Dismissed

Vemuri Ramesh Babu v. The State of Telangana and 28 others

Telangana HC23 Feb 2023CRP/1004/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of two civil revision petitions challenging orders rejecting plaints under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court held that the plaints disclosed a cause of action regarding fraudulent revenue entries and that the limitation issue is a triable question for the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Vemuri Ramesh Babu Vs The State of Telangana and 28… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³²⁶⁰ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD^DAY OF^FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶7

ctvtL REVISION PETITION NO: 911 &¹⁰⁰⁴ OF²⁰²⁰

¶8

Civil Revision Petition under Atlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, A aggrieved by the order dated 17-03-2020 in LA. No. 2139 in O.S. No. 626 of 2019 on the file of the court of the Principal District^judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 . M/s Pratap Jungle Resorts Pvt. Ltd.,, Represented by its Director D. Shriya Reddy Office at H.no. 8-2-573, Road No.7, Baniara Hills, Hyderabad

¶11

D. Pratap Chandra Reddy, Died per LRs Respondents/Defendant Nos..

¶12

Sri K. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, S/o Mohan Reddy Aged Major, Occ. Business R/o H.no. 8-2-67 4lBl2l10, Road No.13 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶13

Sri M. Nageshwar, S/o Late M. Ranga Reddy Aged about 73 years, Occ. Doctor Rl/o H.No.8-2-412lA, Road No.4 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶14

...REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/DEFENOANTS 6,7 TO 9.

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of Telangana, Rep by Principal Secretary (Revenue Department) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Diskict Collector, Ranga Reddy District Office at Sneha Building, Lakadikapul, Hyderabad

¶18

The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Office at Sneha Building, Lakadikapul, Hyderabad

¶19

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division Ranga Reddy District Office at- Pillar No. 164, PVNR Express High way, Attapur^{Rajendranagar,} Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

The Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy^District Office at Gandipet village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict

¶21

Abdul Asad Ameed, S/o Mohd. Abdul Nayeem Aged major, Occ. Not known, R/o Khanapur village, Gandipet Mandal, R.R.^District

¶22

Smt. Rabryaa Aleem, Wio h,4ohd. Abdul Asad Aleem Aged major, Occ. Not known R/o Khanapur village, Gandrpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict

¶23

Smt. Noorban Begum, W/o Not known Aged major, Occ. Not known R/o Khanapur village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶24

Sri Syed Husnoddin, Died per LRs Respondents/Defendant Nos. 27 to 29)

¶25

Mohd. Sirajuddin Khan, S/o Late lrilohd. Nizamoddin aged major, Occ. Not known, R/o Flat No.202, Banjara Bhavan, Banjara Hills, Road No.12, Hyderabad and H.No. 11-5-415. Red Hills, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad

¶26

11.Alia Quadri, W/o Late lvlasood Alam Quadri Aged about 62 years, occ. Household, R/o Flat No.710, Emerald Apartments, Amrutha Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad

¶27

'12. Mrs. Afia Rasheed, W/o Dr. Mazharuddin Ali Khan, aged Major, Occ. Not known, Rl/o H.No. 8-2-681/Dl2l2, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034

¶28

Mrs. Sajida Zaheer, W/o Mr. Zaheeroddin Ali Khan, Aged major, Occ. Not known, Rio 6-2-30, Prabat, Lakdikapool, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶29

14-Alia Rasheed, D/o Rasheed Ahmed, Aged Major, Occ. Not known, Rio H.No. 6-2-13, Abid tvlanjil, Lakdikapul, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶30

15 Sri T.K. Pratap Kamble, S/o Dr. S.T. Kamble, aged-^major, Occ.^{Not known,} Rio Khanapur village, Gandipet Mandal, R.R. District

¶31

16.Sri Vemuri Ramesh Babu, S/o Gopal Rao, aged- Maior, Occ. Not^knownR/o H. No. LH2, Lanko Hills, tr,4anikonda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, R.R. District.

