Holding

The Supreme Court held that the plaint, read as a whole, discloses a cause of action for the tenancy dispute and the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate those reliefs, so the suit cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11.

Summary

The plaintiffs, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that they were tenants of properties owned by the Shaneshwar Deosthan Trust, alleging forcible eviction and claiming injunction, compensation and other reliefs. The trial court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, holding that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and was barred by Sections 50, 51 and 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950; the High Court affirmed this decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the entire plaint must be read as a whole, whether the reliefs sought fall within the civil court's jurisdiction, and whether the reliefs are severable from those barred by the Trusts Act. The Court held that the reliefs concerning tenancy and alleged forcible dispossession constitute a legitimate cause of action for the civil court, and that the suit should not be rejected in its entirety under Order VII Rule 11. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, directing the lower court to proceed with trial on the tenancy-related issues while excluding reliefs barred by the Trusts Act.

Issues considered

The plaint must be read as a whole to determine if it discloses a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11.
Whether Sections 50, 51 and 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, oust the civil court's jurisdiction over the reliefs claimed.
Whether the reliefs sought are severable such that the civil court can adjudicate the tenancy dispute despite other reliefs being barred.
Whether the claim of forcible dispossession is maintainable under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Whether the suit should be dismissed in its entirety or allowed to proceed on the viable reliefs.

Legislation cited

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950s. 50, s. 51, s. 80
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order II Rule 1, s. Order VII Rule 11, s. Order VII Rule 16, s. Order VI Rule 2, s. Order X
Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 6

Subjects

Order VII Rule 11cause of actionBombay Public Trusts Acttenancy disputecivil jurisdictionSpecific Relief Actforcible dispossessioninjunctionseverability of reliefs

Judgment

A SOPAN SUKHDEO SABLE AND ORS. ..... <
v.
ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JANUARY 23, 2004

B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
" <

Order VII Rule I /-Rejection ofPlaint-Plaintifffiled suit/or declaration
c thal they were lenanls under the defenda111s-Triai court dismissed suit as no
cause of action was disclosed and also the suil was barred by an existing
/aw-High Court affirmed the decision-Correctness of-Held: The whole
plaint has lo be read to ascertain its true imp.ort-Re/ieft do not constitute
'
cause of action but constitute entitlement, if anjJ--Suit remanded to /rial courl
D for fresh adjudication.

Order VI Rule 2(1)-"Materia/ facts" and "Parliculars"-Dijference
be1wee11-Explained. +
~

Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 6-Possession-Person in sell/ed
possession-Rights of-Held: Such a person could not be dispossessed even
E
hy the /rue owner excepl by recourse to /aw-Such a person enti!/ed to get
back his possession if forcibly dispossessed.

The appellants-plaintiffs filed a civil suit for a declaration that they
were tenants under the respondents-defendants. The appellants also
F alleged that they were forcibly dispossessed by the respondents. The trial
~ ..
court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule I l(a) and (d) of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the plaint filed by the appellants did not
disclose any cause. of action and also the suit was barred under Sections
SO, SI and 80 of the Bo.mbay Public Trusts Act, 19SO. The High Court
affirmed this decision. Hence the appeal.
G
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that although some
reliefs were to be dealt with by the authorities under the Bombay Public ~ ..
Trusts Act, the said reliefs were severable and that the civil court had
jurisdiction to deal with them.
H 1004
S.S. SABLE v. ASTT. CHARITY COMMISSIONER I005
).
J.
. Allowing the appeal, the Court A

HELD: I. I. If on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint
it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear
right to sue, the Court should exercise the power under Order VII Rule
11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 taking care to see that the ground
mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of B
a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by
examining the party searchingly under Order X of the Code. 11011-E-FI

'* l. Arivandandam v. TV. Satyapal, 119771 4 SCC 467, relied on.

Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, 1200311 SCC 557 and/. TC. Lid.
c
v. Debts Recove1y Appellate Tribunal, 119981 2 SCC 70, referred to.

