Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1201 (TS)

Thammishetty Ramulu v. Bollam Manjula

2025-10-13

N.TUKARAMJI

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 27.12.2024 in I.A. No.634 of 2023 in O.S. No.461 of 2023, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit. The said suit was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff seeking (i) declaration of title, (ii) perpetual injunction and (iii) cancellation of the registered gift deed dated 25.05.2022 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, as null and void. 3. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), praying for rejection of the plaint. The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the application with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred. Facts and Pleadings: 4.1. The relevant facts, as pleaded in the plaint, may be briefly noted. The Revision Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of open Plot No.200 in Survey No.139, admeasuring 184.44 square yards, situated at Rekurthy Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the subject plot”). On 08.03.2006, Defendant No.1 offered to sell the subject plot to the husband of the respondent/plaintiff for a valid consideration of Rs.38,000/-. Upon receipt of the said consideration, a registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (“AGPA”) was executed in favour of the plaintiff’s husband, and possession of the plot was delivered. It is the case of the respondent that she and her husband have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property ever since, and that a residential house was subsequently constructed thereon. After the death of her husband on 07.03.2012, the respondent continued in possession, and the property was mutated in the municipal records and she has been regularly paying property and municipal taxes. 4.2. It is further averred that, with an intent to unlawfully reclaim the subject plot, Revision Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 allegedly conspired and executed a fabricated registered gift deed in favour of Revision Petitioner No.2/Defendant No.2 on 25.05.2022. Subsequently, on 19.11.2022, the revision petitioners/defendants allegedly attempted to forcibly dispossess the respondent. Though such attempt was resisted, the petitioners purportedly declared their intention to take over the property and sought to alienate it to third parties, thereby infringing upon the respondent’s rights. Consequently, the present suit was filed seeking the aforementioned reliefs. Contentions of the Parties: 5.1. Subsequently, on 19.11.2022, the revision petitioners/defendants allegedly attempted to forcibly dispossess the respondent. Though such attempt was resisted, the petitioners purportedly declared their intention to take over the property and sought to alienate it to third parties, thereby infringing upon the respondent’s rights. Consequently, the present suit was filed seeking the aforementioned reliefs. Contentions of the Parties: 5.1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contended that the registered AGPA was admittedly executed on 08.03.2006, whereas the respondent’s husband passed away on 07.03.2012, and the impugned gift deed was executed between Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on 25.05.2022. It is submitted that the respondent/plaintiff has not pleaded that title was transferred under the AGPA. In terms of Section 17 read with Section 49 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908, ownership of immovable property can pass only through a duly executed and registered conveyance deed, and no such document exists in this case. 5.2. It was further argued that it is well settled that an AGPA does not convey title, as held in M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 448; Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimanth Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844; Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner , (2007) 6 SCC 186 and Jitendra V. v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802. 5.3. The learned counsel further submitted that any claim for declaration of title based on the AGPA ought to have been made within the period of limitation, and that the suit, instituted nearly nineteen years after execution of the AGPA, is ex facie barred by limitation. The trial Court, it was argued, failed to consider this vital aspect and erred in dismissing the petition. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 6.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia , 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 630, to contend that the true character of a transaction must be gathered from its contents, and not its nomenclature. Although the instrument is titled as an AGPA, the pleadings clearly reveal that there was consensus ad-idem, payment of full sale consideration, and delivery of possession in favour of the respondent’s husband. The respondent and her family have been in peaceful and uninterrupted possession since 2006, and the mutation and revenue entries stand in her name. Although the instrument is titled as an AGPA, the pleadings clearly reveal that there was consensus ad-idem, payment of full sale consideration, and delivery of possession in favour of the respondent’s husband. The respondent and her family have been in peaceful and uninterrupted possession since 2006, and the mutation and revenue entries stand in her name. On these facts, it is contended, the respondent is entitled to seek declaration of title and other consequential reliefs. 6.2. It was further submitted that the issue of limitation involves a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be conclusively decided at the threshold. The respondent’s possession is protected under Section 202 of the Indian CONTRACT ACT , 1872 (agency coupled with interest) and Section 53 -A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (doctrine of part performance). The execution of the subsequent gift deed by Defendant No.1 in favour of his wife, in respect of a property already alienated for valid consideration, demonstrates mala fides on the part of the petitioners. These matters, it is contended, can only be determined upon trial. Hence, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and no interference is warranted in revision. Discussion and Findings: 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is relevant to note that the preamble of the AGPA describes Revision Petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 as the “Vendor” and the husband of the respondent/plaintiff as the “Purchaser.” The recitals disclose that time was not made the essence of the contract, and that the vendor was unable to execute the sale deed due to domestic circumstances. The document further authorizes the purchaser to act on behalf of the vendor, including the authority to deliver possession of the property to sub-purchasers. 