Dismissed

Thammishetty Ramulu v. Bollam Manjula

Telangana HC13 Oct 2025CRP/1287/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants sought rejection of a plaint seeking declaration of title and cancellation of a gift deed, contending an agreement-cum-GPA conveyed no title and the suit was time-barred. The High Court held the plaint disclosed a prima facie cause of action based on part performance, and limitation was a mixed question for trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

Thammishetty Ramulu Vs Bollam Manjula — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132171

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF^OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PE^{TITIONNO: 1287 OF 2025}

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of lhe^{Constitutionof lndia aggrievedby the} Order dated 27.12.2024^{passedin lA No. 634 of 2023in OS No 461 ot 2023on} the file of the court of the ll^{Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-llAdditional} Judicial Magistrate at Karimnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Thammishetty Ramulu,^{S/o.GouraiahAge.55 years, Occ Legal Practitioner,} R/o.H.No.8-515 5311 N1, PochammawadS,^{Kothirampur, KarimnagarCityand} District.

¶10

Thammishetti Hemalatha,^{Wo. Thammishettt RamuiuAge 46 years,Occ} Housewife, R/o.H.No.8-5-55311N1,^{Pochammawada,Kothirampur,} Karimnagar City and District.

¶11

...PETITIONER/S

¶12

AND

¶13

Bollam Manjula, Wo.Late^{Bollam Mahender Age. 45 years,OccHousehold,} FUo.H.No.7-3l2/1A,/1,^{Rekurthi Village, Kothapalli Mandal, KarimnagarDrstnct'}

¶14

...RESPONDENT/S

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstan@sstated} in the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the High court may be pleasedto} stayof all furtherproceedingsinosNo.46l^{of 2023,d1.27.12.2024ontlrefileof} ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge^{at Karimnagar.}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{Sri J. Ashvini Kumar}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent:^{Sri KondadiAjay Kumar}

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶21

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1287 OF 2025

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing^{the order dated,} 27.12.2024 in l.A. No.634 ot 2023 in O.S.^{No.461 of 2023, on the} file of the ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

¶24

The petitioners herein are the defendants^{in the suit.The} said suit was instituted by the^{respondenUplaintiffseeking (i)} declaration of title,^{(ii) perpetual injunction, and (iii) eancellation of} the registered gift deed dated 25.05.2022^{executed by defendant} No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, as null^{and void.}

¶25

The defendants filed an application^{under Order Vll Rule} 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure,^{19OS('CPC"), praying for} rejection of the^plaint. The trial^{Court, by the impugnedorder,} dismissed the application with costs.^{Aggrieved by the same, the} present revision has been preferred.

¶26

Facts and Pleadings:

¶27

4.1. The relevant facts, as^{pleaded in the plaint,may be briefly} noted. The Revision Petitioner^{No.'llDefendantNo. 1 was the} \

¶28

¶29

absolute owner of open Plot No.200 in Su . ey No.1 39, admeasuring 184.44 square yards, situated at Rerr tfthy Vittage, Kothapalli Mandal, Kaimnagar (hereinafter referrl J to as^.,lhe subject plot'). On 08.03.2006, Defendant No.1 offe- rd to sell the 'subject plot to the husband of the respondent/plairrl ff for a valid consideration of Rs.38,0001. Upon receipt ( , the said consideration, a registered Agreement of Sale - ;um_General Power of Attorney ("AGPA") was executed in^,i vour of the plaintiffs husband, and possession of the plot was : :livered. lt is the case of the respondent that she and her husbar J have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the propel / ever since, and that a residential house was subsequentl,r constructed thereon. After the death of her husband on 07,11.20.12, the 'respondent continued in possession, and the r-operty was mutated in the municipal records and she has k r en regularly paying property and municipal taxes.

¶30

4.2. lt is further averred that, with an intent to unlavtully reclaim the subject plot, Revision petitioner No.1/Dele rdant No 1 allegedly conspired and executed a fabricated rr 3istered gift deed in favour of Revision petitioner No.2/Defen i lnt No.2 on 25 05.2022. Subsequenfly, on 19.11.2022, t e revision

¶31

)

¶32

¶33

petitioners/defendants allegedly attempted to^{forcibly dispossess} the respondent. Though such attempt^{was resisted,the} petitioners purportedly declared their intention to^{take overthe} property and sought to alienate it to third^{parties,thereby} infringing upon the respondent's^{rights. Consequently,the} present suit was filed seeking the aforementioned^reliefs.