1.2. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be considered
and the whole plaint has to be read. Only a part of the plaint cannot be
rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must D
be rejected. 11011-GI

Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill, 1198213 SCC 487, relied on.

2.1. There cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection,
segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the E
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 F
into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or
subtraction of words or change of its 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. 11012-A-CI G

\. ).
Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd v. Ganesh Property. 1199817 SCC 184, relied
on.

2.2. The reliefs claimed do not constitute the cause of action. On the H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) I S.C.R.

A contrary, they constitute the entitlement, if any, on the basis of pleaded
facts. JIOl2-D-EI

3. The real object of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out of
courts ·irresponsible lawsuits. Therefore, Order X of the Code is a tool in
the hands of the Courts by resorting to which and by searching
B examination of the party in case the Court is prima facie of the view that
the suit is an abuse of the process of the Court in the sense that it is a
bogus and irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under Order VII Rule
U of the Code can be exercised. 11012-H; 1013-AI

C 4. There is a distinction between 'material facts' and 'p:uticulars'.
The words 'material facts' show that the facts necessary to formulate a
complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact
leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement or plaint becomes
bad. 11013-EI

D Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez, 1196913 SCC 238, relied
on.

Bruce v. Odhdms Press Ltd., (1936) I KB 697, referred to.

5. It is true that where a person is in settled possession of the
E property, even on the assumption that he has no right to remain in
property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner except by recourse to
law. A person without title but in "settled" possession~as against mere
fugitive possession-can get back possession if forcibly dispossessed or
rather, if dispossessed otherwise than by due process of law. 11016-B-DI
F
Yaslnmnt Singh I'. Jagdish Singh, AIR (1968) SC 620; Krishna Ram
Mohate v. Mrs. Shobha Venkata Rao, 1198914 SCC 131; Ram Rallan v. State
of U.P., 1197711 SCC 188 and State vfU.P. v. Maharaja Dharmender Prasad
Singh, ( 19891 2 SCC 505, relied on.

G K. K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR (1954) Born. 358, referred to.

6. The question of forcible possession is a matter, which can be
pressed into service by the parties before the trial court and if raised the
Court shall deal with it considering the relevance to the suit and accept it
H or otherwise reject the plea in accordance with law. 11017-Cj
S.S. SABLE v. ASTT. CHARITY COMMISSIONER ll'ASAYAT. J.] ]007

'> J. Mahadeo Savlaram Sheike v. Pune Municipal Corporation, 119951 3 A
SCC 33; Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD. (199313 SCC 161 and Dalpat Kumar
v. Prahalad Singh, 1199211 SCC 719, relied on.

Woodrofe: "Law relaling to injunctions", L.C. Goyal: "Law of
/njunctions, David Bean: "Injunction" and Jayce on /11ju11ction, referred to.
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 448 of
2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.2002 of the Bombay High
Court in S.A.No. 248 of 2002.
c
V.A. Mollla, M.D. Adkar, M.I. Pathan and Vishwajit Singh for the
Appellants.

A.V. Savant, Ravindra Kr. Adsure, S.G. Surpuriya, S.P. Shirsath, Surya
Kant (NP), S.S. Sinde and Mukesh K. Giri for the Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Cou11 was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted .
.,
The appellants who were plaintiffs in a suit filed before the learned
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Srirampur have questioned legality of the E
conclusions arrived at by the Cou11s below holding that the plaint filed by
them was to be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code'). The plaintiffs claimed to be tenants
under respondent No.2, Shaneshwar Deosthan Trust (hereinafter referred to
as the 'trust'). Its trustees and the Assistant Charity Commissioner (in short F
_. .-"'\ the 'Commissioner') were the other defendants. Plaintiffs claimed that they
were tenants of the trust of which the defendants Nos. 3 to 13 were the
trustees. Alleging that they have been forcibly evicted notwithstanding
continuance of the tenancy, the suit was filed for the following reliefs:

(A) Plaintiff Nos. I to 17, be declared as the tenants of the properties G
described in the plaint belonging to temple Trust, of which defendant
Nos. 1 to 13 are trustees.
\. ).

