Telangana High Court
Maganti Phalguna vs Smt. Narsolla Balamani on 25 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1887 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri Maganti Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Thimmaraju Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire record.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District ('trial Court'), in I.A.No.1934 of 2023 in O.S.No.325 of 2021, wherein petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed seeking rejection of plaint was dismissed, the present revision is preferred.
3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have filed suit for perpetual injunction against the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein with respect to suit schedule properties consisting of Ac.0- 09 guntas in Sy.No.188/E/1 and Ac.0-06 guntas in Sy.No.188/E/3 situated at Hythabad Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein claim to be the owners of the suit schedule properties as the same were their ancestral properties and are in possession of the same. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 alleged that respondent No.4 along with others i.e., the revision petitioner and respondent No.3 and 5 have made attempts to grab the suit RY,J CRP_1887_2024 schedule properties and such attempts were resisted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and such instances led to filing of the suit for perpetual injunction.
4. Per contra, the case of the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein along with respondent No.3 executed an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney ('GPA') with possession dated 19.08.2008 in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 vide document bearing No.4123 of 2008. Thereafter, on 22.07.2020, respondent Nos.4 and 5 as authorized GPA holders of respondent Nos.1 to 3 executed registered sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner vide document bearing No.6375 of 2020. Ever since the execution of the agreement of sale-cum- GPA with possession dated 19.08.2008, respondent Nos.1 to 3 were never in possession of the suit schedule properties. However, respondent Nos.1 and 2 by suppressing the factum of execution of the said registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 vide document No.4123 of 2008, dated 19.08.2008 and also registered sale deed, dated 22.07.2020 executed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in favour of the revision petitioner have filed false suit seeking perpetual injunction.
5. It is urged that the suit is filed seeking bare injunction without seeking cancellation of agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession, dated 19.08.2008 and also registered sale deed, dated 22.07.2020. Further, it is 2 RY,J CRP_1887_2024 argued that the limitation for seeking cancellation of both the registered documents has expired and by employing clever drafting respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed suit for perpetual injunction. In that context, the I.A. under revision was filed to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC due to lack of cause of action and as the relief of cancellation of the registered documents is barred by limitation. Having considered the case of both the parties i.e., the revision petitioner as well as respondent Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court dismissed the petition by way of impugned order. Grounds of revision:-
6. In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the impugned order is contrary to established provision of law and that the trial Court has lost complete sight of documents filed in the suit, as the registered documents agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession, dated 19.08.2008 and registered sale deed, dated 22.07.2020, have not been taken into consideration.
Contentions of the revision petitioner:-
7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the trial Court failed to consider that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were never in possession ever since execution of agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession, dated 19.08.2008. When respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not in possession of the suit 3 RY,J CRP_1887_2024 schedule properties, the question of interference by the revision petitioner herein and respondent Nos.3 to 5 does not arise. It is also argued that suit for bare injunction without seeking the consequential relief of cancellation of registered documents is not maintainable as per the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
In that context, learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali 1 , I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal 2, T. Arivandandam v. T V Satyapal 3 and Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 4.
Contentions of respondent Nos.1 and 2:
8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 argued that the trial Court has to consider the pleadings of the plaint and documents filed by the plaintiff along with it for considering rejection of suit under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC i.e., the trial Court cannot consider the contents of the written statement or the documents filed by the defendants. In that context, reference is made to the judgment of this Court in Vinod Lahoti v. Viswanath Lahoti 5, wherein it is held that the Court must not selectively pickup the averments in the plaint and read them in isolation while examining the existence of cause of action in 1 2020 LawSuit (SC) 468 2 (1998) 2 SCC 70 3 1977 LawSuit (SC) 307 4 Civil Appeal No.2717 of 2023, dated 28.04.2023.5
2021 (5) ALT 177 (DB) (TS) 4 RY,J CRP_1887_2024 filing the suit. Further, it is held that the Court shall not look into the averments of the written statement and other documents filed in support of the case of the defendants. Lastly, it is argued that no title can be passed under agreement of sale-cum-GPA of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and therefore, no title is transferred to the revision petitioner herein under registered sale deed, dated 22.07.2020.
