Telangana High Court
Yellanki Gopala Rao vs Yellanki Radhamma on 1 May, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.R.P.No.3881 OF 2024
Between:
Yellanki Gopala Rao
... Petitioner
And
Yellanki Radhamma
... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 01.05.2025
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_________________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
2 SN,J
CRP_3881_2024
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
C.R.P.No.3881 OF 2024
% 01.05.2025
Between:
# Yellanki Gopala Rao
... Petitioner
And
$ Yellanki Radhamma
... Respondent
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Karunakar Reddy
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri R.R. Kalyan
? Cases Referred:
(1) 2025 (1) ALT (SC) 59 (D.B.)
3 SN,J
CRP_3881_2024
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
C.R.P.No.3881 of 2024
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred
seeking prayer as under:
"...to allow the CRP by setting aside the order and decree
dated 16.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.258 of 2024 in
O.S.No.79 of 2024 on the file of the Agent to Government
(District Collector), Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem
District and to grant such other relief or reliefs..."
2. This Civil Revision petition is filed by the
petitioner/defendant challenging the propriety and legality of the
order dated 16.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.258 of 2024 in
O.S.No.79 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Agent to
Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, whereby the petition filed
under Order VII Rule 11 read with Rule 14 of Agency Rules
seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
3. As can be seen from the affidavit in I.A.No.258 of 2024 in
O.S.No.79 of 2024 the plea of the petitioner is that he filed
O.S.No.124 of 2014 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate
(Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, against the Respondent/Plaintiff
and the trial Court in I.A.No.77 of 2014 in O.S.No.124 of 2014
4 SN,J
CRP_3881_2024
granted temporary injunction against the respondent/plaintiff
and as such the respondent has knowledge of the entries in
pahani from 2014 and therefore the plea of the
respondent/plaintiff that she has knowledge about the entries in
the pahanies only from 19.06.2021 is false and that plea is taken
only to bring the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff within the
limitation.
4. Heard Sri Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R.R.Kalyan,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
Perused the Record.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 (1)
ALT (SC) 59 (D.B.) dated 20.12.2024 passed in "Shri Mukund
Bhavan Trust and Others Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan
Raje Pratapsinh Maharj Bhonsle and another" in support of
his contention that the plaint in the present case is liable to be
rejected.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case held that the
spirit and intention of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C., is only for
the Courts to nip at its bud when any litigation ex facie appears
5 SN,J
CRP_3881_2024
to be clear abuse of process. In that case the cancellation of sale
deed was sought for in the suit before trial Court and the Apex
Court held that the period of limitation for setting aside the sale
deed would start running from the date of registration of the
same and as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, after
three years of registration, the plaintiff is barred from seeking
cancellation of the said registered sale deed, since the plaintiff
failed to sue the appellants/defendants or the state for
possession within 12 years, the Court held that the claim of the
plaintiff for title and possession is hopelessly barred by
limitation.
The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the
appellants/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C.,
observing inter alia, that the issue of limitation is a mixed
question of fact and Law for which the parties had to lead
evidence.
The Civil Revision Petition preferred against the order of
the trial Court was dismissed by the High Court. The defendants
carried the matter in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
after examining the legal position, the Apex Court allowed the
appeal. So far as the Law relating to rejection of plaint under
order VII Rule 11 (d) the Hon'ble Court in para 12 of the
6 SN,J
CRP_3881_2024
Judgment reiterated the legal principle that for deciding the
question whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order
VII Rule 11, it is only the averments in the plaint and the
documents annexed therewith that need to be take into
consideration.
6. As can be seen from the plaint the case of the plaintiff is
that her husband Yellanki Ramaiah, acquired 60 acres of land
and house properties at Julurupadu main road. He purchased
Ac.7.36 gts., in Sy.No.203 (suit land) and Ac.7.35 gts., in
Sy.No.17/AA under Saada Bynama. Apart from that land, he
acquired Ac.70.00 gts., in Gundepudi Village. Out of that land he
gave Ac.16.00 gts., to his son Yellanki Nageshwar Rao, who is
the father of the defendant. The plaintiff's husband gave
Ac.10.00 gts., each to their three daughters. The plaintiff and
her husband retained suit land namely Ac.7.36 gts., in
Sy.No.203. The plaintiff after the death of her husband on
12.09.2005 succeeded to the suit property. The defendant taking
advantage of the old age of the plaintiff obtained pattedar
passbook and title deed in respect of the suit land by managing
Revenue officials at mandal level.
7 SN,J
CRP_3881_2024
7. The plaintiff approached the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kothagudem and informed about the passbook and title deed
falsely obtained by the defendant and the Revenue Divisional
Officer by order in Rc.No.A2054/2013 dated 21.03.2014
cancelled the pattedar passbook and title deed issued in the
name of the defendant. The plaintiff has been in possession and
enjoyment of the suit land but the Tahsildar, without issuing any
notice issued pattedar passbook and title deed vide Khata
No.572 in the year 2012, 2013. The plaintiff filed a revision
petition before the Joint Collector, Kothagudem and the case
bearing Number 10/2021 was transferred to the Special Tribunal
and the Tribunal by order dated 19.06.2021 cancelled the
pattedar passbook relating to Khata No.572 and directed both
the parties to approach the civil Court.
8. On 02.03.2024 when the plaintiff was carrying out
agricultural operations in the suit land, the defendant trespassed
into the land and obstructed her and therefore the plaintiff is
constrained to file the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the
owner of the suit land and that the pattedar passbook issued in
favour of the defendant is not binding on her and for rectification
of the entries in pahani record and I-B register and for perpetual
injunction against the defendant.
8 SN,J
CRP_3881_2024
9. From the above averments in the plaint it is quite clear
that the plaintiff claims title over the suit land and sought for
perpetual injunction against the defendant as she is in
possession of the land. Importantly, the plaintiff filed the suit
following the observation made by the Tribunal directing both
the parties to approach the Civil Court. The period of limitation of
three years has to be reckoned from the date of the order of the
Tribunal passed on 19.06.2021.
10. The plaint is dated 04.03.2024 and so the suit was within
limitation. The plea taken by the defendant that the period of
limitation has to be counted from date of the injunction order in
I.A.No.77 of 2014 in O.S.No.124 of 2014 is not sustainable in
Law for the reason that the period of limitation in the suit started
to run only from 19.06.2021.
11. For the foregone reasons, this Court finds that the
plaint averments would disclose that the suit is not barred
by limitation and hence the plaint is not liable to be
rejected.
12. The lower Court did not commit any illegality or
impropriety or procedural irregularity in coming to the
9 SN,J
CRP_3881_2024
conclusion that the plaint is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, there are no reasons to interfere with the
order impugned dated 16.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.258 of
2024 in O.S.No.79 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the
Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, in the
present Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Dated: 01.05.2025
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
(B/o)Yvkr