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 13, be permanently restrained by an order of
injunction not to evict plaintiff Nos. I to 13, forcibly with the help
of police and also not to interfere in their business being carried on H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] I S.C.R.

A by them in suit shops, and not to interfere in the possession of suit
shops in any manner-whatsoever, either by themselves or by their
servants, agents, relatives or anybody claiming through or under them.

(C) Direct the defendant Nos. 2 to 13, to pay compensation for the
loss caused to the plaintiffs on account of their acts of omission and
B commission as described in the plaint, committed by them prior to
the filing of the suit and during pendency of suit for the damage that
may be caused to the plaintiffs.

(D) Defendant No. I be directed to enquire into the illegal acts,
committed by defendant Nos. 2 to 13, and issue appropriate direction
c to that effect.

The suit was numbered as R.C.S. No.16011997 in the trial Court. The
stand of the plaintiffs-appellants essentially Wc!IS that the tenancy was for a
period of 11 years and not for 11 months as claimed by the trust. An application
was filed by the trust raising a preliminary plea that the plaint is liable to be
D rejected under Order Vil Rule 11 of the Code. With reference to Section 80
of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (in short the 'Act') it was urged that
no Civil court had jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which by
or under the Act is to be decided or dealt with by any officer or authority
under the Act and in respect of which the decision or order of such officer
E . or authority has been made final and conclusive. The trial Judge framed two
preliminary issues, i.e. (a) whether the suit was liable to be rejected under
Order Vil Rule 11 of the Code for want of cause of action, and (b) whether
the suit was tenable against all the defendants. Findings in respect of th1~
preliminary issues were recorded against the plaintiffs. A finding was recorded
that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and also in view of th<~
F specific provisions of the Act, the jurisdiction vests only with the District
C0urt to give direction to Commissioner and in any event Section 80 of the
Act took away jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the plaint was rejected.
Challenging the judgment and decree dated 21. l 0.2000 passed by the learned
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Srirampur, an appeal was preferred before th<~
G District Court which was numbered as Regular Civil Appeal No.178 of 2000.
The appeal was dismissed and the decree passed by the trial Court was
confirn1ed by II Additional District Judge at Srirampur, Ahmed Nagar District.
The matter was carried in Second Appeal before the High Court which by the
impugned judgment upheld the findings recorded by the Courts below. Before
the High Court, it was contended by the appellants that Sec~ions 50, 51 and
H 80 of the Act had no application and the lease being for 11 years, the action
S.S. SABLE v. J\STT. CHARITY COMMISSIONER [PASAYAT, .I.] 1009
I
. of the trust in dispossessing the plaintiffs forcibly cannot have the approval A
of law. The stand of the trust was to the effect that the plaintiffs have not
approached the Court with clean hands. They had tried to get relief from the
High Court by filing a petition under A1ticle 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). They failed to comply with the interim
directions given by the High Cou1t and before the date posted before the
High Court for consideration of the interim orders, they filed the suit and
B
prayed for injunction. Subsequently, the writ petition was withdrawn. The
plaint filed by the plaintiffs did not disclose any cause of action and in any
event the relief sought for could not have been granted by the Civil Court in
view of the specific provisions contained in Sections 50, 51 and 80 of the
Act. There was no forcible dispossession as claimed. The Courts below were c
justified in rejecting the plaint.

The High Court accepted the plea of the trust and dismissed the second
appeal affirming the conclusions arrived by the Courts below.