Findings of the Court:-
9. A perusal of the record shows that when the merits of the case of the revision petitioner for rejection of the plaint are to be considered, the plaint itself does not reveal any facts about the execution of agreement of sale-cum-
GPA with possession, dated 19.08.2008 in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 or the registered sale deed, dated 22.07.2020 executed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in favour of the revision petitioner. There is no averment about any other parties being in possession of the suit schedule properties except respondent Nos.1 and 2. On the basis of such plaint averments injunction is sought alleging that suit schedule properties are their ancestral properties which are in their possession and there is interference by defendants i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 5 and the revision petitioner. Respondent No.1 and 2 have filed copies of pahanies ranging from 1985-86 to 2007-08 along with their pattedar pass books.
5
RY,J CRP_1887_2024
10. In the absence of any reference to the registered documents executed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 no inference can be drawn about respondent Nos.4 and 5 being in possession of the suit schedule properties or that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have divested on their possession ever since the year 2008. In the circumstances, no finding can be made under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC about lack of cause of action. When the pleadings of the plaint are to be taken to be true coupled with documents in support of the plaint no finding can be reached as to lack of cause of action.
11. With respect to the suit being barred by limitation, the trial Court has to necessarily peruse agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession, dated 19.08.2008 and registered sale deed, dated 22.07.2020. However, the said documents are not referred to by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their plaint. The said documents are furnished by the revision petitioner along with the written statement. As held by this Court in Vinod Lahoti (cited supra) and also since established precedents preclude the trial Court from perusing pleadings of the written statement as well as the documents filed by the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 as defendants, no assessment can be made about non- maintainability of the suit as barred by limitation.
12. In Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (cited supra), it is also held as under:
6
RY,J CRP_1887_2024 " In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi1 this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be 11986 Supp. SCC 315 Followed in Maharaj Shri Manvendrasinhji Jadeja v. Rajmata Vijaykunverba w/o Late Maharaja Mahedrasinhji, (1998) 2 GLH 823 permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words:
"12. ...The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action."
"12.2 The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.""
13. As per the case in Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (cited supra), when the pleadings do not mention the date of the registered sale deed and there is a deliberate omission, then the trial Court can exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The aforementioned case is primarily about clever drafting being employed to create an illusion of cause of action, in the wake of suppression of certain documents.
14. Having regard to the legal ratio laid down in Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (cited supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that even if clever drafting is employed by suppressing agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession, dated 19.08.2008 and registered sale deed, dated 22.07.2020, no assumption and presumption can be made about whether the suit schedule 7 RY,J CRP_1887_2024 properties are in possession of respondent Nos.1 and 2 or the revision petitioner herein. There is always a probability that in spite of execution of the registered documents the actual possession was never parted with. Therefore, lack of cause of action cannot be inferred solely on the basis of suppression of the registered documents. Consequently, if the possession is still with respondent Nos.1 and 2, in spite of execution of the registered documents, no inference can be made about the suit being barred by limitation. The burden of proof is on respondent Nos.1 and 2 to prove their legal possession over the suit schedule properties and after the same is discharged, the burden shifts to the revision petitioner to prove their possession over the suit schedule properties. Only after full-fledged trial by recording the twin issues of possession as well as the limitation the issue can be decided.
15. In T. Arivandandam and I.T.C. Limited (both cited supra), it is held that the Court must exercise its powers to shoot down the bogus litigation at the earliest stage. 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 VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. 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 8 RY,J CRP_1887_2024 first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage.
16. In the instant case, assuming that the suit is barred by limitation with respect to registered documents i.e., agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession, dated 19.08.2008 and registered sale deed, dated 22.07.2020, the fact remains that no relief is sought in that context. The relief sought is that of bare injunction, therefore the suit has to be adjudicated on the basis of possession of either of the parties. In that event, the issue of limitation does not arise.
17. In Ramisetty Venkatanna (cited supra), it is held as under:
"6. ...we are of the opinion that the plaint ought to have been rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of CPC being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation. By clever drafting and not asking any relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953, the plaintiffs have tried to circumvent the provision of limitation act and have tried to maintain the suit which is nothing but abuse of process of court and the law."
18. In the above judgment, though there is suppression of matter of partition giving rise to inference about the suit being vexatious, in the instant case, the suppression of registered conveyance deeds need not necessarily 9 RY,J CRP_1887_2024 give rise to inference that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not in possession of the property.
19. In view of the forgoing discussion, this Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
20. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the order dated 30.04.2024 of the trial Court in I.A.No.1934 of 2023 in O.S.No.325 of 2021. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 25.08.2025 GVR 10