Motte Punnam Raju vs Dontha Krishna
2022 Latest Caselaw 5255 Tel

           HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1349 of 2021

                             ORDER

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2021 passed in

I.A.No.2154 of 2020 in O.S.No.555 of 2019 on the file of the

learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, the petitioner herein, who is the tenth

defendant in the suit filed this revision.

2. The petitioner herein is the tenth defendant and the

first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The

petitioner herein filed an application vide I.A.No.2154 of 2020

in the suit under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151

CPC praying the Court to reject the plaint. The trial Court

after hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties,

dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the

present revision is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenth

defendant and the first respondent-plaintiff. Perused the

record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the whole purpose of conferment of powers under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC is to ensure that a litigation which is

meaningless and bound to prove abortive. Learned counsel

would further assert that the property of the claim petition

before the Land Grabbing Court and the property in

O.S.No.555 of 2019 are one and the same and the suit filed

by the plaintiff is hit by Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC and hence,

the plaint is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel would also

argue that the trial Court failed to see that the title does not

pass through under registered document as per Section 17 of

the Registration Act and as such the suit is hit by Section 52

of the Transfer of Property Act. As the first respondent

purchased the property during the pendency of the Land

Grabbing Court proceedings, the suit is hit by Section 3 of

the Transfer of Property Act. Learned counsel would also aver

that the trial Court failed to see that neither the suit nor the

claim petition of the first respondent is not maintainable as

per Order 21 Rule 102 CPC, and hence, the plaint is to be

rejected.

5. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as

under:

'where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instruments from the date of registration.'

6. The tenth defendant filed the present application for

rejection of the plaint on the following grounds:

i) The present suit is not maintainable as per settled principles of law that suit filed after initiating of proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 is not maintainable.

ii) The settled preposition of law that title does not pass through unregistered document as per Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908.

iii) It manifestly shows that the respondent No.1/plaintiff's vendor was purchased the property from S.P.Gupta during pendency of the land grabbing proceeding. As such suit is hit by Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act.

iv) The suit is also hit by Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act. That where any transaction relating

to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration.

     v)    The LGC No.63/1998 was disposed of and passed
           the   decree    and   judgment   dated    12.11.1999
           against   the    vendor's   Vendor   by   the   Land
           Grabbing Special Court became final.'

7. In a counter filed by the first respondent-plaintiff

contended that presentation of proceeding under Order 21

Rule 97 CPC does not amount to adjudication of dispute

which is the subject matter of the suit. The tenth defendant

has no locus standi to dispute his title and earlier possession

including title of his vendor, which was not the subject

matter of land grabbing case and it is not pertains to the

alleged sale deed basing on which Dr.M.Chandra Mohan

claimed to have purchased which is distinct and not covered

the property which he purchased under registered sale deed

and that the tenth defendant filed this petition on an

incorrect advice and the property purchased by M.Chandra

Mohan is only a meagre portion but demolition of his entire

house under the guise of execution is illegal. The plaintiff

would further submit that the extent of the property covered

under LGC No.63 of 1998 is entirely different and in the

plaint he clearly explained how the first defendant colluded

with official defendants, misrepresented the facts and played

fraud on the Courts for the purpose of illegal encroachment of

his property. The plaintiff also submits that the tenth

defendant is a land grabber and he colluded with the first

defendant and others and created bogus documents with a

mala fide intention, and therefore, requested the Court to

dismiss the application.

8. The trial Court after considering the arguments

advanced by both the counsel along with the case law cited

before it, observed that as all the defendants are not parties

to the execution petition filed in the land grabbing case or in

the applications filed by the plaintiff and that there are

disputed questions of fact to be decided whether the entire

property of the plaintiff was covered by the judgment and

decree in LGC No.63 of 1998 and in the suit can be decided

only after full-fledged trial after the evidence sought to be

adduced by both the parties. The trial Court further held that

the disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of

considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The

contention of the tenth defendant that suit is filed after

initiating proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is not

tenable and is only part of the property of the plaintiff was

alleged to be covered by decree and judgment in LGC. As the

suit is filed for comprehensive relief of declaration, recovery of

possession and damages, the application was dismissed as

devoid of merit.

9. No doubt, the object of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is to put

an end to the litigation at the threshold, but the claim of both

the parties herein is contrary. The tenth defendant stated

that the property of the claim petition before the Land

Grabbing Court and the property in the subject suit are one

and the same, but it was not agreed by the plaintiff herein

and that the disputed question of law between both the

parties is to be decided in the suit only after adducing

evidence by both the parties and as such the plaint cannot be

rejected at the threshold. The trial Court after considering the

entire pleadings and the arguments submitted by both the

counsel including the case law cited before it, rightly

dismissed the application and it needs no interference.

10. In the result, the civil revision petition is devoid of merit

and is accordingly dismissed confirming the order under

challenge.

11. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision

shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order.

___________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J.

21st OCTOBER, 2022.

PGS