Whether The Appellate Court Erred ... vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 2575 AP

              HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

   MAIN CASE:       S.A.No.220 of 2022

                              PROCEEDING SHEET


 SL.                                                                          OFFICE
 No.   DATE                              ORDER
                                                                              NOTE
HCJ
 2. & 21.06.2022
      RSR, J     KSR,J
                         Questioning      the    reversing      judgment
                  passed by the IX Additional District Judge,
                  Chittoor,     in   A.S.No.122     of     2018,      dated
                  19.01.2022, the appellant filed the present
                  appeal.
                         2.     The respondent / plaintiff filed a suit

in O.S.No.149 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, seeking declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction with regard to the suit schedule property.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same for valid consideration from one P.Santhi, W/o Prabhakaran, under a registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.5518 of 2004, dated 15.10.2004 and since then, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. As the defendant was trying to interfere with his peaceful possession, the plaintiff filed the said suit seeking declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction.

4. After receipt of notice, the defendant filed I.A.No.479 of 2016 under Order-VII, Rule- 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking to reject the plaint in O.S.No.149 of 2016.

5. It is the contention of the defendant that the Government initiated land acquisition proceedings through ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LTD (for short 'APIIC) and acquired the land from the plaintiff and after enquiry, an Award, dated 23.02.2010

SL. OFFICE No. DATE ORDER NOTE was also passed vide, Award No.17/2009-10. Thereafter, APIIC allotted the said land to the defendant to establish its hospital and medical college vide Doc.No.7436 of 2011, dated 27.12.2011. Thereafter, the defendant took possession of the said land and constructed hospital and the same is running in the said land. It is also averred in the said I.A.No.479 of 2016 that the plaintiff filed various writ petitions before this Court questioning the land acquisition proceedings, but they were unsuccessful. Suppressing all these facts, the plaintiff has filed the above suit seeking declaration without disclosing the land acquisition proceedings.

6. At the time of hearing, the defendant filed all the documents along with I.A.No.479 of 2016 evidencing land acquisition proceedings, Award and also agreement, dated 27.12.2011. Moreover, the plaintiff did not dispute the above facts in his counter. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the trial Court allowed the I.A.No.479 of 2016 and rejected the plaint by its order and decree, dated 21.09.2017.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.122 of 2018 before IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor. The learned appellate Judge allowed the appeal holding that all these aspects can be agitated before the trial Court during the course of trial and set aside the order and decree, dated 21.09.2017 passed in I.A.No.479 of 2016 in O.S.No.149 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed the present appeal.

8. Considering the material placed on record and in view of the following substantial questions of law :

SL.                                                                                   OFFICE
No.    DATE                                    ORDER
                                                                                      NOTE

1. Whether the Appellate Court erred in not adverting to the settled legal proposition that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit when the suit schedule lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority and another Vs. Brijesh Reddy and another1 ?

2. Whether the Appellate Court erred in not adverting to the settled legal proposition that the trail Court has exercised its power justly and rightly under Order-VII, Rule-11 of CPC to reject the plaint when the suit prima-facie does not disclose any real cause of action or right to sue and manifestly vexatious and further barred by any law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs and others2 ?

Admit the Second Appeal.

______ KSR,J

I.A.No.1 of 2022

This application is filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.149 of 2016, pursuant to the judgment and decree, dated 19.01.2022 passed in A.S.No.122 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor, pending disposal of the second appeal.

      (2013) 3 SCC 66

      (2020) 7 SCC 366




SL.                                                                    OFFICE
No.   DATE                           ORDER
                                                                       NOTE

2. Heard Sri Prasanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant.

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned in the memorandum of grounds, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.149 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, until further orders.

_______ KSR,J

RPD