¶32

17.Smt. Vemuri Vimala Devi, W/o Gopal Rao, aged malor, Occ. Not known, Fl/o H. No. LH2, Lanko Hills, h/anikonda Jagir, Gandipet lvlandal, R-R- District.

¶33

Smt. Vemuri Laxmikanthamma, W/o Venkaiah, aged major, Occ.^Notknown, R/o H. No. LH2, Lanko Hills, tt/anikonda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, R.R. District.

¶34

19.Smt. Radha Bhai, Wo Venkaiah, aged major, Occ. Not known, Rl/o H. No. LH2, Lanko Hills, Manikonda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, R.R.^District.

¶35

tVBS lmpex Pvt. Ltd.,, Reg. Off. 5-9-45, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad,^rep by^its director and authorized signatory Sukesh Gupta S/o Prakash Chand Gupta

¶36

M/s Musadilal Bhagvat Swaroop Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.,, al 1st floor 125, M.G. Road, Secunderabad Rep by its Director and Authorized signatory Sukesh Gupta S/o Prakash Chand Gupta

¶37

Shroff Apparels Pvt. Ltd.,, Reg. off. 6-3-863/2, Topaz Building, Amrutha^Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, rep by its Director and Authorized Signatory Sukesh Gupta S/o Prakash Chand Gupta

¶38

Ivl/s Ghena Projects Pvt. Ltd., at 1st floor 125, M.G.^Road, Secunderabad Rep by its Director and Authorized signatory Sukesh Gupta S/o^Prakash Chand Gupta

¶39

INN Tack Control Pvt. Ltd., .,, at 1st floor 125, M.G. Road, Secunderabad Rep by rts Director and Authorized signatory Sukesh Gupta S/o Prakash Chand Gupta

¶40

M/s Aashi Realtors,, A^partnership firm, at lst floot 125, M.G. Road, Secunderabad Rep by its Director and Authorized signatory Sukesh Gupta S/o Prakash Chand Gupta

¶41

M/s Aashi Plywood lndustries, A^partnership firm, .at 1st floor^{125, M.G.} Road, Secunderabad Rep by^its Director^and Authorized^{signatory Sukesh} Gupta S/o Prakash Chand Gupta

¶42

27 . A$a Begum, W/o Late Syed Husnoddin Aged Major, Occ. Not known.

¶43

28.Mr. syed Junaid, S/o Late Syed Husnoddin Aged Major, Occ. Not known.

¶44

Nidda Fatima, D/o Late Syed Husnoddin Aged- Major, Occ. Not known. Respondent Nos.27 to 29 Rl/o H.no. 12-2-83311, Flat No.101 Residency, MIGH Colony, Mehidipatnam 500028

¶45

30.D. Anupa Reddy, Wo Late D. Pratap Chendra Reddy Aged 62 years, occ. Household

¶46

D. Divya Reddy, D/o Late D. Pratap Chendra Reddy Aged 4'1 years, occ. Housewife.

¶47

D. Shriya Reddy, D/o Late D. Pratap Chendra Reddy Aged 36 years, Occ. Housewife Respondent Nos. 30 to 32 R/o H. No. 8-2-573, Road No.7, Banjara Hills Hyderabad

¶48

Respondents 6 to 32 are not necessary parties to this petition

¶49

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS

¶50

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶51

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the certified copies of Affidavit Petition and Counter Affidavit in 1.A.No. 2139 12019 in O.S.No. 626 ot 2O19 on the fite of Principat District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶52

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶53

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in the suit including operation of the order dated 17-032O2O in l.A. No. 2139 of 2019 in O.S. No. 626 of 2019 on the file of Principal District^judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

¶54

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶55

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the cause title of the petitioner No.1 Company's name from M/s. Pratap Jungle Resorts Pvt. Ltd., to M/s. Pratap Enterprises Pvt. Lrd.,

¶56

.1." a.

