2025:HHC:35071 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.225 of 2025 Reserved on: 10.10.2025 Date of Decision: 16.10.2025 Gopi Merchant ...Appellant Versus Ujwala Chauhan & another ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the appellant:     Mr. Sudhir   Thakur,   Senior Advocate with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Ankush   Dass   Sood,   Senior Advocate   with   Mr. Udit   Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with   Mr. Ajeet   Pal   Singh   Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Satyen Vaidya, Judge This appeal has been filed to assail the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge­II, Solan, H.P. in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.555/2024   in   Civil   Suit   No.4/2024,   whereby   the 2 2025:HHC:35071 application of defendant No.1 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) for rejection of plaint has been allowed. 2. The appellant/plaintiff had filed Civil Suit for declaration   to   the   effect   that   sale   deed   executed   in favour of respondent/defendant No.1 by respondent/defendant No.2 without the consent of the plaintiff   was   wrong,   illegal,   null   and   void   and   not binding on the right, title and interest of plaintiff, being in violation of preferential rights of plaintiff. A decree of mandatory   injunction   was   also   sought   directing   the defendants to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff on the   same   terms   and   conditions   upon   which   the   sale deed dated 13.12.2016 was executed by defendant No.2 in   favour   of   defendant   No.1. Further   a   decree   of permanent   prohibitory   injunction   was   also   sought seeking   to   restrain   the   defendants   from   interfering, encumbering, dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. 3 2025:HHC:35071 3. The   suit   property   is   comprised   in Khata/Khatauni   No.534/661,   Khasra   Nos.700,   703, 707,   708,   709,   710,   711,   712   and   Khata/Khatauni No.534/662,   Khasra   Nos.701,   704,   705   and   706, situated in Mauza Ser Solan as per jamabandi for the year 2010­2011. The suit property includes one main building with annexe and another building having shops on the  ground  floor  and  residential flats  on the   first floor. Some part of the suit property was stated to be lying vacant. 4. The case as set up by the plaintiff was that the suit property belonged to Raj Kumar Nanak Singh. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 were the daughter and son, respectively of Raj Kumar Nanak Singh, who had executed   a   family   settlement   deed   on   20.07.2012 (registered on 21.07.2012) and thereby had transferred the suit property in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.2 in equal shares. The entries in revenue record had accordingly   been   updated   through   mutation   No.2251 dated   09.07.2013. It   was   also   averred   that   while 4 2025:HHC:35071 transferring the suit property in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.2, it was made clear by Raj Kumar Nanak Singh that he and his wife Smt. Satwant Kaur would have   living   rights   in   the   residential   house   known   as ‘Nanak Villa’ during their life time and the plaintiff and defendant   No.2   would   be   bound   to   maintain   their parents during their life time. As per the plaintiff, the suit property was Joint Hindu Family Property recorded in the name of Raj Kumar Nanak Singh, who out of love and   affection  had   settled   his  two  children  by  way  of family settlement deed, as noted above. The purpose of settlement was stated to keep the property within the family. 5. Raj Kumar Nanak Singh died in the year 2014 and his wife Smt. Satwant Kaur had predeceased him in the year 2012. The plaintiff also specifically averred that after   the   death   of   Raj   Kumar   Nanak   Singh,   the   suit property was occupied by plaintiff and defendant No.2 jointly. 5 2025:HHC:35071 6. The plaintiff had pleaded her preferential right to   purchase   the   share   of   defendant   No.2   in   the   suit property   on   the   premise   that   the   suit   property   was Hindu Undivided Family property and was governed by Mitakshara  School of  law. Since, defendant No.2 had sold his share in the suit property in favour of defendant No.1  vide  registered   sale   deed   dated   13.12.2016   for consideration,   the   plaintiff   had   shown   her   grievance against the said sale projecting her preferential right in the property. 7. The   plaintiff   also   claimed   her   settled possession   in   the   suit   property   and   had   raised apprehensions   regarding   dispossession   without   due process of law. 8. Defendant   No.1   had   filed   her   written statement. Preliminary objection as to nonexistence of enforceable   cause  of  action  in   favour  of  plaintiff   was raised. It   was   denied   that   the   plaintiff   had   any preferential   right   to   purchase   the   share   of   defendant No.2. It was also denied that the suit property was Joint 6 2025:HHC:35071 Hindu Family property. The alleged intent of the settler Shri   Raj   Kumar   Nanak   Singh   in   executing   the settlement deed in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.2 was also denied. The allegation of forcible dispossession of the plaintiff from property was also not admitted. 