M/S Kakatiya Cement Products vs Kotha Bhagya Sri Reddy on 9 June, 2025

[Cites 29, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

M/S Kakatiya Cement Products vs Kotha Bhagya Sri Reddy on 9 June, 2025

Bench: K. Lakshman

                                  1




            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1035 OF 2025
ORDER:

Heard Sri R.Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K.V.Phanisri, learned counsel representing Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for 1st respondent. Respondents 2 to 17 are being defendants, formal parties.

2. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.10.2024 in I.A.No.877 of 2023 in O.S.No.56 of 2019 by the Chairman, L.R.A.T - cum - II Additional District Judge, at Karimnagar.

3. Vide the said order, learned trial Court dismissed an application filed by the petitioner/Defendant No.12 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) read withSection 151 of CPC to reject the plaint on the grounds that there is no cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation.

4. 1st respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.56 of 2019 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 to 17/defendants for partition and separate possession and to declare registered sale 2 deeds viz: Doc. No. 6065 of 2005 dated 21.04.2005 in favour of Defendant No. 14,Doc. No. 6066 of 2005 dated 21.04.2005 in favour of Defendant No. 15, Doc. No. 6067 of 2005 dated 21.04.2005 in favour of Defendant No. 16, Doc. No. 6068 of 2005 dated 21-04-2005 in favour of Defendant No. 17, partition deed Doc. No. 8567 of 2005 SRO, Karimnagar, Doc.No. 12265 of 2007 dated 24.10.2007, gift settlement deed Doc.No.12706 of 2007 dated 20.11.2007, Sale deed Doc.No.1355 of 2008,Gift Settlement deed Doc.No.1507 of 2008, dated 10.03.2008, gift settlement deed Doc. 4188 of 2010 dated 13.05.2010, Sale Deed Doc. 12265 of 2007, Doc. No. 12727 of 2007 dated 19.11.2007, Sale Deed Doc. No. 1355 of 2008 SRO Karimnagar, Gift Settlement Deed Doc. No. 4188 of 2010 SRO Karimnagar, Gift Settlement Deed Doc. No. 1507 of 2008, SRO Karimnagar, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Doc. No. 7725 of 2008 dated 20-11-2008, SRO Karimnagar, Regd. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Doc. No. 4369 of 2010 dated 20.05.2010, SRO Karimnagar, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Doc. No. 6178 of 2011 dated 01.07.2011, SRO Karimnagar, Memorandum of Deposit of 3 Title Deeds Doc. No. 11209 of 2011 dated 15.12.2011, SRO Karimnagar, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Doc. No. 9236 of 2013 dated 17.08.2013, SRO Karimnagar, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Doc. No. 64 of 2015 dated 03.01.2015, SRO Karimnagar, Regd. Release/Redemption Deed Doc. No. 9649 of 2015 Dt: 29-09-2015, Regd. Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds Doc. No. 10610 of 2015 SRO Karimnagar, as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiffs and in respect of Memorandum of Understanding documents the Plaintiff is not liable or any way concern with regard to the discharge of liability except the right of ownership as null and void.

5. The petitioner/defendant No.2 had filed I.A.No.877 of 2023 in the said suit under Order VII Rule 11 (a) (d) read with Section 151 of CPC, to reject the plaint on the following grounds:-

i. The plaintiff, having fully aware of the address of the petitioner's firm, intentionally shown wrong address. ii. Mr. Billa Sahith Reddy, shown in the plaint, is not the partner in the firm of the petitioner herein. 4 iii. The petitioner's firm had purchased Ac.32 guntas of land long back out of Ac.5.31 guntas in Sy.No.836/A of Karimnagar ( subject property) from Billa Raji Reddy who had purchased the land jointly with Kariveda Linga Reddy, Banda Ram Reddy, Chada Peddi Reddy and Chada Krishna Reddy vide registered sale deed No.562 of 1977.

iv. Petitioner's firm had filed a suit in O.S.No.1432 of 1993 on the file of District Munisif, Karimnagar, against all those joint owners stating that the firm had purchased the subject property 12 years back owned by Billa Raji Reddy who was joint owner of the land and prayed to declare the firm as the owner and possessor of said land.

