Telangana High Court
G. Sathyanarayana Reddy vs Mohd. Thajuddin Ghouri on 17 November, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Civil Revision Petition No.2044 OF 2022
Between:
G. Sathyanarayana Reddy & Anr ... Petitioners
And
Mohd. Thajuddin Ghouri & Ors ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 17.11.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ C.R.P. No. 2044 of 2022
% Dated 17.11.2022
#G. Sathyanarayana Reddy & Another ... Petitioners
And
$Mohd. Thajuddin Ghouri & Ors ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A. Venkatesh
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri B.V.Rama Rao
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2020) 16 SCC 601
2
CRP No. 351 of 2005
3
(2020) 16 SCC 366
4
(1977) 4 SCC 467
5
(2022) 7 SCC 731
6
(2021) 9 SCC 99
7
(2018) 6 SCC 422
8
Manu/TL/0827/2021
9
CRP No. 926 of 2021
10
2016-4-L.W. 789
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2044 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated
16.08.2022 in I.A.No.37 of 2022 in O.S.No.274 of 2021 passed
by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Suryapet, wherein the petition filed by the
petitioners/Defendant Nos.2 and 3 under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC, to reject the plaint was dismissed.
2. The said prayer was made mainly on the grounds of;
i) The plaint not reflecting any cause of action; ii) the suit is
hopelessly barred by limitation.
3. Briefly, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is suit for
declaration of title along with consequential reliefs. The
plaintiffs sought to declare them as owners and possessors of
the suit schedule property and further to declare the
registered sale deed No.1338 of 2007, dated 27.02.2007 as
null and void and not binding on the plaintiff No.1 and un-
registered sale deed dated 05.06.1998 as null and void and
not binding on the plaintiffs 2 to 9. Further, to declare the
issuance of pattadar pass books and revenue title deed in
favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are the petitioners
herein as null and void.
4. Learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the prayer to
reject the plaint, mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs came
to know about the fraudulent execution of simple sale deed
and registered sale deed in the month of January, 2021 and
they filed the present suit on 29.07.2021, which is filed within
the limitation period. Secondly, the plaint cannot be rejected
as cause of action is bundle of essential facts which will be
proved by the plaintiffs to succeed in their case by way of
adducing oral and documentary evidence. After trial, whether
a cause of action is disclosed or whether the suit is barred by
limitation can be decided, as questions of fact cannot be
decided at the threshold.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants
2 and 3 submits that as seen from para 11, the trial Court did
not state as to what is the cause of action, which was found in
the plaint. If the parties start claiming knowledge of any
transaction pursuant to filing of Right To Information
application, there will be no end to such frivolous suits being
filed.
6. He further submits that under Article 58 of the
Limitation Act, the emphasis is on "the right to sue first
accrues." Under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, any
transaction relating to immovable property when executed by
way of registration, any person having such interest in the
property shall be deemed to have noticed, as such, the
limitation expires three years from the date of registration of
documents in favour of the petitioners/defendants.
7. The un-registered sale deed dated 05.06.1998 was
validated on 24.12.2010, which is evident from the certificate
issued by the Tahsildar, Chivemula Mandal, Suryapet District.
Under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass
Books Act, the remedy against validation is under Section 5-A
of the said Act and any grievance of such validation falls under
Section 5-B of the said Act to appeal.
8. The said Act was repealed in the year 2020 and according
to the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,
2020, the remedy is under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, since there is no provision for appeal in the Amended
Act of 2020. For the said reasons, there is no jurisdiction for
the Civil Court to entertain the suit. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram
Prasanna Singh1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that it would be bounden duty of the trial Court to ascertain
the material for cause of action. On scrutiny of the plaint,
which reflects: i) abuse of the process of the court; ii)
malicious, vexatious, merit-less in the sense not disclosing
clear right to sue; iii) each should include the acts done by the
defendants, on the basis of which, decree is sought by the
plaintiff. However, whether the suit is barred by any law or
limitation is always dependent on the facts and circumstances
of each case. The Court further held that the plaintiff to
(2020) 16 SCC 601
circumvent the proceedings by means of clever drafting so as
to avoid any suit that is barred by law should be observed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the
judgments; i) K.L.V.Prasada Rao v. K.Venkateswara Goud2;
ii) Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (D) through
L.Rs and others3; iii) T.Arivandandam v. T.V.Satyapal4 and
argued that the question of limitation can be decided under
Order 7 Rule 11 for rejecting the plaint.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/plaintiffs in the main suit submits that the cause
of action is not defined in CPC. However, it means existence of
facts which entitles a person to approach the Court and seek
remedy against another. The cause of action is bundle of facts
which are required to be proved only during the course of trial.
