Sadam Naga Raju, vs Muvva Madhavi,
2023 Latest Caselaw 4138 AP

       THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of
                           2020

COMMON ORDER:
       These three civil revision petitions under article 227 of the

Constitution of India have been filed by different defendants in

O.S.No.49 of 2019.

2.     These revision petitions sought for rejection of plaint in

O.S.No.49 of 2019 in terms of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and as the

learned trial Court dismissed those applications, they have

come up with these revision petitions.

3.     Defendant No.1 in the suit filed I.A.No.404 of 2019

seeking for rejection of plaint and the learned III Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dismissed the same by an order

dated 05.03.2020. Aggrieved by it, defendant No.1 filed

C.R.P.No.1062 of 2020.

4.     Defendant No.3 filed I.A.No.495 of 2019 seeking for

rejection of plaint and that was dismissed by learned III

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada by an order dated

05.03.2020. Aggrieved by it, defendant No.3 filed C.R.P.No.1025

of 2020.

5.     Defendant Nos.4,5 and 6 filed I.A.No.333 of 2019 seeking

for rejection of plaint and that was dismissed by learned III
                                 2
                                                   Dr. VRKS, J
                                    C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020


Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada by an order dated

05.03.2020. Aggrieved by it, they filed C.R.P.No.1063 of 2020.

6.    In all these revision petitions, respondent No.1 is the sole

plaintiff in the suit. Remaining respondents are remaining

defendants in the suit.

7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Veera Reddy and learned

counsel Sri I.Koti Reddy and learned counsel Sri B. Samba Siva

Rao appearing for revision petitioners and learned counsel Sri

Chamarthy Gangadhar appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff

submitted arguments.

8. O.S.No.49 of 2019 is a suit filed by sole plaintiff as

against six defendants as defendant Nos.1 to 6. Plaint schedule

refers to item Nos.1 to 4 which are immovable properties. The

relief claimed in the plaint is for partition of plaint schedule

properties into four equal shares. One share is to be allotted for

plaintiff and one share is to be allotted to defendant No.1 and

two shares are to be allotted to defendant No.2. Division by

metes and bounds and for costs and such other reliefs are

prayed in the plaint.

9. The plaint averments are to the following effect:

There was Sri Yalamanchili Venkata Subbaiah. All the

plaint schedule mentioned properties belonged to him and he

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

owned and possessed them during his life time. In a sound and

disposing state of mind, he executed a registered will dated

06.05.1985. Under this will he had bequeathed certain extents

of item Nos.1,2 and 3 of plaint schedule properties in favour of

his daughter-in-law by name Seshamamba alias Seshamma.

The husband of the legatee is Sri Y.Venkateswara Rao.

10. Though item No.4 of the plaint schedule was also owned

and possessed by Sri Yalamanchili Venkata Subbaiah, he did

not make it a part of the registered will referred above.

11. Under the above referred will Sri Yalamanchili Venkata

Subbaiah bequeathed a part of item No.2 of the plaint schedule

property in favour of defendant No.2.

12. For Sri Yalamanchili Venkata Subbaiah, there was only

one son by name Sri Y. Venkateswara Rao. Smt. Seshamamba

is wife of Sri Y.Venkateswara Rao. These spouses have three

children namely Anjani Kumari, Vijaya Lakshmi/D2 and Kesava

Rao. Among them, Sri Kesava Rao died during April 1985 and

he had no children and his wife Udaya Lakshmi re-married

another person and left the family without claiming any rights

over the properties. Smt.Anjani Kumari died intestate on

29.09.2013. Smt. Anjani Kumari was survived by her daughter

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

who is the plaintiff and her brother Sri A.Krishna

Rao/defendant No.1.

13. In the plaint, it is further stated that Sri Y. Venkata

Subbaiah, the original owner of these properties, died testate on

05.04.1996. On his death, his will dated 06.05.1985 came into

operation. By virtue of the said will, his daughter-in-

law/Seshamamba and his grand-daughter/defendant No.2

became absolute owners of the properties as referred in the

earlier paragraphs.

