IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
***
C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 And C.R.P.Nos.1169 & 1397 of 2021
C.R.P.No.1318/2020
Between:
# 1. Lakshmi Ramakrishna W/o. B. Ramakrishna (D8), R/o. Flat No.102, Royal Meadows, 3-4-144/1/A, Barkatpura, Hyderabad - 500 027
2. Padmini Rao W/o. Murali R. Rao (D7), R/o. 1B, Vishal Bharathi Apartment, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010
3. Nirmala Kodanda Ram W/o. Patri Kodanda Ram, (D6), R/o. 12B, DDA, MIG Flats, Sarai Jullena, New Delhi-110 025.
... Petitioners
AND
$ Dundi China Venkata Reddy, S/o. Sriramulu Reddy R/o. Agathavara Padu, Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District.
... Respondent
C.R.P.No.1169/2021
Between:
# 1. Lakshmi Ramakrishna W/o. B. Ramakrishna (D8), R/o. Flat No.102, Royal Meadows, 3-4-144/1/A, Barkatpura, Hyderabad - 500 027
2. Padmini Rao W/o. Murali R. Rao (D7), R/o. 1B, Vishal Bharathi Apartment, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010
3. Nirmala Kodanda Ram W/o. Patri Kodanda Ram, (D6), R/o. 12B, DDA, MIG Flats, Sarai Jullena, New Delhi-110 025.
... Petitioners AND
$ Dundi China Venkata Reddy, S/o. Sriramulu Reddy R/o. Agathavara Padu, Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District.
... Respondent
2 RRR,J
C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 &
C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
C.R.P.No.1397/2021
Between:
# Patri Tulasi W/o. P.A.S Rao, R/o. Flat No.302, Royal Meadows, 3-4-144/1/A, Street No.8 Barkatpura, Hyderabad - 500 027.
... Petitioner
AND
$ Dundi China Venkata Reddy, S/o. Sriramulu Reddy R/o. Agathavara Padu, Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District.
... Respondent
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 03.03.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether The Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No Of the Judgment?
3 RRR,J
C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 &
C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
+C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 And +C.R.P.Nos.1169 & 1397 of 2021
% Dated:03.03.2022
C.R.P.No.1318/2020
Between:
# 1. Lakshmi Ramakrishna W/o. B. Ramakrishna (D8), R/o. Flat No.102, Royal Meadows, 3-4-144/1/A, Barkatpura, Hyderabad - 500 027
2. Padmini Rao W/o. Murali R. Rao (D7), R/o. 1B, Vishal Bharathi Apartment, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010
3. Nirmala Kodanda Ram W/o. Patri Kodanda Ram, (D6), R/o. 12B, DDA, MIG Flats, Sarai Jullena, New Delhi-110 025.
... Petitioners
AND
$ Dundi China Venkata Reddy, S/o. Sriramulu Reddy R/o. Agathavara Padu, Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District.
... Respondent
C.R.P.No.1169/2021
Between:
# 1. Lakshmi Ramakrishna W/o. B. Ramakrishna (D8), R/o. Flat No.102, Royal Meadows, 3-4-144/1/A, Barkatpura, Hyderabad - 500 027
2. Padmini Rao W/o. Murali R. Rao (D7), R/o. 1B, Vishal Bharathi Apartment, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010
3. Nirmala Kodanda Ram W/o. Patri Kodanda Ram, (D6), R/o. 12B, DDA, MIG Flats, Sarai Jullena, New Delhi-110 025.
... Petitioners AND
$ Dundi China Venkata Reddy, S/o. Sriramulu Reddy R/o. Agathavara Padu, Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District.
... Respondent
4 RRR,J
C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 &
C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
C.R.P.No.1397/2021
Between:
# Patri Tulasi W/o. P.A.S Rao, R/o. Flat No.302, Royal Meadows, 3-4-144/1/A, Street No.8 Barkatpura, Hyderabad - 500 027.
... Petitioner
AND
$ Dundi China Venkata Reddy, S/o. Sriramulu Reddy R/o. Agathavara Padu, Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District.
