Telangana High Court
Aila Suryanarayana vs Chinthalapani Karuna on 9 June, 2025
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1183 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - defendant No.2 aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.107 of 2020 in O.S.No.8 of 2017 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial for dismissing the petition filed by him under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint.
2. The petitioner filed I.A.No.107 of 2020 in O.S.No.8 of 2017 seeking rejection of the plaint contending that he was the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0-26 guntas in Survey No.354/B situated at Dharoor Village of Jagtial Mandal and District having purchased the same from defendant No.1, who in turn purchased the same from its original owner Smt.Takur Narayana Bhai to an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas under a registered sale deed bearing document No.481/2005. Subsequent to the purchase, the defendant No.1 got mutated his name in the revenue records. Out of Ac.0-30 guntas, the petitioner
- defendant No.2 purchased Ac.0-26 guntas from defendant No.1. As defendant No.1 failed to execute the sale deed, the petitioner - defendant No.2 filed a suit O.S.No.136 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial and the said suit was decreed on 21.06.2011. The petitioner - defendant No.2 filed 2 Dr.GRR, J crp_1183_2022 E.P.No.19 of 2012 for execution of the said decree through the Court. He got executed the registered sale deed vide document No.4883/2010 dated 12.12.2014 at SRO, Mallial and the possession of Ac.0-26 guntas was delivered by the bailiff of the Court. The name of the petitioner - defendant No.2 was mutated in the revenue records. During the pendency of the mutation proceedings the respondent No.1 - plaintiff raised objection through her vendee Regalla Srikanth. However, on thorough enquiry, the Tahsildar, Jagtial granted mutation in favor of petitioner - defendant No.2 vide proceedings No.B/4981/2014 dated 22.07.2016 and his name was entered in the revenue records. As such, he became the exclusive owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0-26 guntas in Survey No.354/B of Dharoor Village of Jagtial Mandal. He got permission from the Gram Panchayat, Dharoor vide proceedings No.GP/37/2016 dated 15.09.2016 for construction of compound wall and tin shed. Accordingly, he constructed a compound wall, built a shed and was enjoying the same ever since the date of delivery of possession by the Court bailiff.
2.1. The petitioner further contended that the respondent No.1 - plaintiff was claiming her alleged rights through her mother, but her mother during her lifetime executed a registered sale deed in favor of defendant No.1 - respondent No.2 for an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas. Hence, the plaintiff had no any legal right and possession over the suit schedule land and there was no cause of action for 3 Dr.GRR, J crp_1183_2022 filing the suit. The alleged cause of action was a created and concocted one. As such, the suit was liable to be rejected at the threshold. He came to know that the plaintiff was creating collusive and fictitious sale deeds in favor of third parties. The respondent - plaintiff prior to filing the suit itself sold away the suit schedule land by way of registered sale deed bearing document No.10619/2014 dated 12.12.2014 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar in favor of one Mr.Regalla Srikanth. In view of the said alienation and conveyance, her alleged right, title and interest if any in the property in question was ceased and the cause for the alleged grievance in the suit would not survive and prayed to reject the plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action.
