Telangana High Court

Vishwambara Educational Society, vs Donthi Indrasena Reddy Indra Reddy, on 19 June, 2025

      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

                            SA.No.483 of 2023


Between:
Vishwambara Educational Society, reptd by
its Secretary-Chandupatla Devender Reddy
and another.
                                                         ... Appellants

And

Donti Indrasena Reddy @ Indra Reddy,
S/o Venkat Reddy
                                                         ... Respondent

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 19.06.2025

HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers :         No
  may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

  marked to Law Reporters/Journals?        :       Yes

3. Whether her Lordship wishes to

 see the fair copy of the Judgment?            :   Yes

                           _______________________________________
                            JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
                                      2                                     LNA, J
                                                                SA.No.483 of 2023



          HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                            SA.No.483 of 2023


% 19.06.2025


Between:


# Vishwambara Educational Society, reptd by
its Secretary-Chandupatla Devender Reddy
and another.

                                                              ..... Appellants

And:
$ Donti Indrasena Reddy @ Indra Reddy,
S/o Venkat Reddy
                                                              ....Respondent
< Gist:



> Head Note:


! Counsel for the appellants: Sri H.Venugopal, learned senior counsel
                            For Sri Nalla Mukund Reddy


^ Counsel for Respondent: Sri J.Prabhakar,
                        Learned senior counsel for Sri A.Prabhakar Rao
                             3              LNA, J
                                SA.No.483 of 2023



? Cases Referred:
1. 2011(9) SCC 126
2. 2020(7) SCC 366
3. 2020 (13) SCC 143
4. 2022(15) SCC 260
5. 2025 SCC Online SC 121
                                         4                                        LNA, J
                                                                      SA.No.483 of 2023



 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                   SECOND APPEAL No.483 of 2023

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree

dated 08.09.2023, passed by the I Additional District Judge, at

Warangal, in A.S.No.10 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the order,

dated 23.01.2023, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal, in I.A.No.499 of 2022 in O.S.No.284 of 2012 was set

aside.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and respondent herein

is the plaintiff in the suit, before the trial Court. For convenience,

hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed suit in

O.S.No.284 of 2012 against the defendants, seeking cancellation of

the registered sale deed bearing document No.234/2001, dated

14.05.2001 and also for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit

schedule property. In the plaint, it is averred that plaintiff is the owner

of land in Sy.No.521/B, to an extent of Acs.2.24 gts, situated at

Bollikunta Village, Warangal District (hereinafter referred to as 'suit 5 LNA, J

schedule land'); that defendant No.1-Educational Society is running

college which is situated towards eastern side of the suit schedule

property; that defendant No.2, who is a relative of plaintiff and

Ex-Member of Parliament, approached the plaintiff and requested to

execute nominal sale deed in respect of land in Sy.No.521/B,

admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas out of Acs.2.24 gts, belonging to

plaintiff, stating that defendant No.1 required to be in possession of

Acs.40.00 guntas of land to obtain permission from AICTE to run a

college; that initially, plaintiff refused, however, on repeated requests

and force of defendant Nos.1 and 2, he executed a nominal sale deed

vide Document No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001, in respect of land in

Sy.No.521/B, admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas, without any consideration

and delivery of possession of the land; that on the date of execution of

nominal sale deed itself, a precondition was stated that the said

nominal sale registered deed would not confer any right or title over

the property to the defendants and the defendants agreed to cancel the

said deed without fail, whenever the plaintiff demands.

3.1. It is further averred that defendants have executed an

Agreement-cum-Undertaking stating that the sale deed vide

Document No.234/2001 was only for the purpose of getting 6 LNA, J

permission from AICTE to defendant No.1-Educational Society and

admitted that no title or rights are conferred to the defendants; that in

pursuance of the nominal sale deed, possession was not delivered to

the defendants even after execution of nominal sale deed in favour of

the defendants, the name of the plaintiff has been continuing in the

revenue records and he has been in occupation and raising crop in the

said land.

3.2. While things stood thus, in the year 2008, the plaintiff came to

know that defendants, in collusion with revenue authorities, got

mutated the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue records in respect

of Acs.2.24 gts in the year 2004 without notice to him; that

immediately, he filed an application for rectification of the said wrong

entries before the Tahsildar, Sangam; that the revenue authorities

rectified the wrong revenue entries partly i.e., entries in respect of

land admeasuring Ac.1.24 gts was deleted out of Acs.2.24 gts, but did

not delete the entries in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.00; that

aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred an Appeal before Joint

Collector vide Appeal No.6987/2009 to rectify the said wrong entry 7 LNA, J

and also for cancellation of Pattedar Pass Book in favour of defendant

No.1 and the said Appeal is pending. Hence the suit.

