Telangana High Court
Komma Reddy Shriram Reddy vs Baddam Ram Reddy on 20 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1460 of 2024
ORDER:
Challenging the order dated 31.01.2024 passed in
I.A.No.876 of 2020 in O.S.No.165 of 2020 by the learned
Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella,
Ranga Reddy District, the present Civil Revision Petition is
filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.165 of 2020, seeking a
preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule property
into six equal shares, with the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to
5 each entitled to a 1/6th share. The plaintiff also sought
separate possession of their share and a final decree to be
passed after appointing an Advocate Commissioner to divide
the property. Additionally, the plaintiff sought to declare a
sale deed and development agreement between defendant
Nos.6 and 7 as null and void. During the pendency of the
suit, defendant No.7 filed I.A.No.876 of 2020 to reject the
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. However, the
SKS,J
trial court dismissed the petition on 31.01.2024, holding that
the plaint disclosed a cause of action, and therefore, there was
no justification to reject it. Aggrieved by the same, the present
Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri Chetluru Sreenivas, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri G. Kalyan
Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1 and Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order is challenged on the grounds that it is illegal,
contrary to law and facts, and ignores the weight of evidence
and probabilities and that the trial Court erred in not
observing that since the property was transferred to defendant
No.6 in the year 1997, there was no existing property for
partition, rendering the plaintiff's suit for partition without
cause. He further submitted that the Court fees paid by the
plaintiff were incorrect, as the property had been alienated
and possession handed over to the purchaser. The trial Court
also failed to consider that the suit was barred by limitation,
having been filed nearly 23 years after the alleged cause of
SKS,J
action arose, and that the claim for declaration of the sale
deed and development agreement of the plaintiff as null and
void was also time-barred.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
trial Court ignored the fact that the name of the vendor was
entered into the revenue records after the execution of the sale
deed, transferring the right, title, and interest in the property.
The observation of the trial Court that the period of limitation
is a question of law and fact is also challenged, as the record
clearly shows that the plaint was filed beyond the period of
limitation. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the
order of the trial Court by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that limitation is a mixed question of
fact and law, which cannot be determined at this stage. They
argued that the cause of action is clearly mentioned in the
plaint and that the trial court can direct the payment of Court
fees if found insufficient after adjudicating the suit. He
contended that the sufficiency of Court fees cannot be decided
at this stage based on the possession of the suit schedule
SKS,J
property by the parties. Therefore, they requested the court to
dismiss the civil revision petition.
7. After careful consideration of the arguments presented
by both parties and a thorough review of the material
available on record, this Court finds that the contention of the
respondents that the cause of action cannot be determined
without a trial holds merit. The plaint alleges fraudulent
documents, issues with the 38-E certificate, and disputes over
property partition and sale deeds, which are complex issues
that require a thorough examination of evidence.
8. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.
Arivandananam vs. T.V. Satyapal 1, "if the plaint allegations
do not disclose a cause of action, the court is duty-bound to
reject the plaint at the threshold." However, in this case, the
plaint does disclose a cause of action. Though it is
vehemently contended that it is barred by limitation, while
dealing with order VII Rule 11, Court has to see the averments
of the plaint only. Plaint does not disclose the 1997
transaction. Therefore, at this stage, we cannot consider the
defence of the defendant.
(1977) 4 SCC 467
SKS,J
9. Furthermore, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and
Educational Charitable Society vs. Ponniamman 2, "the trial
court must scrutinize the plaint averments carefully to
ascertain whether the materials for the cause of action have
been set out." In this case, the plaint averments do set out
the materials for the cause of action, including the alleged
fraudulent documents and disputes over property partition.
Further, the suit is filed for partition, for which cause of
action arises from the denial for partition.
10. Additionally, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies 3, "a
cause of action means every fact which, if traversed, it would
be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his
right to a judgment of the court." In this case, the plaintiff has
set out the necessary facts to support their right to a
judgment, and it is for the trial court to determine whether
those facts are sufficient to prove their case.
11. In light of these judgments, this Court concludes that
the case requires a trial to resolve the contentious facts and
(2012) 8 SCC 706
(1989) 2 SCC 163
SKS,J
determine whether the plaintiff has proved their case.
Therefore, this civil revision petition to reject the plaint under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is liable to be dismissed, and the
case shall proceed to trial.
12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
confirming the order dated 31.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.876 of
2020 in O.S.No.165 of 2020 by the learned Junior Civil Judge-
cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 20.02.2025
SAI
SKS,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
P.D. ORDER IN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1460 of 2024
Date: 20.02.2025
SAI
