Dismissed

K. Yellaiah v. Malladi Malla Reddy

Telangana HC10 Dec 2024CRP/2681/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed civil revision petition challenging dismissal of IA seeking rejection of plaint. Court held plaint disclosed cause of action and issues regarding title failure of consideration required trial.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No. 2681 of 2024 dismissed with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

K. Yellaiah Vs Malladi Malla Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴⁰⁵ J

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION P ITION NO:2681 OF 2024

¶7

Petition under Articre 227 of rhe constitution of rndia aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22.02.2024 made in l.A. No.',l389 of 2023 in o.s.No.7.l o'f 2023 on the file of the chairperson, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 5;,,Y9!"ill^{, S/o. Kanthaiah, Aged..43 yeqls, Occ. Agricutture,R/o.Oorugonda} Vrllage, Atmakur Mandal, Hanumakonda District.

¶10

2 K. Raghavulu, S/o. Kanthaiah, Aged. 48 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Oorugonda Village, Atmakur Mandal,-Hanuma(onda District_^-

¶11

...PET|T|ONERS/PET|TtONERS/DEFENDANT Nos. 2 and 3

¶12

AND

¶13

Malladi Malla Reddy, Sio. Venkat Ram Reddy, Aged. 57 years, Occ Agriculture,

¶14

2 Malladi Srinivas Reddy, Sio. tVlalla Reddy, Aged. 32 years, Occ. private Service,

¶15

Both the Rio.H.No3-10-140, Road No.2, College Road, Reddy Colony, Hanumakonda.

¶16

J IMalladi Srilatha, D/o. Malla Reddy, Wo Kondeti Sandeep Reddy, Aged. 31 y.ears, Occ. Household, Jaganmatha White House, pbchamma Maidan, Warangal.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶18

4 Sircilla. Madhavi_Wo. Rajaiah. Aged about 57 years, R/o. H.No..l-7-300, Pragathi Nagar, Revenue Colony, Subedari. Hanumkonda, Occ. Household.

¶19

t The^{Principle_Chief Commissionerof IncomeTax, Telangana, lncomeTax} Towers, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad 04.

¶20

i i I ! I i I I I

¶21

b The lncome^{Tar Officer, lncomeTax Office' MayunComplex'H No' 1-8-160'} ilJ'Fi;;;'b;p^{Vidvut'nanavanHanamkonda - 506001}

¶22

7 The State of^{Telangana,rep qy The Tahsildar cum Joint Sub-Registrar'} Drret, Mandal.^{Hanumakonda Dlstrlct'}

¶23

(Respondent^{Nos.4to 7 are not necessary parties to thispetition)}

¶24

Nos' 1' 4^{to 6}

¶25

'..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT

¶26

IA NO t'l^{OF 2O24}

¶27

Petition under^{Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition'the High Courtmay be pleasedto} stayallfurtherproceedingsinOsNoT'lof2023onthefileoftheChairperson' LandReformsAppellateTribunal-cum-lAdditionalDistrictJudge'Hanumakonda' pending disposal^{of the main C R P'}

¶28

Counsel for^{the Petitioners:Sri JalliKanakaiahrepresentingSri Narendar Jalli}

¶29

Counsel^{for the Respondents 1 to 3: Sri Rakesh Sanghi}

¶30

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶31

¶32

¶33

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶34

CML REVISION PETITION No.268l OF 2o24

¶35

Mr. Jalli Kanakaiah, leamed Senior Counsel representing Mr. Narendar Jalli, learncd counsel for the petirioners.

¶36

Mr. Rakesh Salghi, learned counsel for the rcspondent Nos.I to 3.

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

The Civil Revision Petition (CRP) arises out of an order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Chairperson, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, by which an application (I.A.No.1389 of 2023ⁱⁿ O.S.No.71 of 20231 filed by the petitioners for rejection^{of plaint} in the Suit filed by the respondents, was dismissed.

¶39

The petitioners herein are the defendant Nos.2 and 3ⁱⁿ the Suit (O.S.No.71 of 20231 filed by the respondents/^plaintiffs for decree of declaration that a registered^{Sale Deed dated} 19.10.2009 is illegal, null and void. The^plaintiffs also^prayed for injunction restraining the defendant^{Nos. 1,2} and^{3 from} encroaching into the suit schedule^{property or interfering with} the peaceful possession of the^plaintiff.