v. A compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC was filed on 24.01.1994 inthe said suit and as per terms of compromise, the petitioner's firm was declared as owner and possessor of the subject property. The remaining land was divided among the 5 defendant Nos.1 and 4 in the said suit, D.1 was allocated Ac.2.26 2/3 gutnas , D.4-Chada peddi Reddy was allocated Ac.2.12 1/3 guntas.

vi. The suit was decreed on 20.01.1995 interms of compromise. The documentary evidence produced by the respondent/plaintiff itself proves that petitioner's firm purchased the subject property during lifetime of Billa Raji Reddy, which was confirmed in O.S.No.1432 of 1993. Being well aware of it, the Respondent/plaintiff has not shown the said land as schedule property, in any of the schedule under A to F annexed to the plaint for seeking partition. However, the petitioner's firm was made as one of the parties to the suit only with a view to harass the petitioner herein.

vii. By mortgaging the subject property including some other lands, their firm earlier obtained loan from Indian Bank, Karimnagar executing registered mortgage deeds in vide Doc.Nos.7725 of 2008, 4369 6 of 2010 and 9236 of 2013. Though the respondent/plaintiff has no way concerned either with the subject property as stated supra or with the loan sanctioned by the Indian Bank, Karimnagar, the respondent has made the Indian bank, Karimnagar as one of the parties to the suit and sought to declare the above said three registered mortgage documents Nos.7725/2008, 4369 of 2010 and 9236 of 2013 including other documents referred in the plaint, as null and void not binding on the respondent/plaintiff. viii. Respondent/plaintiff has not explained in the plaint as to how the respondent/plaintiff got right and also cause of action to sue against petitioner's firm. The sale of subject land to the petitioner's firm was confirmed as per terms of compromise decree dated 20.01.1995 in O No.1432/1993 during life time of the father of plaintiff. Bringing any litigation on the property is barred by law and even after lapse of 24 years of passing decree, making petitioner's firm and 7 the banker i.e., Indian bank, Karimnagar who lent money to the petitioner's firm as parties to the suit is only to harass them for wrongful gain.

ix. The father of the Respondent/Plaintiff Billa Raji Reddy in his lifetime sold 1283.11 Sq.yards of land out of Ac.2-26 2/3 gts., in Sy.No.836/A allocated to him in OS No.1432/1993 to Vayuputhra Parboiled Modern Rice & Oil Mill, rep. by its partners Padamatinti Anjaiah and (5) others vide registered sale deed bearing doc. No.828/98 dated09.02.1998 as admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint.

x. The Plaintiff is one of the attestors to the said sale deed executed by her father in his lifetime. The Respondent/plaintiff admitting the execution of said sale deed by her father during his lifetime on one side without excluding the land sold i.e. 1283.11 sq.yards, she has shown the total land i.e. Ac.2.26 2/3guntas in Sy.No.836/A in the schedule-D of the plaint seeking partition of the land in the suit.

xi. The plaint contains self-contradictions, on the said ground itself, the plaint is liable to be rejected. xii. The petitioner herein has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in T.Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal 1 wherein it is held that, if on a meaningful, not formal reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless, inthe sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, should exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and if a clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, the suit should be nipped in the bud. The case law referred is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, on the said grounds, petitioner sought to reject the plaint.

6. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed counter denying the averments made by the petitioner herein, opposed the said application, contending as follows:-

1977 AIR 2421, 9 i. Her father died on 15.05.1999 leaving behind his estate, movable, immovable properties, cash, jewellery to his family members i.e wife/Billa Kousalya/D.1, two sons by names Billa Prabhakar Reddy/D2 and Billa Jaipal Reddy/D3 and three daughters i.e., plaintiff along with Pushpalatha @ Kariveda Srimathi/D.4 and Sujatha @ ChadaSujatha Reddy/D.5.

ii. D.1 to D.5, with common intention, have brought into existence registered documents bearing Nos.7337 of 2021,10316, 10317 and 10318 of 2021 through which the joint family undivided properties were transferred among themselves and in favour of others stating that they are only legal heirs of late Billa Raji Reddy with an intention to cause loss to respondent No.1/plaintiff.

