D. Ramaa Vs Mala Brajkumar Bhakttwoni and 51 other

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS:1159.^,r171 AND 1357 0F 2024

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1159 OF 2020:

¶8

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia is filed aggrieved by the order da\ed24.02.2020^passed in lA No. 1043 of 2019^{in OS.No.593of 2018} by the lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

D. Ramaa, Wo D Ashok, Aged 55 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Plot No.1114,^Road No.54, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad

¶11

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.35

¶12

AND

¶13

'L Mala Brajkumar Bhaktani, Wo Raj Kumar Motilal Bhaktani, Aged about 63 years, Occ. Housewife, Flat No.102, lFloor, Breeze building, Charkop Manav CHS, Plot No.3, Opp. Jain Temple Sector-S, Charkop, Kandivali,^West Mumbai. Maharashtra - 400 067.

¶14

Satyam Brajkumar Bhaktani, S/o Brij Kumar Motilal^{Bhaktani andAged about} 39 years, Occ.business, Flat No.102, I Floor, Breeze^{building, CharkopManav} CHS, Plot No.3, Opp. Jain Temple Sector-s, Charkop, Kandivali,^West Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 067

¶15

...RESPONDENTS 1 TO 2/PLAINTIFFS

¶16

Hassaram @ Hassanand,, S/o Hemandas, Aged about^{80 years,Occ-} business, R/o H.No.9-1-116, Market Street, Karim Nagar^{Town,Karimnagar} District,

¶17

Mrs. Ritu Malhotra, Wo Mr. Suresh Malhotra,^{Aged about 58 years, Occ.} Housewife, R/o H.No.8-2-322, Road No.14, Banjara Hills,^Hyderabad. Presently residing at 64E, Majid Mohd, Greater Kailash,^{Part-lll, New Delhi.}

¶18

Kusum Kapur, Wio lnder Mohan Kapoor,^{Aged about79 years, Occ.} Housewife, R/o Plot No.'1 I , Kamalapuri colony,^{Phase-|,Hyderabad}

¶19

Arti Kapoor, D/o lnder Mohan Kapoor,^{Aged about 53 years,Occ.Housewife} 7. Renu Kapoor, D/o lnder Mohan Kapoor, Aged 55^{years, Occ. Housewife,R/o} Plot No.11, Kamalapuri colony, Phase-|, Hyderabad

¶20

tvirs. Ruqhia Mahmood Ali, Wo late Mahmood^{Ali, Aged85 years, Occ.} Housewife, R/o 1'145, lnverness, lLLlNOlS, 60143,^USA

¶21

Mrs. Fawzia Ansari, D/o late Mahmood Ali, Aged 65 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o 1145, lnverness, lLLlNOlS, 60143, USA

¶22

10.Mrs. Daisy.S. Siddiqui, D/o late Mahmood Ali, Aged 58 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o^'14, Bunker Lane, Natick, MA 0-1760, USA

¶23

'1 1. Mrs. Sugra Sulaiman, Wo late S.tt/. Ebrahim, Aged 86 years, occ. Housewife, R/o Brindavan Apartments, 11, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Chennai

¶24

12.Mr. Aiyaz M. Ebrahim, S/o late S.M. Ebrahim, Aged 66 years, Occ. business Ro No 9, (Old No l05), 1 Cross Victoria Layout, Bangalore-560047

¶25

13.[\ilr. Faraz M. Ebrahim, S/o late S.M. Ebrahim, Aged 64 years, Occ. business R/o 5 Stone Lrnk Avenue, R.A. Puram Chennai - 28.

