Dismissed¶93

Ybr Infra Projects v. Karre Venkat Reddy

Telangana HC9 Jun 2025CRP/3496/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, CRP No. 3496 of 2023 (YBR Infra Projects v. Karre Venkat Reddy), Laxmi Narayana Alishetty J., 09-06-2025: rejection of plaint; Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC; cancellation of registered sale deed Doc.No.2633/2022 dated 24.11.2022; non-payment of sale consideration; fraud; dishonoured cheque No.001458 'payment stopped by drawer'; Sections 138 and 142 NI Act; STC-NI.No.180/2023; Agreement of Sale dated 16.08.2022; no partial rejection of plaint; Central Bank of India v. Irrabha Jain followed; Dahiben distinguished; Article 227; O.S.No.77 of 2023; I.A.No.746 of 2023; Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District; CRP dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

Ybr Infra Projects Vs Karre Venkat Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

¶93

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.77 of 2023 is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, the suit being for cancellation of a registered sale deed on the allegation of non-payment of sale consideration. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Following Central Bank of India, there cannot be a partial rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; even if the relief of cancellation of the sale deed on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration is not maintainable, the plaint survives because it also seeks perpetual injunction.

¶83

Ratio / Principle

There is no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order of the trial Court dismissing the application for rejection of plaint, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶91

Key takeaways

The plaintiff seeks cancellation of the sale deed not only on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration but also on the ground of fraud, which can be decided only after a full-fledged trial; the plaint therefore discloses triable issues and cannot be rejected at the threshold.ratio¶89

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.10.2023 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, dismissing the defendant's application (I.A.No.746 of 2023) under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC for rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.77 of 2023 — a suit for cancellation of registered Sale Deed Doc.No.2633/2022 dated 24.11.2022 and for perpetual injunction. Plaintiff's case: the sale deed was executed without payment of full sale consideration; cheque No.001458 for Rs.66,50,000/- was dishonoured with the endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer'; a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act (STC-NI.No.180/2023) was filed; and the sale deed was obtained by fraud. Held: (i) following Central Bank of India v. Smt. Irrabha Jain (as cited), there can be no partial rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC — even if cancellation on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration were not maintainable (Dahiben distinguished), the plaint also seeks perpetual injunction; (ii) cancellation is sought not only for non-payment of consideration but also for fraud, which can be decided only after a full-fledged trial; (iii) no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order warrants interference under Article 227. Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

I i i I I I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TH STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDE BAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE NINT DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AN TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESE T

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L MI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITIO NO: 3496 OF 2023

¶8

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the const ution of lndia against the Order dated 20.10.2023 passed in lA No.746 of 2023 i OS No. 77 ol 2023 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Crvrl Judge, lbr himpatnam, Ranga Reddy District

¶9

Between:

¶10

YBR INFRA PROJECTS, Rep, by its anaging Partner Y. Bhakthavathsal Reddy S/o Y.V. Ramana Reddy Currently at Plot no 7-3-88142, 2nd floor, Mallikarjun Nagar, Sagar Ring Road, Back side hotel Ragas grand, Hyderabad, PlN. 5000 I Previously at

¶11

Rio. H. No. 10-1-961511 .2nd Floor, Shob a Complex, Beside Laxmi Vilas Bank, Karmanghat, Hyderabad.

¶12

...REVISION PE ITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT

¶13

AND

¶14

Karre Venkat Reddy, S/o Papi ReddyAge about 59 years, Occ. Business R/o H.No. 1 7-1-382lP, Press Colony Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RES ONDENT/RESPON DENT/PLAINTIFF

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC prayi g that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, t High Court may be pleased to stay of all further Proceedings with respect to the Suit proceedings i.e., O S. NO. 77 of 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Principal Senio Civil Judge, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the prese Appeal.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRAMOD M LIGI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI B VIJAY IMHA REDDY

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶22

CIVIL REVISION PETITON NO.3496 OF 2023

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order datecl 20.10.2023 passed lry the Principal Senior Civil Judgc, Ibralrimpahram, Ranga Reddy district in I.A.No.746 of 2023 in O.S.No.77 of 2023.

¶25

Heard Sri Pramod Maligi, Iearned counsel for [he petitioncr and Sri B.Vija1, Simha Reddy, learned counsel for tlre respondent

¶26

Petitioner herein is the defendant ancl respondeut herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, the partir:s are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court

¶27

Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff liled a suit in O.S.No.77 of 2023 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District against the defendant for cancellation of registered Sale Deed tide doctmentNo.2633/2022 dated 24.11..2022 and for perpetual injunction

¶28

The defer-rdant entered appearance and filed an applicatior.r oide l.A.N<>.746 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of CPC for rejcction of plaint on the ground of lack of cause of acLion for

¶29

LNA, J CRP-No.3196 of2023 2

¶30

filing the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of application, it is averred that a suit for cancellation f sale deed on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration not maintainable; that there are no allegations of fraud or misre resentation in obtaining sale

¶31

deed and as per the recitals of sale eed, entire sale consideration was received by the plaintiff and t erefore, sale deed cannot be cancelled in the light of settled pri iple of law; that plaint does not disclose any cause of action for iling the suit and thc same is barred by law and therefore, the plai t is liable to be rejected.