¶57

Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. SNEHA BHOGLE

¶58

Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶59

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1004 OF 2020

¶60

Civil revision Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia,^praying Order dated 17^-O3-2O2O passed in 1.A.No.215712019 in O.S.No.626/2019 on the file of the Honble Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶61

Between:

¶62

Vemuri Ramesh Babu, S/o.Gopal Rao, Aged 71^years, Occ-Not^Known, R/o.H.No.LH-2, Lane0 Hills, ManikondaJagir, GandipetMandal,^{R.R.District,} Represented by his GPA Holder, PolkampallyLaxman^{Kumar, S/o.P.Deenavan} Rao, Aged about 48 years, Occ-Business, R /o Villa^No.12, Jayabheri^the Meadows, Next to Q City Building, Gopanpally Village,^{SerilingampallyMandal,} RangaReddyDistrict. ...PETITIONER/PETITIONERyDEFENDANTNo.I5

¶63

AND

¶64

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal^{Secretary(Revenue} Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶65

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy^{District,Office at Sneha Building'} Lakadikapul, Hyderabad.

¶66

The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy^{District, Officeat Sneha Building'} Lakadikapul, Hyderabad.

¶67

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendra^{Nagar Division,Ranga Reddy} District- Office at Pillar No.1 64,^PVNR Express^{Highway, Attapur,} Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy^District

¶68

The Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal,^{RangaReddy District, Officeat Gandipet} Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶69

Abdul AsadAmeed, S/o. Mohd.AbdulNayeem,^{AgedMajor, Occ-Not Known,} R/o.Khanapur village, GandipetMandal, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶70

RabiyaaAleem, W/o.Mohd.AbdulAsad Aleem,^{AgedMajor,Occ-Notknown,} R/ o.khanpur Village, GandipetMandal, R. R.District

¶71

8- Noorban Begum, W/o. Not^Known Aged^{Major,Occ:Not known, Fl/o.Khanpur} village, GandipetMandal, R.R.District.

¶72

Syed Hasnoddin, S/o.Late Syed^{Farukoddin,Aged.Major, Occ-Not known,} R/o.1-92, Neknampur, GandipetMandal, R.R.^District.

¶73

MohdSirajuddin Khan, S/o. Latel,4ohd.Nizarnoddin'-^{Aged-Majgl,Occ-Not} known, Rlo.Flat No.202, BanjaraBhavan,^{Banjara Hills, Road No.12,} Hyderabad and H.No.11-5-415, Red Hills, Lakdikapul,^Hyderabad.

¶74

1 1. M/s.Pratap Jungle Resorts Pvt Ltd, Rep. by its Director D.Pratap Chandra Reddy, Office at H.No.8-2-573, Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶75

12.D..Pralap Chandra Reddy, S/o.D.Radhakrishna^Reddy, Aged^{about 67 years,} Occ-Business, H.No.8-2-573,^{RoadNo.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.}

¶76

'13. K.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, S/o.Mohan Reddy, Aged Major, Occ-Business' R/o.H.No.8-2-6741812110, Road No.13, Banjara^{Hills, Hyderabad.}

¶77

M.Nageshwar, S/o.LateM.Ranga^{Reddy,Aged about 73 years, Occ Doctor,} R/o. H.No.8-2-41 2iA, Road No.4, Baniara^{Hills, Hyderabad.}

¶78

15.Alia Quadri, W/o.LateMasoodAlamQuadri, Aged^{about62 years, Occ-} household, R/o.Flat No.7'10, Emerald Apartments,^{AmruthaHills, Panjagutta,} Hyderabad.