¶34

Contentions of the Parties:

¶35

5.1. Learned counsel^{for the revision petitioners/defendants} contended that the registered^{AGPA was admittedly executedon} 08.03.2006, whereas the^{respondent's husband passedaway on} 07.O3.2012, and the impugned^{gift deed was executed between} Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on^{25.05.2022.lt is submittedthat the} respondenUplaintiff has not^{pleadedthat title was transferred} under the AGPA. ln terms^{of Section17 readwithSection49 of'} the Registration Act,^{1908, ownershipof immovable property can} pass only through a duly executed and^{registered conveyance} deed, and no such document^{exists in this case.}

¶36

5.2. lt was further argued^{that it is well settledthat an AGPA} does not convey title, as^{held in M.S. Ananthamurthy vJ'} Manjula,2025 SCC OnLine^{SC 448;Shri MukundBhavan Trust}

¶37

¶38

v. Shrimanth Chhatrapati lJdayan Raje prataps rth Maharaj Bhonsle,2024 SCC Online SC 3844; Suraj Bhat v. Financial Commissioner. (2007) 6 SCC 186; and Jitendra t v State of Madhya Pradesh,2021 SCC Online SC 802.

¶39

5.3. The learned counsel further submifted that ; ny claim for declaration of title based on the AGpA ought to hart 6ssn ,.6. within the pericd cf limitation, and that the suit, inr; tuted neai.ly nineteen years after execution of the AGpA, is ex fir ,ie barred by limitation. The trial Court, it was argued, failed to :onsider this vital aspect and erred in dismissing the petrl on Hence. interference of this Court is warranted.

¶40

6.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the respr,r denl/plaintiff relied on the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme C r urt in Vrnod lnfra Developers Ltd, v. Mahaveer Lunia,2O2S Livel, iw (SC) 630, to contend that the true character of a transact >n must be gathered from its contents, and not its nomenclatL.e. Although the instrument is titled as an AGpA, the pleadings r learly reveal that there was consens us ad-idem, payment ;f full sale consideration, and delivery of possession in f;l ,our of the respondent's husband. The respondent and her fan i y have been

¶41

in peaceful and uninterrupted^{possessionsince 2006, and the} mutation and revenue entries^{standin her name. On these facts,} it is contended, the respondent^{is entitled to seek declaration of} title and other consequential^reliefs.

¶42

6.2. lt was further^{submittedthat the issue of limitation involves} a mixed^question of fact^{and law and cannot be conclusively} decided at the^{threshold. The respondent's possessionis} protected under Section^{202 of the lndian ContractAct,1872} (agency coupled with interest)^{and Section 53-A of the Transferof} Propert;' Act,^{'!882 (doctrineof part performance) The execution} of the subsequent^{gift deed by Defendant No 1 in favour of his} wife, in respect of a^{property already alienatedfor valid} consideration, demonstrates^{mala fides on the part of the} petitioners. These matters, it is^{contended, can only} determined upon trial.^{Hence, the trial Court rightlydismissed the} petition filed under Order Vll^{Rule 11 CPC, and no interferenceis} warranted in revision.

¶43

Discussion and Findings:

¶44

I have carefully^{consideredthe rival submissionsand} perused the material^placed on^record.

¶45

¶46

¶47

lt is relevant to note that the preamble : the AGpA describes Revision Petitioner No.1/Defendant r c.1 as the "Vendor' and the husband of the respondenUpla ntiff as the '"Purchaser " The recitals disclose that time was I )t made the essence of the contract, and that the vendor r,r i s unable to execute the sale deed due to domestic circun s tances. The document further authorizes the purchaser to act orr behalf of the vendor, including the authority to deliver poss(): sion of the property to sub-purchasers.

¶48

ln the above noted pleadings and factual :osition, the question that arises for consideration is whether t ased on the .averments^{in the plaint, the suit is liable to be r: ectedunder} Order Vll Rute^'1 1(d) CpC.

¶49

lt is well settled that while considering an ir :plication for rejectron of a plaint, the Court must confine itself to l e averments in the plaint and cannot look into the defence -; rised by the defendants. This principle has been enunciated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in T. Aivandandam v. T.V. Satyztl al, (1977) 4 SCC 467: Sopan Sukhdeo Sab/e y. Asslr; anf Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137; and Dahiben Arvindbhai

¶50

) )

¶51

¶52

Kalyanji Bhanusali,⁽²⁰²⁰⁾ 7^{SCC366.The Court must procced} on the assumption that the^{facts pleaded are true and examine} whether, on such facts, the^{suit is barredby law or fails to} disclose a cause of action.

