Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kommineni Narendra vs Ravela Rama Mohan Rao Ramalingaiah on 20 January, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2200 of 2022
Kommineni Narendra, S/o Late Veeraiah, aged about 31 years,
R/o H.No.6-128, Thulluru Village and Mandal, Guntur District -
522 237.
... Petitioner
Versus
Ravela Rama Mohana Rao @ Ramalingaiah, S/o Late Somaiah,
aged about 76 years, R/o Thulluru Village, Ghulluru Mandal,
Guntur District and six others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Phani Teja Cheruvu,
learned counsel
Counsel for respondents : Sri Venkateswara Rao
Gudipati, learned counsel and
Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned
standing counsel.
ORDER
Defendant No.6 in the suit filed the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against common order, dated 27.04.2022 in I.A.Nos.542 and 543 of 2021 in O.S.No.59 of 2021 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being plaintiffs filed O.S.No.59 of 2021 against revision petitioner and others for declaration of title over 'A' schedule property shown as ABCD in the plaint plan as private property of the plaintiffs over which they are Page 2 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 having absolute right, title interest and possession and for consequential relief of recovery of possession of 'B' schedule property shown in between points BB2B3 and A2B3 CD forming part and parcel of the plaint 'A' schedule property free from obstruction by evicting/removing the encroachments of structural constructions made by the defendant therefrom and for permanent injunction, etc.
3. In the plaint it was contended inter alia that 'A' schedule property, tiled house and house site, is ancestral property of the plaintiffs; that plaintiffs got the property by way of succession; that decades back, grandfather of plaintiff No.l got constructed tiled roof house in between points AAZ and BB2 of the plaint 'A' schedule site for the purpose of storage of agricultural produce; that persons passing through their village used to take rest on the pails of the said tiled house and the property is located at the main junction and cross roads of the village; that 'A' schedule property is commonly known and called as Ramalingaiah Satram; that in due course, suit schedule property was succeeded by plaintiff No.1 and it is their private property; that the property of defendant No.6 is situated towards South of the suit schedule property and is having access into the Western side, Thulluru to Guntur road; that 'A' schedule property was levied to tax and later by Resolution Page 3 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 No.57/69-70, dated 31.03.1970, tax was exempted till 1989; that in the revision held in 1989-90, since property is private property, property tax was levied and collected vide assessment No.753; that later in the revision in the year, 1994-95, once again exemption was given and it continued till the year 1999; that from 1999 tax was levied with assessment No.667 and property tax was collected for the schedule property in the name of plaintiff No.1 till 2008 and by that year the assessment number was 620; that the plaintiff got effected modifications in the schedule property and converted the same into shops and leased out to tenants for running businesses; that during the year, 2008 some of the busy bodies in the village made false complaints to the government; that in said connection, in the month of February, 2008 the then Tahsildar, Thulluru issued notice to plaintiff No.1 to submit explanation for which plaintiff No.1 offered his explanation, dated 22.02.2008; that Tahsildar dropped further proceedings; that defendant No.6, who has no right, came to the suit schedule property along with mob and caused damage to the articles of shop in 'A' schedule property and also damaged part of tiled roof house and obstructed construction works of the drainage canals started by the APCRDA, in front of the suit 'A' schedule property; that plaintiffs and others objected for the same; that again on 15.11.2018, Page 4 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 defendant No.5 along with his staff, without issuing any notice, came to the suit schedule property and with the support of defendant No.6 and some others caused damage to the articles of the shopkeepers in 'A' schedule property; that defendant No.6 illegally encroached the vacant site lying towards South and East from out of the plaint 'A' schedule property; that the encroached property is shown as 'B' schedule property; that plaintiffs as well as shopkeepers lodged complaints against defendant Nos.5 and 6 before SHO, Thulluru Police Station; that defendant No.5 issued notice, dated 17.11.2018 to plaintiff No.2 calling upon to produce record of title for the suit 'A' schedule property; that plaintiffs filed W.P.No.43066 of 2018 and defendant No.6 filed W.P.No.43748 of 2018; that both the writ petitions were disposed of; that plaintiffs preferred W.A.No.459 of 2021; that defendant No.5, in violation of orders of the High Court in W.P.No.43066 of 2018, affixed notice, dated 16.02.2021 at the plaint 'A' schedule property by mentioning that the High Court decided the property as "Satram Property"
and thereby it is the property of Gram Panchayat and therefore, plaintiffs filed the suit for above reliefs.
