Telangana High Court
Chandan Khandewal vs G. Ramakrishna Reddy on 24 January, 2024
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3270 of 2023
% Date: 24.01.2024
Between:
Chandan Khandewal
and others. ... Petitioners
AND
G. Ramakrishna Reddy
and others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri A. Narasimha Rao
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Kiran Palakurthi
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1) (2008) 4 SCC 594
2) (2021) 9 SCC 99
3) (2017) 13 SCC 174
4) (2012) 8 SCC 706
5) (2007) 10 SCC 59
6) 2023 SCC Online SC 1270
7) (2022) 7 SCC 731
8) (2003) 1 SCC 557
9) (2007) 15 SCC 52
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3270 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners herein/defendant
Nos.1 to 3, challenging the order, dated 19.10.2023, passed in
I.A.No.344 of 2023 in O.S.No.1 of 2023, by the learned Principal
District Judge, at Narayanpet, whereby, the application filed by the
petitioners herein/defendant Nos.1 to 3 under Order VII Rule
11(a)&(d) r/w Section 151 of CPC, seeking to reject the plaint, was
dismissed by the Court below.
2. The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein are the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in
the suit and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the plaintiff Nos.1
to 4 in the suit. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties
are referred as they were arrayed in the suit.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs filed the suit
vide O.S.No.1 of 2023 on the file of Principal District Judge, at
Narayanpet, seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants. The
plaintiff No.2 claims to have purchased land admeasuring Ac.0.10 gts
equivalent to 0.10 Hectares in Sy.No.280 situated at Makthal Town,
under a registered sale deed dated 15.05.1984 bearing document 3
No.648/1984. Plaintiff No.3 claims to have purchased land
admeasuring Ac.0.10 Gts equivalent to 0.10 Hectares in Sy.No.280
situated at Makthal Town, under a registered Sale deed dated
14.05.1984 bearing document No.632/1984. Smt.G.Anasuya, wife of
plaintiff No.1 claims to have purchased Plot No.3 admeasuring 300
Sq.yds in Sy.No.280 situated at Makthal town, under a registered sale
deed dated 27.06.1984 bearing document No.1019/1984.
Smt.G.Anasuya also claims to have purchased Plot No.2 admeasuring
150 Sq.yds land in Sy.No.280 situated at Makthal Town, under a
registered sale deed dated 27.06.1984 vide document No.1020/1984.
It is stated that Smt.G.Anasuya expired on 24.12.2019 leaving behind
the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 as her legal heirs and the plaintiffs succeeded
the properties acquired by late Smt G.Anasuya and are in possession
and enjoyment of the said property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that
while the things stood thus, one Smt.Parvathamma and her sons
namely Laxmikantha Reddy, Madhusudan Reddy, Virat Reddy and
Bhaskar Reddy claiming to be legal heirs of Nagi Reddy, started
interfering with the possession of plaintiffs alleging that the plaintiffs
had claimed land admeasuring Ac.0.26 Gts in Sy.No.4 as that of land
admeasuring Ac.0.24 Gts in Sy.No.280. It is further case of plaintiffs
that pursuant to the said rival claims, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed
a case before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet requesting to
initiate proceedings under Sec.145 of Code of Criminal Procedure 4
(Cr.P.C) against the plaintiffs as well as legal heirs of Nagi Reddy
namely Smt.Parvathamma Madhusudhan Reddy and Bhaskar Reddy
and in view of apprehension of breach of peace and disturbance to the
public tranquillity in the village, the property was taken into the
custody with the standing crops as required under Sec 146(1) of
Cr.P.C and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Makthal, was appointed as
"Receiver". Thereafter, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet, having
been satisfied that the proceedings issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C
are no longer required, passed an order dated 20.10.1990 revoking
the earlier proceedings No.C/487/87 dated 21.03.1987. In view of the
same, the M.R.O, Makthal vide Memo No.A/2783/90 dated
24.01.1991 delivered possession of land admeasuring Ac.0-24gts in
Sy.No.280 to the plaintiff No.1. It is further case of the plaintiffs that
inspite of the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet, the
legal heirs of Nagi Reddy namely Parvathamma, Laxmikantha Reddy
Virat Reddy and Bhaskar Reddy again started interfering with the
possession of plaintiffs, which compelled the plaintiffs to file a suit
vide O.S.No.29 of 1991 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at
Narayanpet. After contest, the said suit was decreed vide judgment
and decree dated 31.01.2005 upholding the right, title and possession
of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, Smt Parvathamma and her
sons preferred appeal vide A.S.No.3 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge, Narayanpet and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 5
03.06.2006. Challenging the same, the defendants therein filed
Second Appeal No.1160 of 2006 on the file of this Court and the same
is pending for adjudication. It is further case of the plaintiffs that
while the things stood thus, they have received copy of caveat
applications filed by the defendants herein, wherein it was stated that
they purchased lands admeasuring Ac.0.15 Gts in Sy.No.280/A/A
and Ac.0.20 Gts in Sy.No.280/A/A situated at Makthal Village and
Mandal and that they were in possession and enjoyment of the said
lands and also stated that they have obtained permission under the
provisions of NALA Act. Thereafter, the plaintiffs got verified with
Tahsildar-cum-Joint Sub-Registrar and came to know that defendant
No.1 purchased an extent of Ac.0-20 Gts in Sy.No.280/A/A vide
document No.1987/2022 dated 27.10.2022 and defendant No.2
purchased an extent of Ac.0.15 Gts in Sy.No.280/A/A vide document
No.1984/2022 dated 27.10.2022, the defendant No.2 also purchased
an extent of Ac.0-06gts in Sy.No.280/A/A vide document
No.1990/2022 dated 09.11.2022. The case of the plaintiffs is that
said sale deeds are fabricated, sham and bogus documents and they
were created only for the purpose of making false claim over the suit
schedule property and the said sale deeds do not create any right or
interest and the defendants were never in possession of the said lands
basing on those sale deeds and therefore, the plaintiffs instituted the
present suit for injunction.
