Telangana High Court

Mr. Anil Kumar vs Mr. Meka Raghavendra on 26 April, 2024

            THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

       CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1127 OF 2022

ORDER :

This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners

aggrieved by the order, dated 11.02.2022 passed in

I.A.No.1206 of 2021 in O.S.No.26 of 2021 by the XVI

Additional District and Sessions Judge at Malkajgiri, Ranga

Reddy District.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants and

respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.26 of 2021.

3. I.A.No.1206 of 2021 is filed under Order VII Rule 11

read with Section 151 of C.P.C. by the petitioners/defendants

praying the Court to reject the plaint as there is no cause of

action for the suit claim and that the suit claim is barred by

law and fraudulent.

4. In I.A.No.1206 of 2021, the petitioners/defendants

made the following contentions:-

(i) on reading of the entire plaint there is no cause of

action for the respondents/plaintiffs to file the suit for the

reliefs mentioned in the plaint;

(ii) that the plea of the respondents/plaintiffs that they

have acquired title over the plots vide document No.13433 of

2020, dated 13.08.2020 is false;

(iii) that there are no alleged plots existing as mentioned

in the plaint with plot Nos.80A, 89 and 90 part with the

extents shown in the plaint;

(iv) that the respondents/plaintiffs have traced their

title through the Power of Attorney document bearing

No.1305 of 1993 is also totally false and that the alleged

Power of Attorney namely K.V.Ramakrishna Raju already

divided the land of Ac.1.08 gts. in Sy.No.102 of Nizampet into

plots and transferred the plots in favour of the vendors of the

petitioners in the year 1993 through registered sale deeds;

(v) petitioner No.1 had acquired plot Nos.A-96, A-101

part admeasuring 400 square yards vide registered sale deed

bearing document No.9807 of 2004 dated 21.06.2004 with

Rectification Deed bearing document No.14528 of 2004 dated

16.10.2004 from D.Bhagyalakshmi and Padmavathi through

their AGPA Holder D.Vishnu Vardhan and the said

D.Bhagyalakshmi purchased Plot No.A-101 admeasuring 300

square yards vide registered sale deed document No.7867 of

1993 dated 21.10.1993 with rectification deed document

No.11913 of 2004 from K.Lakshmamma and others through

GPA Holder K.V.Ramakrishna Raju bearing GPA document

No.1305 of 1993 dated 06.08.1993 and that Padmavathi

purchased plot No.A-96 admeasuring 300 square yards vide

registered sale deed document No.7865 of 1993 dated

21.10.1993 with rectification deed document No.11915 of

2004;

(vi) petitioner No.2/defendant No.2 had purchased plot

admeasuring 400 square yards through sale deed document

No.9806 of 2004 dated 21.06.2004 with rectification deed

document No.14526 of 2004 dated 16.10.2004 from

V.S.Sujatha and plot No.A-102 admeasuring 300 square

yards through registered sale deed document No.7864 of

1993 dated 21.10.1993 with rectification deed No.11914 of

2004 dated 02.08.2004 and K.Saraswathi acquired plot No.A-

103 admeasuring 300 square yards through registered sale

deed document No.7866 of 1993 dated 21.10.1993 with

rectification deed No.11912 of 2004 dated 02.08.2004 and

D.Vishnu Vardan purchased plot No.A-95 admeasuring 300

square yards through sale deed bearing document No.7868 of

1993 dated 21.10.1993 with rectification deed bearing

document No.11911 of 2004 dated 02.08.2004 through their

AGPA Holder D.Narayana Raju, bearing document No.9674 of

2004 dated 17.06.2004 registered at S.R.O. Medchal with

rectification deed No.12087 of 2004 dated 07.08.2004 out of

total admeasuring 900 square yards the vendors of defendant

No.2 had purchased the same from K.Laxmamma and 10

others through their GPA Holder K.V.Ramakrishnam Raju

bearing document No.1305 of 1993 dated 06.08.1993

registered at Joint Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad.