4. Pending the suit, defendant No.6 filed I.A.No.542 of 2021 to reject the plaint on the grounds that there is no cause of action and that the suit is barred by limitation. Defendant Nos.1 Page 5 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 to 5 filed I.A.No.543 of 2021 to reject the plaint as the suit is pre-mature and there is no cause of action and it is barred by law.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.542 of 2021, defendant No.6 contended inter alia that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and only Endowments Tribunal has got jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. The suit is filed without cause of action and hence, prayed to reject the plaint.
6. Plaintiffs filed counter and opposed the application.
7. By common order, dated 27.04.2022 trial Court disposed of I.A.Nos.542 and 543 of 2021. Against the order in I.A.No.542 of 2021, the present revision is filed.
8. Heard both sides.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a reading of the plaint would disclose that the suit O.S.No.59 of 2021 is barred by law in view of the findings in W.P.No.43066 of 2018. He would submit that the cause of action arose on 23.02.2008 and hence, the suit for declaration ought to have been filed by 23.02.2011. The suit for declaration is governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the suit was Page 6 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 filed in the year 2021, as such the suit is clearly barred by limitation. He would also submit that property belongs to Endowments Department and hence, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He would also submit that suit is barred by law more particularly by virtue of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'Panchayat Raj Act'), being special enactment, suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs has to be rejected.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance upon Khatri Hotels Private Limited and Another vs. Union of India and another1 and Saranpal Kaur Anand vs. Praduman Singh Chandhok and Others2 would mainly contend that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and hence, suit is liable to be rejected.
11. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the order of trial Court.
12. The point to be considered is whether suit O.S.No.59 of 2021 is barred by limitation and law as contended by defendant No.6 and if so, suit is liable to be rejected?1
2011 (9) SCC 126 2 2022 (8) SCC 401 Page 7 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022
13. The contention of defendant No.6 is that plaintiffs cleverly drafted the plaint and the cause of action shown in the plaint is illusory and infact there is no cause of action and, also the claim is barred by limitation as such plaint is liable to be dismissed.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that plaint, indeed, discloses cause of action and the claim is not barred by limitation.
15. In the plaint it was averred that cause of action arose on 14.11.2018 when defendant Nos.5 and 6 illegally and highhandedly interfered with the possession enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
16. It is pertinent to mention here that the phrase 'cause of action' is not defined in Civil Procedure Code, 1908, but it is of vide importance. It has different meanings in different contexts i.e. when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or accrual of right to suit.
Generally, it is described as bundle of facts, which if proved or admitted, entitle the plaintiff for the relief prayed for. It is also settled law that cause of action consists of a bundle of facts which give cause to enforce the legal enquiry to redress Page 8 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 in a Court of Law. A bundle of facts, when taken with the law are applicable to them, gives right to the effected party to claim relief against the opponent.
17. In Black's Law Dictionary, cause of action is stated as the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim.
The phrase comprises every fact, which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment.
18. In Halsbury's Laws of England, it has been stated as follows:
"Cause of action' has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation, the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse. Cause of action' has also been taken to mean that a particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject- matter of grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action."
19. Thus, cause of action means the cause of action for which the suit is brought. Cause of action is cause of action which gives an occasion and forms the foundation of the suit. Page 9 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022
20. In Swamy Atmananda & Ors vs Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam & Ors.3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"A cause of action, thus, 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 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."
21. Order VII Rule 11(A) of CPC mandates that plaint can be rejected if no cause of action is disclosed. The purpose of conferment of such powers under Order VII R 11 CPC is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the courts. The power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action is, however, drastic one and hence the conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC are required to be strictly adhered. The Court must scrutinize the averments 3 2005 (10) SCC 51 Page 10 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 in the plaint as to whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or not.
22. In Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd. vs. M.V. Sea Success I & Ors.4, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
139. "Whether plaint discloses cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact, but whether it does or does not must be found out from the reading of 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 entirety a decree would be passed."