iii. The petitioner herein introduced himself as Managing partner of M/s Kakatiya Cement Products and this aspect is sufficient as necessary party to the suit. iv. The defendant No.7 to 9, 14 to 20 are the alleged purchasers of part of suit schedule properties and defendants No.10 and 10 12 are the partners of the firm in the name and style of M/s Lepakashi Industries represented by D.6 and M/s Kakatiya Cement Products represented by D.2. The D.11 and D.13 are the banks with whom D.2, 3 and 6 have deposited the title deeds of the part of the suit schedule properties.

v. The suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of her father and her father was in possession and enjoyment of the same and thereafter constructed R.C.C structure and house number was allotted.

vi. During lifetime of her father, as per the oral settlement between her partners, the land to an extent of Ac.3-18 2/3 guntas was allotted to Billa Raji Reddy in Sy.No.836/a of Karimnagar District to his share and the same was delivered to his exclusive separate possession and his partners by name Banda Ram Reddy, Kariveda Linga Reddy have alienated the part of their joint purchased land to the Padamatinti Anjaiah and others by executing registered sale deeds Doc.No.828 of 1998, dated 09.02.1998, as such, Billa 11 Raji Reddy is in possession and enjoyment of land toan extent of Ac.2.26 2/3 guntas in Sy.No.836/A. vii. The Said Billa Raji Reddy died intestate in the year 1998 leaving behind the plaintiff, D.Nos.1 to 5 as his legal heirs to succeed the schedule properties.

With the said contentions, the plaintiff sought to dismiss the said petition.

7. Vide the impugned order dated 22.10.2024, learned trial Court dismissed the said application holding that the limitation is mixed question of fact and law and the same can be decided during course of trial and therefore, on the said ground, the plaint cannot be rejected.

8. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision.

9. Sri R. Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner hereinwould contend that the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit to declare the aforesaid registered documents as null and void contending that she came to know about the said documents and 12 also the ill-intention and ill-motive of defendants 1 to 5 recently. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim ignorance of the said documents. In the cause of action, she stated that she requested the defendants 1 to 5 to partition the suit schedule property on 01.04.2014, but they refused. Then, she has issued legal notice dated 25.04.2019. Therefore, there is no cause of action in the plaint and the suit is barred by limitation. Without considering the said aspects, vide impugned order, learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein.

10. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent/ plaintiff would contend that the limitation is mixed question of fact and law and the trial Court will consider the same. On the said ground only, the plaint cannot be rejected.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the order dated 14.08.2024 passed in CRP No. 2332 of 2024 by this Court.

12. Whereas, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Geetha 13 vs. Nanjundaswamy 2, Sejal Glass Limited vs. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd3, Central Bank of India another vs. Smt. Prabha Jain and others 4.

13. In the light of the same, as discussed supra, 1st respondent/plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit O.S.No.56 of 2019 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and to declare the aforesaid registered documents as null and void. In the plaint, the plaintiff had pleaded that the suit schedule properties are self- acquired properties of Billa Raji Reddy @ Billa Raji Reddy s/o Linga Reddy, who has purchased for valid sale consideration out of his own earnings under registered sale deeds of the years 1975 and 1977. Since then, he was in possession of the said property. During the lifetime of said Billa Raji Reddy, an oral settlement is caused between Billa Raji Reddy and his partners, wherein, the land to an extent of Ac.3.18 1/3 guntas allotted to said Billa Raji Reddy, in Sy.No.836 (A) situated at Karimnagar towards his share. The same was delivered to his exclusive and separate 2 2023 SCC Online SC 1407 3 2018 11 SCC 780 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 121 14 possession. He and his partners by names Sri Banda Rami Reddy, Sri Kariveda Linga Reddy have alienated part of their joint property to Padamatinti Anjaiah and others under registered sale deed Doc.No.828 of 1998, dated 09.02.1998, SRO Karimnagar, as such said Billa Raji Reddy, is in possession and enjoyment of the said land to an extent of Ac.226 2/3 in Sy.No.836/A.

14. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the said Billa Raja Reddy died intestate in the year 1999 leaving behind his children as his sole legal heirs to succeed the suit schedule property.