... Respondent
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri P.A.S. Rao, representing Sri Akirati Ramakrishna ^Counsel for Respondent : Sri V.V. Satish
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1. (1999) 3 SCC 457
2. 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14356 : (2016) 226 DLT 349 : (2016) 154 DRJ 355
3. 2005 SCC OnLine AP 835 = (2006) 1 ALD 583 (DB) : (2006) 1 ALT 215 (DB)
4. 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 231
5. (2005) 13 SCC 511
6. (2009)10 SCC 541
7. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 764
8. AIR 2003 Ker 171
9. (2017) 13 SCC 174
10. (1989) 2 SCC 163 5 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 & C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 And C.R.P.Nos.1169 & 1397 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
These civil revision petitions arise out of the proceedings in
O.S.No.617 of 2015, raising the same issues, as such, they are being
disposed of by way of this common order.
2. One Sri Dundi China Venkata Reddy (hereinafter referred to
‗the plaintiff') had filed O.S.No.617 of 2015 before the 1st Additional
District Judge, Guntur, against 20 defendants. Defendants 6 to 8 are the
petitioners in C.R.P.No.1169 of 2021 and C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020. The 5th
defendant is the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1397 of 2021.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that his father had purchased an
extent of Ac.1.96 ½ cents of land in Sy.No.3 of Agthavarappadu Village,
Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District, by way of separate deeds of sale.
Similarly, his mother, Smt. Dundi Venkata Ratnamma, had purchased
Ac.1.00 of land and inherited Ac.1.00 of land through her mother Smt.
Pittu Annapurnamma in Sy.No.3 of Agthavarappadu Village. Smt. Pittu
Annapurnamma is said to have passed away, intestate, on 19.09.1988,
after which Smt. Dundi Venkata Ratnamma inherited the said Ac.1.00 of
land belonging to Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma. Thereafter, Dundi Sriramulu
Reddy, the father of the plaintiff passed away on 12.10.1997 leaving
behind his wife Smt. Dundi Venkata Ratnamma, 4 sons and a daughter.
All these persons are said to have partitioned the aforesaid Ac.3.96½
cents of land even before the demise of Sri Dundi Sriramulu Reddy and in
any event executed a partition deed and registered the same on
03.04.2014 under Document No.2346/2014 in the office of the sub-
6 RRR,J
C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 &
C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
registrar, Koritepadu. The parties to this deed of partition were Smt.
Dundi Venkata Ratnamma, her 4 sons including the plaintiff herein, and
her daughter. The plaintiff had been given absolute ownership over ‗D'
schedule property, which corresponds to 18 plots of land in the layout of
the said Ac.3.96½ cents.
4. The plaintiff had thereafter filed O.S.No.617 of 2015 against
20 defendants. The plaintiff claims that defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit
had brought into existence a fake and forged agreement of sale dated
15.11.1989 said to have been executed by late Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma
in favour of the 1st defendant and subsequently created a fake, forged
and false general power of attorney dated 02.06.1990 registered as
document No.395/1990 before the District Registrar, Guntur, allegedly by
Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma in favour of the 2nd defendant. On the basis of
the said fake and forged agreement of sale, and fake and forged general
power of attorney, defendants 1 and 2 are said to have alienated various
plots, which are part of the lands comprising the plaint schedule property,
in favour of various purchasers, who are also made parties to the suit as
defendants 3 to 20.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the plaintiff sought
declaration of title under the registered deed of partition dated
03.04.2014; a declaration that the agreement of sale dated 15.11.1989
allegedly executed, by late Smt. Pittu Annapurna, in favour of the 1st
defendant and the registered general power of attorney dated 02.06.1990
allegedly executed in favour of the 2nd defendant by Smt. Pittu
Annapurnamma, are fake and forged documents, which are invalid and
unenforceable under law and for further declaration that the
consequential execution of registered sale deeds by the 2nd defendant in 7 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 & C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
favour of other defendants or their purchasers are equally invalid and
illegal.
6. The consequential reliefs sought on the basis of the said
declaration was for delivery of physical possession of the plaint schedule
property from the defendants and for mesne profits from the date of the
suit till the plaintiff is put in physical possession of the suit schedule
property.
7. After the filing of the suit, defendants 6 to 8 moved
I.A.No.1309 of 2019 and defendant No.5 moved I.A.No.1302 of 2019
under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint. These two
applications were dismissed by the trial Court on 18.02.2020. Defendants
6 to 8 also moved I.A.No.374 of 2020 under Order II Rules 3 and 4, read
with Section 151 C.P.C., for dismissal of the suit. This application was
dismissed on 13.08.2021. Aggrieved by the said orders of dismissal, the
aforesaid defendants have moved these three civil revision petitions
before this Court.
