Telangana High Court
Sampath Mallamma vs Narra Sarojana on 9 March, 2023
Author: P.Madhavi Devi
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
C.R.P.No. 2623 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 15.07.2022 in I.A.No.241 of 2021 in O.S.No.464 of 2019 by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon.
2. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs i.e., respondents herein for cancellation of the registered sale deeds bearing No.265 of 1988, dated 11.02.1988 and document No.573 of 2011, dated 02.02.2011 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jangaon Town, Warangal District.
3. The contention of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff, for her family necessities, intended to sell the dry land admeasuring Ac.0-20 Gts., in Survey No.130, situated at Shamirpet Village, Jangaon Mandal and District and that the husband of defendant No.1 had agreed to purchase the said land for a consideration of Rs.2,500/- only. On the promise of the husband of the defendant No.1 that he will pay the amount 2 PMD,J CRP.No.2623 of 2022 after execution of sale deed, the plaintiff had executed a registered sale deed vide document No.265 of 1988, dated 11.02.1988 in favour of the husband of the defendant No.1, but kept the original of the same with her with an understanding/condition with the husband of defendant No.1, that on payment of the entire sale consideration only, she will hand over the original sale deed to him.
4. It is submitted that after some days, since the husband of the defendant No.1 could not secure the said sale consideration amount, both the plaintiff as well as the husband of defendant No.1 have decided to cancel the original registered sale deed document No.265 of 1988 and therefore, they executed a simple cancellation deed of the registered sale deed keeping the original registered sale deed with the plaintiff only. It is submitted that the husband of defendant No.1 thereafter died and the defendant No.1 under the impression that the suit scheduled land is still on the name of her late husband and without having knowledge of its cancellation and with a criminal intention to cause loss to the plaintiff, has executed a registered gift settlement deed in favour of the defendant No.4 vide document No.573 of 2011 on 02.02.2011. It is submitted that the plaintiff, 3 PMD,J CRP.No.2623 of 2022 on coming to know about the alleged transactions, immediately approached the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jangaon and made discreet enquiries and came to know about the execution of registered gift deed. Thereafter, plaintiff has filed the suit for cancellation of registered sale deed as well as the subsequent registered gift deed.
5. The defendants have filed their written statements and also filed I.A.No.241 of 2021 for rejection of the plaint, claiming to be the owners of the property and also on the ground that the plaint was filed beyond the period of limitation i.e., after three years from the date of knowledge. It is also stated that the plaintiff did not have cause of action for filing of the suit.
6. The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, however, rejected the said petition by holding that the issue as to whether the registered sale deed was cancelled by way of a simple cancellation deed, is a question of fact which can be gone into after trial. Therefore, he rejected the application for rejection of suit and the present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the said order. 4
PMD,J CRP.No.2623 of 2022
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made in the affidavit filed along with I.A.No.241 of 2021.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the plaintiff.
9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petition in I.A.No.241 of 2021 was filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint.
Order VII Rule 11 provides for rejection of plaint under the following conditions:
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of Rule 9.5
PMD,J CRP.No.2623 of 2022 Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
10. The facts of this case do not satisfy any of the above conditions. On the question of there being no cause of action and the suit being barred by the limitation, the trial Court has taken note of the fact that the plaintiff has come to know of the execution of gift deed on 05.12.2019 and subsequently on 06.12.2019 and when she approached defendant No.1 and requested her to cancel the document, she refused and therefore the suit was filed. Therefore, according to the Civil Court, the cause of action for filing the present suit for cancellation has arisen on 06.12.2019 and the suit was filed in the year 2019, i.e., within the period of three years and therefore, it is not barred by the limitation. Further, it is observed that all these issues can be gone into during the trial and therefore, at this juncture, rejection of suit may not be appropriate. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner could not effectively rebut the above findings of the Civil Court. 6
PMD,J CRP.No.2623 of 2022 The question as to when the plaintiff had the knowledge of the subsequent gift deed is a question of fact and can be ascertained during the trial. Similarly, the question of cause of action also can be decided after due trial.
11. In view of the same, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Civil Court. However, due to the fact that the registered sale deed sought to be cancelled is of the year 2011, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the Civil Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously without being influenced by any of the findings of the Civil Court in I.A.No.241 of 2021 or this Court in this Civil Revision Petition.
12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 09.03.2023
bak
7
PMD,J
CRP.No.2623 of 2022
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI C.R.P.No. 2623 of 2022 Date: 09.03.2023 bak