Telangana High Court
Mandadi Ramchandraiah vs C.N. Muralidhar And 32 Others on 2 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2452 of 2022
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order, dated 19.09.2022 in I.A.No.455
of 2020 in O.S.No.953 of 2019 passed by the Court of learned
Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,
the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2. I.A.No.455 of 2020 is filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
seeking to reject the plaint filed by respondent No.1 stating
that the petitioner herein is defendant No.3 in main suit.
Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed O.S.No.953 of 2019 seeking
partition of the suit schedule properties consisting of Schedule
'A to O' annexed to the plaint, out of which, 'H' schedule
property consisting Ac.1-00 guntas out of Ac. 6.01 guntas in
Sy.No.21/AA of Gandiguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal,
belonged to the petitioner herein. It is falsely averred in the
plaint that the said property was purchased by the brother of
the petitioner under the registered agreement of sale-cum-
GPA, dated 30.11.2006, but such document was never
executed by the petitioner. Respondent No.1 cannot claim
any rights over the same under the guise of the alleged
SKS,J
heirship to one Sri C.N. Narender on the ground that he was
not found for a period of more than eight years and the police
closed the report given by respondent No.1 on the ground of
missing of Sri C. N. Narender as 'undetected'. The police
officials did not take any comprehensive steps to trace out Sri
C. N. Narender and a collusive report was obtained by
respondent No.1 from the police. Without showing his right to
be declared as a legal heir of Sri C. N. Narender, respondent
No.1 cannot lay any claim over the properties shown to be
those of Sri C. N. Narender. Respondent No.1 also failed to
show that their sister Smt. C.N. Swarnalatha converted into
Islam religion in the year, 1984 and she is not a necessary
party to the present partition suit. The suit is misconceived,
since respondent No.1 is not seeking the relief of specific
performance of the agreements of sale-cum-GPA shown in
favour of Sri C.N. Narender and respondent No.1 failed to pay
the Court Fee on the relief of declaration of legal heirship
claimed to Sri C.N.Narender. The Court lacks jurisdiction to
entertain the suit. There is no cause of action to file the suit.
Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected.
SKS,J
3. Respondent No.1 filed counter stating that the plaintiff,
defendant No.1, Sri C.N.Narender and Smt. C.N.Swarnalatha
and the children of late C.N.Mukunda Rao and late Smt.
C.N.Sowbhagya Rani,, Sri C.N. Narender purchased the suit A
to F, J, J(a) & K schedule properties under the registered sale
deeds with the investment made out of the joint family
nucleus and also purchased plaint G, H & I schedule
properties from defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively under
the agreements of sale-cum-GPA executed by them. Sri
C.N.Narender along with the defendants Nos.10 to 17 also
purchased 'L' Schedule property from defendant Nos.20 to 27,
'M' schedule property along with defendant Nos.15, 18 & 19
and 'O' schedule property along with defendant Nos.20 and
21. Sri C.N.Narender was not found for a period of more than
eight years and on a report lodged by the petitioner regarding
the missing of Sri C.N.Narender, the police at Shadnagar
Police Station, made investigation and filed a final report as
'undetected'. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the only
legal heirs of Sri C.N. Narender, since their sister
Smt.C.N.Swarnalatha converted into Muslim Religion in the
year, 1984 and they are entitled to be declared as the legal
heirs of Sri C.N.Narender and consequently, they are entitled
SKS,J
to seek the partition of the suit schedule 'A to O' properties.
The plaint 'A' Schedule property was purchased by Sri
C.N.Narender from this petitioner under an agreement of sale-
cum-GPA dated 30.11.2006 paying a valuable sale
consideration. There is proper cause of action to file the suit
and proper reliefs are sought for by respondent No.1. As
respondent No.1 failed to effect the partition of the suit
schedule properties and some of the defendants, who are the
joint purchasers of some of the schedule properties, also did
not come forward for partition of the respective properties, the
plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for partition and since
defendant No.1 was trying to alienate some of the suit
schedule properties and to alter the physical features therein,
the plaintiff sought the relief of perpetual injunction against
respondent No.1, restraining her from alienating the suit
schedule properties and also from altering the nature of the
properties. The suit properties are within the pecuniary
jurisdiction of this Court. There are no grounds to reject the
plaint as sought for by the petitioner and hence, the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
SKS,J
4. On hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the
petition. Aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition is
filed stating that the trial Court failed to take into
consideration of the fact that collusive report filed by the
concerned police stating that whereabouts of Sri C.N.