9. In the above noted pleadings and factual position, the question that arises for consideration is whether, based on the averments in the plaint, the suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. 10. It is well settled that while considering an application for rejection of a plaint, the Court must confine itself to the averments in the plaint and cannot look into the defence raised by the defendants. 10. It is well settled that while considering an application for rejection of a plaint, the Court must confine itself to the averments in the plaint and cannot look into the defence raised by the defendants. This principle has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal , (1977) 4 SCC 467 ; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner , (2004) 3 SCC 137 and Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali , (2020) 7 SCC 366 . The Court must proceed on the assumption that the facts pleaded are true and examine whether, on such facts, the suit is barred by law or fails to disclose a cause of action. 11. In the present case, the plaint avers that Defendant No.1 executed a registered AGPA on 08.03.2006 in favour of the plaintiff’s husband upon receipt of the entire consideration and delivery of possession. It is also pleaded that, due to the vendor’s personal circumstances, the formal sale deed could not be executed, but possession remained with the plaintiff’s family, who have been in peaceful enjoyment of the property for nearly two decades. Municipal mutation records and tax receipts are relied upon as evidence of continuous possession. These averments, taken at face value, clearly disclose a cause of action for declaration and injunction. 12. It is true that, in law, a registered AGPA does not, by itself, convey ownership. Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Sections 17 and 49 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908, ownership in immovable property can be transferred only through a registered sale deed. The Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 , categorically held that GPA sales or sale-cum-GPA transactions do not convey ownership, and that transfer of title requires a valid conveyance. The same view was reaffirmed in M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 448 and Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimanth Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844. 13. The same view was reaffirmed in M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 448 and Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimanth Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844. 13. However, the plaint does not rely solely on ownership under the AGPA but asserts equitable and possessory rights arising from full payment of consideration and delivery of possession, invoking the protection of Section 53 -A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (doctrine of part performance) and Section 202 of the Indian CONTRACT ACT , 1872 (agency coupled with interest). The Supreme Court in Vinod Infra Developers Ltd.(supra), held that the substance of the transaction, and not the title or nomenclature of the instrument, determines its true nature. Likewise, in CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. , (1997) 5 SCC 482 , it was recognized that a transferee in possession who has paid the full sale consideration can be treated as the beneficial owner for all practical purposes, even if legal title remains with the vendor. 14. The plea of limitation, as raised by the petitioners, cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage. Whether the cause of action arose upon execution of the gift deed dated 25.05.2022, or earlier, is a matter of factual determination. It is well settled that the issue of limitation, when dependent on disputed facts, constitutes a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (See Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh , (2019) 15 SCC 389). 15. Therefore, even though the AGPA does not transfer ownership in strict legal terms, the plaint, when read as a whole, discloses a prima facie cause of action based on part performance and agency coupled with interest, as well as allegations of fraud and mala fides in the subsequent execution of the gift deed. These are triable issues which can be adjudicated only after a full-fledged trial. At this preliminary stage, it cannot be held that the suit is barred by law or that the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action. 16. These are triable issues which can be adjudicated only after a full-fledged trial. At this preliminary stage, it cannot be held that the suit is barred by law or that the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action. 16. In view of the above discussion, and in light of the settled principles laid down in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 ; Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali , (2020) 7 SCC 366 and Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia , 2025 Live Law (SC) 630, this Court finds no error or illegality in the order of the trial Court dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The trial Court rightly observed that the issues raised are triable and require evidence. 17. Resultantly, this Court holds that the plaint discloses a valid cause of action and is not barred by any law on the face of the pleadings. The order of the trial Court refusing to reject the plaint is hereby affirmed. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed, with the observation that all questions relating to title, possession, limitation, and validity of the gift deed shall be determined during trial on their own merits. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition, shall stand closed.