PRAKASHBHAI RAMABHAI BALASARA vs DEVIBEN RAMBHAI BALASARA Advocate - D D ACHARYA — 74/2023

Case Summary: 74/2023 Outcome: The defendants' application to reject the plaint under CPC Order VII, Rule 11(a) was rejected. The court found the plaintiff has a valid cause of action and the suit can proceed. Key Facts: Plaintiff Prakashbhai (son of deceased's first wife) filed a partition suit claiming a 1/4 share in five agricultural properties. Defendants (deceased's second wife and her children) argued the plaintiff had no legal right since some properties were self-acquired by the deceased and plaintiff's name wasn't entered in revenue records for three survey numbers (169, 649, 650). Court's Reasoning: While plaintiff was admittedly entered as heir in two survey numbers (240, 241), the critical issue—whether the remaining three properties are ancestral or self-acquired—requires evidence and cannot be decided at the plaint rejection stage. Since defendants themselves admitted plaintiff inherited two properties, allowing rejection would cause multiplicity of proceedings. The suit must proceed to evidence stage for proper resolution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.