THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.579 of 2021
ORDER:
1 Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 29.01.2021 made in I.A.No.219 of 2020 in O.S.No.51 of 2020 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, wherein and whereby the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.16 to 19 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (b) r/w Section 151 CPC to reject the plaint filed by the respondents / plaintiffs. 2 For the sake of convenience, parties to this revision petition will, hereinafter, be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.
3 The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the respondent Nos.1 to 62, being plaintiffs, filed the suit against the petitioners and others to declare them as absolute owners in respect of the respective suit schedule plots; and to declare the registered sale deeds executed by some of the defendants in favour of other defendants as null and void and for a consequential permanent injunction. The petitioners herein being defendant Nos.16 to 19 filed I.A.No.219 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (b) r/w Section 151 CPC to reject the plaint filed by the respondents / plaintiffs. The respondents opposed the said application. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition. Hence the present Civil Revision Petition.
4 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners on 2 erroneous grounds. He submitted that the first plaintiff is not the owner of the schedule plots as on the date of filing of the suit and that there is no cause of action for the respondents / plaintiffs to file the suit against the petitioners. He further submitted that the respondents / plaintiffs paid deficit court fee since they have to pay the court fee in respect of each individual plot. He further submitted that there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit before the trial Court. He further submitted that the trial Court ignored the settled principle of law on both the points and hence prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. He relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court between Khan Mohamad Khan & Ors. V. Jam Mohammad Khan {C.O.No.1419 of 2015}. 5 No doubt, the provision of law quoted by the petitioners i.e. under Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC, if there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit, and under Order VII Rule 11 (b) where the suit is undervalued and the plaintiff failed to correct the same, the Court is empowered to reject the plaint.
6 So far as the first limb of the contentions of the petitioners that the respondents / plaintiffs have no cause of action for filing the suit is concerned, as seen from the averments of the plaint, which is made part of the record, the case of the plaintiffs is that as the petitioners and others denied their title in respect of the schedule plots they filed the suit seeking to declare the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners and others as null and void on the ground that without having any right and title their vendors sold the property of the plaintiffs and executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioners/defendants. It is their further contention that as 3 the petitioners are interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the schedule plots, they sought for a consequential relief of permanent injunction. The cause of action para as set out in the plaint discloses all these things. But, whether the respondents / plaintiffs are in actual possession or not are all disputed questions of fact, which have to be gone into during the course of trial only. 7 In respect of the other limb of the claim of the petitioners/ defendants is that the respondents/plaintiffs paid deficit court fee. In so far as this contention is concerned, the respondents / plaintiffs need not pay any court fee because they are seeking to cancel certain documents i.e. registered sale deeds to which they are not parties and since such relief is a consequential relief sought for in a suit for declaration of title and possession. The respondents / plaintiffs contend that the above sale deeds as illegal and null and void on the ground that they were fraudulently executed by their vendors even though they executed sale deeds earlier in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs. The trial Court in the impugned order observed that the respondents / plaintiffs paid the Court fee in respect of the entire area as per the market value declaration given by the Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy, which is sufficient under Section 24 (b) of TSCF and SV Act. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the respondents paid deficit court fee is also not tenable since the respondents have also paid Rs.5,426/- under Section 26 (c) of TSCF and SV Act for the relief of permanent injunction notionally valuing the said relief at Rs.3.00 lakhs. The trial Court has given its reasons cogently and elaborately stating that the petitioners / defendants failed to establish their case on both the counts. The judgment, Khan 4 Mohamad Khan & Ors. V. Jam Mohammad Khan, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, has no application to the facts of the case on hand because the respondents / plaintiffs have not suppressed any factual aspect before the Court. The petitioners have placed the same judgment before the trial Court, which has interpreted the same in a right perspective.
8 For the above reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and hence no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted since the petitioners failed to establish their contentions on both the counts, which they agitated before this Court.
9 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall also stand dismissed.
_________________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Date:14.9.2021 Kvsn