¶26

'14. Mrs. Nilofer Amin Rehman, D/o S.lt/. Ebrahim, Aged 63 years Occ. House Wife, R/o Brindavan Apartments, 11, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Chennai

¶27

Mrs Arysha Zafar, D/o late S.M. Ebrahim, Aged 54 years, Occ House Wife, R/o Ernst and Young, P.O. Box. No.9267, Dubai, UAE

¶28

Nisar Ahmed, S/o Ghulam Ahmed and Saleem Fathima, Aged 87 years, occ. business, Rio H.No.8-2-351ll, Road No.3 and 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶29

17.Smt. R. Radha Bai, Wo R.K. Guru Lingam, Aged Major, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No. B-1-364/4, Pochamma Temple, Yellareddyguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

¶30

1B.M/s. Jayabheri Entertainments Pvt. Ltd, Having its oJfice at Plot No.1 , Jayabheri Enclave, Near Botanical Garden, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director Sri Kishore Duggirala, S/o Sri Sivarama Krishnaiah, Aged 63 years

¶31

19.M/s Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd., Having its office at Plot No.1, Jayabheri Enclave, Near Botanical Garden, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director Sri Kishore Duggirala, S/o Sri Sivarama Krishnaiah, Aged 63 years

¶32

Sri Kishore Duggirala, S/o Sri Sivarama Krishnaiah, Aged 63 years, Occ. business, Rlo A-24, Phase-ll, Film Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana-S0O 033

¶33

Sri Maganti Raja Babu @ Murali Mohan, S/o Madhava Rao, Aged 77 years, Occ. business, Rlo A-24, Phase-ll, Film Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 033

¶34

Sri Maganti Ram lt/ohan, S/o fVlaganti Raja Babu or Murali Mohan, Aged 49 years, Occ. business, Rlo A-24, Phase-ll, Film Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 033.

¶35

Smt. Y. Sujatha, Wo Y Ravindra Babu, Aged 60 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Plot No.'12'19, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 33.

¶36

Smt. Y. Prathima, D/o Y. Ravindra Babu, aged 41 years R/o Plot No.53-C, Road No.1 , Film Nagar, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad.

¶37

Smt. S Sridevi, Wo S. Krrshna, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Household, R/o Flat No.205, Saikiran Delux Apartments, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad

¶38

Smt. R. Jyothi, W/o R. Lalith Prasad, Aged about 50 years, Occ Household, R/o Flat No.205, Saikiran Delux Apartments, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad.

¶39

Smt. K. Hemalatha Rao, Wo late K. Keshava Rao, Aged 71 years, Occ. House wife, R/o Flat No.205, Saikiran Delux Apartments, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad

¶40

K. Prakash, S/o K. Keshava Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ. business R/o Kowur town, West Godavari district, Aged 54 years, occ. business, R/o Plot No.'12'19, Road No.36, Rep. by his GPA Holder K. Srinivasa Rao, S/o K Suryanarayana, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad

¶41

D. Gopal Ji, Sio late Nageshwar Rao, Aged 43 years, Occ.business, R/o H.No 13-3-7481N2, L.B. Nagar Ziaguda, Hyderabad - 500 012

¶42

D. - Bajranga^{Ji, Sio D. Laxman Ji, Aged59 years'Occ business'R/o} H No.t3-5-748tN2,L.B^{Nagar,Ziaguda, Hyderabad - 500012}

¶43

3'l . D. Laxman^{Rao, S/o late Tuiaram,Aged 51 years, Occ business'F/o} H.No.13-3-748/4/2,^{L.B. Nagar, Ziaguda,Hyderabad - 500 012}

¶44

Mohan Singh,^{S/o lateNarayan Singh,Agedabout60 years' Occ Agriculture'} Rlo H.No.1133,^{Nanakramguda village, Serilingampally Mandal'R R Dist-}

¶45

eS CopaL'Singn,^{6/o trt" Narayan Singh, Aged 38 years, Occagriculture'R/o} H No.1-33, Nanakramguda^{village Serilingampally Mandal'R R Dist}

¶46

a+ kunOan Singh,^{S/o lateNarayan Singh, Aged55 years'Occ agriculture' R/o} H.No,1-33, ilanakramguda^{village, Serilingampally Mandal' R R' Dipt}