Narender was undetected and by any stretch of imagination it
cannot be relied upon to prove as to missing of Sri
C.N.Narender for more than seven years. The trial Court
ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the
partition suit is not maintainable unless all the persons, who
would have share in the properties, are made parties and the
suit is not maintainable, unless and until, the plaintiff and
defendant No.1 are declared to be legal heirs of Sri
C.N.Narender. The relief of declaration being prayer No. (vi) of
the plaint cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be
a consequential relief to that of partition. It is further
contended that Sri C.N.Narender was not the owner of the
properties, since sale deeds were executed in his favour prior
to his alleged disappearance; the partition suit is not
maintainable relating to H-Schedule property. As such,
prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.
SKS,J
5. Heard Sri Sunil B. Ganu, learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Sri K. Anantha Chary, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit
that the trial Court without taking into the consideration of
the facts of the petitioner, simply dismissed the petition which
is not according to law. Therefore, prayed the Court to set
aside the order of the trial Court.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
would submit that there is no illegality in the order of the trial
Court and further submitted that the issues raised by the
petitioner can be decided while deciding the suit. Therefore,
there are no grounds in the petition to reject the plaint and
prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
8. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both
the counsel and having gone through the material available on
record, the petition is filed seeking to reject the plaint on the
ground that there is no cause of action to file the suit and
there is no jurisdiction and without bringing the L.Rs of the
C.N.Narender, the Court cannot decide the suit and also for
non-joinder of necessary parties. At this stage, it is pertinent
SKS,J
to extract Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., and the same reads as
under:
"11. 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;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but
the plaint is returned 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;
1[(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;]
2[(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the
provisions of rule 9:]
3[Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the
correction of the valuation or supplying of the
requisite stamp-paper 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-paper, as the case
may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that
SKS,J
refusal to extend such time would cause grave
injustice to the plaintiff.]"
9. Having regard to the above extracted portion, it is noted
that in the present case the primary contention of revision
petitioners is that the plaint is liable to be rejected as there is
no cause of action in the matter. The contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no cause of
action to file the suit whereas, the suit is filed for the purpose
of partition of the properties and averments of the plaint
shows that there is a cause of action to file the suit and
defendant No.3 in the main suit, who is the petitioner herein
executed the agreement of sale-cum-GPA on 30.11.2006 in
favour of C.N.Narender for the sale of Ac.1.00 guntas out of
Ac.6.00 guntas and also further contention is that the report
from the police is a collusive report about C.N.Narender
missing, it will cause to the merits of the case, therefore, it
cannot be decided in this petition that the said report is a
collusive report or whether he executed the agreement of sale
which is not a ground for the rejection of plaint. His further
contention is that non-joinder of all the necessary parties, has
to be decided in the suit as one of the issues, he can raise the
SKS,J
same by filing the written statement and the Court Fee can
also be one of the issues in the suit.
10. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
Judgment of Karnataka High Court in Union of India and
Ors. Vs. K.L. Micheal 1, wherein it is observed that husband
cannot marry second time on the presumption that
whereabouts of first wife are not known for seven years and
presumed to be died without seeking declaration from the
competent civil Court, whereas, the said issue has to be
decided during the Course of trial, it is not a ground for
rejection.
11. Further, he also relied on the judgment of Madras High
Court in Suseela vs. The Revenue Divisional officer and
other 2 on the same ground. Though it is contended that as
the death of C.N. Narender itself is dispute no cause of action
arises for filing partition suit, the said fact requires trial and
unless there is any evidence to show that he is alive.
12. While deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11
C.P.C, the averments of the plaint alone are to be looked into
MANU/KA/6130/2019
Writ Petition No.14233 of 2020 decided on 28.10.2020
SKS,J
and from the reading of those averments only, the application
has to be decided. In the present case, the merits and
demerits of the case cannot be decided at this stage. As such,
there are no grounds to reject the plaint and there is no
illegality in the order of the trial Court. There are no merits in
the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
confirming the order dated 19.09.2022 in I.A.No.455 of 2020
in O.S.No.953 of 2019 passed by the Court of learned
Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,
shall stand closed.
______________
K.SUJANA, J
DATE: .04.2024
SAI
