ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 14.09.2022 in I.A. No. 140 of 2022 in O.S. No. 508 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, at L.B. Nagar. 2. Petitioners herein have filed an application vide I.A. No. 140 of 2022 in O.S. No. 508 of 2021, against the respondents, under Order 7 rule 11 of C.P.C. seeking to reject the plaint. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioners preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard arguments of both sides at length and perused the entire evidence on record. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 3/Plaintiffs mainly contended that they have filed a suit vide O.S. No. 508 of 2021, for declaration of title, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and to declare the document Nos. 86 of 2010, dated 31.12.2009 and 307 of 2011, dated 29.01.2011, as null and void and not binding on them. They also stated that they clearly pleaded the cause of action in several paragraphs of the plaint and also paid the Court fee as per the market value certificate issued by the Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Gandipet Mandal. Section 99 of the Tenancy Act, 1950 has no application to the facts of the present case and hence the suit is not hit by the said Act. The trial Court rightly considered all the factors and dismissed the application. 5. Respondents No. 1 to 3 further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hanumanth Reddy and Others vs. Kamsali Nagamma, 1983 (1) ALT 199 while considering the scope of Section 99 of the Tenancy Act, held that where the relief sought in a suit is one which the special tribunal is incapable of granting, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted. They also stated that they sought for declaration, which cannot be granted by a special tribunal, as such there is no reason to exclude the trial Court from trying that aspect. The question that falls under Section 99 of the Tenancy Act is an incidental question and it does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 6. They also stated that they sought for declaration, which cannot be granted by a special tribunal, as such there is no reason to exclude the trial Court from trying that aspect. The question that falls under Section 99 of the Tenancy Act is an incidental question and it does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 6. The facts of the case are that the sons of one Jettoji, approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella, for grant of sale certificate under Section 38-A of A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in respect of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.488, 489 and 490, measuring an extent of Acs. 5-09 gts, Acs. 2-35 gts and Ac. 1-21 gts respectively, situated at Manchirevula Village of Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It was allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings No. G/956/1997, dated 30.10.1999. Aggrieved by the said Order Shaik Abood Bin Ali Ramzani, filed an appeal before the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District. Considering the arguments of both sides, Joint Collector-II remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and observed that Revenue Divisional Officer, has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 38 of the A.P. (T.A.) Act. He also observed that before considering the sale deed purported to be in the year 1912, it is necessary to verify the genuinity of the document and in case of any doubt the same has to be referred to the Civil Court for comprehensive adjudication and accordingly remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. 7. The said Order was challenged in C.R.P. No. 5803 of 2008 and this Court confirmed the Order of the Joint Collector and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition on 10.04.2014, with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the Order by giving opportunity to both sides and also directed to implead the brother of respondent No. 3 therein, who filed an application for impleadment. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division, considering the arguments of both sides and the material placed before him observed that Pentoji and others who are petitioners before him proved their possession and enjoyment as absolute owners and possessors, as such they are entitled for grant of sale certificate. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division, considering the arguments of both sides and the material placed before him observed that Pentoji and others who are petitioners before him proved their possession and enjoyment as absolute owners and possessors, as such they are entitled for grant of sale certificate. Aggrieved by the said Order, respondents No. 1 to 3 filed the suit for declaration and petitioners/defendants in the suit filed an application for rejection of plaint. 8. Petitioners mainly contended that sale certificate was issued to them by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Randranagar Division. The father of petitioners No. 1 and 8 and grandfather of petitioners No. 13 to 16 was the protected tenant and he was in possession over the said lands even prior to 1950 and his name was also recorded in the revenue records including Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 and his name was recorded as tenant for the said lands in the Protected Tenancy Register. As they are the successors of Jettoji, they filed an application seeking a Sale Certificate under Section 38-A (6) of A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and after due enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer granted sale certificate vide file No. G/956/1997, dated 30.10.1999, but in the year 2002, Shaik Abood Bin Ali Ramzani, filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, questioning the Orders and the same was allowed and the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was set aside, remanding the matter for fresh enquiry. Against the said Order, petitioners preferred a Civil Revision Petition and the same was dismissed confirming the Order of the Joint Collector. The Revenue Divisional Officer after hearing both sides and conducting detailed enquiry passed the Order stating that they are entitled for grant of sale certificate and also issued sale certificate in their favour regarding the lands mentioned in detail in the above paragraphs. Accordingly, revenue authorities issued Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds in favour of petitioners No. 1, 8 and 13 to 16. Aggrieved by the same, the brother of respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Joint Collector. After hearing both the parties, the Joint Collector passed Orders in Case No. F2/4655/2018, dated 19.10.2019, dismissing the appeal. 