14. Smt. Seshamamba who got the properties under the will

died intestate on 12.07.2009. During her life time, she did not

execute any deed of alienation and did not execute any

testament concerning item Nos.1,2 and 3 of the plaint schedule

properties. On death of Seshamamba, the properties she got

under the will were succeeded by her husband/Venkateswara

Rao and daughters Smt. Anjani Kumari and defendant No.2.

These successors have been in joint possession and enjoyment

of the plaint schedule properties.

15. As said earlier, Smt. Anjani Kumari died intestate on

29.09.2013 survived by plaintiff and defendant No.1 as

successors. Therefore, plaintiff succeeded all the estate left by

her mother along with defendant No.1 and accordingly plaintiff

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

and defendant No.1 have been in peaceful possession and

enjoyment of item Nos.1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties

along with defendant No.2 to the extent mentioned earlier. It is

in these circumstances, plaintiff sues for 1/4th share in the

plaint schedule properties.

16. Plaint then refers to certain other suits which have got

connection with the issues of this estate.

It is stated in the plaint that defendant No.2 filed

O.S.No.181 of 2014 before learned XIII Additional District

Judge, Vijayawada wherein she sought for declaration that she

is absolute owner of the properties mentioned in that suit. In

that suit, she alleged a will dated 03.06.2009 executed by her

mother/Smt. Y.Seshamamba. This plaintiff was made one of the

defendants.

17. Defendant No.2 also filed O.S.No.465 of 2014 before

learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada whereunder

she sought for partition of properties mentioned in that plaint.

In that suit also, this plaintiff is made one of the defendants.

18. In the plaint, it is stated that plaintiff and defendant No.1

being siblings, defendant No.1 prevailed over her and obtained

her signatures on two vakalats promising that in the above

referred two suits, he would safeguard and protect her rights

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

and interests. It is specifically pleaded that plaintiff never signed

any affidavits, pleadings or written statements in the above

referred two suits and defendant No.1 in violation of the promise

made to her was not informing the progress of the above

referred two suits and that caused suspicion in the mind of the

plaintiff. Plaintiff got the facts enquired into and came to know

that her brother/defendant No.1 filed written statements in the

above referred suits by forging the signatories of this plaintiff.

Defendant No.1 did it in collusion with defendant No.2 for

unlawful gain. It is further stated that defendant No.2 who filed

above referred two suits got them dismissed as not pressed on

30.07.2018 and 06.08.2018 respectively and that was done

without notice and knowledge of this plaintiff. Defendant No.2

for not pressing those suits was gifted with properties by

defendant No.1 under a registered gift deed concerning item

No.2 of the present plaint schedule. In the said gift deed,

defendant No.1 claimed exclusive ownership of that item of the

property which is incorrect.

19. Defendant No.1 is not the exclusive owner of item No.4 of

the plaint schedule, yet, he sold out 121 Square Yards out of it

to defendant No.3 and another 121 Square Yards to defendant

No.4 under two separate registered sale deeds executed on

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

10.09.2014. Defendant No.1 resorted to this activity claiming

that there was an unregistered will executed by his maternal

grandfather/ Sri Y.Venkateswara Rao in his favour which is

incorrect. Therefore, plaintiff ignores the said two sale deeds as

they are null and void in the eye of law. It is further stated that

another extent of 242 Square Yards in item No.4 of plaint

schedule was sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant

No.5 under a registered sale deed dated 29.09.2014. Thereafter,

that property was sold out by defendant No.5 in favour of

defendant No.6 under a registered sale deed dated 19.09.2018.

20. It is further stated that defendant No.1 filed O.S.No.381 of

2019 before learned Additional Junior Civil Judge seeking for

permanent injunction as against plaintiff and others concerning

item No.3 of the plaint schedule.