6
4. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed their written statement denying
the right and title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and
stated that they have purchased the property from lawful owners and
also obtained permission for converting the agricultural lands into
non-agricultural purpose. It is further stated that the suit filed by the
plaintiffs for bare injunction is not maintainable and ultimately
prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants filed the
subject I.A.No.344 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) r/w
Section 151 of CPC seeking to reject the plaint. In the affidavit filed in
support of the application, it is stated by the defendants that they are
lawful owners and possessors of their respective lands, having
purchased the same under registered sale deeds. It is further stated
that even after filing caveat petition and coming know that they have
purchased the property under registered sale deeds, the plaintiffs
instead of filing the suit for declaration, have filed the subject suit for
perpetual injunction without claiming title over the property.
Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for bare injunction is not
maintainable and the same is hit by Section 41(h) of Specific Relief
Act and prayed to reject the plaint exercising the power under Order
VII Rule 11(a) & (d) r/w Section 151 of CPC.
7
6. The plaintiffs filed counter affidavit to the I.A.No.344 of 2023
stating that affidavit filed in support of the subject application does
not contain any valid ground and the same does not fall within the
grounds as enumerated in Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of CPC. It is
further stated that the plaintiffs are enjoying the suit schedule lands
without any interference or interruption and the defendants with a
mala fide intention have filed caveat petition. It is specifically denied
that the defendants failed to show that, how the plaint is liable to be
rejected without referring to the plaint averments. It is stated that for
rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the only material
to be considered is the plaint, but not any defence or otherwise of the
defendants. It is further stated that Section 41(h) of Specific Relief
Act, 1963 is not applicable to the facts of the case and as the
defendants failed to substantiate their contentions bringing the case
within the fold of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the subject application is
liable to be dismissed.
7. The Court below after hearing both sides, framed the point for
consideration as "Whether the suit for injunction simplicitor without
seeking the relief of declaration of title and also by virtue of Section
41(h) of Specific Relief Act, is maintainable? If so, the plaint can be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) (d) of CPC?" and after considering
the material on record, had passed the impugned order dated 8
19.10.2023 dismissing the subject I.A.No.344 of 2023 holding that
the plaintiffs have shown cause of action for filing the suit and that
the suit is filed within the period of limitation. It was further observed
that Civil Courts in the earlier litigation have already declared the
plaintiffs as owners and possessors of suit schedule land. Aggrieved
by the same, the revision petitioners/defendants filed the present
Civil Revision Petition.
8. Considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the
respective parties and perused the record.