¶79

16-AfiaRasheed, Wo.Dr.Mazharuddin Ali^Khan, Aged^{Major, Occ-Not known,} R/o.H.No.8-2-68'llDl2l2, Road No.12, Banjara^{Hills, Hyderabad- 500 034.}

¶80

Sajidazaheer, WO.Zaheeruddin All Khan, Aged Major, Occ-not known, Rl/o.62-30, Prabat, Lakdikapool, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶81

18.Alia Rasheed, D/o.Rasheed Ahmed, Aged Major, Occ-Not known, R/o.H.No.6-2-13, AbidManjil, Lakadikapool, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶82

T.K.PratapKamble, S/o.Dr.S.T.Kamble, Aged Major, Occ- Not known, R/o.Khanapur village, GandipetMandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶83

VemuriVimala Devi, Wo.Gopal Rao, Aged Major, Occ-Not known R/o.H.No.LH-2, Lanco Hills, IrilanikondaJagir, GandipetMandal, R.R.District

¶84

21 . Vemurilaxmikanthamma, Wo.Venkiah, Aged Major, Occ-Not known, R o.H.No.LH-2, Lanco Hills, Manikondalagir, GandipetMandal, R.R.District-

¶85

RadhaBai, Wo.Venkaiah, Aged Major, Occ-Not known, R o.H.No.LH-2, Lanco Hil 1S, ManikondaJagir, GandipetMandal, R.R.District.

¶86

MBS lmpex Pvt Ltd, Reg.Off-5-9-45, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Director, and Authorized Signatory Sukesh Gupta, o.Prakash Chand Gupta.

¶87

M/s.MusadilalBhagavat Swaroop Jewellers Pvt Ltd, At 1 st Floor 125, M.G.Road, Secunderabad, R,..p.by its Director and Authorised Signatory Sukesh Gupta, s o.Prakash Chand Gupta.

¶88

Shroff Apparels Private Limited, Rcg.Off-6-86312, Topaz Building, Amrutha Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Director and Authorised Signatory, Sukesh Gupta, s/o.Prakash Chand Gupta.

¶89

26.M/s.Ghena Projects Pvt Ltd, at 18t Floor 125, Nl.G.Road, Secunderabad, Rep.by its Director and Authorised Signatory Sukesh Gupta, S/o.Prakash Chand Gupta.

¶90

INN Tack Control Pvt Ltd, 1st Floor 125, Nl G. Road, Secunderabad, Rep.by its Director and Authorised Signatory Sukesh Gupta, S/o.Prakash Chand Gupta.

¶91

28.M/s.Aashi Realtors, A Partnership Firm At 1st Floor 125, G.Road, Secunderabad, Rcp.by its Director and Authorised Signatory Sukesh Gupta, S/o.Prakash Chand Gupta.

¶92

M/s.Aashi Plywood lndustries, A Partnership Firm at 1st Floor 125, Nl.G.Road, Secunderabad, Rep.by its Director and Authorised Signatory Sukesh Gupta, S o.Prakash Chand Gupta. Respondents No.6-29 are not necessaryparties) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶93

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶94

Petilion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.626/2019 on the file of the Honble Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, pending disposal of CRP.

¶95

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. A VENKATESH

¶96

Counsel forthe Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶97

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶98

¶99

THE HONOUIIABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶100

C.R.P.Nos.9ll & 1004 OF 2020

¶101

COMMON OR.DER:

¶102

Since the issue involved in both the revisions is common and theS,also arise out of O.S.No.626 of 2019, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order

¶103

(l.R.P.No.9tl ol 2020 is direcred against the order dared I 7.03.2020 in I.A.No.2l39 o1'20 l9 in O.S.No.626 of 2019. on the filc of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at I-.B.Nagar, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein (def-endant Nos.6 to 9) under Order VII Rule ll of the Code of Civil Procedure (lor shorr 'CPC') seeking rejection of plaint, was dismissed

¶104

C'.R.P.No. 1004 of 2020 is directed against the order dated 17.03.2020 in I.A.No.2157 of 2019 in O.S.No.626 of 2019, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at l-.B.Nagar, whercin the said application filed by thc petitioner herein (dcf'endant No. l5) under Order Vll Rule ll of the Code of

¶105

¶106

Clivil Procedure (for shorlCpC,) seeking re.jecrion of plaint, was d ismissed

¶107

Ileard tlic learned counsel fbr the petitioncrs and leamcd counsel lor the respondents ir-r both the revisions. perused the record.

