HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1349 of 2021
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2021 passed in I.A.No.2154 of 2020 in O.S.No.555 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, the petitioner herein, who is the tenth defendant in the suit filed this revision.
2. The petitioner herein is the tenth defendant and the first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The petitioner herein filed an application vide I.A.No.2154 of 2020 in the suit under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC praying the Court to reject the plaint. The trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenth defendant and the first respondent-plaintiff. Perused the record.
2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive. Learned counsel would further assert that the property of the claim petition before the Land Grabbing Court and the property in O.S.No.555 of 2019 are one and the same and the suit filed by the plaintiff is hit by Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC and hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel would also argue that the trial Court failed to see that the title does not pass through under registered document as per Section 17 of the Registration Act and as such the suit is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. As the first respondent purchased the property during the pendency of the Land Grabbing Court proceedings, the suit is hit by Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. Learned counsel would also aver that the trial Court failed to see that neither the suit nor the claim petition of the first respondent is not maintainable as per Order 21 Rule 102 CPC, and hence, the plaint is to be rejected.
3
5. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under:
'where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instruments from the date of registration.'
6. The tenth defendant filed the present application for rejection of the plaint on the following grounds:
i) The present suit is not maintainable as per settled principles of law that suit filed after initiating of proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 is not maintainable.
ii) The settled preposition of law that title does not pass through unregistered document as per Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908.
iii) It manifestly shows that the respondent No.1/plaintiff's vendor was purchased the property from S.P.Gupta during pendency of the land grabbing proceeding. As such suit is hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act.
iv) The suit is also hit by Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act. That where any transaction relating 4 to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration.
v) The LGC No.63/1998 was disposed of and passed
the decree and judgment dated 12.11.1999
against the vendor's Vendor by the Land
Grabbing Special Court became final.'
7. In a counter filed by the first respondent-plaintiff contended that presentation of proceeding under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC does not amount to adjudication of dispute which is the subject matter of the suit. The tenth defendant has no locus standi to dispute his title and earlier possession including title of his vendor, which was not the subject matter of land grabbing case and it is not pertains to the alleged sale deed basing on which Dr.M.Chandra Mohan claimed to have purchased which is distinct and not covered the property which he purchased under registered sale deed and that the tenth defendant filed this petition on an incorrect advice and the property purchased by M.Chandra Mohan is only a meagre portion but demolition of his entire 5 house under the guise of execution is illegal. The plaintiff would further submit that the extent of the property covered under LGC No.63 of 1998 is entirely different and in the plaint he clearly explained how the first defendant colluded with official defendants, misrepresented the facts and played fraud on the Courts for the purpose of illegal encroachment of his property. The plaintiff also submits that the tenth defendant is a land grabber and he colluded with the first defendant and others and created bogus documents with a mala fide intention, and therefore, requested the Court to dismiss the application.
8. The trial Court after considering the arguments advanced by both the counsel along with the case law cited before it, observed that as all the defendants are not parties to the execution petition filed in the land grabbing case or in the applications filed by the plaintiff and that there are disputed questions of fact to be decided whether the entire property of the plaintiff was covered by the judgment and decree in LGC No.63 of 1998 and in the suit can be decided only after full-fledged trial after the evidence sought to be adduced by both the parties. The trial Court further held that 6 the disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The contention of the tenth defendant that suit is filed after initiating proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is not tenable and is only part of the property of the plaintiff was alleged to be covered by decree and judgment in LGC. As the suit is filed for comprehensive relief of declaration, recovery of possession and damages, the application was dismissed as devoid of merit.
9. No doubt, the object of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is to put an end to the litigation at the threshold, but the claim of both the parties herein is contrary. The tenth defendant stated that the property of the claim petition before the Land Grabbing Court and the property in the subject suit are one and the same, but it was not agreed by the plaintiff herein and that the disputed question of law between both the parties is to be decided in the suit only after adducing evidence by both the parties and as such the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. The trial Court after considering the entire pleadings and the arguments submitted by both the 7 counsel including the case law cited before it, rightly dismissed the application and it needs no interference.
10. In the result, the civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed confirming the order under challenge.
11. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order.
___________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J.
21st OCTOBER, 2022.
PGS