9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants has
vehemently contended that suit for mere injunction without seeking
declaration of title is not maintainable. It is further submitted that in
the caveat petition, the defendants have specifically asserted their title
acquired by way of registered of sale deed and therefore, the plaintiffs
ought to have instituted the suit for declaration of title and in the
absence of the same, the plaint filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It is also stated by the
learned counsel that where possession has to be established on the
basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of
title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without
a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of
possession, in that event the suit for mere injunction is not 9
maintainable. It is also stated that if the allegations in the plaint are
vexatious and meritless and not disclosing a clear right to sue, then it
is the duty of the trial Court to exercise its power under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC for rejecting the plaint at the threshold rather than
subjecting the parties for trial. It is further argued by the learned
counsel that prayer for declaration is necessary where there is a
denial of title by defendants or challenge to the plaintiff's title which
rises a cloud on the title of Plaintiff to the property. When the
defendants have specifically denied the title of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs
ought to have instituted a suit for declaration of title rather than
instituting the suit for bare injunction, which is hit by Section 41(h) of
Specific Relief Act. It is further contention of the learned counsel that
an injunction cannot be granted when equally efficacious relief can
certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in
case of breach of trust injunction can be refused. The learned counsel
also argued that observation of the Court below that a Plaint can be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC only if it is barred by
limitation is incorrect, as the said provision enables the Court to
reject plaint, which is barred by any law. Further the observation of
the Court below that the suit was filed within the period of limitation
and therefore, the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC does not
apply, is erroneous. It is submitted that the impugned order dated
19.10.2023 passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside and 10
prayed this Court to allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for. In
support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the
decision reported in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead)
by LRs and others 1.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents herein/
plaintiffs has strenuously contended that none of the grounds
projected by the revision petitioners/defendants fall within the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint at the
threshold. It is further contended that while deciding the application
filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to look into the
averments of the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint
but not the defence taken by the defendants in the written statement.
It is further contended by the learned counsel that a plain reading of
the plaint filed by the plaintiffs conspicuously discloses cause of
action. It is submitted that the contention of the defendants that
plaintiffs did not seek relief of declaration of title is not a ground to
reject the plaint. It is the prerogative of the plaintiffs to plead the suit
and the relief under concept of dominus litus. If at all there is any flaw
in framing of suit and prayer, it is the plaintiffs who suffer and it will
not cause any prejudice to the defendants. The decision relied upon
by the defendants is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of
1 (2008) 4 SCC 594 11
the case on hand. It is further submitted that Section 41(h) of Specific
Relief Act is not applicable to the subject suit. When application has
been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, duty is cast upon the party
who files such application to plead and establish his case within the
parameters of the grounds mentioned in Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It
is further stated by the learned counsel that the issue of limitation is
a mixed question of fact and law and it cannot be decided in an
application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the subject suit is
filed within the period limitation as prescribed under Article 113 of
Limitation Act. As such, the Court below rightly dismissed the subject
I.A.No.344 of 2023 filed by the defendants and there is no illegality in
the impugned order passed by the Court below and ultimately prayed
to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. In support of his submissions,
the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:
i) Srihari Hanumadas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and others 2
ii) Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal 3
iii) Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust 4
iv) Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and others 5
v) G. Nagaraj and another vs. B.P. Mruthunjayanna and others 6
2 (2021) 9 SCC 99 3 (2017) 13 SCC 174 4 (2012) 8 SCC 706 5 (2007) 10 SCC 59 6 2023 SCC Online SC 1270 12
vi) Sri Biswanath Banik and another vs. Sulanga Bose and others 7
11. In view of the above submissions, the point for determination in
this Civil Revision Petition is:
"Whether the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.344 of 2023 in O.S.No.1 of 2023 by the learned Principal District Judge, Narayanpet, is legally sustainable?"
12. POINT: The case of the revision petitioners/defendants is that
they are the owners and possessors of suit schedule land, having
purchased the same from B.Ramanna, who is the husband of
defendant No.4 in O.S.No.1 of 2023. It is further case of the
defendants that since they have purchased the property under
registered sale deeds and said fact is known to the plaintiffs, instead
of taking appropriate recourse by instituting a suit for declaration of
title, the plaintiffs have filed the subject suit for injunction and when
there is a cloud with regard to title claimed by the plaintiffs, the suit
for mere injunction is not maintainable. Further, there is no cause of
action to file the present suit and therefore, the plaint has to be
rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 (a)&(d) of CPC.
13. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents herein/
plaintiffs that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 purchased the lands admeasuring
7 (2022) 7 SCC 731 13
Ac.0.10 gts and Ac.0.10 gts in Sy.No.280 situated at Makthal Town,
under a registered sale deeds dated 15.05.1984, 14.05.1984,
Smt.G.Anasuya, wife of plaintiff No.1 claims to have purchased Plot
Nos.2 and 3 admeasuring 300 Sq.yds and 150 sq.yards respectively in
Sy.No.280 situated at Makthal town, under registered sale deeds
dated 27.06.1984. When the legal heirs of Late Nagi Reddy namely
Parvathamma, Laxmikantha Reddy, Virat Reddy and Bhaskar Reddy,
interfered with the possession of plaintiffs, plaintiffs filed a suit vide
O.S.No.29/1991 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet and the
same was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Challenging the same,
the defendants therein filed A.S.No.3 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge, Narayanpet, and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated
03.06.2006. Aggrieved by the same, second Appeal vide
S.A.No.1160/2006 was filed on the file of this Court and the same is
pending for adjudication. Further, it is the case of the plaintiffs that
the respondents fraudulently created sale deeds and illegally tried to
grab their lands and therefore, they filed the subject suit for
injunction and the same is maintainable.