¶40

The petitioners/defendants filed the application^under Order VII Rule 1 1 (a) and^{(d) of The Code of Civil Procedure,} 1908 ('C.P.CJ, for rejection of the^{plaint on} the^{ground that the}

¶41

i I I I I I t ii I l

¶42

¶43

plaint does not disclose a cause of action and that the Suit, as appears from the plaint, is barred by law- The Trial Court dismissed the petitioners' application on the ground that oral and docurnr:ntary evidence is required to decicle the contentious lSSLIES.

¶44

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/ defendant No.2 and 3 submits that the respondents have not made thc original owner - one Bhagramma - a part-v to the Suit and have also noL produced the original unrcgistered Sale Deed on which the respondents sought a dcclaration. Counsel submits that the respondents, not being parties to the Sale Deed dated 19.10.2009 (Document No.5446 of 2009), cannot challenge the validity of the said document. It is further submitted that the Suit is barred undcr Article 58 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 ('the 1963 Act) u,hich prescribes a period of 3 years from the date on which the right to sue flrst accrues for obtaining any declaration.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents,/ plaintilfs submits that the plaintifls relied on a Sale Deed dated 25.O4.2OO4 as the plaintiffs' docurnent of title with regrlrd to the suit schedule property and that the plaint mentions tht: grounds of legality of the said document. Counsel submits that the Sale

¶46

¶47

,/,.ai:,

¶48

Deed dated 25.04 .2OOi was filed along with the plaint artd forms part of the cause of action which is required to be proved by the plaintiffs to maintain the Suit. Counsel submits that ttre plaintiffs'case in the Suit is that the recitals in the Sale Deed dated 19.10.2009 do not corroborate payment of the sale consideration and the burden of proof hence lies on the purchaser/ defendant No. 1 to prove her ability to pay the sale consideration. Counsel submits that the only ground raised by the petitioners/defendants on the point of rimitation is that the petitioners/defendants instituted a Civil Suit _ O.S.N9.134 of 2012 seeking perpetuar injunction in respect of the same schedule of property against the respondents/praintiffs herein. Counsel relies on Article 59 of the Schedule to the 1963 Act, to say that the Suit filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs would have to be hled within 3 years from the date of knowledge of the facts entitling the respondents for cancellation of an instrument.

¶49

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties 'I'he facts involved in the matter may be simplified as foliows.

¶50

The petitioners herein are the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the Suit lrled by the respondents uide O.S.No .27 of 2023 seeking declaration that the registered Sale Deed dated 19.1O.2009 is null and void and injunction against the petitioners frorn

¶51

¶52

¶53

interfering with the^{peacefulpossession of the respondents} (plaintiffs in O.S.No.71 of 2023).^{The petitioners heretn filed an} earlier Suit - O.S.No.134 of²⁰⁷² -^{against the respondentsfor} injunction restraining the respondents^{from interfering with the} peaceful possession of the suit schedule^property.

¶54

The filing of the earlier Suit by the^{petitioners againslthe} respondents forms the basis of the^{petitioners' contention that} the respondents' second Suit i.e.,^{O.S.No.71 of 2023, shouldbe} rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the^{CPC as itfails to} disclose a cause of action and is barred^{by limitation.}

¶55

The view of this Court on the^{petitioners'(defenclantNos.2} and 3 in the second Suit)^{argumentthat the plaint filed in the} second Suit fails to disclose a cause of^{action is as follows.}

¶56

The expression "Cause of Action"^{means every material} fact which is necessary for the^{plaintiffto prove,if traversed, for} supportrng the plaintiff's right to^{judgment. In the presentcase,} the plaintiffs (respondents in the^{C.R.P.) rely on a Sale Deed} dated 25.O1 .2004 as the plaintiffs'^{document of title u'ith regard} to the suit schedule property.^{The plaint in} the^{second Suit} (O.S.No.71 ol 2023 hled by the respondents) clearly states that Bhagramma was the sole and absolute owner ol the suit schedule property and executed a Transfer Deed dated \r/

¶57

¶58

¶59

25.O4.2004 in favour of the frrst plaintiff and that the said

¶60

document rs an absolute Sale Deed by which Bhagramma delivered vacant and absolute possession to the tirst plaintiff. The plaint further states that once Bhagzamma (vendor) delivered the possession of the suit schedule property to the first plaintiff (purchaser), the said Sale Deed dated. 25.04.2OO4 can be used for the purpose of proving the exclusive possession of the plaintiff against the vendor. The plaintiffs (the respondents herein) also state that after executing the document in favour of the hrst plaintiff and delivering vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the hrst plaintiff, Bhagramma was compelled to execute a Sale Deed dated

¶61

19.1O.2OO9 in favour of the first defendant under mysterious circumstances. The Sale Deed dated 25.O4.2OO4 which forms the subject matter of the statements in the second Suit (O.S.No.71 of 2023) was filed along with the plaint and is part of the records.