¶47

35 Ramesh Singh,^{S/o lat,e Narayan Singh' Agedabout 43 years' occ} agriculture, R/o^{H.No.1-33, Nanakramguda village}

¶48

36.A;hok Singh,^{S/o late Narayan Singh Aged 48 years,Occ. AgricultureR/o} H.No.1-33, Nanakramguda^{village, Serilingampally Mandal' R R Dist}

¶49

3T.Akkineni Ramesh,^{S/o ALV Praiad,Aged82 years, Occ business'R/o} H.No.B-2-293l8zlFl34tA'RoadNo.1'l,FilmNagar'sitell'Jubileehills' Hyderabad -^33.

¶50

Kurra Srinivasa^{Rao,S/o K. NarayanaRao, Aged about52 years'} Occ.business^{R/o Road No.36' Jubilee Hills, Hyderqba}

¶51

:S ASN Rair,^{S/o AVS Raju, Aged 59 years, Occ businessR/o PlotNo 1684'} Road No.10, Jubilee^{hills, Hyderabad}

¶52

+0 A-irinivas^{Ram Raju,Sio nVS Raju, Aged 50 years, Occ business' R/o Plot} No,'t684, Road^{No 10, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad'}

¶53

41.A Venkata^{Narasimha Raju, S/o AVS Rant,Aged 57 years' Occbusiness'} R/o Plot No.1684,^{Road No.'10,Jubilee hills, Hyderabad'}

¶54

42.Smt. K, Ratna,^{Wo K. SudhakarReddy,aged about 65 years'Occbusiness'} R/o H.No.8-2-32419,^{RoadNo.3' Banjara Hills, Hyderabad'}

¶55

43.Anumula Appi^{Reddy, S/o A Rami Reddy,Aged 68 years'Occ business' Rio} Rentapalla village,^{Sattenpalli Mandal, Guntur District'}

¶56

M/s. Sri Sairam-Projects^{Ltd' Rep by its Director Sri RamaKrishna Pilaka'} S/o P.S. Krishnamurthy,^{aged 54 years, R/o H No 8-3-231lVV/17' Krishna} Nagar, HYderabad^{- 45}

¶57

a5 Smi Ch. Vasumathi,^{W/o late Ch. Madhava Rao, Aged78 years'R/o Plot} No.5, Road No.9,^{Jubilee hills, Hyderabad}

¶58

46 Ch. Ramesh,^{S/o Sri Madhava Rio, Aged 63 years, R/o Plot No 277' Road} No.9, Jubilee Hills,^HYderabad

¶59

47.Ch. Ramesh Babu,^{S/o Sri poornachandraRao, Aged 45 years' R/oPlot} No.241, Kamalapur^{colony,Phase-ll, Hyderabad'}

¶60

aA M. AnuiaOna,^{WioM.S. Riiu, Aged 53 years, Rlo B-24' Journalist colony'} Jubilee Hills,^HYderabad.

¶61

4g.Chalasani^{VeniataNarayana, S/olate Sreerama Murthy,Aged54 years, To} Pedamaddali^{village, Krishna District'}

¶62

50 Smt Surya^{DevaraVijayaLaxmi, Wo S Srinivasa Rao' Aged 48 years'} Yadava Bazar, D.No.i6-15-91,^{Old Guntur, Guntur District}

¶63

P- Renish Reddy,^{S/o Patnam Mahender Reddy, Aged 27 years' RoadNo '12'} Banjara hills, HYderabad

¶64

52 Suryadevara^{Sieenivasa Rao' S/o Suryadevara Subba Rao'Aged52 years'} Yad'ava Street, Old^{Guntur, Guntur district} (Respondents 3 to 52 are^{not necessary}

¶65

11[E3fo*r=NTS/RESpoNDENTS

¶66

!

¶67

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶68

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 further proceedings in OS 593 of 2018 on the file of the lll Additronal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L B Nagar, pending disposal of the current Civil Revision Petition.