In support of the appeal, Mr. V.A. Mohta, learned senior counsel D
appearing for the appellants submitted that the Courts below have lost sight
--Ir of the nuances of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Even if for the sake of
arguments it is conceded that some reliefs were to be dealt with by the
authorities under the Act, the reliefs were severable and the Civil Court had
jurisdiction to deal with them. The dispute projected in the suit essentially
related to the question of tenancy and the relationship between the plaintiffs E
and the defendant-trust vis-a-vis the question of tenancy, the term of tenancy
are matters intermittently linked with these basic issues. Such issues cannot
be decided by the authorities under the Act. Therefore, the rejection of the
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code cannot be maintained in law. The
plaintiffs were dispossessed illegally and a person dispossessed illegally was F
' .... entitled to protection. A person without title but in 'settled' possession as
against mere fugitive possession, can get back possession if forcibly
dispossessed or rather if dispossessed otherwise than by due process of law.

Per contra, Mr. A.V. Savant, learned senior counsel.appearing for the·
defendant-trust submitted that the Courts below have concurrently found it as G
a matter of fact that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and the Civil
> ). Court had no jurisdiction to deal with a matter, specifically in view of what
has been statutorily provided in Section 80 of the Act. With reference to the
judgment of the High court it was pointed out that the plaintiffs had not
approached the Court with clean hands. They had adopted dubious methods,
H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12004] I S.C.R.

A did not comply with the directions of the High Court for depositing the
stipulated amount. By a ruse, some reliefs have been sought for in the plaint
totally out of context with the main prayers which are to be dealt with in
terms of Sections 50 and 51 of the Act. There were no pleadings about
alleged forcible dis-possession and· wholly untenable plea about the period of
tenancy has been rightly rejected by the Courts below. Clauses (a) and (d) of
B Rule 11 have full application to the facts of the case. The whole purpose in
filing the suit was to somehow or other remains in possession of the shops
which were leased out to them for certain periods. As a result of the actions
of the plaintiffs, the trust would have been put to huge financial loss. All this ~·

according to him, disentitle the appellants from any relief under Article 136
C of the Constitution.

Order Vil Rule 11 of the Code reads as follows:

Order VII Rule I I: Rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in
the following cases :-
D (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) 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;

E (c) where the relief claims 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 Com1, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be
F barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the
G valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be
extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that
the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for
correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as
the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal
H to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
S.S. SABLE v. ASTT. CHARITY COMMISSIONER (PASA YAT, J.] l 011

•.,.
)
In the present case the respondent-trust has relied upon clauses (a) and A
(d) of Rule 11.

Before dealing with the factual scenario, the spectrum of Order VII
Rule 11 in the legal ambit needs to be noted.

In Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [2003] I B
SCC 557 it was held with reference to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code that
the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application
thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial Court can exercise the
power at any stage of the suit-before registering the plaint or after issuing
summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For C
the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are the germane; the
pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant
at that stage.

In /. T. C. Ltd v. Debts Recove1y Appellate Tribunal and Ors., [ 1998] 2 D
sec 70 it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with
an application filed under Order Vil 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 Vil Rule 11 of the Code.

The trial Court must remember that if on a meaningful and not formal E
reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of
not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order
Vil Rule 11 of the Code 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 lirst hearing by examining the party
searchingly under Order X of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal F
and Anr., [ 1977] 4 SCC 467).

It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be considered, and the
whole plaint has to be read. As was observed by this Court in Roop Lal Sathi
v. Nachha//ar Singh Gill, [1982] 3 sec 487, only a part of the plaint cannot G
be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must
be rejected.

In Raptakos Brei/ & Co. ltd. v. Ganesh Property, (1998] 7 SCC 184
it was observed that the averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen
to find out whether clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order Vil was applicable. H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) I S.C.R.

A 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 asce11ain its true
import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read
B 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 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
C adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities.

Submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2-trust was that
requirement of law being reading the plaint in its totality, the appellants
cannot take the plea that they would give up or relinquish some of the reliefs
sought for. That would not be permissible. The plea clearly overlooks the
D basic distinction between statements of the facts disclosing cause of action
and the reliefs sought for. The reliefs claimed do not constitute the cause of
action. On the contrary, they constitute the entitlement, if any, on the basis
of pleaded facts. As indicated above, Order VI Rule 2 requires that pleadings
shall contain and contain only a statement in a concise form of the material
facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim. If the plea of Mr.
E
Savant, learned counsel for the respondent-trust is accepted the distinction
between the statement of material facts and the reliance on them for the claim
shall be obliterated. What is required in law is not the piecemeal reading of
the plaint but in its entirety. Whether the reliefs would be granted on the
pleaded facts and the evidence adduced is totally different from the relief
F claimed. All the reliefs claimed may not be allowed to a party on the pleadings
and the evidence adduced. Whether part of the relief cannot be granted by the
Civil Court is a different matter from saying that because of a combined
claim of reliefs the jurisdiction is ousted or no cause of action is disclosed.
Considering the reliefs claimed vis-a-vis the pleadings would not mean
G compartmentalization or segregation, in that sense. The plea raised by the
respondent-trust is therefore clearly unacceptable.

Keeping in view the aforesaid principles the reliefs sought for in the
suit as quoted (supra) have to be considered. The real object of Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code is to keep out. of courts irresponsible law suits. Therefore,
H the Order X of the Code is a tool in the hands of the Courts by resorting to
S.S. SABLE v. ASTT. CHARITY COMMISSIONER [PASAYAT, J] 1013
)
>
which and by searching examination of the party in case the Court is prima A
facie of the view that the suit is an abuse of the process of the court in the
sense that it is a bogus and irresponsible litigation, the jurisdiction under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code can be exercised.

As noted (supra), the Order VII Rule 11 does not justify rejection of
any particular po11ion of the plaint. Order Vl Rule 16 of the Code is relevant B
in this regard. It deals with 'striking out pleadings'. It has three clauses
permitting the Court at any stage of the proceeding to strike out or amend
any matter in any pleading i.e. (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous,
I ..+
frivolous or vexatious, or, (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or
delay the fair trial of the suit, or, (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the
process of the Court.
c
Order VI Rule 2( 1) of the Code states the basic and cardinal rule of
pleadings and declares that the pleading has to state material facts and not the
evidence. It mandates that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a
statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading D
relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by

- which they are to be proved.

There is distinction between 'material facts' and 'particulars'. The words
'material facts' show that the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause
of action must be stated. Omission of a single material fact leads to an E
incomplete cause of action and the statement or plaint becomes bad. The
distinction which has been made between 'material facts' and 'particulars'
was brought by Seo/I, L.J in Bruce v. Odhams Press Ltd, (1936) I KB 697
in the following passage :

The cardinal provision in Rule 4 is that the statement of claim must F
.~
state the material facts. The word "material" means necessary for the
purpose of formulating a complete cause of action; and if any one
"material" statement is omitted, the statement of claim is bad; it is
"demurrable" in the old phraseology, and. in the new is liable to be
"struck out" under R.S.C. Order XXV, Rule 4 (see Philipps v. Philipps, G
[1878] 4 QBD 127); or "a further and better statement of claim" may
be ordered under Rule 7.
f ;..
The function of "particulars" under Rule 6 is quite different. They are
not to be used in order to fill material gaps in a demurrable statement
of claim-gaps which ought to have been filled by appropriate H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] I S.C.R.

A statements of the various material facts which together constitute the
plaintiffs cause of action. The use of particulars is intended to meet
a further and quite separate requirement of pleading, imposed in
fairness and justice to the defendant. Their function is to fill in the
picture of the plaintiffs cause of action with information sufficiently
detailed to put the defendant on his guard as to the case he had to
B meet and to enable him to prepare for trial.

The dictum of Scott, l.J. in Bruce case (supra) has been quoted with approval
by this Court in Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez, [ 1969) 3 SCC
238, and the distinction between "material facts" and "particulars" was brought
C out in the following terms:

The word 'material' shows that the facts necessary to formulate a
complete cause of action must be stated. Omission of a single material
fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim
becomes bad. The function of particulars is to present as full a picture
D of the cause of action with such further information in detail as to
make the opposite party understand the case he will have to meet.