¶62

1 1. After perusing the material paragraphs of the plaint filed by the respondents in the second Suit (O.S.No.71 of 2023), this Court disagrees with the contention of the petitioners/ defendants i.e., that the plaint frled in O.S.No.71 of 2023 does not disclose a cause of action.

¶63

¶64

¶65

t2. The view of the Court^{is based on the gist of the claim of} the respondents to the^{effect that the respondents' vendor,} Bhagramma, executed a second^{Sale Deeddated 19.10.2O09in} favour of the first defendant in O.S.No.71^{of 2023. It is also the} respondents/ plaintiffs' case that the^{hrst defendant executed a} subsequent Sale Deed dated O8.06.2O22^{tn favotr of the second} and third defendants^{(the petitionersbeforethis Court).}

¶66

The aforesaid sequence of events^{is stated in detail in the} relevant paragraphs of the^{plaint hled by the respondents.It is} also the respondents' case that the^{recitalsin the SaleDeed} dated 19.10.2009 with regard to sale^{considerationarer false and} the burden of proof hence lies on^{the firstdet'endant/purchaser} to prove her solvency to pay the^{consideration amountunder} the provisions of The Indian Evidence^{Act, 1872. The question} is not so much as to whether the^respondents /^{plaintiffsshould} succeed in their claim in O.S.No.71 of^{2023 (the ser:ondSuit)} but whether the facts^pleaded in^{the secondSuit constituteor} give rise to a cause of action for maintaining^{the Suit.}

¶67

There is no doubt that the^{statements made in the plaint} in O.S.No.71 af 2023 with regard to the respondents /^plaintiffs executing zr second saie deed in favour of the defendants in^the said Suit (including the petitioners herein) constitute a bundle

¶68

..:..

¶69

¶70

of facts which the plaintiffs are required to prove for the relief claime d in the Suit. Order VII Rule 1 1(a) of the CpC, i.e., whether a plaint should be rejected for failing to disclose a cause of action, implies drastic consequences since the plaintiffs can be non-suited on that ground alone. It is a summary procedure which entails a shortcut to dismissal of the Suit without trial. The Court must hence be absolutely certain that the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action. Even a slightest doubt as to the aforesaid is sufhcient for the Court to allow a Suit to proceed to trial. This Court therefore agrees. with the view taken by the Triar court that the praint discroses a cause of action.

¶71

The petitioners have also not been able to make out a case for re.iection of the plaint on the ground of limitation. The only case urged by the petitioners, through Senior Counsel, is that the respondent Nos. I to 3 were the defendants in a Civil Suit filed by the petitioners in 2012 (O.S.No. t34 of 2Ot2l with respect to the same suit schedule property and hence the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (plaintiffs in the second suit _ o.s.No.71 of 2023) were deemed to have knowledge of the petitioners, Sale Deed dated 19.10.2OO9

¶72

¶73

16' A comparison of the prayers made in the 2 Suits would show that the petitioners in the first Suit filed in 2OI2 prayed,

l i I

I I I il ll

for a decree^{of permanent injunction restraining the defendants} (respondent Nos.l^{to 3herein) from interfering with the} petitioners'^{peacefui possessionof the suit scheduleproperty'} ThesecondSuit{iledbytherespondentsin2023prayedfora declaration^{that the registeredSale Deedsdated19 1O'2009and} Oa.O6.2O22^{be declared nu11 and void and for injunction} restraining^{the petitioners herein from encroachinginto the suit} schedule^{property.Flven if it is accepted that both the Suits are} in respect^{of the same property, the respondents' pleadings in} the second Suit^{raisesa presumptionof the Sald Deeddated} 19.10.2009^{being sham and nominaldue tofailureof} consideration.

¶78

IT.InAtculaModhouaRaou.P.\ukminiBail,alearrledSingle Judge of the^{erstwhileHigh Court of Andhra Pradeshat} Hyderabad,^{as His Lordship was then' held that if the recitals in} the Sale^{Deed with regard to payment of sale considcrationare} found to^{be false, then the Sale Deedwouldbe void and there} would be^{no requirementfor instituling a Civil Suit lor seeking} cancellation^{of avoid documentThe contentionsofthe} respondents^{with regardto the allegedfailure of consideration} going to the root^{of the matter i'e', the validity of the SaleDeed} datedlg.lO.200g,whichtransferredtitietothepetitioners,iS

¶79

'^{toss1:1er-r'ol1s.n;}

.:t'

an issue which has ro be tried and cannot simply be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

¶84

It is settled that the issue of limitalion is a mixed question of fact and law and the Court will rarely invoke summary proceedings in the nature of Order MI Rule l l of the C.p.C to reject the plaint on the 'ground of rimitation unress the statements made in the plaint point to a clear case of delay and attracts one of the Articles to the Schedule to the Limitation Act. It is equally well settled that the Court muSt only look at the statements made in the plaint to determine a ca"e foi rejection thereof. There is nothing in the praint in o.s.No.7l of 2023 to indicate that the praintiffs/respondents fired the said suit contrary to the limitation prescribed under the statute.