15. In paragraph No.8 of the plaint, she has contended that after the death of Billa Raji Reddy, the plaintiff and D.1 to 5 have jointly succeeded the suit property and jointly enjoying the same without effecting partition, though the plaintiff and D.1 to 5 are residing separately at different places with their family members due to relationship and responsibilities. In paragraph No.9, she has contended that after completion of ceremonies, rituals, she has several times requested D. 1 to 5 to effect partition of suit schedule property to avoid future complications. But they have evaded under 15 one pretext or the other under lame excuses and with deceitful words for years together. In paragraph No.10 of the plaint, she stated that she hasrecently came to know about the ill-intention and ill-motive of D.1 to 5, who with common intention to deprive the legitimate 1/6th share of the Plaintiff, in collusion with Sri Kariveda Linga Reddy and Sri Ram Reddy, the D.1 to 6 have created documents.

16. In paragraph No.14 i.e. cause of action, she has contended that cause of action arose on various dates in Karimnagar when the defendants are creating the aforesaid documents in respect of part of suit property and finally on 01.04.2019 at H.No.10-1-387, Karimnagar when defendants 1 to 5 have refused to effect partition and on 25.04.2019, when she got issued a legal notice to defendants to effect partition.

17. As discussed supra, the 1st respondent/plaintiff is seeking to declare the aforesaid registered documents of the year 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2015 as null void. She is claiming ignorance of the said registered documents. According toher, she came to know about the said registered documents 16 recently. She has not mentioned the date, month, year on which she came to know about the said documents.

18. In the light of the same, it is relevant to note that as per Explanations - I & II to Section - 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration or, where the property is not all situated in one sub-district, or where the registered instrument has been registered under sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), from the earliest date on which any memorandum of such registered instrument has been filed by any Sub-Registrar within whose sub- district any part of the property which is being acquired, or of the property wherein a share or interest is being acquired, is situated:

Provided that- (1) the instrument has been registered and its registration completed in the manner prescribed by the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) and the rules made thereunder, 17 (2) the instrument or memorandum has been duly entered or filed, as the case may be, in books kept under section 51 of that Act, and (3) the particulars regarding the transaction to which the instruction relates have been correctly entered in the indexes kept under Section - 55 of that Act. Thus, the plaintiff cannot plead ignorance of the afore-stated registered documents. The plaintiff sought to declare the documents as null and void and not binding on her, contending that she came to know the said documents recently on 01.04.2019 when defendants 1 to 5 refused to effect partition and she has issued legal notice on 25.04.2019. It is a cleverly drafted plaint.

19. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, it is apposite to refer to the purport of Order - VII, Rule - 11 of CPC. It deals with 'rejection of plaint' and the same is extracted as under:

"11. Rejection of plaint.-- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:--

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the 18 Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

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

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting 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 19 such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahiben1had on occasion to deal with the object of Order - VII, Rule - 11 (a) and

(d) of CPC and rejection of plaint and also nature of enquiry to be made by the Court while deciding an application filed under Order

- VII, Rule - 11 (a) of CPC. In the said case, the defendant filed an application under Order - VII, Rule - 11 (a) and (d) to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and no cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint. Sale deed was executed on 02.07.2009 and the suit was filed on 15.12.2014. The cause of action as per the averments of the plaint therein had arisen when defendant No.1 therein had issued 'false' or 'bogus' cheques to the plaintiffs in 2009. The suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 02.07.2009 could have been filed by 2012, as per Articles - 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The suit was filed on 15.12.2014, which was barred by limitation. Considering the said facts, the trial Court rejected the plaint filed by the plaintiff by allowing the application filed under Order - VII, Rule - 11 (d). The High Court confirmed the said order passed by the trial Court. On 20 consideration of the said facts and also purport of Order - VII, Rule

- 11 of CPC, the Apex court held that in view of Order - VII, Rule - 14 of CPC, documents filed along with plaint are to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order - VII, Rule - 11 (a) of CPC. When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as part of the plaint. In exercise of power under Order - VII, Rule - 11 of CPC, Court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out. At this stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement and application for rejection of the plaint on the merits, would be irrelevant, and cannot be adverted to, or taken into consideration.