¶108

Respondent Nos. I to 5/plaintiffs fited the suit O.S.No.626 of 2019 filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery ofpossession o1- the suit schedulc land acainst the petitioners herein and other respondents alleging that liaud rvas played by the then Patrvari ol Khanapur Village, u,herein the names of pctitioners and other respondents, rnore pafticularly the names of predecessors-in-title of the petitioners and other rcspondents have been recorded as pattadars and possessors o1'the respective lands from khasra pahani 1954-55 onwards. While the revenue entries rcmained so. therc was sale of the suit schedule lands and mutation of names of subsequent purchasers. Fraud had been discovered in the year 2001 u,herr the Mandal Revenue Officer subrnitted report dated I 5.05.200 I ahout wrong entries being made in the r.evenue *= =_^recolds in the suit Sy.No.6-< On the basis of reporl of rhe MRO.

¶109

¶110

the ol'licials concerned made corrections in the revenue records -l-he said corrections were set aside pursuant to the judgment olthis Court in W.P.No.20 I04 of 2005 dated 02.07.2008. The State Cor,emment preferred writ appeal against the order of the learned Singlc Judge vide W.A.No.ll03 of, 2008 and by.judgment dated 20. I I .2013, the writ petition was dismissed with an observation that in the event the Govemment wants to approach Civil Court to establish correct title, it is free to do so. Hence, the present suit rras llled by respondent Nos. I to 5

¶111

'lhe revision petitioners filed applications under Order VII Rule ll of CPC sceking rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and is also barred by limitation. The respondents-State resisted the said applications by filing counter affidavits. The trial Court on a consideration of thc material on record dismissed both the applications vide separate orders dated 17.03.2020. Challenging the said orders, the present rcvisions are filed

¶112

1, Mr.A.Venkatesh, learned senior counsel appearing for thc petitioner in C.t{.P.No.1004 of 2020, submits rhar rhe

¶113

¶114

iit

¶115

plaint avennents do nol disclose propcr cause of action. particularly on the plea ol- liaud, as to who committed the lraud and the tnantler ol comntission of fr-aud is also not stated in the pleadings. l.carned senior counsel lurther submits that the entries in the revenue rccord fiorn l94l to 200 I were not challerrged by the respondents- State at any point of time lor about 60 years 'l-he respondcn ts- S tate is estopped lrom claiming that the entries in the revenue lecord arc erroneous and fi.audulent and as respondents-S tale are the custodians of the revenue recor.d, the ground of fr.rud is not tenablc. Learned scnior counsel lurther submits that this Cour1. u hile disposing of the writ petirion and writ appeal, held that the fiaud is an old story and the preselt suit AS filed is not tenablc ou the sarne groulld. In supporl of' his contentions and submissions, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Courr in MADANURI SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY v. SYED JALAL' and C.S.RAMASWAMY v. V.K.SENTHIL AND OTHERS'?.

¶116

(2017) t3 SC'C t7.1

2ArR 2022 SC .1724

)

r*l

Mr.Ashish Kale, leamed^{counsel appearing on behalf ol} ln Ms.Sneha Bhogle, learned counsel lor^{the petitioners} C.R.P.No.9l I o12020 raised similar contentions^{as were raised by} learned counsel lor the petitioners in C.R.P.No.^{1004 of 2020.}

¶121

Mr.B.S.Prasad, leamed Advocate General for the State of Telangana appearing for respondent Nos. I to 5/State, while supporting the impugned orders, submits that the entire pleadings o1'the plaint have to be read together to ascerlain the existence ol prima /-acie cause of action and the same is available in the suit I lc iurrher submits that the aspect ol limitation is a mixed question of lact and law and when lraud is pleaded, the question of taking the provisions of the Limitation Act have be construed differently and also submits that even ifthat aspect is taken into consideration, thc suit is filed within limitation

¶122

Basing on the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the impugned order sufl'ers lrom any irregularity, illegality or impropriety, warranting interference of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 ol the Consritution of India?

