Telangana High Court
M/S Narne Constructions Pvt Ltd., ... vs C Anitha B Anitha, Raga Reddy Dist 9 ... on 29 April, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5946 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/defendant No.8 assailing the orders dated 15.09.2015 passed in I.A.No.35 of 2015 in O.S.No.64 of 2014 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
2. This application in I.A.No.35 of 2015 was filed by defendant No.8 under Order 7, Rule 11(a)(b) and (d) of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') for rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.64 of 2014. Learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District having considered the entire material available on record, dismissed the said application. Assailing the said orders, this CRP is filed by the 8th defendant.
3. Heard both sides. The submissions made by the learned counsel on either side have received due consideration of this Court. Perused the record.
Page 2 of 6
AVR,J CRP_5946_2016
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this CRP are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants, as they were arrayed in O.S.No.64 of 2014 before the trial Court.
5. The plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.64 of 2014 against the defendants 1 to 7 for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule property. Defendant No.8 is the subsequent purchaser of the suit schedule property from the other defendants. Defendant No.8 is made as a party to the said proceedings only to avoid multiplicity of litigations and to decided all the issues in respect of the suit schedule property. It appears the 8th defendant has purchased the suit schedule property from other defendants and obtained permission from the municipality behind the back of the plaintiffs and trying to change the nature of the property.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously contends that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have sold the property in favour of Malini Co-operative Housing Society through registered sale deed document bearing Nos.9309 of 1996 and 9311 of 1996 dated 04.03.1996, who in turn sold the property in favour of 8th defendant through agreement of sale - cum - GPA, dated Page 3 of 6 AVR,J CRP_5946_2016 16.09.2003 and 19.09.2003. Almost after seventeen years of alienation of schedule property, the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs. Court fee paid is not correct and the claim of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation, and argued that the Court below erred in arriving at a conclusion that all these issues are mixed question of law and can only be decided after full length trial and relied on the principles laid in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society represented by its Chairman Vs.Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee1.
7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents contends that since the suit schedule property is the ancestral property, the defendant cannot alienate the entire property while the other coparceners are alive and enjoying joint possession. The plaintiffs are entitled for their share as per Section 29(A) of amended Hindu Succession Act, being the daughters and they are the absolute owners. The plaintiffs' father died in the year 1994 1 (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 706 Page 4 of 6 AVR,J CRP_5946_2016 and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for their share in the suit schedule property.
8. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the pleadings in the plaint and the written statement filed by the 8th defendant and the order impugned. There cannot be any dispute that the Court fee has to be paid only on the pleadings of the plaint and in the instant case the plaintiffs are claiming their right in accordance with Section 29 of A.P. Amendment of Hindu Succession Act. It may not be out of place to mention that earlier I.A.No.419 of 2014 in I.A.No.113 of 2014 was filed alleging that the plaint has no cause of action and Court fee paid is not correct, plaintiffs are not entitled for partition in view of amended Hindu Succession Act, 2005. Assailing the orders passed by the trial Court the defendant No.8 has preferred CMA No.618 of 2014 and the High Court has confirmed the orders of the trial Court in CMA No.618 of 2014 and such orders have attained finality. In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the 8th defendant is not entitled to raise all such objections again at this belated stage stalling the proceedings before the trial Court. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed confirming the orders impugned Page 5 of 6 AVR,J CRP_5946_2016 passed by the trial Court dated 15.09.2015 passed in I.A.No.35 of 2015 in O.S.No.64 of 2014 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
9. Further, to ascertain whether there is cause of action or the suit is barred by limitation or under any other law, the Court has to read plaint averments in conjunction with the documents relied upon in the plaint as a whole, without addition or subtraction of any words. It is the substance and not the form, which has to be seen. On so reading if cause of action is prima facie disclosed or that the suit is not covered by Order VII Rule 11
(a) to (e) of CPC, the Court is not required to further enquire on the truthfulness of allegations on fact. Plea taken by the defendant is wholly irrelevant (Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) through LRs and others2). In the present case also on a copious and conjoint reading of pleadings in the plaint and documents relied by the plaintiff, prima-facie cause of action is shown, suit is within limitation and the trail Court has 2 2020 (7) SCC 366 Page 6 of 6 AVR,J CRP_5946_2016 rightly computed the Court fee. Therefore, the suit is not liable to be rejected at the threshold.
10. In the result, this CRP is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 15.09.2015 passed in I.A.No.35 of 2015 in O.S.No.64 of 2014 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Considering the fact that the suit is filed in the year 2014 and issues were settled on 08.09.2016 and ever since then the matter is being adjourned either for plaintiffs' evidence or under the caption 'for stay'. The trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the disposal of the suit and shall make every endeavour to dispose of the suit within nine months from the date of receipt of order copy of the order. Both the parties to the suit shall co- operate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit, as directed.
In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, in this CRP, shall stand closed.
________________________________ A.VENKATESWHARA REDDY, J 29-04-2022 abb