Telangana High Court
Sama Sanjeev Reddy vs Aerra Srikanth on 20 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1417 OF 2023
ORDER:
This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.01.2023 passed in IA.No.1220 of 2022 in OS.No.98 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder, the application filed by petitioner/defendant No.8 under Order VII Rule 11(a) (b) and (d) of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') seeking rejection of plaint, was dismissed observing that existence of cause of action is mixed question of fact and law.
2. The brief facts before the trial Court are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession, and for declaring certain registered documents as null and void, against the petitioner/defendant No. 8 and respondents Nos.3 to 9/defendant Nos.1 to 7. The petitioner contended that the suit is false, ill-conceived, and untenable in law, lacking cause of action, and undervalued. Per contra, the respondents/plaintiffs denied the allegations, stating that the suit for partition is maintainable among family members, and 2 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 that the defendants Nos.5 to 8 manipulated records by creating certain documents. They also contended that the plaint discloses clear cause of action, and that the reliefs have been properly valued. Being aggrieved by dismissal of IA.No.1220 of 2022, this revision is preferred.
3. Heard Sri K.Rajashekar, learned counsel for petitioner/defendant No.8. None appeared for respondents.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the trial Court is contrary to law, facts, and probabilities of the case. He contended that the suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs is barred by limitation, as they challenge the sale deeds from the years 1999, 2015, and 2016, which limitation period is only 3 years, that already expired in the year 2019. He lamented that the trial Court erred in dismissing the Order VII Rule 11 application, ignoring the question of limitation being pure question of law which could be adjudicated at the preliminary stage itself. He avowed that the plaint is vexatious, meritless, and does not make out any ground and that the plaintiffs deliberately had not sought for the relief of setting aside or cancellation of registered sale deeds and gift deeds in favor of the defendants. He asserted that the plaint is defective 3 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 as it does not state the age of the parties which is a crucial fact in a partition suit. Furthermore, the respondents have not properly valued the reliefs, and the suit is false, ill-conceived, and untenable in law, amounting to an abuse of the court process. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order.
5. Having regard to the submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that while dealing with an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC the Court has to consider the plaint averments and the documents filed by the plaintiffs along with plaint.
6. On perusing the plaint averments, it is seen that the plaintiffs claim the subject properties through one Aerra Narsaiah stating that he is their great grandfather, who was the owner, possessor, and pattadar of vast agricultural lands situated at Dubbacherla Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Upon his demise, his properties devolved upon his three sons, namely, Pochaiah, the grandfather of the plaintiffs; Ramaiah, who died issueless; and Kistaiah, the father of defendants 1 to 4. Thereafter, an oral partition took place 4 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 among his legal heirs, resulting in the division of properties owned by Aerra Narsaiah.
7. The contention of petitioner is that there is no cause of action for filing suit, whereas, the cause of action column mentioned in the plaint would show that when plaintiffs requested the defendant Nos.1 to 4 for partition, they refused for the same, due to which the plaintiffs filed suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action for filing suit. Whenever, the petition is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC the Court has to consider the plaint averments only and not the written statement of defendant. That being so, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action. Further, the learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Bajranglal Agarwal Vs. Susheela Agarwal and Others 1 whereunder, it was observed that 'the expression 'Cause of Action' has been described to mean every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support the plaintiff's right to judgment. In other words, cause of action consists of a bundle of material facts which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle the plaintiff 1 2024 LawSuit (TS) 148 5 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 to the relief claimed. For ascertaining cause of action, the averments made in the plaint must be read in its entirety - and not in isolation - and must be held to be correct. Simply put, the plaintiff must prove its case on the averments made in the plaint and further the relief claimed must have a real nexus with the cause of action pleaded. The plaint must disclose a clear Right to Sue not an Illusion or Mirage of Cause of Action.
8. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, suit was filed for partition and the contention of plaintiff is that the father of the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property and that he was doing agriculture in the said land, therefore, that he is entitled for the 2/3rd share which is a disputed fact to be decided after adjudication. Further, learned counsel for petitioner also relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh 2 wherein, it was observed as under:
"4.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-original defendant that the registered gift deed was executed by the original plaintiff in the year 1981. At no 2 2020 16 SCC 601 6 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 point of time, till the year 2003, the original plaintiff as well as his brother late Sheo Prasanna Singh challenged the registered gift deed dated 6-3-1981. It is submitted that therefore the present suit filed by the plaintiff challenging the registered gift deed was after a period of approximately 22 years from the date of the execution of the registered gift deed and, therefore, the same was clearly barred by law of limitation, more particularly, considering Article 59 of the Limitation Act.
4.2. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-original defendant that the High Court as well as the trial court ought to have appreciated the fact that by mere clever drafting, the plaintiff cannot bring the suit within the period of limitation, if otherwise the same is barred by law of limitation. It is submitted that, in the present case, as such, the original plaintiff deliberately did not specifically pray to set aside the registered gift deed dated 6-3-1981. It is submitted that if the plaintiff would have asked for such a relief, in that case, the plaintiff was aware that the suit would be dismissed at the threshold being barred by law of limitation. It is submitted that, therefore, deliberately the plaintiff specifically 7 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 did not ask for the relief of quashing and setting aside the registered gift deed.
4.3. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467] ; Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan [Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364] and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] , it is requested to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the impugned order [Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine Pat 1527 : (2014) 4 PLJR 147] rejecting Order 7 Rule 11 application submitted by the defendant.
4.4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-original defendant that as held by this Court in a catena of decisions while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint are required to be considered.
4.5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-original 8 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 defendant that if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, as observed by this Court in a catena of decisions, the Court must nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. It is further submitted that, therefore, as observed by this Court in T. Arivandandam [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467] , an activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. It is submitted that, in the present case, if the bundle of facts narrated in the plaint and the averments in the plaint, as a whole, are considered, in that case, the suit is not only barred by law of limitation, but it is a vexatious and meritless suit and, therefore, the plaint is required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Rule 7 of Order 11 CPC.
4.6. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- original defendant has relied upon the decisions of this Court in T. Arivandandam [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467] ; Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust [Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 612] ; ABC Laminart 9 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies [ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163] ; Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai [Bloom Dekor Ltd. v. Subhash Himatlal Desai, (1994) 6 SCC 322] ; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr. [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137] ; Sham Lal v. Sanjeev Kumar [Sham Lal v. Sanjeev Kumar, (2009) 12 SCC 454 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 741] ; N.V. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma [N.V. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma, (2005) 5 SCC 548 : AIR 2005 SC 2897] and Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta [Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, (2007) 10 SCC 59] . Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal and quash and set aside the impugned order [Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine Pat 1527 :
(2014) 4 PLJR 147] passed by the High Court as well as the trial court rejecting Order 7 Rule 11 application and consequently to allow the said application and to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
6.4. In T. Arivandandam [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467] , while considering the very same provision i.e. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the decree of the trial court in considering such 10 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 application, this Court in para 5 has observed and held as under: (SCC p. 470) "5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful -- not formal -- reading of the plaint it is 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 by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits." 6.5. In Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society [Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 11 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 706 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 612] , this Court in para 13 has observed and held as under: (SCC p. 715) "13. While scrutinising the plaint averments, it is the bounden duty of the trial court to ascertain the materials for cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant. Every fact which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms. It is worthwhile to find out the meaning of the words "cause of action". A cause of action must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue."
6.6. In ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies [ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163] , this Court explained the meaning of "cause of action" as follows: (SCC p. 170, para 12) "12. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives 12 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff."
6.7. In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr., (2004) 3 SCC 137] in paras 11 and 12, this Court has observed as under:
(SCC p. 146) "11. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in 13 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code.
12. The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467] .)"
6.8. In Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy [Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] , this Court has observed and held as under: (SCC pp.
178-79, para 7) "7. The plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the 14 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averments of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the court should exercise power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the exercise of power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhered to. The averments of the plaint have to be read as a whole to find out whether the averments disclose a cause of action or whether the suit is barred by any law. It is needless to observe that the question as to whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. 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 7 Rule 11 15 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 CPC can be exercised. If clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage."
9. That apart, the second contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the suit is barred by limitation as the documents pertain to the years 1999, 2015, and 2016 and now the cancellation of the documents is sought for which would be just and enough ground to reject the plaint. However, it is pertinent to note that declaration of sale deeds is a consequential relief and not the main relief, and that being so, the plaint cannot be rejected partially and the same would require trial.
10. On going through the plaint averments, it is noted that the plaint lacks material particulars like under which law the suit was filed. Further, there are no such averments in the plaint which has to be seen by the trial Court while numbering the suits and the same was not done by the trial Court. The trial Court has to take care of these aspects in the near future while numbering the suits filed for partition of joint family properties. However, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the 16 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 opinion that there are no illegalities or irregularities in the impugned order, warranting interference of this Court. There are no merits in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:20.02.2025 PT 17 SKS,J CRP.No.1417 OF 2023 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA P.D ORDER IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1417 OF 2023 Date:20.02.2025 PT