21. Plaint further narrates the facts to the effect that plaintiff

has been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint

schedule properties along with defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the

several documents executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour

of rest of the defendants are invalid and do not bind the plaintiff

and despite those alienations, possession continued to be with

plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 concerning plaint schedule

properties. In the above referred circumstances, plaintiff

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

demanded for partition and that was not conceded to and

therefore, she had filed this suit for partition.

22. From the very reading of the plaint, one could visualize

the potential points that would fall for trial requiring the

plaintiff to prove that the two written statements filed by her in

the earlier two suits were out of a fraud played on her by her

sibling/D1; that the alienations in favour of defendant Nos.3 to

6 do not bind her. Plaintiff will also have to show that law does

not require her seeking any declaration against those known

alienations in a suit for partition and that she is entitled to pray

the Court to ignore such alienations.

23. It is this plaint that is sought to be rejected by the

defendants. In all the applications for rejection of plaint filed by

the various defendants in the suit, they claimed that

• The suit is barred by limitation by virtue of article 59 of

schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. That the various

alienations referred in the plaint took place in the year

2014 and the present plaint was filed in the year 2019

which was beyond three years from the date of those

alienations under registered documents and therefore the

suit is barred by limitation and hence plaint has to be

rejected.

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

• The other contention raised is that this very plaintiff filed

her written statement in O.S.No.181 of 2014 and

O.S.No.465 of 2014 wherein she admitted the various

alienations and now she turned around and questions

those alienations. She cannot take such stand as she is

estopped from pleading contrary and therefore plaint has

to be rejected.

• Defendant Nos.3 to 6 are bonafide alienees and they are

not necessary parties and for mis joinder of parties, the

plaint has to be rejected.

• Defendant No.1 in his petition for rejection of plaint

propounded a partition deed dated 05.05.2014 and stated

that plaintiff suppressed it and therefore with false cause

of action the suit is filed and therefore plaint had to be

rejected.

• The plaint is vexatious as it claims joint possession for

plaintiff along with her family members while the truth is

that under various alienations referred above, she ceased

to hold possession of those properties. Without being in

joint possession, a suit is laid wherein the property was

undervalued and incorrect Court fee was paid and

therefore plaint has to be rejected.

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

24. Learned trial Court considered all these contentions and

stated that a reading of the plaint discloses a cause of action

and in the given facts and circumstances, the suit filed for

partition cannot be said to be barred by limitation and that the

other grounds urged do not fall within the ambit of Order VII

Rule 11 CPC. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court

dismissed all the applications and refused to reject the plaint.

25. In all these revision petitions, all those contentions that

were raised before the learned trial Court have been reagitated

here.

As against these contentions of revision petitioners, for

respondent No.1/plaintiff, it is argued that the registered

partition deed dated 05.05.2014 alleged by defendant No.1 is

not part of allegations in the plaint. That the plaintiff had to sue

because of the caveat filed by defendant No.1 and that the

contentions raised by defendants are matters for trial and not

points for rejection of a plaint. That the learned trial Court

appropriately considered the facts and law and dismissed the

applications and refused to reject the plaint and there is no

warrant for this Court to interfere in these revisions.

26. Arguing for defendant No.3/revision petitioner in

C.R.P.No.1025 of 2020, learned counsel Sri I.Koti Reddy

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

submits that the rights of bonafide purchasers who acted

basing on the written statement averments of the very plaintiff

in the other suits is unnecessarily brought to this litigation and

in the event the suit being decreed, it would adversely affect his

rights and such plaint cannot be countenanced and has to be

rejected.

27. In the light of the facts available on record and the rival

submissions of learned counsels on both sides, the point that

falls for consideration is:

"Whether plaint in O.S.No.49 of 2019 was liable to be

rejected but the learned trial Court failed to exercise

jurisdiction vested with it and thereby it occasioned

injustice requiring interference?"