¶123

¶124

ll. I u,ill bricfl1 rouch upon rhe lau, applicable lbr deciding this

¶125

application.

¶126

Order VII Rulc I I (a) and (d) olC.p.C.

¶127

ll, Rejcctiort o[ ltlainr:- 1'he plaint shall be

¶128

re.jccted in the folloiving cases-

¶129

ta) Where rt does not disclose a cause of action;

¶130

(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the platntiff on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;

¶131

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint rs wrrtten upon paper insufficiently stamped. and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper wrthin a lrme to be fixed by the court, fails to do SO,

¶132

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

¶133

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

¶134

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisron s of Rule 9,

¶135

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the reqursite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is sattsfied that the plaintiff was prevent by any cause of exceptional nature for correction the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff." (emphasis supplied)

¶136

The remedy under Order Vll Rule^'l 1 is an independent and special remedy, whereln the Court is empowered to s lmranly dtsmiss a sutt at the threshold. wtthoLl oroceeding to record evjdence, and conducting a trial on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satrsfred that the ,ction snoriJ iJ

¶137

¶138

¶139

terminated on any of the grounds contained^{in this} provrsron.

¶140

l'he Hon'ble Apex Court in DAHIBEN V. ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) DEAD THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATMST has enunciated the principles applicable, while deciding the application under Order VII Rule I I oICPC which are as under:

¶141

23 3. The underlying object of Order 7 Rule'l 1(a) is that rf rn a surt, no cause of action is drsclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessaflly protract the proceedings in the suit. ln such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litrgation, so that further^judicial trme is not wasted.

¶142

23.6 Under Order 7 Rule 1 1, a duty cast on the courl to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relred upon, or whether the suit rs barred by any law.

¶143

23 11 The test for exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & lAssn. Ltd. v. M.V.Sea Success which reads as: (SCC P.562 Para 139)

¶144

Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does not does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed.

¶145

r(1020) 7 scc i66

¶146

¶147

24 Cause of action" means every fact which would ce necessary for the plaintiff to prove. if traversed rn order to support his right to ludgment lt consists of a bundle of material facts which are necessary for the plarntiff to prove rn order to entrfle hrm to the reliefs claimed rn the suit

¶148

14.l. llt Srr an1. ,\tmananda r'. Sri Ramakrishna

¶149

Tapovanam (1005) l0 SCC 51. rhis Court helcl:

¶150

24 A cause of action, thus, means every fact which if traversed, lt would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove an order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintrff a right to relref against the defendant. lt must include some act done by the defendant srnce in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue. lt is not imited to the actual infringement of the nght sued on but includes all the material facts on whrch it rs founded" (emphasis supplied)

¶151

24.2 ln L Arivandandam r,.^'l'.V. Satyapal & Anr ((19771 l SCC 467), this Court held that u,hile considering an application undel Ordcr VII Rulc I1 CPC',vhat is tcquired to be decided is,,r,herher the plainl discloses a rcal causc of action. or sontcthing purely illusorr,. in thc lollorving u,ords : -

¶152

"5. The learned Munsiff must remember that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint it is mantfestly vexatious, and merifless, rn the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under O. Vll, R 11 C.P.C. taking Gare to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing . " (emphasis supplied)

¶153

¶154

lr4. It is scttlcd principlc of larv that while considering the application under Order VII Rule l1 olC.P.C, a duty is cast on the Court to detemine whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or whether thc suil is barred by any law on the basis of averments contained in the plaint itselL lt is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always dcpend upon thc lacts and circumstances ol each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the def'endant are wholly immaterial while considering the praycr ol the defcndant fbr rejection of the plaint. Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct, as a whole on their lace value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclosc cause of acrion. tlie application lor rejection of plaint can be cnterlained and the power under Order VII Rule I I of C.P.C can be exercised.