8. The contentions raised by the petitioners in these revision
petitions can be summarised as follows:
a. There is no cause of action against the petitioners herein for the
plaintiff to file the suit.
b. The suit is undervalued and the Court fee paid is not correct.
c. There is a discrepancy in the small cause title and long cause title
in respect of the description of the plaintiff.
d. The suit is barred by limitation and the same has to be decided as
preliminary issue, before going into the main case.
e. The plaintiff has no right and title over the suit schedule property
and as such the suit could not have been filed.
8 RRR,J
C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 &
C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
f. The sale deed executed by the G.P.A. holder on behalf of the
executant has no relation with the plaintiff and no case could have
been filed.
g. The provisions of Order II Rules 3 & 4 do not permit the joining of
several causes of action against several persons, when they are not
jointly interested in the same property, as their interests are
independent and separate in several plots of land.
h. Order II Rule 4(c) C.P.C., would permit a single suit in respect of
immoveable property only where the relief sought is based on the
same causes of action. As several causes of action against several
persons have been joined in violation of Order II Rule 4(c) C.P.C.,
the suit is liable to be dismissed.
9. The plaintiff had contested these applications stating that
the alleged agreement of sale dated 15.11.1989 and the alleged G.P.A.
dated 25.06.1990 are fake and forged documents and cannot be the
source of title for any of the defendants including the petitioners. The
plaint pleadings also show that the interests of the defendants are not
independent and as such the grounds raised by the petitioners are
incorrect and require to be rejected.
10. The trial Court, in the applications filed under Order VII Rule
11 C.P.C. took the view that the relief of declaration of title is based on
the registered deed of partition dated 03.04.2014 and on the ground that
the alleged agreement of sale dated 15.11.1989 and the general power of
attorney dated 25.06.1990 being fake and forged documents and as such
consequential execution of sale deeds by 2nd defendant in favour of the
other defendants would have to be treated as illegal. The trial Court took
a further view that in view of these common causes, there is a common 9 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 & C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
cause of action. The trial Court also considered the question of inadequate
Court fee and held that since the plaintiff had given an undertaken to pay
any deficit in the Court fee, the said issue can be considered later. On the
question of limitation, the trial Court held that the issue is a mixed
question of law and fact and the same cannot be concluded at this stage.
Apart from this, the trial Court also took into account the contention of the
plaintiff that Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma had passed away on 19.09.1988
and could not have executed the general power of attorney dated
25.06.1990. The trial Court also refused to take into account the mistake
in the name of the plaintiff in the short cause title and long cause title as
the same could always be corrected.
11. In the applications filed under Order II Rules 3 and 4 C.P.C.,
the trial Court took the view that two or more defendants may be joined
as parties in one suit even if there are two or more causes of action,
provided the right to relief claimed arises from the same fact or
transaction and there is a common question of law. The trial Court held
that the facts of the present case meet this requirement and the
applications are not maintainable. The trial Court also took the view that
non-joinder or mis-joinder does not go to the root cause of the case and
that the provisions of Order II C.P.C., do not deal with dismissal of the
suits, as these objections can always be raised under Order VII C.P.C.,
and the Court could always direct the plaintiff to elect as to which one of
them shall be proceeded with in the suit. Aggrieved by the said orders,
the petitioners have approached this Court.
12. Sri P.A.S. Rao, learned counsel appearing for Sri
Ramakrishna Akurati, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the 10 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 & C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
orders of the trial Court are not in accordance with law and enunciated in
the judgments sited below:
1. Iswar Bhai C. Patel vs. Harihar Behera and anr.,1;
2. Microsoft Corporation & Anr. Vs. Mr. Sujan Kumar &
Ors.2;
3. Chowdri Kalyan Chand & Ors., vs. V.R. Dwarkanath and
Ors.,3;
4. Gitarani Dan & Ors. vs. Manik Chandra Dan & Ors.,4
5. Harkirat Singh vs. Amrinder Singh5;
6. Ram Sukh vs. Dinesh Aggarwal6; and
7. Rajendra Bajoria and Ors., vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and
Ors.,7.
13. Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff
contended that the civil revision petitions based against the order of
dismissal of the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 are not
maintainable as an appeal would have to be filed against the said order.