The facts to be stated in the suit should be with reference to
the plaintiffs' right to the property and infringements of their
CRP No.351 of 2005 dated 08.022008
(2020) 16 SCC 366
(1977) 4 SCC 467
rights forcing the plaintiffs to approach the Court against the
defendants, who are wrong doers.
11. Whether a cause of action is made out or not should be
decided on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and
at the stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11
of CPC, the Court cannot consider the plea of the defendants.
One the plaint averments discloses a cause of action, the
plaint cannot be rejected.
12. The question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and
law and cannot be decided at the threshold and plaintiffs have
to be given an opportunity to prove their case by adducing
evidence. He further submits that the Court has to look into
the plaint to infer cause of action and once the plaint reflects
the cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected. In support of
his contention, he relied on the judgments reported in the
cases of: i) Sri Biswanath Banik & another v. Sulanga Bose
[(2022) 7 SCC 731]; ii) Srihari Hanumandas Totala v.
Hemanth Vithal Kamat [(2021) 9 SCC 99]; iii) Chhotanben v.
Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar [(2018) 6 SCC 422; iv)
Vinod Lahoti v. Viswanath Lahoti [Manu/TL/0827/2021]; v)
T.Mahboob Basha v. Dowlath Bee & another [CRP
No.926/2021] and vi) K.Chandralekha v. S.Ravikumar
[2016-4-L.W.789].
13. Having perused the record, it is the case of the plaintiff in
the suit that the land was in their joint possession, from the
beginning and they settled in Hyderabad. The suit land was
given for village people for grazing cattle. During January,
2021, they visited the suit schedule property and they came to
know about the mutation in favour of defendants, who are
petitioners herein. It is also stated in the plaint that they were
not parties to the alleged fraud sale deed No.1338 of 2007. It
is also the case that the vendors Fathima Begum and Ismail
Begum died in the year 1989 and 1982 respectively, as such,
the sale deed in favour of the respondents are fabricated.
14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that
the registration of the property would be deemed notice to all
the persons interested. However, in the present case, it is
stated in the plaint that the vendors died long prior to the said
registration, which aspect can only be adjudicated during trial.
15. There are allegations made in the plaint regarding
fabrication of documents and also the owners not executing
the documents by virtue of which the defendants/petitioners
herein have acquired the property.
16. What could be culled out from the judgments cited supra
by the parties is that the court is empowered under Order 7
Rule 11 to dismiss the suit at the threshold, without
proceeding, to record evidence or conducting trial only if it is
satisfied that adducing evidence would be waste of courts'
time. When the petitioners are seeking to close the
proceedings at the threshold, unless the entire averments
made in the plaint including the documents filed therewith do
not disclose a cause of action, the claim of the
petitioners/defendants in the suit, cannot be looked into at
the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.
17. As already observed, there are several issues that have
been raised in the plaint regarding the execution of the sale
deed and impersonating the vendors. On a plain reading of
the plaint it cannot be said that there is no cause of action.
18. The question of limitation is a mixed question of facts
and law and the plaintiffs in the suit claim knowledge about
the registration of the suit property in the year 2021 and such
registration was by impersonating the vendors, it cannot be
said that the suit is barred by limitation.
19. In view of above facts and circumstances, there are no
grounds to interfere with the finding of the order dated
16.08.2022 in I.A.No.37 of 2022 in O.S.No.274 of 2021 passed
by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Suryapet.
20. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 17.11.2022
Note: Issue L.R copy
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2044 OF 2022
Date: 17.11.2022.
kvs