(vii) petitioner No.3/defendant No.3 herein in the above

suit viz., K.Nypunya acquired 500 square yards through sale

deed document dated 16.10.2004 from V.S.Sujatha,

K.Saraswathi and D.Vishnuvardh, through AGPA Holder

D.Narayana Raju bearing document No.9674 of 2004, dated

17.06.2004 with rectification deed No.12087 of 2004 dated

07.08.2004, registered at S.R.O. Medchal for a valuable sale

consideration in favour of the petitioners/defendants and

also other bonafide purchasers, out of Ac.1.08 gts. executed

by Ramakrishan Raju the registered general power of

attorney holder of K.Laxmamma and 10 others.

(viii) The respondents/plaintiffs by creation,

manipulation and fabrication of the alleged sale deed bearing

document No.872 of 1999 dated 22.06.1999 and subsequent

sale deeds being executed by the respondents/plaintiffs and

their vendors Smt. K.Lakshmamma and 10 others in favour

of K.V.Ramakrishna Raju; K.V.Ramakrishna Raju and

K.Vishwanatha Raju; K.Vishwanatha Raju and Janardhan

Jawahar; Janardhan Jawahar and K.Surya Kumar Raju;

K.Vishwanantha Raju and B.Anantha Padmanabhaiah and

K.Surya Kumar Raju, K.Surya Kumar Raju and Gauthami

Solvent Oils Private Limited; Gauthami Solvent Oils Private

Limited and plaintiff vendors; plaintiff vendors and

G.Suryanarayana Reddy are all illegal, unlawful and

fraudulent documents that were created, manipulated and

fabricated by K.V.Rama Krishna Raju and K.Vishwanatha

Raju and all the fraudulent purchasers which are mentioned

in the list of documents filed by the respondents/plaintiffs

herein in the above suit at serial Nos.2 to 10 from

K.Vishwanatha Raju have no factual base or legal base to

make any claim and that the ownership, lawful and physical

possession of the petitioners shall continue from the date of

purchase of the respective plots through registered sale deeds

in favour of the petitioners/respondents and that the sale

deeds in favour of the petitioners/respondents cannot be

disputed by the respondents/plaintiffs either on facts or in

law. The vendors of the petitioners/respondents earlier filed

a suit vide O.S.No.759 of 2007 for perpetual injunction and

have withdrawn the said suit and the petitioners/

respondents have stepped into the shoes of their earlier

vendors and have no right to file the present suit. Hence,

prayed the Court to reject the plaint as there is no cause of

action for the suit claim and the suit claim is barred by law

and fraudulent.

5. The respondents/plaintiffs filed counter-affidavit

denying the averments made in the petition and their

contention is that they purchased the suit schedule

properties under registered sale deeds for a valuable

consideration and the petitioners, who are strangers and who

obviously have no right, title or claim over the schedule

properties, are trying to interfere with the respondents'

peaceful possession claiming it as their own. It is further

stated that the massive fraud played by the petitioners in the

earlier round of litigation led to dismissal of the petition filed

by the respondents and the dismissal of the said suit does

not bar the respondents from instituting the present suit as

the fraud perpetuated by the petitioners vitiates everything.

The affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking rejection

of the plaint is bereft of reasons and does not make out any

case for rejection, as such, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the counter filed by the

respondents stating that the respondents have no right in the

present suit as it is not permissible through observation

made by the said Court to file a fresh suit, if so, advised and

on the said ground suit, filed by the respondents is barred by

law and hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC and the so-called

allegation of change of boundaries and also the allegation of

forgery against the petitioners/respondents is totally false

and baseless and the petitioners/respondents cannot seek

the discretionary equitable reliefs under Sections 34 and 35

of the Specific Relief Act and hence, prayed to reject the

plaint.

7. After hearing both sides and considering the averments

made in the petition and in the counter-affidavit, the trial

Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the

present C.R.P. is filed by the petitioners/defendants.

8. Heard Sri C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the

revision petitioners and Sri L.Venkateshwar Rao, learned

counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material available

on record.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that the trial Court failed to look into the entire plaint

as a whole and the averments in the plaint in conjunction

with the documents relied upon in the plaint as a whole does

not disclose a cause of action, and the pleadings relied on are

with misrepresentation of facts. Learned counsel relied upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiva Kumar

Sharma vs. Santhosh Kumari1 and drawn attention of this

Court to paragraph No.23, wherein it is held as follows:

23. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in framing the additional issues of its own which did not arise for consideration in the suit or in the

AIR 2008 SCC 171

appeal. Even otherwise, the High Court should have formulated the points for its consideration in terms of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code. On the pleadings of the parties and in view of the submissions made, no such question arose for its consideration. In any event, if a second suit was maintainable in terms of Order II, Rule 4 of the Code, as was submitted by Ms. Luthra, no leave was required to be granted therefor. A civil court does not grant leave to file another suit. If the law permits, the plaintiff may file another suit but not on the basis of observations made by a superior court.

10. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai and others vs.

State of Maharashtra and others 2, wherein it is held that

to decide an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the

averments of the plaint has to be considered but not the

pleas taken in the written statement.

11. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgments of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Bajoria and others

vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and others 3, Janardhanam

Prasad vs. Ramdas 4, Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain

and others vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo 5, Raghwendra

Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh 6 and S.S.Rathore

(2003) 1 SCC 557

2021 SCC OnLine SC 764

(2007) 15 SCC 174

(2009) 5 SCC 713

2020 (16) SCC 601

vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 7 and submitted that the trial

Court without considering the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has simply dismissed the petition. Therefore,

he prayed this Court to set aside the order, dated 11.02.2022

by rejecting the plaint.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would submit that the trial Court has rightly

dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners and further

submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of

the trial Court and prayed this Court to dismiss the C.R.P.

13. Having gone through the submissions of the learned

counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the

respondents and the material placed on record, while

deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the

Court has to consider the averments of the plaint and at the

most, the documents filed along with the plaint. The

petitioners/ defendants filed an application under Order VII

Rule 11 of CPC with various allegations and the allegations

made by the revision petitioners itself shows that there is a

1989 (4) SCC 582

cause of action and that some of the documents are in favour

of the respondents/ plaintiffs and some of the documents are

in favour of the petitioners/defendants and that there is a

title dispute over the subject property.

14. As seen from the record, it shows that the properties

are purchased by the respondents/plaintiffs and the

petitioners/defendants through a GPA holder. There are

serious disputes between the parties with regard to the said

properties.

15. That apart, the vendors of the respondents/plaintiffs

filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction and withdrawn the

suit. Subsequently, they filed a suit for declaration. It is a

comprehensive suit. Therefore, the facts of the case in Shiva

Kumar Sharma's (one supra) are not applicable to this case.

The judgments relied upon by the petitioners are different to

that of the present case. Further the revision petitioners also

relied on the observations made in Sulochana Amma vs.

Narayan Nair 8, wherein at paragraph No.9, it is observed

that on the issue between the same parties or persons under

(1994) 2 SCC 14

whom they claim title or litigating under the same title, it

operates as res judicata, whereas res judicata is not a ground

under Order VII Rule 7 of CPC. To consider the plea of

res judicata, Court has to see the contents of written

statement and also the documents while considering petition

under Order VII Rule 11, Court has to consider plaint

averments only. Therefore, observation in Sulochana

Amma's judgment (eight supra) is not applicable to this

Case.

16. The averments of the plaint disclose the cause of action

and disputed facts between the parties. Further, the plea of

the respondents is that the property being claimed by the

petitioners is totally different from the suit schedule property

herein and that too fit into the suit schedule property the

petitioners have got executed the rectification deeds in the

year, 2004 even in respect of the registered sale deed

executed in the year, 1993 and that no proper explanation is

offered by the respondents as to why the said rectification

deeds have been executed only with regard to dimensions of

the plots covered by the respective sale deeds. The

rectification deeds and alleged change of dimensions are

issues of fact which needs adjudication. Therefore, this is not

a case where there is no cause of action for the respondents

to file the above suit, and the respondents/plaintiffs have

shown a prima facie case that they have got a cause of action

to file the above suit.

17. Further, learned counsel for petitioners also relied upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahiben vs.

Arvindbhai Kalyani Bhanusali 9, wherein, it is held as

follows:

23.2. The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.

23.3. The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11(2) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not vested.

2020 (7) SCC 366

18. While deciding the petition under Order VII Rule 11

CPC and issue of cause of action, the Court has to read the

plaint in entirety. The averments of plaint show that there is

cause of action to file the suit, as such there is no illegality in

the order of the Court to interfere.

19. In view of the above, there is no illegality or infirmity in

the order of the trial Court and there are no merits in the civil

revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.

20. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand