Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1462 - HC - Indian LawsAdoption - whether the children of the adapted family can claim any right or share in the properties of the biological family of the father of the plaintiffs? - Rejection of plaint of the plaintiffs under Order- Rule-11(a) and (d) r/w Sec.151 of CPC - HELD THAT:- It is well settled law that, under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the plaint has to be rejected only on the basis of the averments made in the plaint without referring to the written statement filed by the defendant or any documents. In this case, by reading the plaint averments, it is clear that one Venkatappa and his wife Smt.Maremma had no issues and they adopted the father of the plaintiffs i.e. Bheemappa @ Bhima Reddy by way of a registered document styled as ‘Dattu Sweekara Dastaveju’ vide document No.127/1942-43 which is registered before the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Ballari. The effect of the adoption is, an adopted child shall be deemed to be child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption. The adoption has the effect of transferring the adopted boy from his natural family into the adoptive family. It confers upon the adoptee the same rights and privileges in the family of the adopter as the legitimate son. All the suit schedule properties have been purchased through the registered sale deed after 28.08.1942. Since all the suit schedule properties have been purchased after plaintiffs’ father went in adoption on 28.08.1942, it is clear that adoption under Mitakshara law has the effect of transplanting the adopted boy from his natural family into the family of his adoptive father. The father of the plaintiffs has no right, title over the suit schedule property. After taking adoption of the father of the plaintiffs, then only the plaintiffs are born, hence, the children of the adapted family cannot claim any right or share in the properties of the biological family of the father of the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. It is also relevant to mention that, when there is no cause of action arose to file the suit, if the claim made in the suit is barred by any law, under such circumstance, the plaint of the plaintiffs shall have to be rejected under the provision of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC at any stage of the proceeding. By reading the entire plaint averments, it does not give rise to any cause of action for the relief prayed - The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The conclusion arrived at by the trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is correct. Though, while giving the finding, the trial Court has referred to the written statement and the documents produced by the defendant, which the trial Court was not supposed to rely, the appellate Court has the power to correct the same. By going through the averments of the plaint, it is very clear that the suit is barred by law and the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for the relief prayed. The appellate Court under Section 96 of CPC can exercise the power to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice - appeal dismissed.
|