3. The respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed counter submitting that the mother of the plaintiff by name Smt.Takur Narayana Bhai was the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas in Survey No.354/B situated at Dharoor Village of Jagtial Mandal and District. By taking advantage of her innocence, the defendant No.1 obtained a registered sale deed vide document No.481/2005 dated 30.03.2005 from the mother of the plaintiff fraudulently by altering the extent of land from Ac.0-3 guntas to Ac.0-30 guntas in Survey No.354/B situated at Dharoor Village of Jagtial Mandal and District. Having noticed the malpractice of defendant No.1, her mother Smt.Takur Narayana Bhai filed O.S.No.71/2010 for declaration of title and recovery of possession against defendant No.1. During the pendency of the said suit, Smt.Takur Narayana 4 Dr.GRR, J crp_1183_2022 Bhai died and the plaintiff came on record as her legal representative. Later, the said suit was compromised with defendant No.1 in the presence of his brother i.e. defendant No.2 and to that effect an agreement of compromise was executed on 06.12.2011 by defendant No.1, which was attested by defendant No.2. By virtue of terms of compromise, the defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed dated 17.02.2012 vide document No.503/2012 in favor of the plaintiff in respect of the land to an extent of 1884 square yards (equivalent to Ac.0-15 1/2 guntas, i.e. half portion of the suit land in O.S.No.71/2010) in favor of the plaintiff. In terms of the compromise, the suit O.S.No.71/2010 was not pressed. 3.1. The respondent No.1 - plaintiff further submitted that both the defendants 1 and 2 were own brothers and with an ill motive colluding with each other got created an agreement of sale dated 06.04.2007, as if the same was executed by defendant No.1 in favor of defendant No.2 to an extent of Ac.0-26 guntas, which included the suit property i.e. Ac.0-15 1/2 guntas in Survey No.354/B and on the basis of bogus and collusive agreement of sale dated 06.04.2007, the defendant No.2 filed a collusive suit vide O.S.No.136/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial for specific performance of contract against defendant No.1 and in collusion with each other, an ex-parte decree was obtained by defendant No.2 on 21.06.2011 against defendant No.1. Later in furtherance of their common malafide intention, the defendant No.2 filed E.P.No.10 of 2012 against defendant No.1 to strengthen his false claim and got 5 Dr.GRR, J crp_1183_2022 defendant No.1 set ex-parte in the said EP and got registered the land of Ac.0- 26 guntas with false boundaries from Senior Civil Judge Court, Jagtial through registered sale deed dated 12.12.2014 vide document No.4883/2014 suppressing the real facts and thereby cheated the plaintiff. On the basis of the said registered sale deed dated 12.12.2014, the defendants were interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know about the collusive decree in O.S.No.136/2010 and the execution of registered sale deed dated 12.12.2014 vide document No.4883/2014 in the month of January, 2015 and immediately thereafter approached the defendants and questioned about their illegal activities. On that, the defendants assured to settle the matter amicably, but failed to settle the dispute. She further submitted that at the time of compromise in O.S.No.71/2010, the defendants did not bring into light about the said collusive agreement of sale dated 06.04.2007 and also pendency of O.S.No.136/2010. Therefore, the agreement of sale dated 06.04.2007 and filing of O.S.No.136/2010 were bogus and collusive and created with malafide intention. The defendants without having any right over the suit property were intending to mutate the property in the name of defendant No.2 with an intention to dispose of the suit land to third parties. Therefore, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 09.06.2016 to the Tahsildar, Jagtial Mandal (Rural) raising objection for mutation of the suit land. The said notice was received by him.
6
Dr.GRR, J crp_1183_2022 3.2. With regard to the cause of action, the plaintiff submitted that the cause of action arose on 17.02.2012 when the defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favor of the plaintiff, and on 12.12.2014 when the defendant No.2 obtained registered sale deed from the Senior Civil Judge, Court, Jagtial in E.P.No.19/2012 and finally on 07.01.2017 when the defendants 1 and 2 tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff under the guise of registered sale deed dated 12.12.2014 vide document No.4883/2014 and tried to get mutate the suit property in their favor in the revenue records. 3.3. The respondent No.1 - plaintiff further submitted that on 01.05.2016, the vendee of the plaintiff by name Regella Srikanth executed a Memorandum of Understanding (for short "MoU") in favor of plaintiff by reconveying the suit land to the plaintiff by cancelling the registered sale deed dated 12.12.2014 vide document No.10619/2014. By virtue of the said MoU, the plaintiff was having absolute ownership rights over the suit land. However, the plaintiff was taking steps to get cancel the registered sale deed document No.10619/2014 by impleading the said Regella Srikanth to avoid future litigations in the above suit. In view of the said MoU, Regella Srikanth was not claiming any right over the suit land and prayed to dismiss the said I.A.