9. Defendant   No.2   had   not   filed   written statement. 10. Defendant No.1 had also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of plaint on   the   ground   that   the   plaint   did   not   disclose   any enforceable cause of action and was barred by law. It was stated in the application that the entire suit of the plaintiff was based on alleged preferential right of a co­ owner on the share of another co­owner. Since, the law of preemption stood abrogated, the plaintiff had no right to claim preferential right. 11. In   reply   to   the   application   for   rejection   of plaint,   the   plaintiff   maintained   her   stand   of   having preferential   right   to   purchase   the   share   of   defendant No.2   in   suit   property. Reference   was   made   to   the 7 2025:HHC:35071 provision   as   contained   in   Section   22   of   the   Hindu Succession   Act. Rest   of   the   averments   made   in   the application were also denied. 12. Learned   trial   Court  vide  impugned   order dated 13.06.2025 allowed the application of defendant No.1 for rejection of plaint, hence this appeal. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 14. It   is   more   than   settled   that   while   deciding application for rejection of plaint on the grounds that the plaint is without cause of action or/and barred by law, the Court is required to look into the contents of the   plaint   only   and   nothing   else. At   such   stage,   the defence raised by the defendant(s) or any other material becomes irrelevant. In Saleem Bhai & others vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (2003) 1 SCC 557, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. A   perusal   of  Order   VII   Rule   11 C.P.C. makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an   application   thereunder   are   the 8 2025:HHC:35071 averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.   at   any   stage   of   the   suit­before registering   the   plaint   or   after   issuing summons   to   the   defendant   at   any   time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII C.P.C.   the   averments   in   the   plaint   are germane……..” 15. To   ascertain   whether   the   plaint   discloses cause of action, the following principle needs to be kept in mind: (a) In  Swamy Atmananda and others vs. Sri Ramakrishna   Tapovanam   and   others,   (2005)   10 SCC 51, the principle has been concluded as under: “A  cause   of   action,   thus,   means   every fact,   which,   if   traversed,   it   would   be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In   other   words,   it   is   a   bundle   of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief 9 2025:HHC:35071 against   the   defendant. It   must   include some act done by the defendant since in the  absence of  such  an  act no  cause  of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded.” (b) In  Sopan   Sukhdeo   Sable   &   others   vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner & others  (2004) 3 SCC 137, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “15. There cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the   cardinal   canon   of   interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read   as   a   whole   to   ascertain   its   true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance  and not merely the  form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction or words or change of its 10 2025:HHC:35071 apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat   justice   on   hair­   splitting technicalities.” 16. In the impugned order, it has been held that Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act was not applicable to the facts of the case at hand; as the said provision would apply to the interest in an immovable property of an   interstate,   devolving   upon   two   or   more   heirs, specified in class I of the Schedule appended to the said Act. It   was   found   that   since   it   was   not   a   case   of devolution of interest in an immovable property upon two or more heirs, the plaintiff had no cause of action to seek the relief as prayed in the suit. 17. Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as under: “22. Preferential right to acquire property in   certain   cases. (1)   Where,   after   the ― commencement of this Act, an interest in 11 2025:HHC:35071 any immovable property of an intestate, or in any business carried on by him or her, whether   solely   or   in   conjunction   with others, devolves upon two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule, and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his   or   her   interest   in   the   property   or business,   the   other   heirs   shall   have   a preferential   right   to   acquire   the   interest proposed to be transferred. (2)   The   consideration   for   which   any interest   in   the   property   of   the   deceased may   be   transferred   under   this   section shall,   in   the   absence   of   any   agreement between the