9. Accordingly, revenue authorities issued Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds in favour of petitioners No. 1, 8 and 13 to 16. Aggrieved by the same, the brother of respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Joint Collector. After hearing both the parties, the Joint Collector passed Orders in Case No. F2/4655/2018, dated 19.10.2019, dismissing the appeal. 9. Petitioners further contended that even afterwards respondents filed the suit and the plaint was drafted cleverly by suppressing the crucial details including details of the parties and also the details of Writ Petition filed by them against the Orders of the Joint Collector. They also stated that respondents have not filed any proof to show their relation with Shaik Ali Bin Ahmed Ramzani, whom they stated that he was the original owner of the lands in question. Shaik Abood Bin Ali Ramzani represented Shaik Ali Bin Ahmed Ramzani, in all proceedings before various Courts and tribunals, as such their contention that they came to know about the issuance of the certificate in the year 2002 cannot be accepted. They further stated that the plaint is drafted cleverly to avoid bar under Section 99 of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and respondents are challenging granting of sale certificate issued in their favour, which is prohibited under Section 99 of the A.P. (T.A.) Act, which reads as follows: “99. Bar of Jurisdiction: (i) [Save as provided in this Act] no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or deal with by the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or by the Board of Revenue of Government. (ii) No order of the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or of the Board of Revenue Government made under this Act, shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court.” 10. (ii) No order of the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or of the Board of Revenue Government made under this Act, shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court.” 10. Petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raghavendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives, (2020) 16 SCC 601 in which it was held as follows: “Therefore, considering the averments in the plaint and the bundle of facts stated in the plaint, we are of the opinion that by clever drafting the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation which, otherwise, is barred by law of limitation.” They also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T. Aravindam vs. T.V. Satyapal and Others, AIR 1977 SC 2421 in which it was held that “if on a meaningful, not formal, reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexacious, and meritless and in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Court should exercise the power under Order rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created illusions of cause of action, nip it in the bud.” They further relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Burhan and Others vs. Shivling Rao and Others, 1988 (1) APLJ (HC) 427 in which it was held that “Section 99 of the Act declares that the questions to be dealt with or decided by the tribunal under the Act are positive, prohibited to be dealt with by the Civil Court and negatively injuncted to question those orders in the Civil Court.” It was further held that “jurisdiction of tribunals constituted under the Act are exclusive, elaborate procedure has been provided for an finality to the orders of those tribunals have been ascribed by the statute and expressly the jurisdiction of Civil Court has been excluded.” 11. Revision petitioners further contended that suit is barred by law as it is hit by Section 99 of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy Act. Revision petitioners further contended that suit is barred by law as it is hit by Section 99 of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy Act. Respondents failed to make out any cause of action and thereby initiated ‘frivolous litigation’ and making deliberate attempts to start fresh litigation to the un-disputed property, and thus Civil Court has no jurisdiction as the sale certificate was already in their name declaring them as absolute owner of the property, as such it amounts to challenging the validity of the sale certificate, which is not permissible. Parties cannot get two titles regarding one property i.e., one by Civil Court seeking declaration of title and other by tenancy tribunals. The family members of the respondents are parties before the tribunals. Respondents are trying to commence another round of litigation with a mala fide intention. Respondents stated that they have paid the Court fee as per the market value of the suit schedule property, but they have shown them as agricultural lands, though the said lands were converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purpose, respondents paid Court fee only on agricultural value. Moreover, respondents have not paid Court fee for each document separately. They paid it by calculating all the documents cumulatively. They have paid the notional Court fee under Section 24(d) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act. However, plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that Court fee paid is undervalued. It is for the trial Court to value the same and collect the correct Court fee within the time stipulated by the said Court, if they failed to pay the rectified Court fee, then only it can be rejected. It was also contended by the revision petitioners that the Judgment relied upon by respondent No. 1 reported in 1983 (1) ALT 199 , does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the said Judgment it was held that Jurisdiction of a Civil Court must be considered to be excluded with regard to those matters where rights of the parties determined by the statute. Where the Court is satisfied that the plaint is drafted in such a way to oust the jurisdiction of the Special tribunal the Civil Court has to naturally dismiss the suit. Therefore, they requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court. 