POINT:-

Rejection of plaint is essentially guided by the legislative

mandate contained in Order VII Rule 11 CPC which is extracted

below:

Order VII Rule 11 CPC:-

Rejection of plaint:-

The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action

(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;

(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule9 Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

While considering a plaint for evaluation as to its

sustainability or rejection in certain circumstances, the powers

of the Court are not circumscribed by what is provided by Order

VII Rule 11 CPC and the inherent power that is available with

the Court under Section 151 CPC is available and on a

meaningful reading of a plaint and overcoming the clever

drafting of a plaint if a Court finds the litigation vexatious the

same could be rejected is the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in T.Arivandandam V. T.V.Satyapal1.

28. Defendant Nos.3 to 6 are not members of the family of

plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. The grievance of defendant

(1977) 4 SCC 467

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

Nos.3 to 6 in the suit is essentially about item No.4 of the plaint

schedule. They seek for rejection of the plaint. That raises a

question as to whether a plaint in part can be rejected or not.

The law is that rejection of a plaint in part is impermissible

since so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Roop

Lal Sathi V. Nachhattar Singh Gill2. It may also be noticed

that if a plaint does not disclose a cause of action as against one

of the defendants, then the plaint can be rejected as against

such defendant against whom the plaint failed to disclose cause

of action as was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational

Charitable Society V. Ponniamman Educational Trust3.

According to the alienee defendants who are not members of the

alleged joint family, roping them in the suit resulted in mis

joinder of parties or mis joinder of cause of action and therefore

the suit is barred by law in terms of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC

and therefore the plaint has to be rejected. There is no legal

force in this contention. Mis joinder of parties and mis joinder of

cause of action are considered as procedural objections and

discretion rests with the Court trying the suit to determine the

various methods by which it could try such suits and their

(1982) 3 SCC 487

(2012) 8 SCC 706

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India categorically

held that mis joinder of parties or mis joinder of causes of action

cannot be considered for rejection of plaint in Prem Lala

Nahata V. Chandi Prasad Sikaria4.

29. The revision petitioners relying on the conveyances of the

year 2014 contend that plaint challenges validity of such

alienations and those alienations are to the knowledge of the

plaintiff. As this plaintiff admitted the truthfulness of such

alienations in the written statements filed by her in the other

two suits in O.S.No.181 of 2014 and O.S.No.465 of 2014 and

therefore she ought to have filed the suit within three years from

the date of such alienations but she had filed the suit five years

after such alienations and therefore the suit is barred by

limitation. They also contend that by virtue of doctrine of

promissory estoppel she cannot plead contrary to what was

pleaded in her written statement and therefore the present

plaint has to be rejected.

30. This argument is rested on article 59 of the Limitation

Act, 1965. This principle is applicable in cases where an

instrument is sought to be cancelled or set aside, the period of

three years limitation is prescribed. Relief claimed in the plaint

(2007) 2 SCC 551

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

has not asked for any cancellation or setting aside of any sale

deeds or gift deeds or other instrument or documents. Suit is

filed only for partition. It is undisputed before the learned trial

Court as well as here that in a given case, when the sharers are

living together, as and when they desire to have their shares

divided, they could sue and the normal rule is that for laying

such a suit for partition, there is no period of limitation. In the

present plaint, plaintiff claims joint possession and enjoyment.

Defendants deny that as false. Thus, there is a disputed

question of fact even if it is assumed that the plaintiff was

excluded from joint family property, to enforce a right to a share

in such property, suit could be laid within 12 years from the

time the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff. This is what

is provided under article 110 of the Schedule of the Limitation

Act, 1963. Even when the arguments advanced for revision

petitioners is accepted that the plaintiff was ousted from

possession, the period of Limitation of 12 years is not exhausted

from the time of those registered instruments that had come

into existence in the year 2014. Since the suit was filed within

12 years from the date of those alleged instruments, it is well

within time. Learned counsel for revision petitioners failed to

indicate to this Court any further principle governing this

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

limitation. Be it noted, a reading of the plaint by itself, rightly

noticed by the learned trial Court, there is no occasion for the

Court to come to a definite finding that the suit is barred by

limitation. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the

revision petitioners on the plank of doctrine of limitation is

absolutely incorrect on facts and law. The observations of the

trial Court are unnecessarily questioned in this revision in that

regard.

