R.N.Mittat, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jind, dated August 5, 1974. In order to understand the facts of the case, the following pedigree table will be helpful.
(2.) THE case of the Plaintiff is that Teju Ram, husband of the Plaintiff add Madna Mal, his brother, owned land in village Chaudhary Juma Muana and Goth -mai, District Rahimiyar Khan (Bahawalpur Mate). Teju Ram died in 1931 and the mutation of inheritance of his land situated in village Chaudhary Juma Muana was sanctioned in her favour, but the mutation of land in village Goth -mai was attested in favour of Madna Mal. Madna Mai died in 1934 and after his death, the mutation of his inheritance in respect of lands in village Chaudhary Juma Muana was sanctioned in favour of the Plaintiff and that of village Goth -mai, in favour of Tharu Ram father of Deva Ram Defendant. It is alleged by the Plaintiff that she remained in possession of the land in village Goth Mai, but mutation of that land was got attested by Madna Mal and Tharu Ram by fraud and in collusion with the revenue officials. After the partition of the country, she states, the Defendant by misrepresentation, got allotted land in dispute in village Rasidan, in his favour in lieu of the land situated in village Goth -mai. The Plaintiff has challenged the orders of the allotting authorities regarding the aforesaid land in favour of the Defendant. It is also alleged by her that the authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Jullundur, ordered the Plaintiff to seek a declaration from the civil Court regarding her ownership to the property in dispute. She consequently instituted the present suit for declaration that (1) she was heir of Teju Ram and Madna Mal and as such owner of the land in dispute and was entitled to its possession:(2) mutation dated June 16, 1932 in respect of land situated in village Goth mai, District Rahimiyar Khan (Pakistan) in favour of Madna Mal as heir of Teju Ram, husband of the Plaintiff was null and void and was not binding upon the rights of the Plaintiff; (3) mutation regarding the aforesaid land in favour of Tharu Ram, father of the Defendant in lieu of which the land in dispute had been allotted to the Defendant, was null and void and was not binding upon the rights of the Plaintiff and (4) the mutation of inheritance in respect of the land situated in village Goth -mai in favour of the Defendant and the orders of allotment land situated in village Rasidan, was also not binding upon her rights. The suit has been contested by the Defendant inter alia on the ground that the Plaintiff had not entered the details of the land in the plaint which was situated in village Goth -mai and that the plaint was vague. Various other pleas were also taken which would be clear from the issues reproduced below. The aforesaid pleas are, however, not relevant for the decision of the present appeal: 1. Whether the Plaintiff is the only legal heir of Teju Ram and Madna Mal ? 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the Plaintiff is the sole owner of the disputed land and is entitled to possession ? 3. Whether mutation No. 386, dated 16th June, 1932, and subsequent mutation as alleged in the plaint and entries in Jamabandi in the column of ownership with respect to the land left in village Goth -Mehi (Pakistan) and order in claim index No. B. Bp 7/669, dated 21st May, 1952 with respect to the land allotted in village Rasidan to Defendant and the impugned order of the authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur, dated 15th April, 1968 are void, ineffective, against the rights of the Plaintiff ? 4.WHETHER the suit is time barred ? 5.WHETHER this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as alleged ? Whether the Defendant has acquired title in suit property by adverse possession ? 6.WHETHER the present suit is hit by doctrine of resjudicata as alleged ? 7.WHETHER the plaint is vague as alleged, if so its effect ? Whether the Defendant's father and Teju Ram husband of the Plaintiff and Madna Mal constituted a Hindu joint family and as such after the death of Teju Ram and Madna Mal Tharu Mal Defendant's father was the sole owner to Madna Mal as alleged ? 8.WHETHER the Plaintiff is estopped by her conduct from filing the present suit as alleged ? 9.WHETHER Smt. Mangli Bai and Shami Bai are the daughters of Madna Mal and they are alive, if so, whether they are necessary parties ? 10.Relief. The learned trial Court decided issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the Plaintiff issues Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 -9, 10 and 11 against the Defendant, and on issue No. 8, it held that it was necessary for the Plaintiff to have proved that the entire suit land was allotted to the Defendant in lieu of the land left in village Goth mai and that land belonged to Madna Mal. It further held that there was nothing on the record to segregate land owned by Madna Mal from the land purchased by the Defendant. Consequently he decided issue No. 8, against the Plaintiff. In view of the decision on issue No. 8 the trial Court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff. She went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Jind. He did not give any decision on issues Nos. 1 to 7, 9,10 and 11. He affirmed the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 8. He however, held that the trial Court should not have dismissed the suit, but rejected the plaint. As a result, he partly accepted the appeal and ordered rejection of the plaint as being vague. The Plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court against his judgment.
(3.) It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the learned first appellate Court has erred in holding that the plaint is vague. He further argues that the Court, therefore could not reject the plaint of the Appellant. I have considered the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and find force in it. The circumstances in which the plaint can be rejected, have been given in order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein it is provided that the plaint shall be rejected: (i) where it does not disclose a cause of action ; (ii) where the relief claimed is undervalued and the Plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so, (iii) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the Plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp -paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so, and (iv) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Admittedly in the present, case Clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) have no applicability. After carefully reading Clause (i), it is clear that in order to reject the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, the allegations in the plaint are to be taken into consideration. The evidence which is led by the parties will not determine that question. A full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Jagannath Prasad and other v. Smt. Chandrawati : AIR 1970 All. 309, has observed that is a clear distinction between a case where the plaint itself does not disclose any cause of action and a case in which, after the parties have produced oral and documentary evidence, the Court, on consideration of the entire material on record, comes to the conclusion that there was no cause of action for the suit. In the latter case, obviously, the plaint cannot be rejected under order 7, Rule 11. I am in respectful agreement with the above observations.;