 it was not mentioned that
the property belongs to HUF. To the contrary, it is mentioned that the defendant no.1 is the
absolute owner in possession of the disputed property. The sale deed also mentions that the
consideration has also been paid by the defendant no.1. The trial court further opined that the
plaintiffs have not led any evidence to prove the existence and nucleus of HUF, that their
grandfather was having a Aadat, the income generated from Aadat and the expenditure incurred
from it.

16. The trial court further opined that the plaintiffs father Omprakash Gupta was a Senior
Assistant, who was getting salary, which is contrary to the plaintiffs assertion that the disputed
property is of HUF. The trial court opined that the disputed property was purchased through sale
deed dated 11.4.1966, of which defendant no.1 is the absolute owner in possession and according to
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 if any property is acquired by any Hindu woman
after the commencement of this Act, then she will be treated as the absolute owner of that property,
not limited owner.

17. The trial court opined that the plaintiffs have claimed that they are co-owner of the
disputed property but they have failed to prove it. The trial court further opined that the plaintiffs
claimed that the sale deed was executed on 11.4.1966 but the suit has been filed on 28.1.2025
whereas, the limitation under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was only 12 years, hence the
plaintiffs suit was also time barred.

18. The trial court further opined that the plaintiffs have claimed that the cause of action
has arisen to them in September 2022 when the defendant no.1 refused to share with them rents
realised from the disputed property, but the plaintiffs have not filed any documentary evidence to
prove that they were getting any rent previously. Trial court opined that the plaintiffs have failed to
prove that they have got any cause of action to file the suit. In view of the above reasoning, the
plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, aggrieved against which, the plaintiffs have filed
the instant appeal under Section 96 CPC.

Submissions of the learned counsel of the parties

19. Learned counsel for the plaintiff appellants submitted that the plaintiffs
mother/defendant no.1 belonged to poor family, who had no Stridhan, who was not having any
income to purchase the disputed property through sale deed dated 11.4.1966 for a consideration of
₹ 6,000/-,which was a princely amount at that time. Learned counsel further submitted that the
consideration of the above sale deed came from the income/nucleus of the HUF of plaintiffs
grandfather Babulal Gupta and father Omprakash Gupta and others, who were having a flourishing
business of Aadat.

20. It was further submitted that at the stage of deciding application under Order VII Rule
11 CPC only the plaint averments and documents submitted by the plaintiff are to be considered.
The written statement and the documents of the defendants are not to be considered, but the trial
court has considered the house tax, water tax and the electricity bills produced by the defendants.
2250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Further, the trial court cannot examine the veracity of the plaint averments, whatever is alleged by
the plaintiff, is to be presumed true at this stage.

21. It was further submitted that the trial court has considered the issue of limitation, which
is a mixed question of fact and law, which cannot be considered at the stage of deciding application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

22. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs are residing in the disputed property since
their birth,as members of the HUF, and they are co-owners of the disputed property, hence, the
defendant no.1 has no right to sell it to any person. It was further averred that since the plaintiffs
were not aware at the time of the filing of the suit, that a gift deed of the disputed property has been
executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no. 2 as such, the relief of its cancellation has
not been claimed by the plaintiffs. It was further averred that the plaintiffs have claimed that the
cause of action has arisen to them only in the month of September 2022 when their mother refused
to share with them the rents realised from the disputed property, hence no question of the suit being
barred by limitation arises.

23. Learned counsel further submitted that all the issues raised by the defendants can only
be adjudicated after trial, after the parties have led evidence, which cannot be determined at this
stage, hence, the trial court has erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at the
threshold. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed, and the matter be
remanded to the trial court for deciding it on merits. In support of his contention learned counsel
has relied on the following case law :-

 (i)P.V.Guru Raj Reddy Rep.By vs. P.Neeradha Reddy and ors. (2015) 8 SCC 331.

 (ii)Shailesh Kumar vs.Vibha Gupta 2025 SCC OnLine All 6320.

 (iii)Shreya Vidyarthi vs.Ashok Vidyarthi & ors. (2015) 16 SCC 46.

 (iv)Om Prakash Gupta vs.Radhey Shyam Gupta 2026 (1) AWC 874.

 (v)Sunil Kumar Dublish vs.Ramesh Chandra Dublish and ors.2026 SCC OnLine All 310

24. Per contra, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh learned Senior counsel for the contesting
respondents submitted that the plaintiffs have alleged that there was a HUF of their grandfather and
father but no prima facie evidence in this regard has been submitted. Learned counsel further
submitted that the plaintiffs have also failed to prima facie prove what was the income of the
alleged HUF and whether it was also having a substantial nucleus, from which the alleged property
could have been purchased on 11.4.1966 for consideration of ₹ 6,000/-. Learned counsel further
submitted that the plaintiffs have to prima facie show that there was a HUF which was having
substantial income, from which the disputed property could have been purchased in the year 1966.
It was further alleged that as per the plaint, the HUF was dissolved and the property was distributed
among the members. Learned counsel submitted that if the HUF stood dissolved and if property
was distributed among its members, then the whole case of the plaintiffs is demolished.
4 All. Smt. Sunita Gupta & Anr. Vs. Smt. Prem Gupta & Ors.
2251
25. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs are claiming their ownership rights in the
disputed property since their birth, but they have waited for about 60 years to assert their rights in
the disputed property. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff no.1 has averred that she
was about 3 years old when the property was purchased in the year 1966 and the plaintiff no. 2 was
in womb of his mother/defendant no.1, hence, within 3 years of attaining majority, the plaintiffs
could have asserted their rights in the disputed property because they knew from their birth that
they are co-owners in the disputed property, which belongs to HUF. It was submitted that in view
of the above facts, the plaintiffs suit was grossly barred by limitation.

26. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs have claimed that upto the month of October
2022, the rents realised from the disputed property by defendant no.1 was being shared with them,
because they were members of the HUF, but no prima facie evidence has been submitted in this
regard by the plaintiffs. It was further submitted that there is also no evidence that their name is
recorded as co-owner in the municipal records.

27. It was further submitted that the disputed property has already been gifted by the
defendant no.1 to her daughter/defendant no. 2, which is in the knowledge of the plaintiffs, but they
have not claimed the relief of cancellation of the gift deed, hence, the plaintiffs suit was barred by
Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act.

28. It was further submitted that the defendant no.1 was the absolute owner of the disputed
property in accordance with Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, as such, the plaintiffs
cannot claim any right title and interest in the disputed property.

29. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs have disclosed in the plaint that the plaintiffs
father, who was also the husband of defendant no.1, was in government job since much prior to the
year 1955, who was getting a decent salary, in view of this also, the averments of the plaintiffs that
the disputed property was purchased from the income/nucleus of HUF in the year 1966, stands
demolished.

30. Learned counsel further submitted that it is true that the written statement and the
documents of the defendants are not to be considered at this stage, but it is also well settled that the
plaintiff has to prove his case prima facie on the basis of some documentary evidence, which the
plaintiffs have failed to submit. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs have to prove
that they have got cause of action to file the instant suit, but in this case, it is prima facie proved
from the plaint averments that neither the plaintiffs have got any cause of action to file the suit nor
the suit has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Learned counsel submitted that the
plaintiffs suit was grossly barred by limitation and hence, this issue can be examined at the stage of
deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It was submitted that in view of the above
facts,the trial court has not erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. With these
submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is meritless and be rejected. In support of his contention,
learned counsel has relied on the following case law :-

 (i)Khatri Hotels Private Ltd. & anr. Vs. Union of India & anr.(2011) 9 SCC 126.
2252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (ii)Dahiben vs.Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali(Gajra)Dead through LR's & ors.(2020) 7
SCC 366.

 (iii)Rajendra Bajoria & ors. Vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan & ors.(2022) 12 SCC 641.

 (iv) The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution vs. B. Gunashekar & anr.
2025 INSC 490.

31. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record of the lower court
and the case law submitted by them.

32. The case laws submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants deal with the
interpretation of Order VII Rule 11 CPC as well as with the applicability of The Benami
Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. In the instant case, the provisions of the Act of 1988 are not
applicable since the alleged sale deed was executed on 11.04.1966, which is before the enforcement
of the above Act.

33. The case laws submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents deal with the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC as well as the issue of limitation, which has been
subsequently dealt in this judgment.

Interpretation of Order VII Rule 11 CPC

34. The Apex Court in the case of Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution vs.
B. Gunashekar and Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 793, while considering the scope and purpose of
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, has held as under:-

 "14. Let us first examine the scope and purpose of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. This Court in
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives (2020) 7
SCC 366, explained in detail the applicable law for deciding the application for rejection of the
plaint. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced below:

 "23.1 "

 23.2. The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy,
wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding
to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied
that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.

 23.3. The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action
is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the
plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary
to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.
4 All. Smt. Sunita Gupta & Anr. Vs. Smt. Prem Gupta & Ors.
2253
 23.4. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi1 1986 Supp SCC 315 this Court held that the
whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is
meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the
court, in the following words : (SCC p.324, para 12)

 "12. The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation
which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of
the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept
hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation,
the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action."

 23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic
one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.

 23.6. Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to determine whether the
plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint read in conjunction
with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.

 23.7. Order VII Rule 14(1) provides for production of documents, on which the plaintiff
places reliance in his suit, which reads as under:

 "14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.-(1) Where a plaintiff sues
upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he
shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by
him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

 (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall,
wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

 (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is
presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or
entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf
at the hearing of the suit.

 (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the
plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."

 23.8. Having regard to Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed alongwith the
plaint, are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order VII
Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be
treated as a part of the plaint.

 23.9. In exercise of power under this provision, the Court would determine if the
assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a
case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out.
2254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 23.10. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and
application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to,
or taken into consideration (2004) 3 SCC 137.

 23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the
averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied
upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool &
London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success which reads as : (SCC p.562, para 139)

 "139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact.
But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said
purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as
to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree
would be passed."

 23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. (2007) 5 SCC 614 the Court further held
that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the
substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as
it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show
a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in
fact. D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman (1999) 3 SCC 267.

 23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly
vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in
exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

 23.14. The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the Court at any
stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or
before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai v. State of
Maharashtra (2003) 1 SCC 557. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily
go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain (supra).

 23.15. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint
shall be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clause (a) to (e) are made out. If the Court
finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the
Court has no option, but to reject the plaint.

 24. Cause of action means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to
prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material
facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in
the suit.

 24.1. In Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam (2005) 10 SCC 51 this Court
held:
4 All. Smt. Sunita Gupta & Anr. Vs. Smt. Prem Gupta & Ors.
2255
 "24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary
for the plaintiff to prove an order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it
is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief
against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such
an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the
right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded"

 24.2. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 this Court held that while
considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether
the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words :
(SCC p. 470, para 5)

 "5. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of
the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue,
he should exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground
mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action,
nip it in the bud at the first hearing "

 24.3. Subsequently, in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (1998) 2 SCC 70
this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action.
What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint.

 24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of
action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v.