The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, held that a suit for partition, possession, and injunction could not be rejected at the threshold merely because a registered gift deed existed in favour of one party, ruling that the question of fraud and misrepresentation required full trial.
The dispute arose between two brothers who jointly purchased property in 2008. The respondent alleged that he was misled into signing a document, believing it was for obtaining a bank loan, which later turned out to be a registered gift deed, followed by a correction deed in 2015. A memorandum of understanding was subsequently executed in 2017, wherein the appellant allegedly agreed to re-transfer the property. When that failed, the respondent filed a suit for partition and possession.
In February, 2023, an appeal was admitted by High Court to decide on a substantial question of law:
“Whether there was any cause of action to seek partition of the suit property when admittedly the registered gift deed executed in favour of the defendant is not challenged?”
Earlier, the trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC for want of cause of action. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the decision, observing that the pleadings of fraud and the MOU raised triable issues requiring evidence.
Upholding the District Court’s view, the High Court held that the plaint contained sufficient facts to show a genuine dispute that required examination through evidence. The Court concluded that the substantial question of law was to be answered in the affirmative, meaning there existed a valid cause of action and, therefore, the suit was maintainable.
Appearances
Appellant- Mr. Anil S. Bajaj, Advocate
Respondent- Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate
