Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1249 (TS)

Santosh Kumar Thati v. Guda Rama Rao

2025-10-17

RENUKA YARA

body2025
Order : RENUKA YARA, J. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.1772 of 2022 in O.S.No.139 of 2022, dated 08.02.2024, wherein, a petition filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground of law of limitation and res-judicata has been dismissed. 2. Heard M/s. Vankina, Allu & Partners, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the record. 3. The background facts leading to filing of the revision petition are that respondent filed the main suit seeking declaration of registered Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney vide document No.2928 of 1999, dated 27.10.1999 and registered sale deed vide document No.27183 of 2006, dated 22.12.2006 as null and void and not binding on respondent with respect to suit schedule property consisting of agricultural land in Sy.No.727/A1, extent Ac.0-20 Gts. and Sy.No.732/A2, extent Ac.1-02 Gts., total admeasuring Ac.1-04 Gts., situated at Kesampet Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as per the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. After filing of said suit, the revision petitioner filed a petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint for lack of cause of action and the suit being barred by limitation. According to the revision petitioner, the respondent has knowledge about the disputed document from the year 2005 onwards. Further, the order of the Joint Collector has been passed 11 years ago whereas by employing clever drafting, the suit has been filed. The relief for declaration of any document as null and void has limitation of three years but the suit is filed after lapse of the same. When the case of respondent is considered under Article 58 of LIMITATION ACT , the suit is barred by limitation within three years from the date of knowledge of the document. Further, it is pleaded that the suit is undervalued, that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of registration of Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney and therefore, the suit lacks merits and is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC. 4. Further, it is pleaded that the suit is undervalued, that the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of registration of Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney and therefore, the suit lacks merits and is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC. 4. The respondent filed counter affidavit in I.A denying the averments in the affidavit referring to each paragraph of the petition. Further, the merits of the case of respondent are re- stated which are not necessary for disposal of the present revision petition. Suffice it to say that the primary contention of the respondent is that the revision petitioner herein does not have any right, title and interest in the suit schedule property through the alleged registered Agreement of sale-cum-GPA and sale deed. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case between Nikhila Divyang Mehta and another v. Hitesh P. Snaghvi and others , 2025 INSC 485 , wherein, it is held as follows: “Lastly, the first appellate Court has ruled that in the suit, the plaintiff has claimed different reliefs and even if the plaint is barred by limitation in respect of one of the reliefs, it cannot be rejected in toto. The aforesaid submission is also without substance as upon the plain reading of the prayers made in the plaint, it is apparent that the primary relief claimed therein is to declare the Will and the Codicil to be null and void and also all subsequent proceedings thereto. In addition to it, the plaintiff has claimed permanent injunction. The other reliefs are dependent upon the first relief and cannot be granted until and unless the plaintiff succeeds in the first relief. Therefore, once the plaint or the suit in respect of the main relief stands barred by time, the other ancillary relief claimed therein also falls down.” 6. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.411 of 2022 to show that another suit has been filed seeking perpetual injunction with respect to several properties including the suit schedule property of O.S.No.139 of 2022. The two grounds taken for rejection of plaint are lack of cause of action and the suit being barred by limitation. The two grounds taken for rejection of plaint are lack of cause of action and the suit being barred by limitation. Reference is made to the contents of the plaint wherein it is contended that respondent had knowledge about the AGPA wayback in the year 2005 when appeals were filed before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District challenging the mutation granted in favour of the petitioner herein recording land covered in Sy.Nos.727/1 Part, 731, 732, 734. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondent herein had knowledge about the document AGPA of the year 1999 in the year 2006 itself and therefore, the suit for its declaration as null and void ought to have been filed within three years i.e. by the year 2009, whereas, the suit filed in the year 2022 and therefore, hopelessly barred by limitation. The respondent has prosecuted the matter before the revenue authorities but did not file a civil suit. Therefore, the revision petitioner’s case is that the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC. 7. The revision petitioner filed a copy of written arguments dated 04.05.2011 filed by him in ROR Case No.D1/14/2009 which is filed by one Guda Malathi. It is contended therein that they are Bonafide purchasers of Ac.32.05 Gts. of land in Sy.Nos.727, 731 and 734 situated at Keshampet village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District under registered AGPA document bearing No.2928 of 1999, dated 27.10.1999 and their names have been mutated vide proceedings in B1/2109/2000, dated 09.09.2000. It is further contended that the revision petitioner therein ought to have filed an appeal before the RDO under ROR Act, 1971 and that without exhausting the remedy of appeal, a revision has been filed before the Joint Collector. It is further contended that in the writ petitions filed challenging the order of the Joint Collector, there is an admission by the petitioner therein that her late husband executed Agreement of sale-cum-Irrevocable GPA. When such is the case, the petitioner therein would have no locus standi to agitate the matter before any authorities. According to the revision petitioner herein, the revision filed by the respondent herein before the Joint Collector without preferring an appeal before the RDO is unsustainable. The revision petitioner herein filed an Inam Appeal No.F2/16/2006 opposing revision of ROR Case No.D1/28/2005 before this Court. 8. According to the revision petitioner herein, the revision filed by the respondent herein before the Joint Collector without preferring an appeal before the RDO is unsustainable. The revision petitioner herein filed an Inam Appeal No.F2/16/2006 opposing revision of ROR Case No.D1/28/2005 before this Court. 8. The learned counsel for respondent relied upon judgment of this Court in case between Mohammed Nadeem Ullah Khan v. Mohammed Akber Ali and others , 2024 (4) ALD 736 (TS) , wherein, it is held as follows: “ Even for the sake of arguments if we presume that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff is not a party to the suit documents, which are sought to be cancelled, in view of the principle laid down in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 280 and (2019) 20 SCC 226, it is to be seen that the plaintiff has filed the suit not only for cancellation of the sale deeds declaring that the said sale deeds are not binding on plaintiff but also for perpetual injunction. Since the plaintiff has filed the suit for perpetual injunction, the cause of action alleged to have taken place on the date on which the possession of the plaintiff is sought to be interfered. It is settled law that the plaint cannot be rejected in part as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 940. It is settled law that the plaint cannot be rejected merely because the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 963. If the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief, then certainly suit is liable to be dismissed but the same cannot be rejected by invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Further, reference is made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case between Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1208 , wherein, it is held as follows: “9.6. … the High Court erred in treating the second cause of action – pertaining to the sale deeds registered on 19.07.2022 – as merely “academic”, and proceeded to reject the plaint in its entirety without undertaking a judicial examination of this distinct issue. … the High Court erred in treating the second cause of action – pertaining to the sale deeds registered on 19.07.2022 – as merely “academic”, and proceeded to reject the plaint in its entirety without undertaking a judicial examination of this distinct issue. This approach is contrary to the well settled legal principle that a plaint may be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only if, on a plain reading of the plaint, it discloses no cause of action or falls within the other narrowly defined grounds under the said provision, such as under-valuation, insufficient court fees, or bar by any law. In this context, we may place reliance on the judgment in Central Bank of India (supra), wherein, this Court while examining the jurisdiction of civil courts in disputes involving immovable property and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, held that a plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety merely because one of the prayers or reliefs sought is legally untenable, so long as other reliefs are maintainable and based on independent causes of action.” 10. The respondent also filed copies of order of the Joint Collector in File No.F1/5716/2016, dated 08.12.2017, order of the Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.D2/1174/2022, dated 07.10.2023, order of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.986 and 991 of 2014, dated 18.04.2022 and order of Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar in Case No.D1/28/2005, dated 03.07.2011. 11. The relevant chronological events to be noted are 1) 27.10.999: Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of revision petitioner, 2) 03.08.2006: O.S.No.208 of 2006 was filed by the revision petitioner against the respondent and others seeking perpetual injunction from interfering with land in Sy.Nos.732, 727, 731 and 734 on the basis of AGPA, 3) 22.12.2006: Execution of registered sale deed bearing document No.27183 of 2006 in favour of petitioner on the basis of AGPA, 4) 17.03.2022: O.S.No.139 of 2022 was filed by the respondent against the petitioner seeking declaration of the Agreement of sale-cum-GPA as null and void and not binding and for perpetual injunction. 12. 12. On the basis of aforementioned chronological events, the revision petitioner argues that there is an illusion of cause of action created when the prime document which is relied upon by the revision petitioner for title is challenged by the respondent after a gap of 23 years. There is an emphasis about the knowledge of the document which is challenged before the civil Court vide O.S.No.208 of 2006. Even though there was knowledge about the AGPA, the respondent herein did not take any steps to get the same declared as null and void within a period of three years and therefore, it is contended that the present suit seeking the AGPA as null and void and consequential perpetual injunction is not maintainable. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent argues that when there are more than two reliefs sought, even in case, one relief is barred by limitation when the other relief is maintainable, the suit is not liable to be rejected. On the basis of Mohammed Nadeem Ullah Khan case (2 supra) , it is also further argument of the learned counsel for respondent that the AGPA is a void document which has no legal validity and is a void ab initio and therefore, there is no need to seek its declaration as void. A void document is a one which has no legal enforceability and all subsequent documents executed on the basis of a void documents are also void. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that on one hand, the suit cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation as the main document i.e. AGPA is a document which is void ab initio and therefore, its declaration need not be sought as null and void. However, said relief is sought only when said document is coming in the way of the respondent in his possession and therefore, the declaration is sought. Further, even in case, this Court comes to a conclusion that the first relief is not maintainable as barred kby limitation, the relief of perpetual injunction is maintainable and therefore, the suit cannot be rejected. 14. Further, even in case, this Court comes to a conclusion that the first relief is not maintainable as barred kby limitation, the relief of perpetual injunction is maintainable and therefore, the suit cannot be rejected. 14. Upon considering the arguments of both the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that there are triable issues as to i) Whether the AGPA of the year 1999 is a document void ab initio after the death of the principal in the year 2000?, ii) Whether the sale deed executed by GPA holder subsequent to the death of principal is a genuine valid document? and iii) Whether the GPA holder has the right to execute any conveyance deed on behalf of the principal after the principal’s death?. The nature of AGPA vide document No.2928 of 1999, dated 27.10.1999 as to its validity is in question. Therefore, only when the validity and enforceability of AGPA is decided, the rival contention of respondent can be determined i.e. in case, the AGPA is a document which is void ab initio, the question of limitation need not be considered and there is no need to seek declaration of document as void ab initio. When such is the case, a suit cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of CPC. Further, even in case the relief of declaration of registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney vide document No.2928 of 1999, dated 27.10.1999 and registered Sale Deed vide document No.27183 of 2006, dated 22.12.2006 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, is hypothetically deemed to be barred by law, the relief for grant of perpetual injunction needs to be adjudicated. Therefore, the suit cannot be rejected. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A.No.1772 of 2022 in O.S.No.139 of 2022, dated 08.02.2024. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.