¶69

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.V. PRATAP KUMAR

¶70

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY

¶71

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1't71 OF 202 0

¶72

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia is filed aggrieved by the order dated24.02.2020 passed in lA No. 917 of 2019 in OS.No.593 of 2018 by the court of the lllAdditional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar.

¶73

Between:

¶74

A.Venkata Narasimha Raju, Son of AVS Raju, aged about 56 years, occ. Business, R/o Plot No.564, Road No.31, Jubrlee Hills, Hyderabad

¶75

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.40

¶76

AND

¶77

Mala Br4kumar Bahktani, W/o Brijkumar Motilal Bhaktani, aged About 64 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o.102, lstfloor, Breeze Building, Charkop [\4anav CHS Plot No.3, Opp Jain Temple Sector -5, Charkop, Kandivali, West lVIumbai, Maharashtra-400 067.

¶78

Satyam Brij Kumar Bhaktani, Son of Brij Kumar Motilal Bhaktani, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o.102,^'lst floor, Breeze Burlding, Charkop [/anav CHS Plot No.3, Opp Jain Temple Sector -5, Charkop, Kandivali, West Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 067.

¶79

M/s VRCR Real lnfra Developers Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Director V. Ramchandra Rao, S/o Late V. Musalaiah R/o H. No. 8-2-686/8/2, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Telengana - 500034

¶80

V Ramchandra Rao, S/o V. Musalaiah R/o H. No 8-2-686/8/2, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Telengana - 500034

¶81

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶82

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶83

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 o.S No.593 of 20'l B on the file of the lll Additional District and Session Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L B Nagar, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision petition.

¶84

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. P. BALAJI^VARMA

¶85

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l^{to 3: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY}

¶86

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI MOHD.^{MOIN AHMED QUADRI}

¶87

CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION NO: 1357^{OF 2O2O}

¶88

Petition under Article 227 o'f the Constitution^{of lndia is filed aggrieyed by the} order dated 24.02.2020^{passed in lA No. 916 of 2019 in OS.No. 593 of 20'18 on} the file of the court of the lll Additional^{Districtand SessionsJudge,Ranga Reddy} d istrict at L.B. Nagar.

¶89

Between:

¶90

A. Srinivas Ram Raju, Son of AVS^Raju, aged^{about 50 years, Occ BusinessR/o} Plot No.2B5, Road No.25, Jubilee Hills,^Hyderabad

¶91

...PETITIONER/PETITIO&ER/DEFENDANT^NO.39

¶92

AND

¶93

Mala Brijkumar Bahktani, Wo^{Brijkumar lt/lotilal Bhaktani, agedAbout 64} years, Occ. House Wife, Rlo.102,1st floor, Breeze^{Building, Charkop Manav} CHS Plot No.3, Opp Jain Temple^{Sector-5, Charkop, Kandivali, West} lvlu mbai, Itilaharashtra400 067.

¶94

Satyam Brij Kumar Bhaktani, Son^{of Brij Kumar Motilal Bhaktani Agedabout} 40 years, Occ. Business, Rio.102,^{1st floor, Breeze Building, Charkop Manav} CHS Plot No.3, Opp Jain Temple Sector^{-5, Charkop, Kandivali, West} Ivlumbai, Maharashtra 400 067.

¶95

3, M/s VRCR Real lnfra Developers^{Pvt Ltd,Rep by its DirectorV. Ramchandra} Rao, S/o Late V. Musalaiah R/o^H. No.^{8-2-686/8/2, Road No. 12.,Baniara} Hills, Hyderabad Telengana -500034

¶96

V. Ramchandra Rao, S/o V. Musalaiah^{R/o H. No. 8-2-686/8/2,RoadNo. 12,} Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Telengana^-500034

¶97

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶98

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s.^{P. BALAJI VARMA}

¶99

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1^{to 3: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY}

¶100

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:^{SRIMOHD. MOIN AHMED QUADRI}

¶101

The Court made the following:^{COMMON ORDER}

¶102

a.