Rule 11 of Order VII lays down an independent remedy made available to
the defendant to challenge the maintainability of the suit itself, irrespi:ctive
of his right to contest the same on merits. The law ostensibly does not
E contemplate at any stage when the objections can be raised, and also does not
say in express terms about the filing of a written statement. Instead, the word
'shall' is used clearly implying thereby that it casts a duty on the Court to
perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint when the same is hit by any of
the infirmities provided in the four clauses of Rule 11, even without
intervention of the defendant. In any event, rejection of the plaint under Rule
F 11 does not preclude the plaintiffs from presenting a fresh plaint in terms of
Rule 13.

According to Mr. Mohta appearing for the appellants, as noted above,
the reliefs are separable and merely because some of the reliefs cannot be
G granted by the Civil Court it would entail an automatic rejection of the old
plaint. In fact he submitted that some of the reliefs would be given up by the
plaintiffs in the suit itself. It is true as contended by Mr. Savant learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-trust by ingenious drafting a cause of ,..:,
action in the nature of red herrings cannot be brought into judicial arena. But
a reading of the reliefs shows that some of them can only be considere:d by
H the Civil Court.
S.S. SABLE v. ASTT. CHARITY COMMISSIONER [PASAYAT, J.) 1015
\
. ,;. Under Order II Rule 1 of the Code which contains provisions of A
mandatory nature, the requirement is that the plaintiffs are duty bound to
claim the entire relief. The suit has to be so framed as to afford ground for
final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation
concerning them. Rule 2 further enjoins on the plaintiff to include the whole
of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of
action. If the plaintiff omits to sue or intentionally relinquishes any portion B
of his claim, it is not permissible for him to sue in respect of the portion so
omitted or relinguished afterwards. If the plaintiffs as contended by Mr.
' .... Mohta want to relinquish some reliefs prayer in that regard shall be done
before the trial Court. A reading of the plaint and the reliefs along with the
c
contents of the plaint goes to show that the main dispute relates to the question
of continuance of tenancy and the period of tenancy. They are in essence
unrelated with the other reliefs regarding enquiry into the affairs of the trust.
Such enquiries can only be undertaken under Section 50 of the Act. For
instituting the suit of the nature specified in Section 50, prior consent of the
Charity Commissioner is necessary under Section 51. To that extent Mr.
Savant is right that the reliefs relatable to Section 50 would require a prior D
consent in terms of Section 51. If the plaintiffs give up those reliefs claimed
-+
' in accordance with law, the question would be whether a cause of action for
the residual claims/reliefs warrant continuance of the suit. The nature of the
dispute is to be resolved by the Civil Court. The question of tenancy cannot
be decided under Section 50 of the Act. Section 51 is applicable only to suits E
which are filed by a person having interest in the trust. A tenant of the trust
does not fall within the category of a person having an interest in the trust.
Except relief in Para D of the plaint, the other reliefs could be claimed before
and can be considered and adjudicated by the Civil Courts and the bar or
impediment in Sections 50 and 51 of the Act will have no relevance or
.Ac application to the other reliefs. That being so, Sections 50 and 5 I of the Act F
would not have any application to that part of the relief which relates to
question of tenancy, the term of tenancy and the period of tenancy. The
inevitable conclusion therefore is that Courts below were not justified in
directing rejection of the plaint. However, the adjudication in the suit would
be restricted to the question of tenancy, terms of tenancy and the period of G
tenancy only. For the rest of the reliefs, the plaintiffs shall be permitted
within a month from today to make such application as warranted in Jaw for
' ;>.
relinquishing and/or giving up claim for other reliefs.

Another plea which has been raised with some amount of vehemence
by the appellant is the alleged forcible possession. This plea is strongly H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) I S.C.R.