¶32

Thc plaintiff filed counter r sisting the application and contended that application is not r intainable and the same has bcen filed only to delay the court p oceedings and that cause of action for filing the suit is clearly escribed in the plaint; that defendant failed to pay total sale c nsideration and the cheque issued by him was dishonored ancl even aftcr issuance of legal notice, defendant failed to pay th cheque amount, therefore, plaintiff was compelled to file a suit It is further contended that subject sale deed was executed in p suance of the Agreemcnt of Sale dated^"16.08.2022, but the dcfen nt did not pay the full sale

¶33

frI

¶34

LNA, J CRP.i'o.3196 of 202 -l

consideration as agreed upon irl the agreement of salc and that the sale deed was executed believing the words of def-endant tl-rat hc would pray the remaining sale consideration at a later date, for which he has issued a postdatecl cheque, horvevt:r, said c-[requc was returned unpaid on presentation. It is furthcr colrtendt_.d that it is settled plinciple of law that when a sale deed is obtained by playing fraucl and without paying total sale considcration, such sale dcccl is void and the same is liable to be calrcelled and tl-rat thc cause of actiou is question of law and fact, rt,hich cannot be decided at threshold unless and ur-rtil full-fledged trial IS conducted and therefore, application is misconceive and is liable tcr be dismissed

¶39

'l'he trial Coort uide impugned order dated 20.70.2023, dismissecl thc application with an observation thirt pr:rusal of the plaint disclosos many contentions issues which prinur facie fotntl the basis of cause of action to maintain the suit and that plaint avcrments clcarly make out a case including CAUSC of action. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present revisiorr is filecl.

¶40

LNA' J CRP.No-3196 of202j

¶41

¶42

Learned counsel for petitioner ould submit that trial Court failed to appreciate the pleas and contentions put-forth by the petitioner in the application for^rejec on of plaint and erroneously dismissed the application. He furt er submitted that as per the recitals of sale deed, entire sale co ideration was paid and the trial Court failed to appreciate^th said fact and also settled principle of law that suit for canc llation of salc deed on the ground of non-payment of^{sale co} ideration is not maintainable and thus, committed error in^rejecti g the application. He would further submit that no cause of acti n has arisen for the plaintiff for filing the suit and that the pre nt litigation is nothing but a vexatious one and has been filed^onl to frustrate the rights of the petitioner and, thcrefore, trial Cour ought to have allowed the application.

¶43

Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dahi env Arvindbhai Kalyani Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through Legal Representatives^and

¶44

othersl in support of his contention.

¶45

'edzqt^scctoo

¶46

:ry'ry

¶47

LNA. J CRP.No.3496 oI202.l

¶48

¶49

¶50

Per conlm, Iearned counsel for respondent/plaintiff woulcl submit that trial Court, on dulv considering the contentions raised in the affidar il. as well as submissions made by both the counsel, has rightly disr.nissed the application and no grounds are made out to interfere with a well reasoned order o[ the trial Court. He woulcl further submil. that application has been filed only to protract tl-re matter and plaintiff made out a clear case for cancellation of sale deed and that the causc of action for filing the suit has also been clearly mentioned in the plaint and thus, prayed to dismiss the revision petition.

¶51

As per tlrc averments in the plaint, the defcr.rdant is engagcd ln real estate business and he approached the plaintiff for ln purchasc of land admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas Sy.No.9alV/UU and Ac.1.00 guntas in S),.No.94lAA1 of Ramdasapalli village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the Agreement of Sale was entert d between thc plaintiff and thc defendant howcver, defendant failed to pay the agreed sale consideration; that plaintiff agreed to register the lancl in part wise in favour of defendant to the exterrt of the amount

¶52

:'..

¶53

LNA, J CRP.No.3196 of2023

¶54

¶55

paid by defendan! that since t e defendant has not paid the agreed amount within the time, pla tiff refused to execute the sale deed and that defendant got issued a legal notice dated 28.06.2022 and thereafter, the parties entered to anothei Agreement of Sale datc'd 16.08.2022 on the same t ms and thereafter, plaintiff executed registered Sale Deed zri document No.20741 2022 in favour of the defendant in respect o the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.94/V /UU /1, onrec ipt of full sale consideration 72. It appears that defendant req ested the plaintiff to execute the sale in respect of land ad asuring Ac.1.00 guntas 1n Sy.No.94/AA /7, for which he agree to pay Rs.40,00,000/-, which is available with him and agreed pay a sum of Rs.66,50,000/af ter one month, for which cheque No.001458, dated 24.12.2022 was issued and accordingly, plaintif executed the rcgistered Sale Decd aide document No.2633/2022 ated 24.17.2022 in favour of the defendant in respect of the sai land, however, the cheque bearing No.001458 for Rs.66,50,000/ drawn on HDFC Bank was not mentioned in the sale deed. It f ther appears that when the cheque bearing No.001458 was p ented for encashmen! the

¶56

LNA, J CRP-N0.3496 of^202.1

¶57

¶58

I I I

¶59

same was returned on^{20.01.2023 witl'r an endorsement'payment} stoppecl by drawer'.