¶103

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CML REVISION PETITION Nos.1159,1171 & 1357 I 2O2O

¶104

COMMON ORDER:

¶105

Sincc the /is and parlies involved in thcse revision petitrons are same, these rnatters were heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order.

¶106

CRP.Nos.l159, 1171 and 1357 of 2p2O are hled by defendant Nos.35, 40 and 39 respectively, challenging the orders dated 24.O2.2O2O passed in IA.Nos.1043, 917 and 916 of 2019 respectively, in OS.No.593 of 2O18 by the III Additional Dislrict Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.

¶107

The bnef facts of these cases are that the revision petitioners who are defendants in the above surts filed the above IAs., under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil procedure Code (for short 'CPC') praying for rejection of plaint. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said IAs., utde impugned orders dated 24.02.2020 obser-ving that the plaint discloses some cause of action and the same is sufflcient even though the chance of success for the plaintiff in the suit, are remotc. Hence, these revisions.

¶108

2

¶109

Heard learned counscl for petitioners, and learned counsel appea-ring for respondents, respectively, in al1 the revision petitions.

¶110

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are replete with glaring illegalities^and contraventions of established legal principles. He contended that the plaints and supporting documents hled by^the plaintiffs woefully fail to disclose valid cause of actions for the suits, particularly with regard to the reliefs sought for recovery of possession and cancellation of registered^documcnts executed since the year 197 7. He lamented that^egregious Iacunas were further compounded by the respondents' categorical admission in their plcadings in OS.No.27^{of 2010,} wherein, they unequivocally acknowledged executing a General Power of Attorney^(GPA) in the^{year197O, authorizing} the attorneys to sell the 1ands, which were^{coupled with the} subsequent sa-le to third parties, renders the suit^irrevocably barred by limitation. He asserted that the respondents^have engaged in a blatant exercise of creating an illusory and manufactured cause of actions, replete with frivolous and

¶111

3

¶112

mischievous assertir>ns, r,l,hich are utterly dcvoid of any factual foundation.

¶113

Lrarncd counsel for petitioners incessantl], c<tntended that the failure of respondents to specify the date of iand acquisition proceedings for the Outer Ring Road (ORR), u,hich occurred in the year 20OS 06 and that the same is a glaring omission which would highlight the infirmities rn their case. He averred that thc rcspondenLs cannot, bc pcrntittecl to circumvent the law of limitation through cleve r drafting, artfully omitting crucial dctails that would unequivocally render the suit barred, and that the attempt of respondents to create a cause of action through false statements lnade on oath is utterly unsustainable in law, and thii t the same warrants stringent reprobation. In support of their contentions, reliance was placed on the judgmcnts renclered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dahiben Vs. Awiadbhai Kalyanji Bhanusalil, C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K. Senthil and Others2, and in the judgment rendc.red by this Court in Bajranglal Agarwal Vs. Susheela Agarwal and

¶114

'lzozoy^z scc soo

¶115

'z^(2022)sCC OnLine 5C 1330

¶116

4

¶117

Otherss. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow these revision petitions, setting aside the impugned orders dated 24.02.2020.

¶118

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and contended that the allegations made by the petitioners are entirely false, baseless, and devoid of any merit. They averred that the plaints would clearly discloses a valid cause of actions for the suits, as the respondents have specihcally pleaded that they came to know about the fraudulent GpA and sale deeds through a news article published in the month of May 201g. They lamented that the suits were well within the limitation period as the respondents have pleaded sufficient facts to establish their title and claim for recovery of possession. They emphasized that the respondents' pleadings are clear, specihc, and unequivocal, and that they have provided ample evidence to support their contentions. In addition, they asserted that the contentions of leaned counsel for petitioners are entirely outside the scope of Order VII Rule 1 1 of CpC which governs