¶155

I5. In the instant case, a perusal of the record would disclose that the respondents-plaintifls filed the suit for declaration oftitle and recovery of possession of the suit schedule land against the rcvision pctitioncrs and other respondents.^-l'he plaint pleadings

¶156

¶157

lurlher disclose that the suit sclrcdule land is parr and parcel of unsurveyed billa daakala land and it is part of (]overnr.nent land The right, title and possessiorr o1'the unsurveyed billa daakala land always vests u,ith the Governurent. It is pleaded that an extent ot Acs.l56.l7 Cts., 'nvas cntercd rnischeviously arrd liauclulentll ln the name of certain private persons without any valid or relevant orders from the Governnient or by the corrpetent aLrthorit)' During verification ol khasra pahani and other rcvenue settleurcnt records in the year 200 l. the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Ra.iendendranagar Mandal. rvith regard to the illegal cntries in the pahanies, found that the thcn village Patr.r,ari ol- Khanapur' fraudulently created Sy.Nos.65i I to 65i33 and made illegal entries in the pahanies of KhanapaLr inter alia in Sy.No.65 of Khanapur Village and rccorded the san.rc as Sy.No.65/l to^(r5i33 to an extcnl of Acs.543.27 Gts., and also created another survey number as Sy.No.297 to an extent of 350 acres and thereby had increased the total area of Khanapur /illage to an extent of Acs. 1842.04 Cts.. in the pahanies, as against the actual area ot Acs.958.l7 Gts The Joint Collecror, Ranga ILeddy District conducted enquiry .- "_ while issuing notices to thc. persons concerneci and as pcr his

¶158

¶159

¶160

orders, the oliginal settlemcnt rccord in Sy.No.65 consisting of Acs.5-30 Gts., is classified as poramboke. The total unsurveyed area ofabout 547 acres which did not actually form part of the said villagc at all and which was lelt apart fiom the expanse ol the water body known as Osmansagar was over the years recorded mischieviuosly as patta belonging to certain individuals for some portion ol'the total area ( 158 acres approximately).

¶161

Aggrieved by the orders ol the Joint Collector, some of the respondents approached this Court and fi led writ petitions, the details of' which and the orders passed therein are mentioned in paragraph 12 of the plaint pleadings. The correction of the revenue records was set aside by this Court. On writ appeal filed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District against the order in W.P.No.20l04 of 2005, this Courr had made it clear that in the event the Government wants to approach Civil Court to establish the correct title, it is free to do so.^'lhe cause of action paragraph of the plaint discloses that the cause of action about the illegal entries in the pahanies were noticed by the then Mandal Revenue Of-ficer, Rajendranagar Mandal in the year 2001 and on

¶162

15.05.2001, he subrnitted a report which ivas enquired by the Joint Collector and he conducred enquiry and passcd orders datcd 25.08.2005 and the matter was carried to this Court and basing on the orders stated above in the rvrit appeal, the prescnr suit is filed.

¶163

17 . The respondents-plainti lti have categorically mentioncd in the plaint pleadings about the accrual of cause of action. Ilaving regard to the provisions o1' lan, lor analyzing whether tl-re cause o[' action exists and keeping vicri the settled lcgal position stated above, I find that a comprehensive reading o1' the plaint would indicate that there is propcL cause of action lor filing the suit and the plaint is not liable to bc rejected on this ground.

¶164

Coming to the aspect rvhether the suit is barred by Iimitation, learned senior counsel vehemently submitted that sorne vexatious averments with respect to fraud are pleaded to bring the suit within the period of limitation. l{owever, on a look at the averments in the plaint, the date of knowledge about the alleged fraud, according to the respondents-p laintiffs, as pleaded in the suit. was noticed in the year 2001 dLrring verification of khasr.a pahanies u,ith the records b1. the then Mandal Revenue Officer., Ra.jendranagar.

¶165

¶166

¶167

Subsequently, the /rs between the Government and respondents went on till the disposal of rvrit appeal vide^judgment dated 28. I I .20 l3 wherein liberty was given to the State to approach the competent Civil Court to establish the title. Therefore, it is considered that the suit is filed within limitation! as per the plaint pleadings. Apart from this, in the lacts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the issue with respect to limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and, therefore. such an issue ol lirnitation is required to be considcred at lhe time of trial.