A disputed by learned counsel for the respondent-trust who says that the
possession was taken in accordance with law and as noted above, by voluntary
surrendering by most of the tenants. Much of this controversy revolves from
the date till the order of injunction passed by the trial Court operated.

There are two different sets of principles which have to be borne in
B mind regarding course to be adopted in case of forcible dispossession. Taking
up the first aspect, it is true that where a person is in settled possession of
property, even on the assumption that he has no right to remain in property,
he cannot be disposed by the owner except by recourse oflaw. This princ:iple +·
is laid down in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. That Section says
C that if any person is dispossessed without his consent from immovable property
other wise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him
may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that
may be set up in such suit. That a person without title but in "settledl'
possession as against mere fugitive possession can get back possession if
forcibly dispossessed or rather, if dispossessed otherwise than by due process
D of law, has been laid down in several cases. It was so held by this Court in
Yashwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, AIR (1968) SC 620, Krishna Ram Mohate
v. Mrs. Shobha Venkata Rao, [1989] 4 SCC 131, at p.136, Ram Rattan v.
State of U. P., [1977] I SCC 188, and State of U. P. v. Maharaj a Dharmender
Prasad Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 505. The leading decision quoted in these rulings
is the decision of the Bombay High Court in K.K. Verma v. Union of India,
E AIR (1954) Born. 358.

Now the other aspect of the matter needs to be not1~d. Assuming a
trespasser ousted can seek restoration of possession under Section 6 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 can the trespasser seek injunction ag~inst the true
owner? This question does not entirely depend upon Section 6 of the Specific
F
Relief Act, but mainly depends upon certain general principles applicable to
the law of injunctions and as to the scope of the exercise of discretion while
granting injunction? In Mahadeo Savlaram Sheike v. Pune Municipal
Corporation., [1995] 3 SCC 33, it was held, after referring to Woodrofo on
"Law relating to injunction; L.C. Goyal 'Law of injunctions; David Bean
G 'Injunction' Jayce on Injunctions and other leading Articles on the subject
that the appellant who was a trespasser in possession could not seek injunction
against the true owner. In that context this Court quoted Shiv Kumar Chadha
V. MCD, [1993] 3 sec 161 wherein it was observed that injunction is

discretionary and that:
H "Judicial proceedings cannot be used to protect or to perpetuate a
S.S. SABLE v. ASTT. CHARITY COMMISSIONER [PASAYAT, .l.] 1017

wrong committed by a person who approaches the Court". A
Reference was also made to Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, [ 1992] 1
SCC 719 in regard to the meaning of the words 'prima facie case' and
'balance of convenience' and observed in Mahadeo:s case (supra) that:

"It is settled law that no injunction could be granted against the B
owner at the instance of a person in unlawful possession."

The question of forcible possession as claimed is also a matter which
can be pressed into service by the parties before the trial Court and if raised
the Court shall deal with it considering its relevance to the suit and accept it
o~ otherwise reject the plea in accordance with law. We do not think it C
necessary to express any opinion in that regard.

Learned counsel for the respondent-trust has urged with some amount
of vehemence about the conduct of the plaintiffs in not depositing the arrears
of money and the effect of22 of the tenants out of total 44 tenants surrendering
possession. This is a matter which can be considered in the trial itself so far D
as it is relevant. It was submitted by learned counsel for the trust that in any
~. event the District Court was the only Court having jurisdiction and not the
Court where the suit was filed. This aspect does not appear to have been
specifically urged before the Cou11s below. So we do not think it appropriate
to express our opinion thereon. As regards the question of arrears it shall be E
open to the respondent-trust to move the trial Court for such directions as are
available in law. Looking into the nature of dispute it would be appropriate
if the trial Court makes an effort to complete the trial within six months from
the date of the judgment. The pa11ies are directed to cooperate for disposal
of the suit early within the stipulated time. The appeal is allowed to the
extent indicated without any order as to costs. F
v.s.s. Appeal allowed.