4. Basing on the said pleadings and on hearing the learned counsel representing both the parties, the trial court dismissed the petition. 7
Dr.GRR, J crp_1183_2022
5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, the petitioner - defendant No.2 preferred this revision.
6. Heard Sri H.Venugopal Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Nalla Mukunda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner on record. There is no representation for the respondents, though notice was served upon them.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner - defendant No.2 contended that the trial court grossly erred in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC, as not maintainable. The trial court failed to consider the material facts in a proper perspective and dismissed the I.A. on erroneous assumptions and presumptions. The suit was filed for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 12.12.2014, which was executed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial in the year 2017. The suit was barred by law. The cause of action shown was fictitious. The plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule property, as she had already alienated the property in favor of one Mr.Regella Srikanth vide registered sale deed document No.10619/2014 dated 12.12.2014. The Hon'ble Apex Court in several cases stated that if the suit was manifestly vexatious and does not disclose any right to sue, the Court would be justified in exercising the power under VII Rule 11 of CPC and if clever drafting of plaint creates an illusory cause of action, the same shall be nipped at the bud and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dahiben v. 8
Dr.GRR, J crp_1183_2022 Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through Legal Representatives and Others 1 , Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal 2 , Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society v. Ameena Begum and Another3and H.Anjanappa and Others v. A.Prabhakar and Others 4.
8. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the point now that falls for consideration is whether the trial court committed any error in passing the impugned order.
9. As seen from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"7. 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, CPC 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, CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the 1 (2020) 7 SCC 366 2 (2017) 13 SCC 174 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1662 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 183 9 Dr.GRR, J crp_1183_2022 conditions enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of 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 VII Rule 11 of 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."
10. The petition is filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC by the petitioner
- defendant No.2 on the ground that the plaint was not disclosing any cause of action.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through Legal Representatives and Others (cited supra) had stated what the word "cause of action" would mean and how it has to be construed as follows:
"24. "Cause of action" means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to 10 Dr.GRR, J crp_1183_2022 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.
24.1. In Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam [(2005) 10 SCC 51], this Court held :
"24. 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 of 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"
(emphasis supplied) 24.2. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Another [(1997) 4 SCC 467], this Court held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words : -
"5. ...The learned Munsiff 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 O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground 11 Dr.GRR, J crp_1183_2022 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 ..."
(emphasis supplied) 24.3. Subsequently, in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal [(1998) 2 SCC 70], this 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.
24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal [(2017) 13 SCC 174] held that 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 the court."
12. Keeping these principles in mind, the averments in the plaint need to be looked into. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial. While considering the prayer for rejection of plaint, the trial court considered the averments of the plaint and observed that:
"9. The contents of the plaint of O.S.No.8/2017 in brief are that the mother of the plaintiff by name Smt. Takur Narayana Bhai was the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0-30 gts in Sy.No.354/B situated at Dharur village of Jagtial Mandal. By taking advantage of the innocence of Smt. Takur Narayana 12 Dr.GRR, J crp_1183_2022 Bhai the defendant No.1 obtained registered sale deed vide document No.481/2005 dated 30.03.2005 from her mother by altering the extent of land from Ac.0.3 gts to Ac.0-30 gts in Sy.No.354/B. After knowing about the mischief played by the defendant No.1, i.e. mentioning the extent of land as 30 gts instead of 3 gts in Sy.No.354/B in sale deed doc.No.481/2005, the said Smt. Takur Narayana Bhai filed a suit vide O.S.No.71/2010 for declaration of title and recovery of possession against this petitioner/defendant No.1. During the pendency of the said suit, Smt. Takur Narayana Bhai died. Later the suit was compromised and it was not pressed. As per the terms of compromise in O.S.No.71/2010 it is agreed between this plaintiff and defendant No.1, that the defendant No.1 would execute a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff to an extent of 1884 sq. yards which is equivalent to 15½ gts. Accordingly this defendant No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of this plaintiff to an extent of 1884 sq. yards which is equivalent to 15½ gts vide registered sale deed document No. 503/2012.