parties, be determined by the court  on  application  being made  to  it  in this behalf, and if any person proposing to acquire the interest is not willing to acquire it   for   the   consideration   so   determined, such person shall be liable to pay all costs of or incident to the application. (3) If there are two or more heirs specified in   class   I   of   the   Schedule   proposing   to acquire any interest 12 2025:HHC:35071 under this section, that heir who offers the highest consideration for the transfer shall be preferred. Explanation. In   this   section,   “court” ― means the court within the limits of whose jurisdiction   the   immovable   property   is situate or the business is carried on, and includes any other court which the State Government   may,   by   notification   in   the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.” 18. The admitted case of the plaintiff was that Raj Kumar Nanak Singh had transferred the suit property in her favour as well as in favour of defendant No.2 during his life time  vide  deed of settlement dated 20.07.2012 registered   in   the   office   of   Sub   Registrar,   Solan   on 21.07.2012. The   mutation   of   such   transfer   was   also stated to have been attested on 19.07.2012 i.e. before the death of Raj Kumar Nanak Singh. It being so, the plaintiff and defendant No.2 had become co­owners of suit property having equal shares during the life time of Raj   Kumar   Nanak   Singh. In   such   situation,   the applicability of Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act, as 13 2025:HHC:35071 claimed   by   the   plaintiff,   has   rightly   been   rejected   by learned trial Court. 19. Claim to preferential right under section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act can be made only in the fact situation where the interest in an immovable property of an intestate devolves upon two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule. It is in such situation that one of such heirs can assert his preferential right to acquire the interest, proposed to be transferred by one of the heirs on whom the interest has devolved. Section 22 of Hindu   Succession   Act,   thus,   speaks   about   the devolution of interest in an immovable property of an intestate. Since, the plaintiff and defendant No.2 had got right, title and interest in the suit property by way of inter vivos  transfer, it cannot be said to have devolved upon them in the immovable property of an intestate. 20. A   plaint,   which   does   not   disclose   cause   of action, can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. It is also trite that the reading of plaint should bring out a real cause of action and not an illusory one. 14 2025:HHC:35071 21. In ITC   Ltd. v. Debts   Recovery   Appellate Tribunal (1998) 2 SCC 70  it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause   of   action   has   been   set   out   in   the   plaint   or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. 22. In T.   Arivandandam v. T.V.   Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 it has been observed as under: “The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful—not formal—reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11   CPC   taking   care   to   see   that   the   ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by   examining   the   party   searchingly   under Order 10 CPC.” 23. Similar   reiteration   of   law   can   be   found   in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 15 2025:HHC:35071 SCC   137  and  Ramisetty   Venkatanna  Vs.  Nasyam Jamal Saheb (2023) SCC Online SC 521. 24. Learned trial Court, in my considered view, has rightly assessed the fact situation emerging from the contents of the plaint and the provision of Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act has also been rightly held to be not applicable. The plaint if read as a whole does not suggest assertion of any other right in the suit property except the right under Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act. The reliefs of injunction as prayed also emanate from the same right. Once, the assertion of plaintiff on preferential right stands negated, she also will have no right   to   claim   injunction   simpliciter   against   the   co­ owner more particularly when an attempt of ouster has not been specifically pleaded. 25. As noticed above, creation of illusory cause of action by clever pleadings is not permissible. 26. Record has revealed that plaintiff had filed an application   for   amendment   of   plaint   before   the   trial Court on 16.11.2024, but the same does not appear to 16 2025:HHC:35071 have been pressed on behalf of plaintiff.  Evidently, the other   side   had   also   not   been   supplied   copy   of application for amendment. There is no reference in any of   the   zimni   orders   found   on   the   file   of   trial   Court regarding the said application for amendment. Even in the grounds of appeal preferred through instant appeal no such reference is there. 27. In   result,   I   do   not   find   any   material   to interfere   with   the   impugned   order.   The   appeal   is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge October 16, 2025 (vt)