¶119

I (2024) SCC OnLine TS 1823

¶120

I

¶121

art*,ir. - .1rttt3x:l

¶122

the rejection of plaints. They reiterated that the plaints cannot be rejected on the basrs of allegations made by the petitioners, as the same were unfounded and unsupported by evidence. In support of their contentions, they relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others v. Assistart Charity Commissioner and Othersa, Chhotanben and Another v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and Otherss, Salim D. Agbotwala and Others v. Shamatji Oddnavji Thakkar and Others6 Urvashiben and Another v. Krishnakant Manuprasad TrivediT, Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Otherss, P.V. Guru Raj Reddy and Another v. P. Neeradha Reddy and Otherse, C. Natarajan v. Ashim Bai and Anotherlo, Shakti Bhog Food Industries Limited v. Central Bank of India and Anotherll and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and Others12. Therefore, while

¶123

'( 2004) 3 scc 137 2078) 6 422 2021) 17 'CC SCC 100 '('(,( 2019) 13 SCC 372

¶124

"(2021)9 sCC 99 il2015) 8 SCC 331 (2006) 14 SCC 183 11 l2O2O)^77SCC260 t2 (1994) 1 SCC 1

¶125

I

¶126

6

¶127

advocating that there are no^inflrmities or^{illegalities in the} impugned orders dated 24.O2.2O2O,^{they prayed this Courtto} dismiss the revision^{petitionsas the samelacks merits.}

¶128

Having regard to the rival submissions^{madeand on} going through the material placed on^{record, it is notedthat} suits were filed for declaration^{of title, recovery of possession} and for cancellation o[ sale^{deeds executedin the year197O.} The hrst contention of learned^{counsel for petitioncrs is that} the alleged GPA was executed^{in the year 197Oand the same} was known to respondent Nos. I^{and 2 and that being so, they} cannot file suits stating that^{theycameto know about the} alleged fraud only in the^{year20 18 when a news item was} published in the print media.

¶129

g. Admittedly, respondent^{Nos. 1 and 2 along with others} hied OS.No.27 of 20iO on^{2O.O1.2010and in paragraphNo.2} of the plaint there^was mention^{regarding the executionof} alleged GPA in the year^{1970, stating that one Sri Motilal} Chandumal and his family^{were displaced from West Pakistan} during the partition of India and had a^{verifiedclaim for} compensation and that^{he was allotted land in Sy.No.288 of}

¶130

7

¶131

Poppalguda Village in thc year 197O, and additional lands in Sy.Nos.289-296 were allotted in the year 1955. It wzrs further stated that the said Motilal constituted attorneys, including Sri V.A. Vasu'ani and Hasaram Hassanand, through a CpA ir-r the year 1970, and disposed of the lands in Sy.Nos.2g9_296 through them during his litetime. Therefore, in vir:r.v ol the said mention made in the plaint, it cannot be said that the respondents \t ere not aware of execution oi. GpA dated O2.IO.1|7O. As such, there is no force in the saicl contcntion of respondcnt Nos.1 and 2.

¶132

In addition, in the averments of the plaint, it was clearly stated that except signing below their names, thc respoltdent Nos. I and 2 were not aware of the statements thercof, as the same were in English zrnd that the same werc not rca<l over or expiained to them by their GpA holders, subsequent lo which compromise decree was passed, It was further contended that they have never seen the Advocate who was engzrged on their behalf and that they were only aware that his name is Sri Rami Reddy, and that the said person filed caveats in respect of suit lands in OS.No.27 of 20l0 in the name o[ respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, this Court is of the opinion that there

¶133

8

¶134

is no force in the said contention o[ respondent Nos. I and 2 as there was no clear mention regarding the averments that were explained to them before they signed the document

¶135

I 1. Given the averments of the case on hand, there is no dispute that the original allottee, Motilai Chandumal, passed away on 19.05.1976, leaving behind his wife Nirmala Devi and three children: Brijkumar Motilal Bhaktani, Biharilal, and Jyothi Naraindas. Nirmala Devi later passed away on 21.O4.2OO8, while Brijkumar Bhaklani died on 21.1O.19a2. The plaintiffs, being the children of Brijkumar Bhaktani, along with Jyothi Naraindas, are the only surviving legal heirs of the late Motilal Chandumal. Howcver, the only contention of respondents herein is that Motilal Chandumal, the original allottee, never executed GPA in favor of Hassaram (a) Hassanand Le., defendant No. 1. Instead, verihcation would reveal that said GPA pertains to a mortgage deed executed by Ramesh Atmaram Patel in favor of Babulal Sankalchand and others. They speciflcally contend that they discovered the same only in May 2O 18 through a newspaper article, prompting them to file the present suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and deciaration of the sale deeds as

¶136

9

¶137

null and void,.*,hich they argue is within the limitation period. However, as discussed above, it is clear from paragraph No.2 of thc plaint in OS.No.27 of 2010 that the same was very much in thcir knowledge and the said GPA was cxecuted in the year 1970, That being so, subsequently. filing a suit praying for cancellation of decree cannot be a ground for filing another suit.

¶138

At this stage, it is imperative to note that in the judgment rendered in the case of Dahiben (supra) ln paragraph No.24.2 it was held as under:

¶139

"ln T. Arivardandam v. T.V. Satyapal [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977], 4 SCC 4671 this Court held that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC what is requircd to be decided is whether the plarnt discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory. in the followrng words : (SCC p. 47O, para 5l

¶140

'5. The learned Minsif must remember that if on a meaningful not formal reading of the plaint it is

f,

10

i li

I I I

manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care 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. . .."

¶146

From the above extracted portion, it can be observed that when examining a plaint, the Court should conduct a meaningful, rather than merely formal, reading to determine if it appears to tre manifestly vexatious ancl meritless. If the plaint fails to disclose a clear right to sue, the Court should exercise its power under Order ViI Rule 11 of the CpC. However, the Court must ensure that the grounds for rejection are met. Moreover, if clever drafting has created an rllusory cause of action, the Court should intervenc at the outset and dismiss the plaint at the first hearing. Keeping in mind the said legal position, it is pertinent to note that the matter was compromised between the parties in the year 2017 itself, as such, after lapse of all these years, the

¶147

11

¶148

respondents cannot take the plea that they were unaware of the averments of the plaint and that they signed on it without knou,ing the contents thereof.

¶149

However, it is to be noted that though learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on the judgment of Sopan Sukhdeo (supra 4) whereunder it was observed Lhat ', there cannot be ang compartmentalization, dissection, Segregation and. inuersions of the language of uaious paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it utould run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to uthich a pleading hos to be read as a uhole to oscertain its tnte import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it A the substance and not merely the fonn that has to be looked into, the pteading ho,s to be construed as it stands uithout addition or subtroction or words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the partg conceffLed is to be gatlrcred. primarilg from^{the tenor and tenns of hi.s pleadirrys} taken as a u.thole. At tlt-e some time it should be bome in mind that no ped.antic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities", the same does not come to the aici of the

¶150

lz

¶151

respondents as the^{samecannotbe consideredto the factsof} the case on hand.

¶152

From the above extracted^{porlion,it is made clear that} when interpreting a^{plaint,it's essentialto consider it in its} entirety, rather than^{compartmentalizing ordissecting} specihc paragraphs or^{sentences.This approach ensuresthat} the pleading is understood^{in its true context, as requiredby} the fundamental principles of^{interpretation. Further,} isolating sentences or^{passagesfrom the rest o[ thc plaint is} nol permissible, as it distorts^{their intended meaning'} lnstead, the^pleading should^{be construed as itstands,} u.ithout altering its wording^{orgrammaticalsense.The} primary goal IS to discern the intenlion^{o[ party from the} overall tenor and terms of their^{pleadings. However,this} should be done^{in a manner} that avoids pedantic and overlY technical approaches,^{which can lead to unjust outcomes'In} the case on hand,^{merely denyingthe averments on the} ground of being unaware does^{not give scope for any cause of} actlon.

¶153

13

¶154

t1

¶155

Furthermore, on behalf of respondents, relizrnce was also placed on the judgment rendered in the case of Chhotanben (supra .5) whereunder, in paragraph Nos.19 and 20 it was observcd as under:

¶156

'19. Irr the present case, we find that the appellant-plaintilfs have asserted that the suir lvas filed imrnediately after getting knorvledge about rhe fraudulent sale deed executed b1, original Defendants I and 2 by keeping them in the dirrk about such execution and rvithin two days from lhc refusal lrv the original Defendants I and 2 to refrain from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of use ancl possession of the ancestral property of lhe appellants. Wc affirm the view taken by the trial court that the issue regarding the suit being barred 1)1. limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint caonot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the porver under Order 7 Rule I I (d) CPC.

¶157

2O. In thc above ssnsps6lys, we have no hesitation in reversing the view taken by the High Court and restoring the order o[ the trial court rejecting the application (Ext. 21) filed by Respondent t-

¶158

74

¶159

Defendant 5 under^{Order 7Rule 1i(d) CPC'} Consequently, the^{plaint willget restoredto its} original number^{on the file of the IVth Additional} Civil Judge, Anand,^{for beingproceededfurther in} accordance with^{lau.We may additionally clarify} that the trial court^{shall give effect to the order} passed below Ext.^{17 dated 20-l-2016,reproduced} in para 8, above,^{and takeitto its logical end, if} the same has^{remainedunchallengedatthe} instance of any one^{oI the defendantsStrbject to} that, the said order^{must be taken to its logicalend} in accordance^withlaw."

¶160

17 . In addition,^{reliance was also placed in the judgment} rendered in the^{case of Salim (supra 6) whereunder' in} paragraph No.8, it^{was observed as under:}

¶161

"lnsofar as the^{rejectionof the} Plaint^{on the ground} of limitation is concerned,^{it isneedlessto} emphasise that^{limitation is a mixed questionof} fact and law.^{It isthe case of the appellant-} plaintiffs that only after^{making inspection of the} records in connection^{withthe suit land available} in the office of^{Defendant 3 (CourtReceiver)that} they came across^{thecorrespondenceand} documents relating to^{the transactionsand that}

15

L

l

I

the proceedings before ALT were collusive, fraudulent and null and void. The appellant plaintiffs have even questioned the authority of the Court Receiver to represent them in the tenancy proceed ings.'

¶167

At this stage, it is imperative to note that it is an admitted fact that while dealing with petitions hled under Order VII Ruie 11 of CPC, the Court has to consider the plaint averments only, along with documents hled by the plaintiff. That being so, in the cases on hand, in the averments of plaints, they mcntioned regarding filing of suit in 2010, whereas, denying the samc on the ground of being unaware of averments cannot be accepted. Though learned counsel for respondents relied on the above judgment stating that limitation is mixed question of fact and law, in the suit that was hled rn the year 2010 it is apparently showing knowledge, therefore, the above judgment is not applicabie to lhe facts of the present cascs.

¶168

In view of the above detailed analysis on factual background of the cases, the respondents cannot contend that they were unaware of execution of GPA in the year 7970 ar.d

15

tl i j

I

I

only came to know about the samc in the year 201g through news article. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the version of respondents can be treated as clever drafting with intent to create illusory cause of action.

¶174

In view thereof, these revlslon petitions are allowed, setting aside the orders dated 24.O2.2O2O passed 1n IA.Nos.lO43, 977 and 916 of 2Ol9 respectively, in OS.No.S93 of 2O 18 by the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB.Nagar. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶175

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

¶176

stand closed.

¶177

SD/- L. VIJ AYA LAXMI S ISTANT REGISTRAR

¶178

//TRUE COPY//

¶179

SECTION OFFICER

¶180

To,