MAMTA Vs. NEELAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite service none has appeared today. Even on the last date of hearing i.e. 30.09.2019, none was present for the respondent.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued on 06.03.2019. As per service report dated 25.03.2019, respondent has been duly served in person. Report has been authenticated by Ram Lai, Chowkidar. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the sale deed dated 23.07.2012 executed by defendant No.2/grandmother namely Santra on the grounds of fraud, coercion and undue influence, insufficiency of stamp duty on the valuation of sale deed and on the ground of her being a coparcener in the suit land. Para No.2 of the plaint reads as under:-

(3.) Defenant-petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint on the premise that the plaintiff has no cause of action on the basis of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 as she cannot claim right of co-parcenary during life time of Satbir Singh(defendant No.3) and, therefore, plaint itself is liable to be rejected in terms of under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.