Telangana High Court
Mr. Anil Kumar vs Mr. Meka Raghavendra on 26 April, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1127 OF 2022
ORDER :
This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners aggrieved by the order, dated 11.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.1206 of 2021 in O.S.No.26 of 2021 by the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.
2. The revision petitioners are the defendants and respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.26 of 2021.
3. I.A.No.1206 of 2021 is filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. by the petitioners/defendants praying the Court to reject the plaint as there is no cause of action for the suit claim and that the suit claim is barred by law and fraudulent.
4. In I.A.No.1206 of 2021, the petitioners/defendants made the following contentions:-
(i) on reading of the entire plaint there is no cause of action for the respondents/plaintiffs to file the suit for the reliefs mentioned in the plaint;2
(ii) that the plea of the respondents/plaintiffs that they have acquired title over the plots vide document No.13433 of 2020, dated 13.08.2020 is false;
(iii) that there are no alleged plots existing as mentioned in the plaint with plot Nos.80A, 89 and 90 part with the extents shown in the plaint;
(iv) that the respondents/plaintiffs have traced their title through the Power of Attorney document bearing No.1305 of 1993 is also totally false and that the alleged Power of Attorney namely K.V.Ramakrishna Raju already divided the land of Ac.1.08 gts. in Sy.No.102 of Nizampet into plots and transferred the plots in favour of the vendors of the petitioners in the year 1993 through registered sale deeds;
(v) petitioner No.1 had acquired plot Nos.A-96, A-101 part admeasuring 400 square yards vide registered sale deed bearing document No.9807 of 2004 dated 21.06.2004 with Rectification Deed bearing document No.14528 of 2004 dated 16.10.2004 from D.Bhagyalakshmi and Padmavathi through their AGPA Holder D.Vishnu Vardhan and the said D.Bhagyalakshmi purchased Plot No.A-101 admeasuring 300 3 square yards vide registered sale deed document No.7867 of 1993 dated 21.10.1993 with rectification deed document No.11913 of 2004 from K.Lakshmamma and others through GPA Holder K.V.Ramakrishna Raju bearing GPA document No.1305 of 1993 dated 06.08.1993 and that Padmavathi purchased plot No.A-96 admeasuring 300 square yards vide registered sale deed document No.7865 of 1993 dated 21.10.1993 with rectification deed document No.11915 of 2004;
(vi) petitioner No.2/defendant No.2 had purchased plot admeasuring 400 square yards through sale deed document No.9806 of 2004 dated 21.06.2004 with rectification deed document No.14526 of 2004 dated 16.10.2004 from V.S.Sujatha and plot No.A-102 admeasuring 300 square yards through registered sale deed document No.7864 of 1993 dated 21.10.1993 with rectification deed No.11914 of 2004 dated 02.08.2004 and K.Saraswathi acquired plot No.A- 103 admeasuring 300 square yards through registered sale deed document No.7866 of 1993 dated 21.10.1993 with rectification deed No.11912 of 2004 dated 02.08.2004 and D.Vishnu Vardan purchased plot No.A-95 admeasuring 300 4 square yards through sale deed bearing document No.7868 of 1993 dated 21.10.1993 with rectification deed bearing document No.11911 of 2004 dated 02.08.2004 through their AGPA Holder D.Narayana Raju, bearing document No.9674 of 2004 dated 17.06.2004 registered at S.R.O. Medchal with rectification deed No.12087 of 2004 dated 07.08.2004 out of total admeasuring 900 square yards the vendors of defendant No.2 had purchased the same from K.Laxmamma and 10 others through their GPA Holder K.V.Ramakrishnam Raju bearing document No.1305 of 1993 dated 06.08.1993 registered at Joint Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad.
(vii) petitioner No.3/defendant No.3 herein in the above suit viz., K.Nypunya acquired 500 square yards through sale deed document dated 16.10.2004 from V.S.Sujatha, K.Saraswathi and D.Vishnuvardh, through AGPA Holder D.Narayana Raju bearing document No.9674 of 2004, dated 17.06.2004 with rectification deed No.12087 of 2004 dated 07.08.2004, registered at S.R.O. Medchal for a valuable sale consideration in favour of the petitioners/defendants and also other bonafide purchasers, out of Ac.1.08 gts. executed 5 by Ramakrishan Raju the registered general power of attorney holder of K.Laxmamma and 10 others.
(viii) The respondents/plaintiffs by creation, manipulation and fabrication of the alleged sale deed bearing document No.872 of 1999 dated 22.06.1999 and subsequent sale deeds being executed by the respondents/plaintiffs and their vendors Smt. K.Lakshmamma and 10 others in favour of K.V.Ramakrishna Raju; K.V.Ramakrishna Raju and K.Vishwanatha Raju; K.Vishwanatha Raju and Janardhan Jawahar; Janardhan Jawahar and K.Surya Kumar Raju; K.Vishwanantha Raju and B.Anantha Padmanabhaiah and K.Surya Kumar Raju, K.Surya Kumar Raju and Gauthami Solvent Oils Private Limited; Gauthami Solvent Oils Private Limited and plaintiff vendors; plaintiff vendors and G.Suryanarayana Reddy are all illegal, unlawful and fraudulent documents that were created, manipulated and fabricated by K.V.Rama Krishna Raju and K.Vishwanatha Raju and all the fraudulent purchasers which are mentioned in the list of documents filed by the respondents/plaintiffs herein in the above suit at serial Nos.2 to 10 from K.Vishwanatha Raju have no factual base or legal base to 6 make any claim and that the ownership, lawful and physical possession of the petitioners shall continue from the date of purchase of the respective plots through registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners/respondents and that the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners/respondents cannot be disputed by the respondents/plaintiffs either on facts or in law. The vendors of the petitioners/respondents earlier filed a suit vide O.S.No.759 of 2007 for perpetual injunction and have withdrawn the said suit and the petitioners/ respondents have stepped into the shoes of their earlier vendors and have no right to file the present suit. Hence, prayed the Court to reject the plaint as there is no cause of action for the suit claim and the suit claim is barred by law and fraudulent.