i) The Apex Court further held that the test for exercising the power under Order - VII, Rule - 11 of CPC 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.

ii) The Apex Court also relied on the principle laid down by it in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I5, wherein it was held that whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But, whether it does or 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.

iii) The Apex Court considered the principle laid down by it in Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. 6, to the effect that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. The said 5 . (2004) 9 SCC 512 6 . (2007) 5 SCC 614 22 principle was also reiterated in D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman 7.

iv) The Apex Court also held that if on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order - VII Rule - 11 CPC. The power under Order - VII Rule - 11 CPC may be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial. The said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra8.

v) In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 9, the Apex Court further held that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial.

vi) The provision of Order - VII Rule - 11 of CPC is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint "shall" be rejected if 7 . (1999) 3 SCC 267 8 . (2003) 1 SCC 557 9 . 1986 Supp. SCC 315 23 any of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out. If the court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the court has no option, but to reject the plaint. "Cause of action" means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit.

vii) In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal 10, the Apex Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint.

viii) The Apex Court further held that if, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of Court as held by 10 . (1998) 2 SCC 70 24 the Apex Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal11.

ix) The Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes a time-limit for the institution of all suits, appeals, and applications. Section 2(j) defines the expression "period of limitation" to mean the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule for suits, appeals or applications. Section - 3 lays down that every suit instituted after the prescribed period, shall be dismissed even though limitation may not have been set up as a defence. If a suit is not covered by any specific article, then it would fall within the residuary article.

x) As per Article - 58 of the Limitation Act, suit for declaration has to be filed within three (03) years when the right to sue first accrues. Article - 59 says suit to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for the rescission of a contract shall be filed within three (03) years, when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him. As per Article 58 of Limitation Act, suit for partition has to be filed within three years 11 . (2017) 13 SCC 174 25 from the date of refusing the partition, the suit schedule property and Article 58 of the Limitation Act deals with the suit for declaration.

xi) In Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 12, the Apex Court held that the use of the word "first" between the words "sue" and "accrued", would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrues.

xii) In State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh 13, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the Court must examine the plaint and determine when the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff, and whether on the assumed facts, the plaint is within time. The words "right to sue" mean the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the 12 . (2011) 9 SCC 126 13 . (1991) 4 SCC 1 26 cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order - VII Rule - 11 (d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.

xiii) In Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemant Kumar Jalan14, the Apex Court relying on the principle laid down by it in Dahiben Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (GAJRA)1 held that when the Court is of the view just by reading the plaint alone and assuming the averments made in the plaint to be correct that none of the reliefs claimed can be granted in law since the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim such reliefs, the Court should reject the plaint as disclosing no cause of action. The reliefs claimed in a plaint flow from and are the culmination of the cause of action pleaded in the plaint. The cause of action pleaded and the prayers made in a plaint are inextricably intertwined.

14 . (2022) 12 SCC 641 27

21. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, the trial Court while dealing with an application under Order - VII, Rule - 11 of CPC has to consider the pleadings of the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint. While deciding an application under Order - VII, Rule - 11 of CPC, the pleas taken by the defendant in written statement and application for rejection of plaint cannot be adverted or taken into consideration.

22. As discussed above, the plaintiff did not mention the date on which she demanded defendant Nos.1 to 5 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and their refusal to effect partition of the suit schedule property. Except stating that she recently came to know that defendants with an intention to evade plaintiff's share in the suit schedule property created false and fabricated the aforesaid registered documents, did not mention the date, month and year of knowledge. She has contended that she came to know the said documents recently on 01.04.2019 when defendants 1 to 5 refused to effect partition and she has issued legal notice on 25.04.2019. Thus, it is cleverly drafted plaint. 28

23. In the present case, the plaintiff did not plead fraud. She only pleaded ignorance of the aforesaid registered documents.

24. In the present case, the plaintiff is seeking to declare the aforesaid registered document of the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2015. She has filed a suit in July, 2019 i.e. beyond three years.

25. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs.Syed Jalal15, the Apex Court held that even when, the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action, the application for rejection of plaint can be entertained and the power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPCcan be exercised.

