Bonthu Guruva Reddy, vs L. Poornachand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2586 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.579 of 2021

ORDER:

1 Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated

29.01.2021 made in I.A.No.219 of 2020 in O.S.No.51 of 2020 on

the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District

Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, wherein and whereby the trial Court

dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.16 to

19 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (b) r/w Section 151 CPC to

reject the plaint filed by the respondents / plaintiffs.

2 For the sake of convenience, parties to this revision petition

will, hereinafter, be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial

Court.

3 The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the respondent

Nos.1 to 62, being plaintiffs, filed the suit against the petitioners

and others to declare them as absolute owners in respect of the

respective suit schedule plots; and to declare the registered sale

deeds executed by some of the defendants in favour of other

defendants as null and void and for a consequential permanent

injunction. The petitioners herein being defendant Nos.16 to 19

filed I.A.No.219 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (b) r/w

Section 151 CPC to reject the plaint filed by the respondents /

plaintiffs. The respondents opposed the said application. The trial

Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition. Hence the

present Civil Revision Petition.

4 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners on

erroneous grounds. He submitted that the first plaintiff is not the

owner of the schedule plots as on the date of filing of the suit and

that there is no cause of action for the respondents / plaintiffs to

file the suit against the petitioners. He further submitted that the

respondents / plaintiffs paid deficit court fee since they have to

pay the court fee in respect of each individual plot. He further

submitted that there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file

the suit before the trial Court. He further submitted that the trial

Court ignored the settled principle of law on both the points and

hence prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. He relied on the

judgment of the Calcutta High Court between Khan Mohamad

Khan & Ors. V. Jam Mohammad Khan {C.O.No.1419 of 2015}.

5 No doubt, the provision of law quoted by the petitioners i.e.

under Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC, if there is no cause of action for

the plaintiff to file the suit, and under Order VII Rule 11 (b) where

the suit is undervalued and the plaintiff failed to correct the same,

the Court is empowered to reject the plaint.

6 So far as the first limb of the contentions of the petitioners

that the respondents / plaintiffs have no cause of action for filing

the suit is concerned, as seen from the averments of the plaint,

which is made part of the record, the case of the plaintiffs is that

as the petitioners and others denied their title in respect of the

schedule plots they filed the suit seeking to declare the sale deeds

executed in favour of the petitioners and others as null and void on

the ground that without having any right and title their vendors

sold the property of the plaintiffs and executed sale deeds in favour

of the petitioners/defendants. It is their further contention that as

the petitioners are interfering with their possession and enjoyment

over the schedule plots, they sought for a consequential relief of

permanent injunction. The cause of action para as set out in the

plaint discloses all these things. But, whether the respondents /

plaintiffs are in actual possession or not are all disputed questions

of fact, which have to be gone into during the course of trial only.

7 In respect of the other limb of the claim of the petitioners/

defendants is that the respondents/plaintiffs paid deficit court fee.

In so far as this contention is concerned, the respondents /

plaintiffs need not pay any court fee because they are seeking to

cancel certain documents i.e. registered sale deeds to which they

are not parties and since such relief is a consequential relief

sought for in a suit for declaration of title and possession. The

respondents / plaintiffs contend that the above sale deeds as

illegal and null and void on the ground that they were fraudulently

executed by their vendors even though they executed sale deeds

earlier in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs. The trial Court in

the impugned order observed that the respondents / plaintiffs paid

the Court fee in respect of the entire area as per the market value

declaration given by the Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy, which is

sufficient under Section 24 (b) of TSCF and SV Act. Therefore, the

contention of the petitioners that the respondents paid deficit court

fee is also not tenable since the respondents have also paid

Rs.5,426/- under Section 26 (c) of TSCF and SV Act for the relief of

permanent injunction notionally valuing the said relief at Rs.3.00

lakhs. The trial Court has given its reasons cogently and

elaborately stating that the petitioners / defendants failed to

establish their case on both the counts. The judgment, Khan

Mohamad Khan & Ors. V. Jam Mohammad Khan, relied on by

the learned counsel for the petitioners, has no application to the

facts of the case on hand because the respondents / plaintiffs have

not suppressed any factual aspect before the Court. The petitioners

have placed the same judgment before the trial Court, which has

interpreted the same in a right perspective.

8 For the above reasons, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any

irregularity or illegality and hence no interference under Article

227 of the Constitution of India is warranted since the petitioners

failed to establish their contentions on both the counts, which they

agitated before this Court.

9 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as

devoid of merit. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if

any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall also stand

dismissed.

_________________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.

Date:14.9.2021 Kvsn