B.L.Yadav - (1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 14th January, 1986 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) holding on issue no 2 that the plaintiff-petitioners had no cause of action to file the suit.
(2.) THE petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Reoti Prasad Sharma and Shiv Charan Das, respondents 2 and 3, from transferring the land in dispute indicated by tetters A, B, C, D. A pedigree has been given in para 2 of the plaint showing Pt. Ram Chandra as the head of the joint Hindu family and Smt. Kastoori his wife who predeceased him. THE property was acquired by Smt, Kastoori Devi. THEreafter, it was inherited by her husband Pt. Ram Chandra, the grand-father of the petitioners. Pt. Ram Chandra had executed a gift deed in favour of Reoti Prasad Sharma and Shiv Charan Das. That gift deed is operative. THE petitioners allege that being the sons of Shiv Charan Das, they are also co-owners of the property. Consequently, the injunction was prayed for. Two issues were framed (i) in respect of sufficiency of the court fees and (ii) whether the plaintiffs have any cause of action to file the suit. Both the issues were decided as preliminary issues. The Munsif decided these issues against the defendants 2 and 3 against which they preferred a revision and by the impugned order the District Judge has held that in view of the principles of old Hindu Law after the death of Smt. Kastoori Devi, who had purchased the property, it was inherited by her husband Pt. Ram Chandra and he executed a gift deed in favour of Shiv Charan Das and Reoti Prasad Sharma, the father and uncle of the petitioners and hence the plaintiff -petitioners shall have no cause of action in respect of the property in dispute, as father and uncle were alive. Against that order the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners had the cause of action in respect of the property in dispute. The expression 'cause of action' is used under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short the Code) and Order II Rule 2 and has wide connotation. The learned District Judge has illegally held that the petitioners had no cause of action and that would amount as if the petitioners' suit had been dismissed, and the result is that the court acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 urged that the issue in respect of cause of action was correctly decided, as the petitioners being the members of joint Hindu Family shall have no cause of action. He further urged that some other litigation between the parties has been pending and he pointed out that First Appeal No. 104 of 1988 Shiv Charan Das v. Reoti Prasad Sharma is still pending. The present petitioners' father has been arrayed as appellant. The record of that appeal was obtained from the office of this Court and the same was perused by me. It was further urged that during the pendency of the aforesaid First Appeal and during the life time of their father, the petitioners shall have no cause of action. Reliance was placed on Smt. Raj Kumari Kapoor v. Civil Judge, Kanpur, 1987 AWC 235, and T. Arivandanam v. T. V. Stryapal, AIR 1987 SC 2421. Learned counsel for the parties suggested that the petition may be decided on merits. This is how this petition is being disposed of on merits.;