31. Coming to the contention based on promissory estoppel

the same being a rule of evidence in terms of Section 115 to 117

of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that may fall for consideration

in the trial of the suit and is not a bar under law for instituting

the suit itself. Therefore, the contention is negatived.

32. It is argued for revision petitioners that the rights of

bonafide purchasers cannot be nullified and the plaintiff having

not sued for any declaration to avoid those instruments, the

plaint is liable to be rejected. Thus, according to this argument,

for failure to seek appropriate relief the plaint has to be rejected.

This was seriously contested by the learned counsel for

respondent No.1/plaintiff based on a judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Sajjan Singh V. Jesvir kaur5. That

2023 LiveLaw (SC) 517

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

was also a case where defendants in the suit sought for

rejection of plaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to seek for

an appropriate prayer to declare sale deeds as illegal, null and

void and failed to pay Court fee with reference to such

declaration. Answering that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

is categorical in its terms and held that failure to ask an

appropriate prayer in the suit is a matter for final decision in

the suit and such contention cannot be an issue to be

considered in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Revision petitioners could not repel this proposition. It is in

these circumstances, the contention of revision petitioners that

the plaint is to be rejected for want of appropriate prayer is

negatived.

33. It may be stated that learned counsels on both sides fairly

admitted that the Court while considering as to whether a plaint

has to be rejected or not it is entitled to see only the plaint and

its averments and the documents filed along with it and

anything extraneous to it cannot form part of consideration.

34. Another contention raised by learned counsel for revision

petitioners is that the cause of action pleaded in the plaint is

false to the knowledge of the plaintiff and that falsity could be

seen from the admissions she made in the written statements

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

filed by her in the earlier suits and therefore the plaint has to be

considered as one that is frivolous and such plaint shall be

nipped at the bud. This Court is unable to accede to these

submissions on facts and law. As a matter of fact, plaint itself

avers the existence of earlier two suits and avers as to how she

was defrauded by defendant No.1 in this suit and specifically

avers that she did not sign the pleadings in the other written

statements of those suits. All that may by true or false but those

matters are for decision only in the suit. False cause of action

and failing to disclose a cause of action are totally different. A

plaint can be rejected only when it failed to disclose cause of

action and not when it averred a false cause of action. A false

cause of action is one that should meet its consequences at the

end of the suit and a false cause of action by itself cannot be a

ground to terminate the plaint. That has been the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dahiben V. Arvindh

Bhai Kalyanji Banusali6. Cause of action means every fact

which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to

support his or her right to judgment. Right to sue accrues when

the cause of action arises. It means a plaintiff could institute a

suit with certain rights asserted in the plaint complaining the

(2020) 7 SCC 366

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

infringement of such rights or clear threat of infringement to

such rights. In the facts at hand, the averments in the plaint are

to the affect that the right to sue for partition claimed by the

plaintiff rested on an assertion that Seshamamba died intestate

and thereafter Anjani Kumari died intestate and as such

plaintiff succeeded to the estate. If this is false, such falsity has

to be assessed on evidence adduced in the suit and not here.

One can never say that those assertions in the plaint do not

disclose a cause of action.

35. All the contentions raised by the revision petitioners are

contentions that are to be taken up for defence and they are

totally immaterial for consideration while considering their

prayer for rejection of a plaint. Despite the appropriate

observations on part of the trial Court, these revision petitioners

have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court without

any basis on facts and law. Trial Court properly assessed the

principles of facts and law and the orders impugned do not

require any interference as they never occasioned any injustice

to anyone.

36. Point is answered against the petitioners.

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

37. In the result, Civil Revision Petition No.1025 of 2020 is

dismissed.

Civil Revision Petition No.1062 of 2020 is dismissed.

Civil Revision Petition No.1063 of 2020 is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date:11.09.2023 DVS

Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of 2020

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1025,1062 and 1063 of

Date:11.09.2023

DVS