26. In Srihari Hanumandas Totala vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat 16, the Apex Court laid down certain guiding principles for deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC which are as follows:-

(2017) 13 SCC 174 16 AIR 2021 SC 3802 29

(i) To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to;

(ii) The defense made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application;

(iii) To determine whether a suit is barred by resjudicata, it is necessary that (i) the 'previous suit' is decided, (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit;

(iii) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom they claim, litigating under the same title; and (iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit; and

(iv) Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the 'previous suit', such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.

27. In Umadevi vs. Anand Kumar 17, where a suit for partition was filed after 45 years of execution and registration of the sale deeds, the plaint did not disclose cause of action, it was barred by limitation, the Apex Court held that Courts must prevent sham litigation and not to allow the suit that are frivolous and filed after unreasonable delays. It was further held that the suit was filed 45 years after the execution and registration of sale deeds in 1978, 17 (2025) LiveLaw SC 283 30 making it barred by limitation, under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for possession of immovable property within 12 years from the date of possession becomes adverse.

28. Registration of sale deed constitutes constructive notice on interested parties.

29. The Apex Court also placed reliance on the principle laid down by it in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana 18, wherein, it was held that where a document is registered, it serves as better notice and parties cannot claim ignorance of such transactions.

30. Placing reliance on the said documents, vide order dated 14.08.2024 in CRP No.2332 of 2024 in Aluguri Sujatha vs. Gorre @ Neerla Bharathi, this Court rejected the plaint.In the said case, suit was filed inthe year 2023 for partition and also to declare the registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.9058 of 2006, dated 26.06.2006 as null and void.

31. In the light of the aforesaid principle, coming to the facts of the case on hand, 1st respondent/plaintiff had filed the aforesaid 18 (2012) 1 SCC 656 31 suit O.S.No.56 of 2019 seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and also to declare the aforesaid registered documents as null and void. Except contending that she recently came to know about ill-intention and ill-motive of defendants 1 to 5, she has not mentioned any date, month and year. She herself pleaded that her father Billa Raji Reddy @ Billa Raja Reddy, died in the year 1999 and she, and defendants 1 to 5 are residing separately at different places with their families due to relationships and responsibilities. Therefore, she cannot plead ignorance of registered documents of the years 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2015 and cannot file a suit in the year 2019. Thus, it is a clearly drafted plaint. As discussed supra, the plaintiff claims that she is in joint possession of the suit schedule property along with D.2 to 5, she has not filed any document in proof of the same. She has filed certified copies of the registered document, valuation certificates, memorandum of deposit of title deeds, plaint in O.S.No.1432 of 1993, a copy of I.A.No.639 of 1994 in O.S.No.1432 of 1993 filed under Rule 3 of CPC, copy of judgment dated 20.01.1995 in O.S.No.1432 of 1993 etc. Thus, by filing a 32 copy of the plaint in O.S.No.1432 of 1993 filed by the petitioner herein and I.A.No.639 of 1994 in O.S.No.1432 of 1993 filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, the petitioner herein/D.12is contending that it has purchased subject property which was confirmed in O.S.No.1432 of 1993. It is the specific contention of the petitionerherein that the plaintiff is aware of the said fact, therefore, she has not shown the said land in any of the schedules under A to Fof the schedule property annexed tothe plaint. Even then, the plaintiff made the petitioner herein as defendant No.9.

32. The learned trial Court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects. The trial Court, while dismissing the said application, held that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, it is a triable issue and it could be considered at the time of trial.

33. As discussed supra, the Courts must prevent sham litigation as held by Apex Court in Umadevi (supra). At the cost of repetition, in the present case, the plaintiff is seeking to declare the registered document in the year 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2015 as null and void by filing a suit in July, 2019. It is barred by limitation. Without considering the same, the trial Court 33 dismissed the application filed by petitioner herein. Thus, the trial Court committed jurisdictional error.

34. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this revision is allowed. The order dated 22.10.2024 in I.A.No.877 of 2023 in O.S.No.56 of 2019 passed by the Chairman, L.R.A.T - cum - II Additional District Judge, at Karimnagar, is set aside. I.A.No.877 of 2023 is allowed and plaint in O.S.No.56 of 2019 is rejected.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:09.06.2025 vvr

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Telangana High Court