Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1522 (TS)

Jangiti Babu v. Marupaka Ramulu

2025-11-17

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2025
ORDER : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, at Vemulawada in I.A.No.357 of 2016 in OS.No.112 of 2015, dated 06.01.2023, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) r/w Section 151 of CPC. 2. Petitioner is the petitioner in IA.No.357 of 2016 and defendant No.2 in the suit i.e., OS.No.112 of 2015. Respondent No.1 is the respondent No.1 in the I.A. and plaintiff in the suit. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the above said I.A. and defendant Nos.1 and 3 in the suit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below without considering the purport of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC simply dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner has not made out any case by raising substantial grounds for rejection of plaint. Counsel submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff filed the suit in OS.No.112 of 2015 after 11 years of the alleged simple sale deed dated 16.02.2004 which is barred by law. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that the respondent No.2 herein is the original owner and possessor of the suit land and she sold the said land to defendant Nos.2 and 3 (petitioner and respondent No.3 herein) jointly through registered sale deed vide document No.6512 of 2013, dated 26.11.2013 and later respondent No.3-defendant No.3 executed a bond in favour of the petitioner on 15.12.2014 and since then he is in possession of the suit property. Respondent No.2-defendant No.1 has filed suit in OS.No.54 of 2010 for perpetual injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property and respondent No.1-plaintiff is having knowledge of filing of the suit but he failed to file counter claim for specific performance of simple sale deed dated 16.02.2004. The learned trial Court has not taken the same into consideration and erroneously dismissed the application for rejection of plaint. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association Vs. Sri Bala and Co. , 2025 (2) ALT (SC) 1 (D.B.). 4. The learned trial Court has not taken the same into consideration and erroneously dismissed the application for rejection of plaint. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association Vs. Sri Bala and Co. , 2025 (2) ALT (SC) 1 (D.B.). 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the contentions raised by the parties, rightly arrived at a conclusion that on 19.11.2015 there was a refusal to execute the registered sale deed and also refusal to cancel the registered sale deed No.6512 of 2013 dated 26.11.2013, rightly observed that the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, no interference is called for. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision in the case of Urvashiben and Another Vs. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi , [ (2019) 13 SCC 372 ] and prayed to dismiss the CRP. 5. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner: (See K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985). 6.1. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed suit in OS.No.112 of 2015 on 29.12.2015. It is stated in the plaint that respondent No.2-defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of the agricultural dry land bearing admeasuring Acs.04-35 guntas and she sold the land to the respondent No.1-plaintiff on 16.02.2004 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.1,90,000/-. Respondent No.2- defendant No.1 having received the entire sale consideration, executed a simple sale deed in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff on the same day in the presence of witnesses, since then respondent No.1-plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any objection. 6.2. In para 4 of the plaint, it is stated that respondent No.2- defendant No.1 filed suit in OS.No.54 of 2010 against the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) for perpetual injunction in respect of Acs.04- 35 guntas of land in and the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) has filed his written statement. 6.2. In para 4 of the plaint, it is stated that respondent No.2- defendant No.1 filed suit in OS.No.54 of 2010 against the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) for perpetual injunction in respect of Acs.04- 35 guntas of land in and the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) has filed his written statement. The plaint averments further goes to show that respondent No.2-defendant No.1 during pendency of OS.No.54 of 2010 has alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 therein (petitioner and respondent No.3 herein) through a registered document No.6512 of 2013, dated 26.11.2013. Defendant No.2 (petitioner herein) has filed suit for perpetual injunction in OS.No.31 of 2015 against the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) while suit in OS.No.54 of 2010 is pending with regard to the same subject matter. 6.3. The further pleadings in the plaint goes to show that respondent No.1-plaintiff before filing the suit approached defendant No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) to execute registered sale deed and also requested defendant Nos.2 and 3 (petitioner and respondent No.3 herein) to join as co-vendors and to cancel the registered sale deed dated 26.11.2013 vide document No.6512 of 2013 and withdraw two suits which is on 19.11.2015. 7.1. Petitioner contended in IA.No.357 of 2016 that the suit is barred by law which is filed after 11 years. Respondent No.1 has filed his counter opposing the said application. The learned trial Court vide order dated 20.10.2021 has dismissed the application holding that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and can only be addressed during the course of trial as one of the issue. 7.2. Petitioner has filed CRP No.1800 of 2021 before the High Court, which came to be allowed vide order dated 01.08.2022 and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration. After remand the learned trial Court has once again heard IA.No.357 of 2016 and again dismissed the same on 06.01.2023 holding that “from the reading of the plaint itself it cannot be said that the plaint is barred by limitation and liable to be rejected and the limitation for filing the suit commences on 19.11.2015 as per the plaint averments which is assailed in the CRP”. 8. 8. In Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association, (supra), the Supreme Court observed that “while considering the question of rejection of plaint, it is the plaint alone which has to be read meaningfully and not any averment in the written statement. It is also necessary sometimes to consider the documents annexed to the plaint for a holistic and comprehensive reading of the plaint in order to decide whether the plaint to be rejected or not”. 9. In Urvashiben and Another, (supra), the Supreme Court held that “when time is not essence of contract, second limb of Article 54 attracts i.e. “when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused” – Accordingly, the starting point of limitation period of 3 years would be when plaintiff noticed refusal of performance of contract by defendant. Even if suit is filed 25 years after execution of deed, it would be maintainable if filed within 3 years from the date of noticing defendant’s refusal to perform his part of contract. 10. On plain reading of the plaint in OS.No.112 of 2015 the respondent No.1-plaintiff has stated in para 4 that the respondent No.2-defendant No.1 has filed suit in OS.No.54 of 2010 for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent No.1-plaintiff from interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The plaint is cleverly drafted. This Court is of the view that respondent No.1-plaintiff has notice that the performance of specific performance is refused. Respondent No.1-plaintiff further stated in the same para that he has filed his written statement in OS.No.54 of 2010. 11. When the respondent No.2-defendant No.1 has filed suit for perpetual injunction in OS.No.54 of 2010 against respondent No.1- plaintiff, it is the starting point of limitation for him to invoke the simple sale deed dated 16.02.2004. It can be said that the plaint is cleverly drafted and respondent No.1-plaintiff having kept silent for almost 5 years and filed suit i.e., OS.No.112 of 2015 on 29.12.2015. 12. The learned trial Court has lost sight of the plaint paragraph No.4, which is the starting point of refusal of specific performance of simple sale deed dated 16.02.2004. It can be said that the plaint is cleverly drafted and respondent No.1-plaintiff having kept silent for almost 5 years and filed suit i.e., OS.No.112 of 2015 on 29.12.2015. 12. The learned trial Court has lost sight of the plaint paragraph No.4, which is the starting point of refusal of specific performance of simple sale deed dated 16.02.2004. The learned trial Court has taken the cause of action as 19.11.2015 as a starting point for respondent No.1-plaintiff to file the suit, the starting point for refusal of specific performance begins when the respondent No.2-defendant No.1 has filed suit for perpetual injunction in the year 2010 itself. 13. The observations of the learned trial Court are perverse and requires interference of this Court as the suit filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation and the order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. 14. Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Court in IA.No.357 of 2016 in OS.No.112 of 2015 dated 06.01.2023 is set aside, consequently suit in OS.No.112 of 2015 is rejected as barred by law. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.