14. It is settled principle of law that the Court is competent to reject
a plaint at any stage of proceeding if it finds that conditions under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC exist. The Court cannot take into account
the materials beyond the plaint to declare the case of the plaintiffs as 14
frivolous and vexatious. While considering the application filed under
VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court is not required to take into
consideration the defence set up by the defendant in the written
statement. The question whether the plaint discloses any cause of
action is to be decided by looking at the averments contained in the
plaint itself but not the defence set up in the written statement. While
examining the said issues, the strength or weakness of the case of the
plaintiffs should not be seen. In order to reject the plaint under Order
VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court has to scrutinise the averments/pleas
in the plaint, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written
statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only
on the plaint averments. If the allegations are vexatious and meritless
and not disclosing a clear right to material(s) to sue, it is the duty of
the trial Court to exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
Merely because the cause of action in the plaint is vague and
incomplete it is not a ground for rejection of the plaint. It is settled
principle of law that there is a difference between non-disclosure of
cause of action in the plaint and the absence of cause of action for the
suit. The ground for rejection of plaint is failure to disclose a cause of
action and not that there is no cause of action for the suit. It is not
competent for the Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the
allegations constituting the cause of action and the same is beyond
the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. What is required to be 15
disclosed by the plaintiff is a clear right to sue and failure to do so
must necessarily entail in rejection of the plaint.
15. In Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra 8, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as follows:
9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit -- before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court..
16. In Jageshwari Devi v. Shatrughan Ram 9, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as follows:
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the order of the trial court and of the High Court. We have also perused the plaint filed by the respondent herein. The main ground on which rejection of the plaint was sought was that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action which is a ground specified under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC. The trial court on consideration of the averments in the plaint held, and in our view rightly, that it could not be held that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. It is relevant to state that there is a difference between the non-
disclosure of a cause of action and defective cause of action: while the former comes within the scope of Order 7 Rule 11, the latter is to be decided during trial of the suit. The contention raised on behalf of the
8 (2003) 1 SCC 557 9 (2007) 15 SCC 52 16
appellant that the cause of action disclosed is vague and incomplete, is not a ground for rejection of the plaint, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC no exception can be taken to the order.
17. In the instant case, it is the case of the defendants that they
have sent a copy of caveat petition to the plaintiffs stating that they
have purchased lands admeasuring Ac.0-15gts in Sy.No.280/A/A and
Ac.0-20gts in Sy.No.280/A/A, situated at Makthal Village and
Mandal, under sale deeds dated 27.10.2022 and therefore, the
plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title and
injunction instead of suit for mere injunction. Admittedly, there is no
dispute with regard to the earlier litigation of the plaintiffs with the
legal heirs of Nagi Reddy and plaintiffs succeeded in the legal
proceedings and both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court
passed orders in favour of the plaintiffs that they were in possession
and enjoyment of their lands. The only claim of the defendants is that
the land of plaintiffs admeasuring Ac.0.20gts was acquired by the
Government and compensation was paid to them and the remaining
extent of Ac.0-04gts was occupied by others and constructed shops
therein and as such no single inch of land was available to the
plaintiffs to seek equitable relief of injunction. The Court below
observed that defendants did not file any acceptable material before it
for perusal of the same. Admittedly, the Court below granted
temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs vide order dated 17
23.01.2023 passed in I.A.No.17 of 2023 restraining the defendants
from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs
over the suit schedule land. It is specifically stated by the plaintiffs in
their plaint that the cause of action initially arose on 27.10.2022 and
09.11.2022, when the defendants fabricated and created fraudulent
sale transactions to defeat the interest of the plaintiffs and also on
09.01.2023 when the defendants illegally tried to grab their land.
Therefore, prima facie the plaintiffs have shown that there is a cause
of action for filing the subject suit. The Court below has carefully
considered the contentions of the respective parties with regard to
ownership and title and duly taking into consideration the averments
made in the plaint, observed that defendants failed to file acceptable
material to reject the plaint at the threshold. The contentions raised
by the defendants are required to be examined after full-fledged trial
but not at this stage. The case of the defendants does not fall within
the grounds enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Therefore, the
plaint on the face of it, does not disclose any fact that may lead this
Court to come to conclusion that it deserves to be rejected on the
ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and that it is
barred by law of limitation. The decision relied upon by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants is not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Thus, there is no
illegality or infirmities in the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 18
passed by the Court below warranting interference by this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this point
is answered.
18. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision
Petition, shall stand closed.
________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 24.01.2024 Note: L.R Copy to be marked: YES/NO (b/o) scs