¶53

ln the^present case,^{the plaint aversthat Defendant No1} executed a registered^{AGPA on 08.03.2006 in favour of the'} plaintiff's husband upon receipt of^{the entire considerationand} delivery of^{possession.lt is also pleaded that, due to the vendor's} personal circumstances, the formal^{sale deed could not be} executed, but^{possession remained with the plaintiffsfamily, who} have been in^{peaceful enjoyment of the property for nearlytwo} decades, Municipal^{mutationrecords and tax receipts are relied} upon as evidence of^{continuous possession. Theseaverments'} taken at face value,^{clearly disckrse a cause of action for} declaration and injunction.

¶54

It is true that, in^{law, a registered AGPA does not' by itself'} convey ownership.^{UnderSection 54 of the Transferof Property} Act, 1882, and Sections^{17 and49 of the RegistrationAct' 1908'} ownership in immovable^{propertycan be transferred only through} a registered sale^{deed. The Supreme Court in Surai Lamp &}

¶55

¶56

lndustries Pvt Ltd. y Sfafe of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, categorically held that GpA sales or sale_cum_Gp,1 transactions do not convey ownership, and that transfer of tifle rr_. luires a valid conveyance. The same view was reaffirme I in M S Ananthamurthy v. J Manjula, 2025 SCC OnLine jC 44g, and Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shimanth Chhatrzoati lJdayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonste, 2024 SCC OnLrr r SC 3g44.

¶57

However, the plaint does not rely solely : .r ownership under the AGPA but asserts equitable and posr; :ssory rights arising from full payment of consideration anrJ delivery of possession, invoking the protection of Section j3_A of the ,Transfer^{of PropertyAct,1gB2(doctrine of part perf c -mance) and} Section 202 of lhe lndian Contract Act, 1g72 (agt ncy coupled with interest). The Supreme Court in Vinod tnfr:. Developers Ltd.(supra), held that the substance of the transar; on, and not the title or nomenclature of the instrument, deterrr ines its true nature. Likewise, in C/f v. podar Cement pvt. Ltd., ( 9g7) S SCC 482, it was recognized that a transferee in possess on who has paid the full sale consideratron can be treated as t le beneficial owner for all practical purposes, even if legal tifle rerr tins with the

vendor

( t

The plea of limitation, as^{raised by the petitioners, cannot} be conclusively adjudicated at this stage.^{Whether the cause of} action arose upon execution of^{the gift deed dated 25.05.2022,ot} earlier, is a matter of factual^{determination. lt is well settled that} the issue of limitation, when^{dependenton disputed facts,} constitutes a mixed^question of law and^{fact and cannot be} decided under Order Vll^{Rule 11 CPC. (See Raghwe ndra Sharan} Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh,^{(2019)15 SCC 389).}

¶62

¶63

Therefore, even though^{the AGPA does not transfer} ownership in striet legal^{terms, the plaint,when readas a whole,} discloses a^prima facie cause of^{action based on part} performance and agency coupled with interest,^{as wellas} allegations of fraud and^{malafidesin the subsequent execution of} the gift deed. These are^{triable issues which can be adjudicated} only after a full-fledged^{trial.At this preliminary stage,it cannotbe} held that the suit is barred^{by law or that the plaint fails to disclose} a cause of action.

¶64

ln view of the above^{discussion,and in lightof the settled} principles laid down in Sura,1 Lamp &^{lndusties Pvt. Ltd- v Sfafe} of Haryana.⁽²⁰¹²⁾ 1 SCC^{656; Dahibenv. Aruindbhai Kalyanii}

¶65

¶66

Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366; and Vinod lnfra Dev= opers Ltd v Mahaveer Lunia, 2025 Livelaw (SC) 630, this (.r ,urt finds no ,error^{or illegalityin the order of the trial Court rli ;missing the} application under Order Vll Rule 11 CpC. The trielCourt righfly observed that the issues raised are triable and requ r ) evidence.

¶67

Resultantly, this Court holds that the plaint dir;r loses a valid cause of action and is not barred by any law on trt : face of the pleadings. The order of the trial Court refusing to rr:j :ct the plaint is hereby affirmed. Consequenfly, the Civil Rer i ;ion petition stands dismissed, with the observation that all ques ions relating to title, possession, limitation, and validity of the gift r eed shall be ,determined during trial on their own merits.

¶68

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the ,etition, shall

¶69

stand closed

¶70

SD/. A. I; TEENIVASA^REDDY SIi, STANT REGISTRAR

¶71

----"4

¶72

,/TRUE COPY// I I \ .S^{ECTION OFFICER} I

¶73

To,