12. Where the Court is satisfied that the plaint is drafted in such a way to oust the jurisdiction of the Special tribunal the Civil Court has to naturally dismiss the suit. Therefore, they requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court. 12. Respondents have filed a copy of the mortgage deed dated 08.02.2022 and a copy of the un-registered sale deed with translation before this Court and contended that revision petitioners claiming that their ancestor Jettoji purchased the land under unregistered sale dated 30 Sherwa 1321 Fasli (corresponding to the year 1912 AD) from the father of respondent No. 1. On that they obtained sale certificate under 38-A of Telangana Tenancy Act, 1950, but the Tenancy Act came into effect from 10.06.1950. The Section 38 of Tenancy Act, 1950 reads as follows: “38. Right of protected tenant to purchase land: (i) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, usage or contract, and subject to the provisions of sub-section (7), a protected tenant shall at any time after the commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1954, be entitled to purchase the land-holder’s interest in the land held by the former as a protected tenant.” The protected tenant is entitled to purchase the land holders interest only after commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1954, but not prior to it. But the revenue authorities totally deviated from the said Act and granted sale certificate, as such it is null and void. Respondents initially stated that they are not directly challenging the sale certificate issued under Section 38 of the Tenancy Act, in the suit proceedings it is only incidental question to be decided, as such the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has no bar under Section 99 of the Tenancy Act, but here they contended that granting of sale certificate itself is not in accordance with Section 38 of the Tenancy Act, as such it should be agitated only before the revenue authorities and not before the Civil Court and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is clearly barred under Section 99 of the Tenancy Act. 13. Respondents further contended that genuinity or correctness of the sale deed 1321 Fasli as relied upon by the revision petitioners cannot be gone into by the Special Tribunal as the same is much prior to the Tenancy Act, 1950. 13. Respondents further contended that genuinity or correctness of the sale deed 1321 Fasli as relied upon by the revision petitioners cannot be gone into by the Special Tribunal as the same is much prior to the Tenancy Act, 1950. The Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to record the oral and documentary evidence under Section 9 of C.P.C, as such it is outside the scope of the Tenancy Act. Initially, Order was passed by Revenue Divisional Officer. It was challenged before the Joint Collector. He remanded the matter to conduct fresh enquiry. Accordingly, Revenue Divisional Officer conducted fresh enquiry and arrived to the conclusion that legal heirs of Jettoji are entitled for grant of sale certificate and issued sale certificate under Section 38-A of the Tenancy Act. Again, the said Order was challenged before the Joint Collector, and the Joint Collector confirmed the said order. 14. Admittedly, the family members of the respondents herein contested before the revenue authorities thoroughly, but their arguments with the above factors were not considered by the revenue authorities, as such their contention that it should be again tried by the Civil Court is not proper and it is clearly barred under Section 99 of the Tenancy Act. If at all they are aggrieved by the Order of the Joint Collector, they should have preferred an appeal against the said Order. It seems that they have also filed revision petition which is pending before this Court as on today, but the said details were not given. The main contention of the respondents herein is that the facts which cannot be decided by a Special Tribunal ought to be decided by a Civil Court, as such they filed suit for declaration of title. They also contended that the protected tenant purchased the property prior to the commencement of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. In fact, petitioners have to purchase the same only after 1950, but not prior to it, as such they are not eligible for issuance of the sale certificate, but the said factors are already considered by the Special Tribunal by duly giving opportunity to both sides and after conducting fresh enquiry. Therefore, the argument of the respondents is not tenable. In fact, petitioners have to purchase the same only after 1950, but not prior to it, as such they are not eligible for issuance of the sale certificate, but the said factors are already considered by the Special Tribunal by duly giving opportunity to both sides and after conducting fresh enquiry. Therefore, the argument of the respondents is not tenable. The Court is having ample power to reject the plaint if there is no proper cause of action, but the trial Court failed to appreciate the facts properly and dismissed the application on the ground that cause of action is a bundle of facts and it should be decided in the main suit after adducing evidence of both the parties. In this case, the suit is filed challenging the validity of the sale certificate issued by the revenue authorities under Section 38-A of the Tenancy Act. When once the suit was contested by both the parties before the revenue authorities and confirmed by the appellate authority, it cannot be allowed to re-agitate before the Civil Court in view of clear bar under Section 99 of the Tenancy Act, as such the Order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the Order of the trial Court dated 14.09.2022 passed in I.A. No. 140 of 2022 in O.S. No. 508 of 2021. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.