Telangana High Court

Komuravelli Shekar Shekaraiah vs Mallipeddi Raghu on 4 April, 2025

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI


          CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.324 OF 2025


                                  ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) is filed against the order of the

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class at Gajwel in I.A.No.78 of 2024 in O.S.No.260 of 2022.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit filed by the

respondent/plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the suit for perpetual

injunction. The description of the suit schedule property is as under:

"SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

The agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.127/EE/1 to an extent of 0-39 guntas, situated at Mutrajpally Village of Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District, bounded by:

East : Land of Santhosh Kumar, P. Ram Reddy and others

West : Land of K. Chandrashekar and Sy.No. 128.

North : Land of Sellers and others.

South : Land of D. Bhagyalaxmi, K. Suresh and others."

3. The defendants have filed their written statement on 22.07.2022

stating that the plaintiff has not given the details of the immovable

property such as the boundaries of the immovable property in respect of

which perpetual injunction is claimed. Thereafter, the defendants have

filed I.A.No.78 of 2024 under Order 7 Rule 3 and Section 151 of C.P.C.

seeking a direction to the plaintiff to file a sketch map of Sy.No.127 of

Mutrajpalli Village, showing the land of Ac.3.14 guntas allegedly

allotted to his vendor Smt. Swaroopa, the extent of Ac.1.21 guntas

alienated in favour of Sri Ram Reddy and the suit land of Ac.0.39

guntas purchased by the plaintiff, besides showing the location of the

land of the defendants as referred to in the plaint and the document

pleaded by the plaintiff.

4. The respondent/plaintiff opposed the said application by filing

counter affidavit and submitted that the defendants are trying to collect

evidence by way of filing this application. According to the plaintiff, he

has given the details of the boundaries and also that the

petitioners/defendants are not expected to file sketch map of the land of

the entire extent of Survey No.127 of Mutrajpalli Village and that full

facts will come out during full-fledged trial.

5. The trial Court has dismissed I.A.No.78 of 2024 vide orders

dt.22.11.2024 by observing that it is the duty of the respondent/plaintiff

to explain his case and that the Court need not direct the

respondent/plaintiff to file a sketch map to prove his case which may

also lead to collection of evidence since he has filed the suit.

Challenging the same, the present CRP is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the

submissions made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, has

placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Pratibha Singh and another Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad and

another1 and also in the case of Zarif Ahmad (Dead) through Legal

Representatives and others Vs. Mohd. Farooq2 in support of their

petition.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, however, supported

the impugned order and placed reliance upon the decision of the Andhra

Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad as it then was, in the case of Mogulla

Ailamma and others Vs. Samba Yellaiah and another 3.

8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

this Court finds that in the suit schedule of the plaint, the northern

(2003) 2 SCC 330

(2015) 13 SCC 673

2001 SCC OnLine AP 67

boundary of the suit schedule property is shown as 'Land of Sellers and

others'. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision

petitioners/defendants, the vendor of the plaintiff had sold away her

entire land in three different transactions and the third transaction is the

transaction with the plaintiff. In such case, there cannot be any

remaining land in her name to be shown as the boundary on the north.

The names of 'others' who are on the northern and southern boundaries

of the schedule property are also not mentioned. Therefore, the

provisions of Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC would apply. For the sake of ready

reference, the said provision is reproduced as under:

"Order VII - Plaint

3. Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property.-- Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Singh and

another Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad and another (1 supra) has observed

thus:

"15. Order 7 Rule 3 CPC requires where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it. Such description enables the Court to draw a proper decree as required by Order 20 Rule 3 CPC. In case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record for settlement of survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. Having perused the revenue survey map of the entire area of RS Plot no. 595 and having seen the maps annexed with the registered sale deeds of the defendant judgment-debtors we are clearly of the opinion that the Sub-plots Nos. 595/1 and 595/11 were not capable of being identified merely by boundaries nor by numbers as sub-plot numbers do not appear in records of settlement or survey. The plaintiffs ought to have filed map of the suit property annexed with the plaint. If the plaintiffs committed an error the defendants should have objected to it promptly. The default or carelessness of the parties does not absolve the trial court of its obligation which should have, while scrutinizing the plaint, pointed out the omission on the part of the plaintiffs and should have insisted on a map of the immovable property forming subject-matter of the suit being filed. This is the first error."

10. The same has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Zarif Ahmad (Dead) through Legal

Representatives and others Vs. Mohd. Farooq (2 supra) observing

thus:

"11. Order 7 Rule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC"), which pertains to the requirement of description of immovable property, reads as under:

"3. Where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property.--Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers."

The object of the above provision is that the description of the property must be sufficient to identify it. The property can be identifiable by boundaries, or by number in a public record of settlement or survey. Even by plaint map showing the location of the disputed immovable property, it can be described. Since in the present case, the suit property has been described by the plaintiff in the plaint not only by the boundaries but also by the municipal number, and by giving its description in the plaint map, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the suit property was not identifiable in the present case."

11. Even in the order relied upon by the learned counsel for the

respondent/plaintiff in the case of Mogulla Ailamma and others Vs.

Samba Yellaiah and another (3 supra), this Court has observed that

when the plaintiff gave the particulars of the boundaries or the numbers

in a record of statement or survey of the immovable property, which is

the subject matter of the suit, it shall have to be presumed that sufficient

particulars are given.

12. From all the above decisions, it is clear that when sufficient

particulars are not given to identify the suit schedule property, Order 7

Rule 3 of CPC petition is maintainable and it is also the duty of the trial

Court to verify the same.

13. This Court finds that the defendants have filed a sketch map along