23. In Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Hede And Company5, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
..... It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although 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, Court cannot embark upon enquiry whether allegations are true in fact.4
2004 (9) SCC 512 5 2007 (5)SCC 614 Page 11 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022
23. Before adverting to the aspect of jurisdiction, it is necessary to take note of the contents in Section No.9 of CPC which provides for exercise of jurisdiction by civil Court. Section 9 of CPC reads thus:
"9. The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
Explanation I-
A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.
Explanation II.-
For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place."
24. A bare perusal of the same indicates that the courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
25. It would also be appropriate to take note of the provision contained in Order VII Rule 11(d) which reads as hereunder:-- Page 12 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022
Rejection of plaint - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:--
(a) xx xx xx xx
(b) xx xx xx xx
(c) xx xx xx xx
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
(e) xx xx xx xx
(f) xx xx xx xx"
26. In Khatri Hotels Private Limited and Another vs. Union of India and another (referred to supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"It was pertinently added that this exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court would be subject to two limitations. First, 'the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. The second is as regards the exact extent to which the powers of statutory tribunals are exclusive'. The question as to whether any particular case falls under the first or the second of the above categories would depend on the purpose of the statute and its general scheme, taken Page 13 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 in conjunction with the scope of the enquiry entrusted to the tribunal set up and other relevant factors."
It was held that a suit for declaration that the decision of the Settlement Officer/Tribunal holding certain properties to be an 'estate' under Section 3(2)(d) of the 1908 Act was void, was maintainable on the ground that the suit property was not an 'inam village'. In Pyx Granite Co. Ltd. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government [[1960] A.C. 260] the appellants sought a declaration of their common law right to quarry their land without the need to obtain planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. In that connection it was said:
"The appellant-company are given no new right of quarrying by the Act of 1947. Their right is a common-law right and the only question is how far it has been taken away. They do not uno flatu claim under the Act and seek a remedy elsewhere. On the contrary, they deny that they come within its purview and seek a declaration to that effect."
27. In Ramesh Gobindram vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf6, while examining the bar of civil court as contemplated under Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995 had drawn a distinction that such power would apply only in respect of the issues arising under certain provisions of Act i.e., Section 6, 7 and 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and had held that a suit before a civil court would be maintainable for other reliefs notwithstanding 6 2010 (8) SCC 726 Page 14 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 the creation of the Wakf tribunal under the Act, unless the dispute falls within the four corners of the powers vested in the Tribunal. Therefore, despite there being the bar of jurisdiction of the civil courts under the Act, as noted, except for the disputes arising to the limited extent all other issues were held to be maintainable before the civil court. The relevant consideration is as hereunder:--
"8. Wakfs and matters relating thereto were for a long time governed by the Wakf Act, 1954. The need for a fresh legislation on the subject was, however, felt because of the deficiencies noticed in the working of the said earlier enactment especially those governing the Wakf Boards, their power of superintendence and control over the management of individual wakfs. Repeated amendments to the 1954 Act, having failed to provide effective answers to the questions that kept arising for consideration, Parliament had to bring a comprehensive legislation in the form of the Wakf Act, 1995 for better administration of wakfs and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."
28. In the case on hand, a plain reading of the plaint discloses civil dispute and as to when cause of action is arisen. Hence, plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. The Court cannot rely upon the contention raised in the written statement while considering application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Page 15 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022
29. In Madanuri Sri. Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal7, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"8. The plaint can be rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 if conditions enumerated in the said provision are fulfilled. It is needless to observe that the power Under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure can be exercised by the 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 VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated Under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure 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 7 2017 SC 2653 Page 16 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 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 Code of Civil Procedure 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."
30. In Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (dead) by LRs.8, while referring to its earlier judgments, while reiterating the principle to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, observed that the contents of the plaint are alone to be looked into.
31. In Satyananda Sahoo v. Ratikanta Panda9, High Court of Orissa held as under:
"21. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx xxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxx If, after ascertaining and undraping the plaint and scanning the averments in their conceptual eventuality it is found that a clear cause of action not only exists but survives to be adjudicated in a court of law without being hit by the prescription of limitation, the court should admit the suit, otherwise law has to take its own course. ------- I would make it clear that while dealing with the said aspect, the court below should examine the plaint and the plaint alone, and no 8 AIR 2019 SC 1430 9 82 (1996) CLT 653 Page 17 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 other material in finding out a clear cause of action and subsistence thereof for the purpose of adjudication in law.