¶168

Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the respondents-plaintilfs by clever drafting tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation which is otherwise barred by limitation. On the decision relied on by leamed senior counsel in

¶169

C.S.RAMASWAMY's case (2 supra), the Hon'ble Apex C'ourt held at paragraph 7.9 ofthe decision as under:

¶170

"Applying the law taid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on exercise of powers under Order Vll Rule 11 CPC to the facts of the case on hand and the averments in the plaints, we are of the opinion that both the Courts below have materially erred in not

¶171

¶172

rejecting the plarnts rn exercise of powers under Order Vll Rule 1 1(d) CPC. The respective suits have been frted after a period of 10 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deeds. lt is to be noted that one suit was filed by the m nor, which was filed in the year 2006. n which some of the plarntiffs herein were also party to the said suit and in the said suit, there was a specrfic reference to the Sale Deed dated 19 09 2005 and the said suit came to be dismissed in the year 2014 and lmmediately thereafter the present suits have been filed. Thus, from the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of the opinion that by clever drafting, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the surts within the period of limitation, whrch otherwise are barred by limitation. Therefore, considering the decisions of this Court in the case of T. Arivandandam (supra) and other decision of Raghwendra Sharan Singh (supra), and as the respective suits are barred by the law of limitation the respective plaints are required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order Vll Rule 1 1 CPC",

¶173

The learned Advocate General, while refuting thc submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the suit is not barred b1 limitation and irnmediately after getting knowledge about the fraudulent entries in the revenue records, action was initiated and also submits that the limitation in the present suit is a mixed question ol fact and law and the plainr cannot be rejected at the threshoid. Learned

¶174

)

¶175

Advocate General relied on the^judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

¶176

Coun in CHHOTANBEN AND ANOTHER V. KIRITBHAI JALKRUSHNABHAI THAKKAR{ wherein it was held at paragraph l5 as under:

¶177

¶178

"What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application under Order Vll Rule 1 1(d), is to examine the averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order Vll Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are germane".

¶179

2t The suits for declaration of title against the govemment, though similar to suits lor declaration of title againsr privare individuals, differ significantty in some aspecrs. The firsr difference is in regard to the presumption available in f-avour ol the Govemment. The second difference is in regard to the period tbr which title and./or possession have to be established by a person suing for declaration of title. The plaint pleadings in the suit clearly disclose that there is collusion between the private individuals and its own olficers of the Govemment who are

¶180

4(2018) 6 S('C 422

¶181

¶182

expected to protect its properlies and maintain proper records and on such irnproper entries in the records, the private parlies clainr ownership or possession aeainst thc property

¶183

It is not in dispute that any loss ol Government propcfty ultimately is loss to the cornmunity. Courts, being the custodian of public properties, owe a duty to be vigilant that public propcrty is not converted into private property at the behest of privatc individuals

¶184

In the casc on hand. the rnain allegations arc against rranipulation of revenue recolds and fraudulent/illegal entries r.i,ith crcated survey nurnbers in the khasra pahanies which came to light in the year 200t, the details olwhich have been pleaded in the suit in detail. The pleadings in the suit, as assefted by leamcd Advocate General, show that action was initiated immediately after getting knowlcdge about the fraudulent entries in the revenuc records and after disposal ol the writ appeal by this Court. Thereflore, I anr of the vierv that the issue regarding the suit being balred by limitation, in thc f'acts and circumstances ol the present

¶185

¶186

¶187

case, is a triable issue and for which reason, the plaint cannot be

¶188

re.jected at the threshold.

¶189

On a consideration of the material on record and by retying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the trial Court had, by taking into account the pleadings of the plaint as a whole, rightly held that there is prima faice cause of action to fi Ie the suit and that the suit is not barred by limitation.

¶190

For the loregoing reasons, I am ol the view that the impugned orders do not suffer any infirmity or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶191