Or.7 rule 11 CPC- Right of pre-emption - No cause of action - plaint is liable to be rejected - as there is no condition in the partition deed not to sale to thrid parties nor there is a pleading in the plaint that there is an obligation in respect of pre-emption rights of plaintiff. in the absence of corelative duty which can be enforceable in law under partition deed - no party of that document can claim pre-emption rights . an accepted/admitted the Memorandum of Partition document does not give any right of pre-emption to the first respondent. There is also no pleading to the said effect in the plaint - Hence the ownership of the second respondent and his right to sell the property in terms of the Memorandum of Partition are and would be undisputed legal rights under the Transfer of Property Act,1882. There was no restraint to exercise of this right vested with the second respondent by contract or under any statute. This is not alleged and adverted to in the plaint. It is also an undisputed position that Sunil Kumar Mehta who was on partition allotted the third portion of the property, has sold and transferred his portion to a third party vide registered sale deed dated 15.10.2009. The said sale deed is not under challenge and was not questioned by the first respondent. we fail to understand how and on what basis, the first respondent claims right of pre-emption or repurchase of the portion that was allotted to the second respondent in terms of amicable division as evidenced by Memorandum of Partition dated 04.12.2008. For a right to exist, there must be a corelative duty which can be enforced in a law suit. A right cannot exist without an enforceable duty. Ownership means a bundle of rights which would normally include the right to exclude and transfer the property in a manner one wants, subject to contractual obligations as agreed or statutory restrictions imposed on the owner. In the present case, the pleadings fail to establish violation of a statutory right or breach of a contractual obligation which creates an enforceable right in the court of law. In the absence of any such right or even a claim, the plaint would not disclose cause of action. In T. Arivandanam v. T.V. Satyapal and Another 3 this Court has held that if the plaint is manifestly vexatious, meritless and groundless, in the sense that it does not disclose a clear right to sue, it would be right and proper to exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (�Code�, for short). A mere contemplation or possibility that a right may be infringed without any legitimate basis for that right, would not be sufficient to hold that the plaint discloses a cause of action.

Or.7 rule 11 CPC-  Right   of pre-emption - No cause of action - plaint is liable to be rejected - as there is no condition in the partition deed not to sale to thrid parties nor there is a pleading in the plaint that there is an obligation in respect of pre-emption rights of plaintiff. in the absence of corelative duty which can be enforceable in law under partition deed - no party of that document can claim pre-emption rights .

 an   accepted/admitted the   Memorandum   of   Partition    document   does   not   give   any   right   of pre-emption to the first respondent. 
There is also no pleading to the said effect in the plaint - Hence the ownership  of   the  second  respondent   and  his right   to   sell   the   property   in   terms   of   the   Memorandum   of   Partition   are and would be undisputed legal rights under the Transfer of Property Act,1882.     
There   was   no   restraint   to   exercise   of   this   right   vested   with   the second respondent by contract or under any statute. This is not alleged and adverted to in the plaint. 
It is also an undisputed position that Sunil Kumar  Mehta   who   was   on   partition   allotted   the  third   portion   of  the property,   has   sold   and  transferred   his   portion   to   a   third   party  vide registered sale deed dated 15.10.2009. The said sale deed is not under challenge and was not questioned by the first respondent. we   fail   to   understand   how   and   on   what   basis,   the   first respondent claims right of pre-emption or repurchase of the portion that was  allotted  to  the   second   respondent   in   terms   of   amicable  division  as evidenced   by   Memorandum   of   Partition   dated   04.12.2008.  
 For   a   right   to   exist,   there   must   be   a corelative duty which can be enforced in a law suit. A right cannot exist without an enforceable duty.  Ownership means a bundle of rights which
would normally include the right to exclude and transfer the property in a manner   one   wants,   subject   to   contractual   obligations   as   agreed   or statutory   restrictions   imposed   on   the   owner.   
In   the   present   case,   the pleadings   fail   to   establish   violation   of   a   statutory   right   or  breach   of   a contractual  obligation which  creates an enforceable right  in the court  of
law.   In  the  absence  of   any  such  right   or   even  a  claim,   the  plaint   would
not disclose cause of action.

In  T. Arivandanam v.   T.V.   Satyapal   and   Another 3 this   Court   has   held   that   if   the   plaint   is manifestly vexatious, meritless and groundless, in the sense that it does not disclose a clear right to sue, it would be right and proper to exercise power   under   Order   VII   Rule   11   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908 (�Code�,   for   short).   
A   mere  contemplation  or   possibility  that   a  right   may be   infringed   without   any   legitimate   basis   for   that   right,   would   not   be sufficient to hold that the plaint discloses a cause of action.




IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6760 OF 2019
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 9233 OF 2017)
COLONEL SHRAWAN KUMAR JAIPURIYAR
@ SARWAN KUMAR JAIPURIYAR �..    APPLICANT(S)
VERSUS
KRISHNA NANDAN SINGH  AND ANOTHER �..RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted. 
2. In   spite   of   second   call,   there   is   no   appearance   on   behalf   of   Krishna
Nandan Singh, the plaintiff, the first respondent before us.
3. The first respondent has filed a civil suit T.S. No. 97/16 against Sarwan
Kumar   Jaipuriyar,   the   appellant   before   us   and   Anil   Kumar,   the   second
respondent before us. The second respondent is the brother of the first
respondent.
4. The   plaint   admits   that   there   was   amicable   division   and   partition   of
property bearing Holding no. 163 old Holding no. 42, Ward No. 10 (New)
7 (Old), Mahal No.1, Mohalla- Mainpura, P.S. Danapur, Patna amongst

2
respondent no.1, respondent no.2 and their brother Sunil Kumar Mehta.
This   partition   was   evidenced   by   recording   Memorandum   of   Partition
dated   04.12.2008,   which   was   signed   and   executed   by   the   three
brothers.
5. The factum of partition and the partition deed itself is not challenged and
questioned in the civil suit preferred by the first respondent. In fact, Sunil
Kumar   Mehta,   the  third brother   is  not   even  a party  to  the  suit.   The suit
also acknowledges that the second respondent was allotted and became
the owner of south-eastern part of the aforesaid holding whereas the first
respondent stands recorded as the owner of another portion and that the
first respondent and second respondent have been paying taxes for the
respective portions to Nagar Parishad under receipts. 
6. The grievance and the cause of action as pleaded in the civil suit by the
first   respondent   is   that   the   second   respondent   had   sold   the   portion
allotted   to   him   on   partition   to   the   appellant   vide   registered   sale   deed
dated   25.01.2016.     This   sale   deed,   it   is   claimed,   is   void   ab   initio   and
inoperative   as   there   is   every   chance   that   the   privacy   of   the   first
respondent�s family  would be  affected  and destroyed.  It  is pleaded that
the   first   respondent   has   got   a   right   and   authority   to   repurchase   the

3
portion  allotted  to  the  second  respondent   under   the  partition  evidenced
by the Memorandum of Partition dated 04.12.2008.
7. The   Memorandum   of   Partition   dated   04.12.2008   which   is   placed   on
record   and   an   accepted/admitted   document   does   not   give   any   right   of
pre-emption to the first respondent. There is also no pleading to the said
effect in the plaint. As the partition and the Memorandum of Partition are
not   denied  or   challenged,   ownership  of   the  second  respondent   and  his
right   to   sell   the   property   in   terms   of   the   Memorandum   of   Partition   are
and would be undisputed legal rights under the Transfer of Property Act,
1882.     There   was   no   restraint   to   exercise   of   this   right   vested   with   the
second respondent by contract or under any statute. This is not alleged
and adverted to in the plaint. It is also an undisputed position that Sunil
Kumar   Mehta   who   was   on   partition   allotted   the   third   portion   of   the
property,   has   sold   and   transferred   his   portion   to   a   third   party   vide
registered sale deed dated 15.10.2009. The said sale deed is not under
challenge and was not questioned by the first respondent.
8. The aforesaid factual and legal position being admitted and accepted in
the   plaint,   we   fail   to   understand   how   and   on   what   basis,   the   first
respondent claims right of pre-emption or repurchase of the portion that
was  allotted  to  the   second   respondent   in   terms   of   amicable  division  as
evidenced   by   Memorandum   of   Partition   dated   04.12.2008.   On   the

4
aforesaid   partition,   the   second   respondent   became   the   sole   and
exclusive owner of  the  portion allotted  to him,  a legal position,  which is
not even controverted and denied by the first respondent in the plaint.
9. In   the   aforesaid   background,   it   is   to   be   held   that   the   plaint   does   not
disclose  any  cause  of  action  for   the  relief  prayed,   that   is,  a  direction  to
the second respondent to execute and register a sale deed in favour of
the first respondent and to put the first respondent in possession. There
does not exist any legal right which the plaintiff or the first respondent is
entitled   to   invoke   and   enforce.     For   a   right   to   exist,   there   must   be   a
corelative duty which can be enforced in a law suit. A right cannot exist
without an enforceable duty.  Ownership means a bundle of rights which
would normally include the right to exclude and transfer the property in a
manner   one   wants,   subject   to   contractual   obligations   as   agreed   or
statutory   restrictions   imposed   on   the   owner.   In   the   present   case,   the
pleadings   fail   to   establish   violation   of   a   statutory   right   or   breach   of   a
contractual  obligation which  creates an enforceable right  in the court  of
law.   In  the  absence  of   any  such  right   or   even  a  claim,   the  plaint   would
not disclose cause of action.
10. This   Court   in   Church   of   Christ   Charitable   Trust   and   Educational
Society   Represented   by   its   Chairman   v.   Ponniamman   Educational

5
Trust Represented by its Chairman/ Managing Trustee 1
  has referred
to   the   earlier   judgment   of   this   Court   in   A.B.C.   Laminart   Pvt.   Ltd.   and
Another v.   A.P.   Agencies,   Salem 2
  to   explain   that   the   cause   of   action
means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff
to   prove   in   order   to   seek   a   decree   and   relief   against   the   defendant.
Cause   of   action   requires   infringement   of   the   right   or   breach   of   an
obligation   and   comprises   of   all   material   facts   on   which   the   right   and
claim for breach is founded, that is, some act done by the defendant to
infringe and violate the right or breach an obligation. In  T. Arivandanam
v.   T.V.   Satyapal   and   Another 3
  this   Court   has   held   that   if   the   plaint   is
manifestly vexatious, meritless and groundless, in the sense that it does
not disclose a clear right to sue, it would be right and proper to exercise
power   under   Order   VII   Rule   11   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908
(�Code�,   for   short).   A   mere  contemplation  or   possibility  that   a  right   may
be   infringed   without   any   legitimate   basis   for   that   right,   would   not   be
sufficient to hold that the plaint discloses a cause of action.
11. In view  of   the  aforesaid  discussion,   we  would  allow  the  present   appeal
and set aside the impugned order. The application under Order VII Rule
11 of the Code filed by the appellant is allowed and the plaint preferred
1
 (2012) 8 SCC 706
2
 (1989) 2 SCC 163
3
 (1977) 4 SCC 467

6
by   the   first   respondent   is   rejected   as   it   discloses   no   cause   of   action.
There shall be no order as to costs.
...............����������, J.
(MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)
..............����������, J.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 02, 2019.

ITEM NO.32               COURT NO.10               SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  9233/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  30-01-2017
in CMJC No. 159/2017 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Patna)
COLONEL SHRAWAN KUMAR JAIPURIYAR
@ SARWAN KUMAR JAIPURIYAR    Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KRISHNA NANDAN SINGH & ANR.                        Respondent(s)
Date : 02-09-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ashutosh Jha, AOR
Mr. Somanatha Padhan, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
In   spite   of   second   call,   there   is   no   appearance   on   behalf   of
Krishna   Nandan   Singh,   the   plaintiff,   the   first   respondent   before
us.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA)                           (R.S. NARAYANAN)
COURT MASTER  COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)