32. In Kamala & Others v. KT Eshwara Sa10, while dealing with the question of res judicata, it was observed as under:
"21. Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code has limited application. It must be shown that the suit is barred under any law. Such a conclusion must be drawn from the averments made in the plaint. Different clauses in Order 7 Rule 11, in our opinion, should not be mixed up. Whereas in a given case, an application for rejection of the plaint may be filed on more than one ground specified in various sub-clauses thereof, a clear finding to that effect must be arrived at. What would be relevant for invoking clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are the averments made in the plaint. For that purpose, there cannot be any addition or subtraction. Absence of jurisdiction on the part of a court can be invoked at different stages and under different provisions of the Code. Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is one, Order 14 Rule 2 is another.
22. For the purpose of invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code, no amount of evidence can be looked into. The issues on merit of the matter which may arise between the parties would not be within the realm of the court at that stage. All issues shall not be the subject-matter of an order under the said provision."10
2008 (12) SCC 661 Page 18 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022
23......
24. It is one thing to say that the averments made in the plaint on their face discloses no cause of action, but it is another thing to say that although the same discloses a cause of action, the same is barred by a law.
25. The decisions rendered by this Court as also by various High Courts are not uniform in this behalf. But, then the broad principle which can be culled out therefrom is that the court at that stage would not consider any evidence or enter into a disputed question of fact or law. In the event, the jurisdiction of the court is found to be barred by any law, meaning thereby, the subject-matter thereof, the application for rejection of plaint should be entertained.
33. In Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"'9. A perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC makes it clear that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit -- before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken 11 2003 (1) SCC 557 Page 19 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage, therefore, a direction to file the written statement without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot but be procedural irregularity touching the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.' It is clear that in order to consider Order 7 Rule 11, the court has to look into the averments in the plaint and the same can be exercised by the trial court at any stage of the suit. It is also clear that the averments in the written statement are immaterial and it is the duty of the court to scrutinise the averments/pleas in the plaint. In other words, what needs to be looked into in deciding such an application are the averments in the plaint. At that stage, the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant and the matter is to be decided only on the plaint averments. These principles have been reiterated in Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property, (1998) 7 SCC 184] and Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express [Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100] Similarly, in Soumitra Kumar Sen [Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, (2018) 5 SCC 644 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 329] , an application was moved under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC claiming rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by res judicata. The trial Judge dismissed the application and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed in revision by the High Page 20 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 Court. A.K. Sikri, J., while affirming the judgment of the High Court held : (Soumitra Kumar Sen case [Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, (2018) 5 SCC 644 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 329] , SCC p. 649, para 9) "9. In the first instance, it can be seen that insofar as relief of permanent and mandatory injunction is concerned that is based on a different cause of action. At the same time that kind of relief can be considered by the trial court only if the plaintiff is able to establish his locus standi to bring such a suit. If the averments made by the appellant in their written statement are correct, such a suit may not be maintainable inasmuch as, as per the appellant it has already been decided in the previous two suits that Respondent 1-plaintiff retired from the partnership firm much earlier, after taking his share and it is the appellant (or appellant and Respondent 2) who are entitled to manage the affairs of M/s Sen Industries. However, at this stage, as rightly pointed out by the High Court, the defence in the written statement cannot be gone into. One has to only look into the plaint for the purpose of deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It is possible that in a cleverly drafted plaint, the plaintiff has not given the details about Suit No. 268 of 2008 which has been decided against him. He has totally omitted to mention about Suit No. 103 of 1995, the judgment wherein has attained finality. In that sense, the plaintiff-Respondent 1 may be guilty of suppression and concealment, if the averments made by the appellant are ultimately found to be correct. However, Page 21 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 as per the established principles of law, such a defence projected in the written statement cannot be looked into while deciding application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC."
