TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of defendant No.1, 5 i.e. Kasule Thimma Reddy who died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were brought on record as defendant Nos.5(a) and (b) and father-in-law of defendant No.2 and grandfather of defendant Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the plaintiffs are representing the branch of Bheemappa @ Bhima Reddy and the defendants 1 to 5 are representing the branch of Nagi Reddy. It is also contended that the father and mother of the plaintiffs are no more and that Nagireddy and his wife are also no more. It is the further case of the plaintiffs 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 dated 28.08.1942 vide document No.127/1942-43 which is registered before the Sub-Registrar Office, Ballari. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs have also filed a suit for declaration in respect of the properties of their father in the adopted family and later they have filed this suit i.e. O.S.No.302/2015 against the defendants for partition and separate possession claming share in the suit schedule properties. 4. Upon servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not get any right or title over the property. He further contended that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action to file a suit. Even during the life time of the father of the plaintiffs, no suit was filed. Therefore, the trial court has rightly allowed the application and rejected the plaint. Hence, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order. 10. The point that arises for our consideration is Whether the trial Court is justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in the facts and circumstances of the case? 11. 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. 12. 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 be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yed. The Apex Court in the case of T.Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Another reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 has held that, if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the trial Court should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. 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. 15. By reading the entire plaint averments, it does not disclose any cause of action for filing the suit. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaint. 16. Even in the plaint averments, there is no pleading in respect of limitation to file a suit. The father of the plaintiffs died in the year 1996. During the life time of the plaintiffs father, he has not challenged the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
