O VII 7 CPC | Lesser Relief Can Be Decreed, But Not Totally Different Claim : Supreme Court Declines To Allow Partition In Title Suit

Declining to grant the relief of partition in a suit seeking a declaration of title, the Supreme Court clarified that while Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the grant of a lesser or alternative relief flowing from the facts already pleaded and proved, it cannot be invoked to award a relief such as partition, which is based on a distinct cause of action and requires a separate factual foundation.

“…we may note that Order VII Rule 7 CPC authorizes the Court to grant a smaller relief than the larger relief claimed, if entitlement therefor is made out on facts. However, such discretion would not be available when a plaintiff sets up an altogether different case from the one ultimately found established on facts and in law by the Court.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.

The Appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession based on the gift deed executed in her favor by her grandfather. The trial court decreed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the same, whose decision was upheld by the High Court.

The High Court and First Appellate Court were of the view that Appellant's grandfather could not have gifted the entire property because he himself possessed only an undivided half share after the death of his wife.

Challenging the impugned findings, the Appellant moved the Supreme Court, where one of the issues was whether the plaintiff could at least be granted a lesser relief of partition under Order VII Rule 7 CPC, even though her suit was framed as one for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

The judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar declined to interfere with the findings of the courts below insofar as they held that the appellant's grandfather could not validly gift the entire property, since he possessed only an undivided share therein and was not the exclusive owner of the property.

This means that the grandfather was legally competent to gift his undivided half share without obtaining the consent of the co-owner, however the property remained joint and had never been partitioned by metes and bounds. Therefore, the plaintiff could only claim rights over the grandfather's undivided half share and not exclusive possession of any specific portion of the property, the Court said.

“…the fact remains that the properties remained joint and without partition by metes and bounds, the plaintiff could not have sought the relief of recovery of possession of that half share.”, the Court said, emphasizing that although the appellant acquired title to her grandfather's undivided half share in the joint property, her entitlement to any specific portion could be determined only after a partition by metes and bounds. Since no relief of partition had been sought in the suit, which was confined to declaration of title and recovery of possession, such a determination could not be made in the proceedings.

Now, the question appeared whether the Appellant in a suit for declaration and recovery of possession could also seek a relief of partition despite the same not being claimed.

It was in this context that the Court discussed the ambit of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, examining whether the relief of partition can be granted to the Appellant despite the same not being claimed in the original suit.

"Courts are not always confined to the precise relief claimed in the plaint and may grant a lesser or modified relief if the facts pleaded and proved justify such a course," the Court said, drawing a clear distinction between granting a lesser relief flowing from the pleaded case and granting a completely new relief requiring a different factual foundation.

Applying the law to the facts of the present case, the Court held that a decree for partition under Order VII Rule 7 CPC could not be granted because such a claim was never pleaded and was fundamentally different from the reliefs sought in the suit.

“Presently, contrary to the plaintiff's claim of ownership over the suit properties in their entirety, we find that she has a right only over an undivided half share in the suit properties and no more. Without division of the property by metes and bounds, the question of the right of the plaintiff crystallising would not arise. However, as she sought declaration of title under the registered gift deed dated 13.12.1990, she would be entitled to such declaration only in respect of an undivided half share in the suit properties thereunder. She would necessarily have to seek partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds to actually claim her separate half share. Such relief of partition cannot be granted at this stage as the same is entirely alien to her suit claims. We, accordingly, leave it open to the plaintiff to take recourse to such measure by way of appropriate proceedings before the competent forum in accordance with law.”, the Court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the plea was disposed of.

Cause Title: Maragadham versus Periyaraja and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 732

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. V. Raghavachari, Sr. Adv. (N/P) Mr. G. Balaji, AOR Mr. Neeleshwar Parvani, Adv. Ms. Arzu Paul, Adv. Mr. Prasannaa, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, AOR Mr. R. Sudhinder, Adv.