23. Referring to Kamala [Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa, (2008) 12 SCC 661] , the Court further observed that :
(Soumitra Kumar Sen case [Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, (2018) 5 SCC 644 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 329] , SCC p. 650, para 12) "12. ... The appellant has mentioned about the earlier two cases which were filed by Respondent 1 and wherein he failed. These are judicial records. The appellant can easily demonstrate the correctness of his averments by filing certified copies of the pleadings in the earlier two suits as well as copies of the judgments passed by the courts in those proceedings. In fact, copies of the orders passed in judgment and decree dated 31-3-1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), copy of the judgment dated 31-3-1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) upholding the decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) as well as copy of the judgment and decree dated 31-7-
2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division in Suit No. 268 of 2008 are placed on record by the appellant. While deciding the first suit, the trial court gave a categorical finding that as per MoU signed between the parties, Respondent 1 had accepted a sum of Rs 2,00,000 and, therefore, the said suit was barred by principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. In a Page 22 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 case like this, though recourse to Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the appellant was not appropriate, at the same time, the trial court may, after framing the issues, take up the issues which pertain to the maintainability of the suit and decide the same in the first instance. In this manner the appellant, or for that matter the parties, can be absolved of unnecessary agony of prolonged proceedings, in case the appellant is ultimately found to be correct in his submissions."
(emphasis supplied) While holding that "recourse to Order 7 Rule 11" by the appellant was not appropriate, this Court observed that the trial court may, after framing the issues, take up the issues which pertain to the maintainability of the suit and decide them in the first instance. The Court held that this course of action would help the appellant avoid lengthy proceedings.
34. Thus, a conspectus of expressions referred to supra, while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the averments in the plaint alone is to be looked into. If the plait discloses cause of action the same cannot be returned. As discussed supra, plaint in this case discloses cause of action and hence plaint cannot be returned either on the ground of limitation or lacking cause of action. Page 23 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022
35. The other contention of learned counsel for revision petitioner is that since notice was issued by official respondents on 18.02.2008, having been submitted explanation on 20.02.2008 no suit was filed within three years i.e. by 23.02.2011 and hence, suit is barred by limitation and the suit is liable to be rejected in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Khatri Hotels Private Limited and Another vs. Union of India and another (referred supra) and in Saranpal Kaur Anand vs. Praduman Singh Chandhok and Others (referred supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that when suit is filed by the party to the proceedings beyond limitation, the same is liable to be rejected. However, as can be seen from the plaint, according to the plaintiff cause of action arose on 14.11.2018. Unless the evidence is let in at this stage, and genuineness of said cause of action will be decided after full pledged trial. Hence,
36. The further contention of defendant No.6 is that under Section 87 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the Endowments Tribunal got jurisdiction, but not civil Court. In reply to the above contention, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the suit is filed for declaration and for recovery of possession of the property and hence, civil suit alone is maintainable. Page 24 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022
37. In Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, Beeranguda, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District v. Sai Krupa Homes, Karimnagar and others12, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"Similar issue was considered by this Court in a Division Bench judgment in Jaggayya's case (supra), which is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court, which considered similar contention with respect to Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1966 wherein similar question with reference to Section 77 of the 1966 Act was considered and the suit was held to be maintainable. The present Section 87 being similar to Section 77 of the 1966 Act, it has to be held that since it is a suit for declaration, the same would not fall within the purview of the authorities under the Act, 30 of 1987 under Section 87. Similarly, Section 151 contains a bar of jurisdiction that no suit or legal proceeding in respect of administration or management of an institution or endowment or any other matters of dispute for determining or deciding, for which the provision is made in this Act, 30 of 1987 shall be instituted in any Court. As a suit for declaration of title is not falling within the parameters of Section 151 of the Act, 30 of 1987 the said contention of the appellants is liable to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected."
38. Thus, A perusal of expression referred to supra, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that plaintiff had to approach Tribunal constituted under Endowment Act falls to 12 2010 SCC Online AP 352 Page 25 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 ground. Suit is one filed declaration of title and for recovery of possession and hence civil suit is maintainable.
39. The issue as to whether property belongs to Endowments Department or Panchayat Raj Department, or the plaintiffs will be decided after full pledged trial. In fact, plaintiffs also filed petition under Section 80 (c)(ii) of CPC and the same was allowed and thereafter the suit was numbered.
40. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
41. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
__________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date : 20.01.2023 ikn Page 26 of 26 SRS,J CRP No.2200 of 2022 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2200 of 2022 Date: 20.01.2023 ikn