5. The respondents/plaintiffs filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the petition and their contention is that they purchased the suit schedule properties under registered sale deeds for a valuable consideration and the petitioners, who are strangers and who obviously have no right, title or claim over the schedule properties, are trying to interfere with the respondents' 7 peaceful possession claiming it as their own. It is further stated that the massive fraud played by the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation led to dismissal of the petition filed by the respondents and the dismissal of the said suit does not bar the respondents from instituting the present suit as the fraud perpetuated by the petitioners vitiates everything. The affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking rejection of the plaint is bereft of reasons and does not make out any case for rejection, as such, prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the counter filed by the respondents stating that the respondents have no right in the present suit as it is not permissible through observation made by the said Court to file a fresh suit, if so, advised and on the said ground suit, filed by the respondents is barred by law and hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC and the so-called allegation of change of boundaries and also the allegation of forgery against the petitioners/respondents is totally false and baseless and the petitioners/respondents cannot seek the discretionary equitable reliefs under Sections 34 and 35 of the Specific Relief Act and hence, prayed to reject the plaint.
8
7. After hearing both sides and considering the averments made in the petition and in the counter-affidavit, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is filed by the petitioners/defendants.
8. Heard Sri C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri L.Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the trial Court failed to look into the entire plaint as a whole and the averments in the plaint in conjunction with the documents relied upon in the plaint as a whole does not disclose a cause of action, and the pleadings relied on are with misrepresentation of facts. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiva Kumar Sharma vs. Santhosh Kumari1 and drawn attention of this Court to paragraph No.23, wherein it is held as follows:
23. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in framing the additional issues of its own which did not arise for consideration in the suit or in the 1 AIR 2008 SCC 171 9 appeal. Even otherwise, the High Court should have formulated the points for its consideration in terms of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code. On the pleadings of the parties and in view of the submissions made, no such question arose for its consideration. In any event, if a second suit was maintainable in terms of Order II, Rule 4 of the Code, as was submitted by Ms. Luthra, no leave was required to be granted therefor. A civil court does not grant leave to file another suit. If the law permits, the plaintiff may file another suit but not on the basis of observations made by a superior court.
10. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2, wherein it is held that to decide an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the averments of the plaint has to be considered but not the pleas taken in the written statement.
11. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Bajoria and others vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and others 3, Janardhanam Prasad vs. Ramdas 4, Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain and others vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo 5, Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh 6 and S.S.Rathore 2 (2003) 1 SCC 557 3 2021 SCC OnLine SC 764 4 (2007) 15 SCC 174 5 (2009) 5 SCC 713 6 2020 (16) SCC 601 10 vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 7 and submitted that the trial Court without considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has simply dismissed the petition. Therefore, he prayed this Court to set aside the order, dated 11.02.2022 by rejecting the plaint.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners and further submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial Court and prayed this Court to dismiss the C.R.P.
13. Having gone through the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and the material placed on record, while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court has to consider the averments of the plaint and at the most, the documents filed along with the plaint. The petitioners/ defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC with various allegations and the allegations made by the revision petitioners itself shows that there is a 7 1989 (4) SCC 582 11 cause of action and that some of the documents are in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs and some of the documents are in favour of the petitioners/defendants and that there is a title dispute over the subject property.
14. As seen from the record, it shows that the properties are purchased by the respondents/plaintiffs and the petitioners/defendants through a GPA holder. There are serious disputes between the parties with regard to the said properties.
15. That apart, the vendors of the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction and withdrawn the suit. Subsequently, they filed a suit for declaration. It is a comprehensive suit. Therefore, the facts of the case in Shiva Kumar Sharma's (one supra) are not applicable to this case. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners are different to that of the present case. Further the revision petitioners also relied on the observations made in Sulochana Amma vs. Narayan Nair 8, wherein at paragraph No.9, it is observed that on the issue between the same parties or persons under 8 (1994) 2 SCC 14 12 whom they claim title or litigating under the same title, it operates as res judicata, whereas res judicata is not a ground under Order VII Rule 7 of CPC. To consider the plea of res judicata, Court has to see the contents of written statement and also the documents while considering petition under Order VII Rule 11, Court has to consider plaint averments only. Therefore, observation in Sulochana Amma's judgment (eight supra) is not applicable to this Case.
16. The averments of the plaint disclose the cause of action and disputed facts between the parties. Further, the plea of the respondents is that the property being claimed by the petitioners is totally different from the suit schedule property herein and that too fit into the suit schedule property the petitioners have got executed the rectification deeds in the year, 2004 even in respect of the registered sale deed executed in the year, 1993 and that no proper explanation is offered by the respondents as to why the said rectification deeds have been executed only with regard to dimensions of the plots covered by the respective sale deeds. The rectification deeds and alleged change of dimensions are 13 issues of fact which needs adjudication. Therefore, this is not a case where there is no cause of action for the respondents to file the above suit, and the respondents/plaintiffs have shown a prima facie case that they have got a cause of action to file the above suit.
17. Further, learned counsel for petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyani Bhanusali 9, wherein, it is held as follows:
23.2. The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.
23.3. The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11(2) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not vested.
9
2020 (7) SCC 366 14
18. While deciding the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and issue of cause of action, the Court has to read the plaint in entirety. The averments of plaint show that there is cause of action to file the suit, as such there is no illegality in the order of the Court to interfere.
19. In view of the above, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial Court and there are no merits in the civil revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.
20. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 26.04.2024 rev