He would further argue that the provisions of Order II Rules 3 and 4
cannot be the basis of dismissal of a suit as Section 99 C.P.C., provided
that such defects cannot be the basis for dismissal of a suit. He submits
that in any event, there are no defects of the nature contended by the
petitioners. He would further submit that the judgment cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the
present case as the facts of the cited judgments would show that separate
1 (1999) 3 SCC 457 2 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14356 : (2016) 226 DLT 349 : (2016) 154 DRJ 355 3 2005 SCC OnLine AP 835 : (2006) 1 ALD 583 (DB) : (2006) 1 ALT 215 (DB) 4 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 231 5 (2005) 13 SCC 511 6 (2009)10 SCC 541 7 2021 SCC OnLine SC 764 11 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 & C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
causes of action were included in those judgments while there is no such
defect in the present case.
Consideration of the Court:
14. Before adverting to the main controversy, the objection
raised by Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the plaintiff, as to the
maintainability of the revision petitions has to be answered. An order of
rejection of plaint, under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., would amount to a
final disposal of the suit and the said order would amount to a judgment
and decree. In such cases, only an appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C.,
read with other relevant provisions, would be maintainable. In such
circumstances, a revision petition would not normally be maintainable.
However, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Razack Trading
Company, Ariyaloor vs. J.K. Industries Ltd., New Delhi8, at
paragraph Nos.11 to 14, held as follows:
11. I am fully aware of the fact that an order passed by a civil Court regarding the rejection of the plaint is given the force of a decree in view of the definition of the decree given under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the normal remedy available to the plaintiff is to file an appeal or review as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Gopalan Nair v. Bhaskaran, (2002) 1 Ker LJ 1 : (AIR 2002 Kerala 248). The averments in the Original Petition show that a petition for review was filed and the same was dismissed.
12. Since the suit was filed after 1-7-2002 provisions contained in old Rule 19-A of Order V is not applicable to this case and the order passed is one in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the Court. That being the position I am of the view that it is not necessary to compel the petitioner to resort to the alternate remedy of filing the appeal and the illegality committed by the Court below is to be corrected by
8 AIR 2003 Ker 171 12 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 & C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
invoking powers conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. In Rajendran v. Union of India, (1996) 2 Ker LT 467 a learned single Judge of this Court found that the supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution is limited to see that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within its limits of its authority and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 : (AIR 1999 SC 22) the Supreme Court held as follows:--
―Therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially, in a case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation.‖ In K. Sreedharan v. Thajudeen Koya, (1996) 1 Ker LJ 246 : (1996 Lab IC 842) a learned single Judge of this Court has found that a judgment rendered by a civil Court having no jurisdiction can be interfered with under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It was held as follows:
―Normally, this Court will not be Justified in interfering with the decree passed by a competent civil Court in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. But such judgment and decree shall he passed by a competent civil Court, having jurisdiction to try the case. But, in this case, it cannot be held that the Munsiff has jurisdiction to entertain and try the above case in the light of the statutory injunction contained in Section 19(2) of the Act. Therefore, it must be held that such a judgment and decree can be interfered with by this Court in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.‖ In S.T. Distilleries v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (1999) 1 Ker LJ 506 a Division Bench held that an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar 13 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 & C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
for maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held as follows:--
―Alternate remedy is not an absolute bar for the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been violation of principles of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.‖
14. I view of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court I am of the view that it is only just and proper to quash the order passed by the Court below rejecting the plaint in exercise of power conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and direct the Court below to dispose of the plaint in accordance with law.
In the result, the Original Petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Sub-Judge in O.S.No.140 of 2002 on 16.11.2002 rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is quashed. The learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose of the plaint in accordance with law.
15. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed by
the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. However, there would be no necessity
for this Court to base its order on the above observations. The present
case is not a case of revision being filed against the order allowing an
application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. This is a case where the
application under Order VII Rule 11 had been dismissed. In such a
situation, there is no judgment or decree which can be appealed against
under the provisions of Section 96 C.P.C. The objection of the plaintiff, in
this regard would have to be fail.
16. Both sides have argued extensively on the facts of the case
and the law. This Court does not propose to go into the details of these 14 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 & C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
arguments on facts and law, as the same are not required due to the
manner in which this court proposes to dispose these petitions
17. Before considering the material before this court, it would be
appropriate to consider the scope of an application under Order VII, Rule
7 and the scope of the term ‗cause of Action'.
18. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal9,
the Hon'ble Supreme court, set out the scope of Order VII, Rule 11 in the
following manner:
―7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to.
The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage.‖
19. In A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies10 the
Hon'ble Supreme court sets out the contours of the term ‗cause of action',
as follows:
9
(2017) 13 SCC 174 15 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 & C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
12. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.
20. The case of the plaintiff has been that the plaintiff and his
family members were owners and possessors of Ac.3.96 cents. An extent
of Ac.1.96½ cents being purchased by his father, Ac.1.00 being
purchased by his mother Smt. Dundi Venkata Ratnamma and Ac.1.00 of
land having been inherited from his maternal grand-mother Smt. Pittu
Annapurnamma. These lands were the subject matter of the deed of
partition dated 03.04.2014. After the said deed of partition, the plaintiff
has approached this Court for setting aside various deeds of sale said to
have been executed about 20 years before the deed of partition and
about 25 years before the filing of the suit. The cause of action for the
suit is said to be the action of the 1st defendant in obtaining a fake and
fabricated agreement of sale dated 15.11.1989 and a fake and fabricated
power of attorney obtained by the 2nd defendant dated 25.06.1990 from
Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma, who is the maternal grand-mother of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff had also filed the deeds of sale said to have been
executed in favour of the other defendants, on the basis of these
fabricated documents, and sought these deeds of sale to be set aside. The
10 (1989) 2 SCC 163 16 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 & C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
deeds of sale under which the petitioners herein had obtained title to the
plots in their name, mentioned at Sl.Nos.11 to 14 in the list of documents
is attached to the plaint. Copies of these documents have also been
placed before this Court by the petitioners. The plaintiff does not dispute
that the copies of the documents, which were placed before this Court,
are the documents mentioned in the list of documents at Sl.Nos.11 to 14
of the plaint.
21. In view of this mention of documents in the plaint and in
view of the fact that they have been filed along with the plaint, the said
documents would have to be treated as being part of the plaint.
22. A perusal of these documents would show that these
documents were executed by the 2nd defendant as the power of attorney
holder of Smt. Dundi Venkata Ratnamma, who is the mother of the
plaintiff. These are not documents, which are executed by the 2 nd
defendant, either on the basis of the agreement of sale dated 15.11.1989
executed by Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma or power of attorney dated
25.06.1990 executed by Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma. Except the allegation
that these two documents were not executed by Smt. Pittu
Annapurnamma, the plaintiff has not made any allegation relating to the
power of attorney said to have been executed by Smt. Venkata Ratnamma
in favour of the 2nd defendant. In fact the description of the deeds of sale
at Sl.Nos.11 to 14 itself states that these deeds of sale were executed, by
the 2nd defendant, as the general power of attorney of Smt. Venkata
Ratnamma.
23. As noticed above, the entire suit is based on the pleading of
the plaintiff that Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma never executed any
agreement of sale or power of attorney on the basis of which the 1 st and 17 RRR,J C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 & C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
2nd defendants could have executed deeds of sale in favour of the other
defendants, including the petitioners herein, who were arrayed as
defendants 5 to 8. However, the plaint documents itself show that the
documents executed in favour of the petitioners, by the 2nd defendant, are
based on a power attorney that is said to have been given by Smt. Dundi
Venkata Ratnamma and not Smt. Pittu Annapurnamma. In these
circumstances, no cause of action had been made out against the
petitioners herein. In that view of the matter, it must be held that the
applications under Order VII Rule 11 have not been appreciated properly
by the trial Court.
24. Accordingly, C.R.P.Nos.1318 of 2020 and 1397 of 2021 are
allowed and the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.1301 of 2019 in
C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 and I.A.No.1302 of 2019 in C.R.P.No.1397 of 2021
are set aside and the said applications are allowed.
25. In view of the orders passed in C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 and
C.R.P.No.1397 of 2021, no further orders would require to be passed in
C.R.P.No.1169 of 2021. Accordingly C.R.P.No.1169 of 2021 is closed.
Consequently, plaint in O.S.No.617 of 2015 in the Court of I Additional
District Judge, Guntur is rejected to the extent of defendants 5 to 8 in the
suit. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
3rd March, 2022 Js.
18 RRR,J
C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020 &
C.R.P.Nos1169 & 1397 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P.No.1318 of 2020
And
C.R.P.Nos.1169 & 1397 of 2021
3rd March, 2022
Js.
