Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 220 (AP)

A. Prudhvi Raj v. S. Rajyalakshmi

2024-02-09

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2024
ORDER : (B.S. Bhanumathi, J.) This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/defendants challenging the order dated 09.05.2022, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.197 of 2020 in O.S. No.88 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur, filed under Order VII Rule 11(a)(d) and Section 151 CPC to reject the plaint. 2. The petitioners herein are defendants 1 & 2 who filed I.A.No.197 of 2020. The respondents No.1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs who filed the suit for declaration that the registered sale deed bearing No.906 of 2010, dated 21.08.2010, of the Sub-Registrar Office, Chitvel, as null and void and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3, their men, agents, assignees, followers etc., in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 over the plaint A, B and C schedule properties. The suit was filed against five (5) defendants. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampeta Division, YSR Kadapa District is the 4th defendant. The Tahsildar, Obulavaripalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District is the 5th defendant. The plaintiffs sought costs against all the defendants 1 to 5. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is briefly as follows: The plaint A, B and C schedule mentioned properties are self-acquired properties of Sagaraju Ramachandra Raju, father of plaintiff No.3 and grandfather of plaintiff No.2 and father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 herein. He died intestate in the year 1987 leaving behind him the father of the plaintiff No.2 and the plaintiff No.3 to succeed to his entire estate. Subbaraghava Raju executed a registered sale deed on 21.08.2010 and put the 1st defendant in possession of the property. Subsequent to death of Subbaraghava Raju, the plaintiffs entered into a registered partition deed, dated 17.05.2019 and sought the relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have no knowledge about the debt, alleged sale deed 21.08.2010 and re-conveyance deed and Crime No.2 of 2014 of Chitvel police station during the lifetime of Subbaraghava Raju and subsequent to the death of Subbaraghava Raju, the plaintiffs came to know about the fraud played by the defendants 1 and 2 and as such the question of limitation does not arise. The suit is within limitation period and that the limitation starts from the date of their knowledge of the sale deed, i.e., 17.08.2018. 4. The suit is within limitation period and that the limitation starts from the date of their knowledge of the sale deed, i.e., 17.08.2018. 4. The petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.197 of 2020 alleging briefly as follows: In order to seek the relief of cancellation of the sale deed, there must be a substantial cause which is legally binding. But, there is no pleading in the entire plaint stating the reasons to cancel the registered sale deed and thus, there is no cause of action to file the suit. Further, the suit is barred by limitation as the relief of cancellation of registered sale deed is governed by Articles 58 & 59 of Schedule annexed to the Limitation Act as per which the period is three years from the date when it became known to the plaintiff about execution of the registered sale deed whereas in the plaint itself, it is pleaded that the police registered a case in crime No.2 of 2014 against plaintiffs 1 to 3 on 08.01.2014 in Chitvel P.S under Sections 323, 341 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and later the charge sheet was filed which was registered as P.R.C.No.20 of 2015. Thus, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 have clear knowledge of the sale transaction, dated 21.08.2010, by then and whereas the suit was filed in the year 2019 whereby it was filed beyond three years from the date of the knowledge in the year 2014 itself. However, the plaint was cleverly drafted to show an illusion of a non-existing cause of action with regard to the alleged re-conveyance deed. Even if the alleged re-conveyance deed exists, the relief is otherwise and the reliefs claimed in the suit are not maintainable. Moreover, the schedule of the property mentioned in the registered deed, dated 28.01.2010, and the property shown in the schedule A, B and C annexed to the plaint are different. Thus, the plaint is liable to be rejected. 5. The petition is opposed by filing counter of the 2nd respondent. The counter is briefly as follows: The defendants purchased the suit schedule property from one Subbaraghava Raju under a registered sale deed, dated 21.08.2010, and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The deceased, Subbaraghava Raju, being Karta of the family, used to look after the family, maintaining the mango garden and other properties. The counter is briefly as follows: The defendants purchased the suit schedule property from one Subbaraghava Raju under a registered sale deed, dated 21.08.2010, and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The deceased, Subbaraghava Raju, being Karta of the family, used to look after the family, maintaining the mango garden and other properties. He died intestate on 17.08.2018 leaving the plaintiffs 1 & 2 and others to succeed to his entire estate, and as such, the plaintiffs have no knowledge about the debt, alleged sale deed and the re-conveyance deed. Subsequent to the death of Subbaraghava Raju, the plaintiffs came to know about the fraud played by defendants 1 & 2, i.e., after 17.08.2018 only and as such, the question of limitation does not arise at all. The plaintiffs entered into registered partition deed, dated 17.05.2019, and sought for grant of permanent injunction. The relief of cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.906 of 2010 is prayed within three years from the date of their knowledge. There are no bona fides on the part of the defendants 1 & 2 as they suppressed material facts and fled the petition to protract the proceedings. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that as per the averments in the plaint, the suit is within limitation, i.e., from the date of their knowledge after the death of Subbaraghava Raju, i.e., 17.08.2018, and moreover, the pleadings in the written statement cannot be considered to decide the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Regarding the pleadings with reference to limitation, the trial Court recorded that the plaintiffs stated that the deceased Subbaraghava Raju was looking after the entire legal affairs, and therefore, the plaintiffs had no knowledge about the sale deed or the alleged agreement, dated 08.01.2014, and they had come to know about the same only in the year 2018 at the time of registration of the schedule property by way of registered partition deed. 7. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 8. 7. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that nowhere in the plaint, the plaintiffs expressly stated about the date on which they got knowledge about the sale deed and it is only for the sake of contention they put forth the submission that they had knowledge of the document in the year 2018 at the time of partition and that the deceased used to look after the legal affairs. He further submitted that as per the averments in the plaint, they had knowledge about the document in the year 2014 itself and therefore, the suit is very much barred by limitation. He further strenuously contended that when once sale is completed, no right over the property subsists with the vendor, except for realization of any unpaid consideration, and therefore, the remedy of reconveyance is not at all a ground to cancel the completed sale transaction, even if the alleged unregistered re-conveyance deed is treated as true. He further submitted that accepting the pleadings as true, the plaintiffs agree that the property belongs to the deceased and the property was sold by them and thus, they took the plea of re-conveyance deed and consequently, if the plaintiffs base their claim on the re-conveyance deed, the relief of declaration of sale deed as null and void is absolutely baseless. He further submitted that when the sale deed was executed and possession was delivered, seeking the relief of perpetual injunction is impermissible and thus, on any count, the suit ought not to have been numbered and therefore, continuation of the suit would cause hardship to the defendants 1 to 3, but the trial Court erroneously dismissed the petition without examining the grounds raised by the petitioners in a proper perspective. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the matter by looking into the averments in the plaint only and it is not the stage to consider the contest of the defendants, and therefore, the suit shall go for trial. 10. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the matter by looking into the averments in the plaint only and it is not the stage to consider the contest of the defendants, and therefore, the suit shall go for trial. 10. With regard to the relief of declaration, when the plaint is examined, it is seen that the plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant No.1 paid the deceased, Subbaraghava Raju, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 21.08.2010, Rs.5,00,000/- on 20.11.2010, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 25.02.2011, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.09.2011. However, they further pleaded that the defendants 1 & 2 hatched a plan and obtained nominal registered sale deed on 29.01.2010, by executing a re-conveyance deed on the same day in favour of the vendor. They further pleaded that in spite of several repeated approaches, demands and mediations, the 1st defendant did not respond positively to perform his part of the contract under the re-conveyance deed and S.Subbaraghava Raju came to know that the 1st defendant was avoiding to perform his part of the contract as agreed upon and making hectic efforts to alienate the plaint A, B and C schedule mentioned properties without any right etc., and thereby, cheated them taking advantage of the nominal registered sale deed. In one way, the plaintiffs plead that the consideration amount was passed and also that the deceased sought to enforce the agreement for re-conveyance. Therefore, instead of seeking the relief based on such re-conveyance deed, an untenable relief of declaration that the sale deed is null and void is sought. Thereby, the suit is unsustainable on the very same ground as rightly contended by the plaintiffs. 11. Nextly, with regard to limitation, nowhere in the plaint, the plaintiffs specifically mentioned the date, even approximately, when they came to know about the registered sale deed mentioned in the suit. Therefore, their contention that the deceased used to look after the legal affairs, and therefore, it is only after the death of the deceased they came to know about the documents and thus limitation starts therefrom is a baseless contention. When it is not specifically pleaded from the averments in the plaint when the crime was registered, the knowledge of the sale deed can be understood. When it is not specifically pleaded from the averments in the plaint when the crime was registered, the knowledge of the sale deed can be understood. Therefore, though the provisions relating to limitation for cancellation of registering a document cannot be applied, even by applying the provision relating to limitation for filing the suit for declaration of title also, the suit is filed beyond three years from the date of their knowledge. As such, on that ground also the suit is liable to be dismissed. 12. As can be seen from the impugned order, the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the law with regard to Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC from the averments in the plaint. As such, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 09.05.2022, in I.A.No.197 of 2020 in O.S. No.88 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur, and allowing the petition in I.A.No.197 of 2020. The plaint is rejected. The trial Court shall take appropriate steps in consonance with this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.