A mere contemplation or possibility that a right may be infringed without any legitimate basis for the right, would not be sufficient to hold that the plaint discloses a cause of action.

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 the breach is founded, that is, some act done by the defendant to infringe and violate the right or breach an obligation. 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.

The above-mentioned reasoning was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Colonel  Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriya vs. Krishna Nandan Singh and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6760/2019), dated 02.09.2019.

Challenge:

In the present matter Respondent No.2 had sold his part of his portion which he received via Memorandum of Partition dated 04.12.2008. The Respondent No.1 pleaded that the sale deed executed is void ab initio and inoperative as it would affect and destroy his family privacy. Further, the Respondent No.1 pleaded that he has the right and authority to repurchase the portion allotted to the Respondent No.2 under the Memorandum dated 04.12.2008.

Held:

The Hon’ble Court held that the Memorandum placed on record does not give any right of pre-emption to the first Respondent No. 1. Also there was no pleading to the said effect in the plaint. The right of Respondent No.2 to sell his part of his portion in terms of Memorandum dated 04.12.2008 would not be disputed legal right under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Memorandum does not create any bar upon the right vested with the Respondent No.2 by contract or under any statue.

The Court observed that the Respondent No.2 became the sole and exclusive owner of the portion allotted to him, a legal position, which is not even controverted and denied by the Respondent No.1 in the plaint.

The Court in the conclusion 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.