4. Defendants entered appearance in the suit and during the

pendency of the suit, they filed application to reject the plaint vide

I.A.No.499 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of C.P.C.. In

the affidavit, filed in support of the application, it is averred that there

is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit and the same is

barred by limitation, therefore, the suit ought not to have been

numbered, and should have been rejected at the time of scrutiny; that

though the sale deed was executed in the year 2001, the plaintiff, who

allegedly came to know about the mutation in the year 2008, filed the

suit in the year 2012, which is hopelessly barred by limitation in view

of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it is held

that when the plaint is beyond the limitation and lacks cause of action,

the same must be rejected and clever drafting of plaint by using word

'fraud' cannot bring the suit within the period of limitation, and thus,

prayed to reject the plaint.

5. Plaintiff filed counter resisting the said application and averred

that he executed sale deed on pressure of Ex-Member of Parliament, 8 LNA, J

who is a near relative of him, with an understanding that they will

re-convey the schedule property after getting permission from AICTE

and when plaintiff expressed his doubt about re-conveyance,

defendant No.2, executed agreement on the same day that the sale

deed executed was nominal without delivery of possession and

defendant No.2 would re-convey the same in favour of the plaintiff

after getting permission from the AICTE. But, the defendants did not

re-convey the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff despite

repeated requests, therefore, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

It was further averred that defendants played fraud and got mutated

their names in the revenue records in respect of entire extent of land

and that the said application was filed after closing of the evidence of

plaintiff and hence, the same is not maintainable and is liable to be

dismissed.

6. The trial Court vide order dated 23.01.2023 allowed the

application filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint, with an

observation that plaintiff had knowledge about the entries in the

revenue records in the year 2008, however, suit was filed in the year

2012, which is otherwise barred by limitation of three years and

further observed that plaintiff by clever drafting had created 9 LNA, J

illusionary cause of action and filed the suit, which is barred by law of

limitation.

7. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred first Appeal vide

A.S.No.10 of 2023 before the I Additional District Judge, Warangal

and the first Appellate Court, vide order dated 08.09.2023 allowed the

Appeal by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court, by

observing as hereunder:-

"...The trial Court applied the Section 17 of the Limitation Act, under which suit is to be filed within a period of one year when there is a fraud played by the other party. The present suit is not basing on only a question of law. The allegations of fraud, misrepresentation etc., are to be decided after full fledged trial. The documents under Exs.A1 and A2 are to be proved after full fledged trial only. When the question of limitation is connected with the merits of the case the matter requires to be decided along with other issue. In the cause of action para also the plaintiff clearly stated the dates by mentioning the cause of action as such, the plaint does not disclose the cause of action is not tenable.... ... the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, is such they are to be established by adducing necessary evidence and can be decided after full fledged trial only. The trial Court without appreciating the averments of the plaint and the time spent by the plaintiff before revenue authorities 10 LNA, J

till the year 2010 concluded that from the year 2008 onwards within a period of one year the suit has to be filed by applying Section 17 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court erred in concluding the matter by applying Section 17 of Limitation Act and the rejection of plaint by ignoring the averments in the plaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation definite not sustain. As such the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside..."

8. Aggrieved by the said order dated 08.09.2023 of the first

Appellate Court, the defendants preferred the present Second Appeal.

9. Heard Sri H.Venugopal, learned senior counsel, appearing for

Sri Nalla Mukund Reddy, learned counsel on record for the appellants

and Sri J.Prabhakar, learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri

A.Prabhakar, Rao, learned counsel on record for the respondent.

Perused the entire material available on record.

10. Learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that as per

Section 17 of Limitation Act, the period of limitation shall begin to

run from the date on which the plaintiff or applicant, with reasonable

diligence, has discovered the fraud or the mistake. In the case on

hand, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that he came to know about

the wrong entries in the revenue records in the year 2008, however, 11 LNA, J

the suit is filed in the year 2012, i.e., after a lapse of four years and as

such, the trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint, however, the first

Appellate Court committed error in setting aside the order passed by

the trial Court. Learned senior counsel further contended that the

findings of the first Appellate Court that Section 17 of Limitation Act

has no application, is erroneous; and that, even according to Section

59 of Limitation Act, limitation for filing suit is three years and hence,

the suit filed in the year 2012 is clearly barred by limitation, therefore,

the first Appellate Court committed error in holding that the suit is

within limitation, which is unsustainable. Learned Senior Counsel

further contended that application for rejection of plaint can be filed at

any stage of suit. Therefore, the observation of the first Appellate

Court that application for rejection of plaint has to be filed at

threshold and not after commencement of trial, is erroneous and

contrary to settled principle of law. Learned Senior Counsel has

extensively referred to the averments made in the plaint, particularly,

the cause of action mentioned in the plaint and also the limitation and

submitted that the Sale Deed was executed in the year 2001 and as per

the plaintiff's own admission, he came to know about the mutation of

revenue records in the year 2008, but the suit was filed in the year 12 LNA, J

2012 and as such, the suit is clearly barred by limitation. Hence, the

trial Court had rightly allowed the application, whereas the first

Appellate Court allowed the Appeal by setting aside the order of the

trial Court on erroneous interpretation of facts and law, particularly,

Section 17 of Limitation Act.

11. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel for

appellants relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court:

1. Khatri Kotels Private Limited and Another Vs.Union of India and another 1,

2. Dahiben Vs. Arvindhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra); 2

3. Canara Bank Vs. P.Selathal and others 3,

4. Rajpal Singh Vs. Saroj and another 4

12. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

respondent/plaintiff contended that Section 17 of the Limitation Act

has no application to the facts of the case; that plaintiff sought two

reliefs, i.e., one is for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing

document No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001 and another is for perpetual

2011 (9) SCC 126

2020 (7) SCC 366

2020 (13) SCC 143

2022 (15)SCC 260 13 LNA, J

injunction in respect of the schedule property. He further contended

that even for the sake of argument, if it is assumed that plaintiff is not

entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed, he is entitled for

perpetual injunction, therefore, plaint cannot be rejected partially.

Learned Senior Counsel further contended that sale deed bearing

document No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001, was executed with a clear

understanding that the defendants would re-convey the schedule

property after obtaining permission from AICTE and an Undertaking

to that effect was also executed on the same day, wherein defendants

have categorically stated that no title or right is conferred on them and

sale consideration was not paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, trial Court

committed error in allowing the application without considering the

facts and circumstances of the case, whereas, the first Appellate Court

had rightly set-aside the order passed by the trial Court. Learned

Senior Counsel further contended that plaintiff was pursuing remedy

before the Revenue Authorities and the time spent in pursuing remedy

before the Revenue Authorities has to be excluded while calculating

limitation. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that the suit is

barred by limitation and that no cause of action arises is untenable and

thus, prayed to dismiss the Second Appeal.

14 LNA, J

13. A perusal of record would disclose that plaintiff filed the suit

for cancellation of the registered sale deed bearing document

No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001 and also for perpetual injunction in

respect of the schedule property. It is the specific case of the plaintiff

that sale deed vide document bearing No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001,

was executed nominally, on pressure of defendant No.2, only for the

purpose of getting permission from AICTE and on clear

understanding that defendants would execute cancellation of sale deed

as and when demanded by the plaintiff. It is the further case of the

plaintiff that an undertaking was executed by the defendants on the

same day of execution of sale deed, wherein they admitted that no

right or title was conferred on them and no consideration was paid to

the plaintiff and they would execute the cancellation of sale deed after

obtaining permission from AICTE. As per contention of plaintiff, he

came to know about the mutation of name of the defendants in

revenue records in respect of the schedule property in the year 2008

and immediately filed an application for rectification before the

Tahsildar for rectifying the entries, but the entries in respect of

Ac.1.24 gts were only rectified, and the entries in respect of Ac.1.00 15 LNA, J

guntas were un-rectified. Therefore, an appeal was filed before the

Joint Collector in the year 2009 and the same was pending and thus,

suit was filed in the year 2012. In the plaint, it was mentioned that

cause of action arose in the year 2010, when the Tahsildar submitted

remarks to the Joint Collector on 04.12.2010.

14. It is relevant to note that plaintiff sought for cancellation of sale

deed document No.234/2001, dated 14.05.2001 not only on the

ground that the same is nominal, but also on the ground that the same

was obtained by fraud and mis-representation. Apart from the said

relief, plaintiff also sought for the relief of perpetual injunction in

respect of schedule property. It is well settled law that cause of action

is mixed question of facts and law and further, the aspect of fraud and

mis-representation can be decided only after full-fledged trial.

15. In the present case, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the

defendant had obtained sale deed under coercion and by playing fraud and

misrepresentation and further, no sale consideration has been paid to him.

16. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent would contend

that plaintiff filed the suit seeking two reliefs i.e., 1) for cancellation of sale

deed dated 14.05.2001 and 2) for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit 16 LNA, J

schedule property. He would further submit that as per law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Dahiben's (supra), though a suit for cancellation of

sale deed is not maintainable on the ground of non-payment of sale

consideration, however, the specific case of plaintiff is that sale deed has

been obtained by coercion and by playing fraud apart from non-payment of

sale consideration.

17. With regard to the context that there cannot be a partial rejection of

plaint, it is trite to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Central Bank of India and another vs. Smt. Prabha Jain and Others 5,

wherein it is observed as hereunder:-.

"24. Even if we would have been persuaded to take the view that the third relief is barred by Section 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act, still the plaint must survive because there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. Hence, even if one relief survives, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. In the case on hand, the first and second reliefs as prayed for are clearly not barred by Section 34 of the SARAFAESI ACT and are within the civil Court's jurisdiction. Hence, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.

18. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central

Bank of India's case (cited supra), it is clear that there cannot be partial

rejection of plaint, even if one of the reliefs claimed in the suit survives.

Further, the plaintiff is seeking cancellation of sale deed not only on the

2025 SCC Online SC 121 17 LNA, J

ground of non-payment of sale consideration, but also on the ground of

coercion and fraud, which can be decided only after full-fledged trial.

19. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case

and for foregoing reasons and in the light of the legal position, this Court

does not find any illegality or infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order

warranting interference by this Court.

20. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no