Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 435 (TS)

Malkapuram Ananth Reddy v. Malkapuram Gopal Reddy

2024-07-04

P.SREE SUDHA

body2024
ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 25.01.2022, passed in I.A. No. 478 of 2022 in O.S. No. 8 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Chevella, R.R. District. 2. O.S. No. 8 of 2014 is filed by respondents/plaintiffs for declaration, rectification of entries and for perpetual injunction against the petitioner/defendant. During the pendency of the suit, I.A. No. 478 of 2022 was filed by petitioner/defendant for rejection of the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, petitioner/defendant preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon a law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dahiben vs. Arvindhbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 in which on page 380, Para 24.4, it was held that, it is the duty of the Court to reject a plaint at the earliest stage if by clever drafting of plaint, a plaintiff has created the illusion of cause of action. It was further held that the Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious and abuse of process of the Court. 4. He further relied upon a law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sopan Sukhedo Sable vs. Asst. Charity Commr. (2020) 3 SCC 137, in which on page 146, Paras 11 and 12 and page 149, Para 21, it was held that an ingenious drafting of Plaint creating illusory causes of action must not stop a Court from rejecting a Plaint which discloses no real cause of Action. In the present case, the Cause of action mentioned in Para No. 8 of the Plaint pertains only to the consequential relief of injunction and not the main suit claim. Upon a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, there appears to be no cause of action to support the main reliefs sought in the Suit, namely, those of declaration and rectification of entries. 5. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed Suit declaration, rectification of entries and for perpetual injunction in respect of suit land bearing Sy. No. 118 admeasuring Ac. 1.24 guntas (comprising of Sy. No. 118 admeasuring Ac. 0.32 guntas, Sy. No. 118, admeasuring Ac. 0.32 guntas) situated at Kammeta Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed Suit declaration, rectification of entries and for perpetual injunction in respect of suit land bearing Sy. No. 118 admeasuring Ac. 1.24 guntas (comprising of Sy. No. 118 admeasuring Ac. 0.32 guntas, Sy. No. 118, admeasuring Ac. 0.32 guntas) situated at Kammeta Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Respondents/plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 118 admeasuring Ac. 1.24 guntas. They stated that originally Malkapuam Parma Reddy and his three sons, M.Anantha Reddy (defendant No. 1), M. Gopal Reddy (plaintiff No. 1) and M.Buchi Reddy (plaintiff No. 2) together constituted a joint Hindu family and the said Parma Reddy was the Kartha of the joint family. The said joint family owned and possessed agricultural lands as well as residential houses in Kammeta Village as shown in a table in Para No. 2 of the plaint. 7. Respondents/Plaintiffs further stated that with the consent of their father, plaintiffs and defendant got the lands partitioned among themselves in the presence of elders in the village and also gave the details of the lands in tables in Para No. 3 of the plaint. After the partition, all of them have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. During the life time of Parma Reddy, he executed a gift settlement deed dated 10.09.1979 bearing document No. 502 of 1979. In the said gift deed, the allotment of the shares in respect of plaintiffs and defendant is clearly disclosed. Respondents/plaintiffs and petitioner/defendant are having equal shares to an extent of Ac. 0.32 guntas each. 8. Respondents/plaintiffs stated that the residential house and remaining agricultural lands which are standing in the name of their father also partitioned long back but to avoid further litigation admitting the past partition between the plaintiffs and defendant, they have once again executed partitioned deed dated 09.06.1992. As per the family settlement whatever the properties standing in the name of Parma Reddy on his demise, is succeeded by plaintiffs and defendant equally and the recording authority passed succession order dated 27.11.1992 in file No. ROR/93 of 1989. Petitioner/defendant has given assurance that the suit land has to be transferred in the name of respondents/plaintiffs to an extent of Ac. 0.32 guntas. As the petitioner/defendant is elder brother they could not obtain the mutation in their names. Petitioner/defendant has given assurance that the suit land has to be transferred in the name of respondents/plaintiffs to an extent of Ac. 0.32 guntas. As the petitioner/defendant is elder brother they could not obtain the mutation in their names. Petitioner/defendant is trying to sell the land and bringing land brokers, as such, respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and injunction. 9. In the written statement filed by petitioner/defendant in I.A. No. 478 of 2022, he stated that the suit is barred by limitation and he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property and there is no cause of action to seek the relief of declaration of title and rectification of revenue entries. As such, petitioner filed the I.A. for rejection of the plaint. 10. Admittedly, petitioner/defendant and respondents are children of Parma Reddy. During the lifetime of Parma Reddy, they entered into partition of the properties, but to avoid further litigation admitting the past partition between the plaintiffs and defendant, they have once again executed partitioned deed dated 09.06.1992. The main contention of respondents is that they are entitled for their share of Ac. 0.32 guntas each in Sy. No. 118. The petitioner stated that it is exclusive land and he purchased it with his own earnings and respondents are not entitled for the same. Petitioner herein contended that there is no cause of action. In the beginning of the plaint, it was clearly stated regarding all the factors and finally stated that petitioner/defendant is trying to sell the land, as such the contention of the petitioner/defendant that there is no cause of action, cannot be accepted. He also relied upon the sale deed executed in the year 1979 and contended that suit itself is barred by limitation. The point of limitation is mixed and question of law and fact is to be decided in the main suit. The trial Court considering the points raised by both sides rightly dismissed the application and it needs no interference. 11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court 25.01.2022, passed in I.A. No. 478 of 2022 in O.S. No. 8 of 2014. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.