¶85

The cases cited on behalf of the petitioners do not assist the case sought to be made out before this Court i.e., for setting aside of the impugned order dated 22.02.2024.

¶86

In State of punjab u. Bhagu_ontpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singhz, the Supreme Court came to a specilic finding that the plaintiff had purposery drafted and fired a vague ptaint which lacked essential details. Mudclasani Venkqta Narsaiah u.

¶87

2 2024 SCC Online SC 1700

¶88

¶89

Mud.dasani Sarojana3^{was cited for the proposition that a Sale} Deed cannot^{be questioned by a third party'In the present case'} the first respondent/^{plaintiffwas a defendantin the Suit filed} by the petitioners.^{Therefore,the facts in the present case are} wholly diflerent from^{those in Mud dasani \lenkataNarsaish} (supra). ln Bajranglal^{Agarutalu' Susheela Agantala} '^{this Court} came to a specific^{hndingthat the plaintiffhacl fileda vexatious} Suit where the^{causesof action were mutually-destructiveand} stcod extinguished.

¶90

Needless^{to say, each caseproceeds on its partir:ulararrd} peculiar set of facts^{and no straight jacket formulacan be} devised for^{rejectionof a plaint underOrder VII Rule 11 of the} C.P.C.

¶91

The cases^{citedby the parties on the prccedential value of} a decision on^{the competing strength of benchesare irrelevant} to the^present matter^{since there is no conflictof decisions} which fall for^{considerationin the present case' Thedecisions} citecl on behalf^{of the respondent No 1-plaintiff on voicl transfers} are also not^{relevantat this stage since the decisionsproceedon} the merits of the^{dispute before the Courts and not on the}

¶92

\tn zoto sc:zso 1 2024 SCC Onl.inc TS 1823

¶93

I I I I I I l I l

¶94

¶95

preliminary issue of whether Ordcr VII Rule 11 of the C.p.C. can be pressed into service.

¶96

23, The only consideration which is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining the legality of the impugned order is whether the petitioners' application for rejection of the plaint was dismissed on correct principles. This Court is of the view that there is no inlirmity in the reasons given by the Trial Court for allowing the Suit to progress to trial for determining the disputed questions of facts raised in the second Suit.

¶97

¶98

Moreover, in the present case, the very fact of two Suits being hled by the parties herein containing disputed questions of title and failure of consideration are triable issues and a case fit for trial. Rejecting the plaint filed in the second Suit by the respondents in a summary proceeding only on the basis of the first Suit would have amounted to grave injustice.

¶99

There is no doubt that Order VII Rule 11 of the C.p.C. is discretionary ald can only be pressed into service where the Court comes to a definite conclusion that the plaint should be rejected as failing to disclose a cause of action or being barred by law. The Trial Court was hence of the correct view that the facts warranted oral and documentary evidence for deciding the

I I I l

1l
'::

issues and rejecting the plaint at the threshold would have been an improper exercise of discretion

¶104

This Court accordingly does not see any reason to interfcrc with the impugned order dated 2'2.07 .2024. In any event, the petitioners, as the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the Suit, will have every opportunity to defend the Suit in a full-fledged trial. No facts have been brought to the notice of the Court which would warrant rejection of the plaint and dismissal of O.S.No.71 ol 2023 at the very threshold without a trial.

¶105

C.R.P.No.2681 of 2024 is accordingly dismissed. All

¶106

connected applications are disposed of. Therc shall br: no order

¶107

as to costs.

¶108

Sd/- K.^AMMAJI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 The Chairperson,^{Land ReformsAppellate Tribunal-cum-l AdditionalDistrict} Judoe. Hanumakonda. 2 o;"'di i;^{s;' N"ienorr Jalli, Advocate tgilgl.} 3 6;; cc io^{sii riir..nsanghi, Advocate[oPUC]} 4 Two CD^CoPies

{/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:^1011212024

ORDER

1 E i '4"'a o
( )'c.
P
q
i;
2 i [:i 2{L[
+)