Telangana High Court
Megha Agarwal vs Harsh Agarwal on 30 October, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2849 of 2024
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner / defendant
challenging the order dated 26.04.2024 in I.A.No.177 of 2024 in
O.S.No.55 of 2023 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.
2. Heard Mr. Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the
petitioner / defendant.
3. Vide the impugned order; the Trial Court had dismissed the
petition filed by the petitioner / defendant under Order VII Rule 11 read
with Section 151 of CPC seeking for rejection of the plaint.
4. The Suit vide O.S.No.55 of 2023 filed by the respondent / plaintiff
was for the cancellation of the gift deed executed on 19.04.2022 in
favour of the petitioner / defendant and also for recovery of possession
and grant of injunction. The Suit is one which has been filed in the year
2023 and the petitioner / defendant entered appearance and moved
I.A.No.177 of 2024 which is a petition under Order VII Rule 11 read
with Section 151 of CPC.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant
seeking for rejection of the Suit was for the reason that the plain
reading of the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. Further, the
plaint also has been drafted with material suppression of various facts
from the Court; and thirdly, the gift deed being irrevocable.
6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant, the
plain reading of the cause of action clause in the plaint by itself would
go to show that the cause of action for filing of the Suit was only on the
criminal case that was registered and prosecuted against the
respondent / plaintiff, but was for cancellation of the gift deed which
got in fact executed much after the criminal case was filed. Therefore,
this ground was not available for the respondent / plaintiff in
institution of the Suit.
7. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner / defendant had referred to a series of decisions rendered by
various High Courts as also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Order
VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC.
8. Having gone through the pleadings and the contentions put forth
by learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant, what is an admitted
factual matrix is that undoubtedly the respondent / plaintiff had
executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner / defendant on
19.04.2022. It also appears is that the petitioner / defendant seem to
have come in possession of the gifted property pursuant to the gift deed
being executed. Further, what is also reflected is that the respondent /
plaintiff has alleged that the gift deed has been obtained by using
undue influence and also by making false statements and misleading
the respondent / plaintiff in execution of the said document. Further,
the respondent / plaintiff also made a statement that the said gift deed
was executed in order to buy peace so far as disputes inter se between
the petitioner / defendant and the respondent / plaintiff are concerned.
Yet, there were criminal cases being lodged against the petitioner /
defendant and it was pursued also, which led the respondent / plaintiff
to think of cancellation of the gift deed that was executed on
19.04.2022.
9. The respondent / plaintiff who is the executant of the gift deed
also has a right seeking cancellation of the said gift deed. Whether the
respondent / plaintiff would be able to make out his case for revocation
of the gift deed or cancellation of the same is a matter of trial. Whether
the respondent / plaintiff has sufficient proof of evidence to meet the
requirement before cancellation of the gift deed in terms of the
provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is again a matter of
evidence. The fact that the criminal cases having been registered before
execution of the gift deed can not be a ground which could be decided
by the Trial Court while deciding the petition filed by the petitioner /
defendant under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC.
10. The inference that could be drawn from the pleadings is that the
respondent / plaintiff had executed the gift deed in order to buy peace
and to settle inter se disputes within the family. But when the disputes
could not be resolved and the respondent / plaintiff continued pursuing
the criminal cases lodged against the petitioner / defendant, he thought
of moving the Court for cancellation of the gift deed. The Suit is still
pending consideration. The respondent / plaintiff as also the petitioner
/ defendant would get ample opportunity to establish their case. The
objection of petitioner / defendant whether there is cause of action
disclosed in the plaint and whether the Suit is maintainable or not, are
all issues that can be framed by the Trial Court in the course of trial
and appropriate decision can be arrived at based upon the evidence
which either of the parties produce.
11. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner /
defendant that there are many suppression of facts by the respondent /
plaintiff while filing the plaint, this Court is of the opinion that the said
issue again is not a matter which could be decided by the Trial Court
while deciding the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with
Section 151 of CPC. The issue of material suppression of facts had to be
brought before the Trial Court by way of suitable evidence, both oral
and documentary. Only on the basis of the so-called alleged
suppression of facts in itself cannot be a ground on which the Trial
Court could have allowed the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 read
with Section 151 of CPC.
12. So far as the judgments which have been relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the contents of each of the judgments would
clearly give an indication that those petitions were all heard and
decided under an entirely different contextual backdrop. On the
contrary, in the present case the execution of the gift deed is not in
dispute, the petitioner / defendant occupying the gifted property is not
in dispute and the right of the respondent / plaintiff seeking for
cancellation of the gift deed is again not in dispute.
13. Therefore, this Court, at this juncture for all the aforesaid reasons
does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner / defendant
calling for an interference to the impugned order. Accordingly, the
present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Nonetheless, the right
of the petitioner / defendant would stand reserved to take appropriate
objections in his Written Statement if it has not been filed and those
objections would be considered by the Trial Court after framing suitable
issues of those objections and dealt with while deciding the issues on
merits. No costs.
14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 30.10.2024
GSD