10. It is further submitted in the plaint that neither defendant No.1 nor defendant No.2 state anything as to the existence of alleged agreement of sale dated 06.04.2007 between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 at the time of execution of sale deed document No.503/2012 dated 17.02.2012 in favour of this plaintiff. But to surprise defendant No.2 filed suit for specific performance against the defendant No.1 vide O.S.No.136/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial and the same was decreed but in fact defendant No.1 and 2 are brothers and it is further alleged by the plaintiff that the decree in O.S.No.136/2010 is obtained behind back of this plaintiff, as defendant No.1 and 2 kept silent about the existence of alleged agreement of sale. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that all 13 Dr.GRR, J crp_1183_2022 these transactions i.e., the execution of alleged agreement of sale, dated 06.04.2007, filing of suit by defendant No.1 against defendant No.2, obtaining ex-parte decree is O.S.No.136/2010, filing of E.P and getting executed registered sale deed doc.No.4883/2014 in favour of defendant No.2 through Court bailiff, all these transactions took place behind the back of the plaintiff, for such reason only the plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant No.1 and 2 for declaration of registered sale deed document No.4883/2014 as null and void and not binding on him.
11. As seen above, Order 7 Rule 11 (a) contemplates that plaint can be rejected only when the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. On hearing the rival contentions of both the parties and on reading the plaint it appears that the pleadings of the plaint, prima facie establishes a cause of action and other issues which are to be adjudicated. Further it is the contention of the petitioner/defendant No.2 that the 1st respondent/plaintiff herself is not in possession of the suit schedule land at the time of filing the suit, as she executed a registered sale deed in favour of one Regella Srikanth vide document No.10619/2014 dated 12.12.2014. The petitioner counsel also filed the sale deed doc.No.10619 into Court along with the application of rejection of plaint, but the same cannot be looked into at this stage, as the rejection of plaint can be solely based on the pleadings of the plaint but not by taking help of other evidence.
12. The main contention of the petitioner in the present case is that the suit is filed without proper cause of action. However cause of action does not mean any one or part of the pleadings submitted by the plaintiff, but the same are bundle of facts put together. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, 14 Dr.GRR, J crp_1183_2022 in order to support his right to the Judgment of Court. In other words bundle of facts which along with the law applicable to them give the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant.
13. In the case in hand, the petitioner counsel argued that Ist respondent/plaintiff do not have any locus to file the case as it is the contention of petitioner that as on the date of filing suit, the property which the 1st respondent/plaintiff is claiming was already transferred by him to one Reggala Srikanth. This fact as to transfer of property is not pleaded by 1st respondent/plaintiff in her plaint, hence if the contention of petitioner is accepted it is nothing but accepting the defence of petitioner in rejecting the plaint, which would go against the proposition of settled principle of law for rejection of plaint. Further if the contention of the petitioner as to alienation of suit property by 1st respondent/plaintiff in favour of Regalla Srikanth is proved in the defence of petitioner in the main suit, then it would certainly amount to suppression of facts, which is a matter of trial and the consequences would be suffered by the parties at the time of disposal of suit."
13. Thus, the above observations would disclose that the trial court on considering the averments in the plaint, came to an observation that it discloses a cause of action and the contentions of the defendant or the documents relied by him cannot be looked into at this stage and that they can be considered at an appropriate stage during the trial.
14. This Court does not find any illegality in the order of the trial court or the approach of the trial court in coming to the above conclusion. 15
Dr.GRR, J crp_1183_2022
15. As the order of the trial court is in accordance with the settled principles of law and the approach taken by it is not erroneous, this Court does not find any need to interfere with the same.
16. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial in I.A.No.107 of 2020 in O.S.No.8 of 2017 dated 14.02.2022. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J Date:09.06.2025 Nsk.