¶60

It is the specific contention of plaintiff^{that defenclant issued} cheque towarcls payment of^{abovesale consicleration,howevt:r,} instructed his banker to stop the payment^{and thus, defcndant has} played fraud and got registered the sale^{deeddocument No.2633} of 2024; that plaintiff filecl the complairrt^{against [he defenclantfor} tl're offences under Sections 138 and 142 of N.l.Act^{for dishonor of} the said cheque zrldc STC-NI.No.180/2023 pencling on the^{file of} lunior^Civil Judge-cum-XIV^{AdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate} Since, the sale deed was obtained without paving the^{full sale} considcration, the saicl sale deed is not valid and^{does not givt-'} effect, and therefore, plaintiff filed thc suit for carlcellation of^sale deed as well as perpetual injunction

¶61

Perusal of the record would disclose that plaintilf filed^the suit for canccllation of sale deed Doc.Nct.2633/2022 dated 24.11.2022 on the grouncl that full sale considertrtion was not paid as agreed to by the defendant and that the sale cleed was obtained by plaVing fraucl. Record would also disclose that cheque datecl

¶62

LNA, J CRP.No.3496 o[2023

¶63

¶64

24.72.2022 for Rs.66.55,000/ISS ed by the defenclant was dishonoured on presentation wl an endorsement'payment stopped by drawer' and the plaint ff filed a complaint under NI Act which was registcred as ST .NI.No.180/2023 and spccific allegations are made in the plaint at defendant had obtained the sale deed by playing fraud on the pl nriff.

¶65

It is thc specific case of the pc tioner/defendant that suit for cancellation of sale deed on the gr und of non-payment o[ sale consideration is not maintainable view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dahiben^c (supra), wherein it is held that suit for cancellation of sale eed on the ground of nonpayment of sale consideration is not intainable and at the most, the plaintiff can onlv seek for recovc of sale consideration.

¶66

In the present case, it is the specific case that plaintiff/ respondent that defendant had ob ained sale deed by playing fraud and the cheque issued for b nce sale consideration was

¶67

dishonoured and complaint under^{N.Acthas also been filed.}

¶68

@_._Y

¶69

LNA, J CRP.No.3196 of 2023

! l

"17. Plaintiff filcd the suit seeking two reliefs i.c., 1) for cancellation of sale deed dated 24.11.2022 and 2) for perpetual

¶75

injunction in respect of the suit schedule property

¶76

It is appropriate to rcfer to latest decisiorr of thc Hon'ble Apex Court in Central llank of lndia and anothcr v. Smt. Irrabha

¶77

Jain and others2, wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court held as ullder:

¶78

"24. Evcr.r if we would have been pcrsuadecl to take the view that the third relief is barled by Scctior-r^"17(3) <ti tlrt SARFAEST Act, still the plaint rnust survive bccause there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint unrlcr Ordcr VIl, Rule 1l ot CPC. Hcrrce, even if one relief sun,ives, thc plaint cannot be x:jectcd undcr Orcler VII, Rule 11 of the CIjC. In the case on hantl, the first and second rcliefs as prayed for are clearly not barred by Scctior.r 34 of the SARAFAESI ACT and are within the civil Court's jurisdiction. I lence, thc plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC.

¶79

'19. Admitkrdly, suit is filed for cancellation of salt: dc.ed dated

¶80

24.11.2022 and also for perpetual injunction in rc,spect o[ the suit

¶81

schedule property and even if relief for cancellation of sale deed

¶82

on the ground of non-payment of sale considerrrtion is not

¶83

maintainable, there caru1ot be partial rejection of plairrt in view of ratio laid dowrr by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bank of

¶84

India (supra). Further, plaintiff is seeking cancellation of sale deed

¶85

'2025^{SCC Online Specialcourt121}

¶86

¶87

I ti

¶88

I,NA, J :':t
CRP.N0.3196 of 2023 t
10
<br>

¶89

ent of sale consideration,^but not only on the ground^{of non-PaY} can be decided^{onlY after full-} also on the ground^{of fraud,which}

¶90

fledged trial.

¶91

In view of^{foregoing reasons} this Court does^{not find anY} illegality or infirmity^orirregula ity in the imPugned^order warranting^{interferencebY this C} urt by exercising^the Power

¶92

under Article^{227 of the Constitutio} of India

¶93