Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 548 (TS)

Yellanki Gopala Rao v. Yellanki Radhamma

2025-05-01

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred seeking prayer as under: “…to allow the CRP by setting aside the order and decree dated 16.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.258 of 2024 in O.S.No.79 of 2024 on the file of the Agent to Government (District Collector), Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District and to grant such other relief or reliefs...” 2. This Civil Revision petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the propriety and legality of the order dated 16.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.258 of 2024 in O.S.No.79 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, whereby the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Rule 14 of Agency Rules seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed. 3. As can be seen from the affidavit in I.A.No.258 of 2024 in O.S.No.79 of 2024 the plea of the petitioner is that he filed O.S.No.124 of 2014 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, against the Respondent/Plaintiff and the trial Court in I.A.No.77 of 2014 in O.S.No.124 of 2014 granted temporary injunction against the respondent/plaintiff and as such the respondent has knowledge of the entries in pahani from 2014 and therefore the plea of the respondent/plaintiff that she has knowledge about the entries in the pahanies only from 19.06.2021 is false and that plea is taken only to bring the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff within the limitation. 4. Heard Sri Karunakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R.R.Kalyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Perused the Record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 (1) ALT (SC) 59 (D.B.) dated 20.12.2024 passed in “ Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Others Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharj Bhonsle and another” in support of his contention that the plaint in the present case is liable to be rejected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case held that the spirit and intention of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C., is only for the Courts to nip at its bud when any litigation ex facie appears to be clear abuse of process. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case held that the spirit and intention of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C., is only for the Courts to nip at its bud when any litigation ex facie appears to be clear abuse of process. In that case the cancellation of sale deed was sought for in the suit before trial Court and the Apex Court held that the period of limitation for setting aside the sale deed would start running from the date of registration of the same and as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, after three years of registration, the plaintiff is barred from seeking cancellation of the said registered sale deed, since the plaintiff failed to sue the appellants/defendants or the state for possession within 12 years, the Court held that the claim of the plaintiff for title and possession is hopelessly barred by limitation. The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the appellants/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C., observing inter alia, that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and Law for which the parties had to lead evidence. The Civil Revision Petition preferred against the order of the trial Court was dismissed by the High Court. The defendants carried the matter in appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and after examining the legal position, the Apex Court allowed the appeal. So far as the Law relating to rejection of plaint under order VII Rule 11 (d) the Hon’ble Court in para 12 of the Judgment reiterated the legal principle that for deciding the question whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11, it is only the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed therewith that need to be take into consideration. 6. As can be seen from the plaint the case of the plaintiff is that her husband Yellanki Ramaiah, acquired 60 acres of land and house properties at Julurupadu main road. He purchased Ac.7.36 gts., in Sy.No.203 (suit land) and Ac.7.35 gts., in Sy.No.17/AA under Saada Bynama. Apart from that land, he acquired Ac.70.00 gts., in Gundepudi Village. Out of that land he gave Ac.16.00 gts., to his son Yellanki Nageshwar Rao, who is the father of the defendant. The plaintiff’s husband gave Ac.10.00 gts., each to their three daughters. He purchased Ac.7.36 gts., in Sy.No.203 (suit land) and Ac.7.35 gts., in Sy.No.17/AA under Saada Bynama. Apart from that land, he acquired Ac.70.00 gts., in Gundepudi Village. Out of that land he gave Ac.16.00 gts., to his son Yellanki Nageshwar Rao, who is the father of the defendant. The plaintiff’s husband gave Ac.10.00 gts., each to their three daughters. The plaintiff and her husband retained suit land namely Ac.7.36 gts., in Sy.No.203. The plaintiff after the death of her husband on 12.09.2005 succeeded to the suit property. The defendant taking advantage of the old age of the plaintiff obtained pattedar passbook and title deed in respect of the suit land by managing Revenue officials at mandal level. 7. The plaintiff approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem and informed about the passbook and title deed falsely obtained by the defendant and the Revenue Divisional Officer by order in Rc.No.A2054/2013 dated 21.03.2014 cancelled the pattedar passbook and title deed issued in the name of the defendant. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land but the Tahsildar, without issuing any notice issued pattedar passbook and title deed vide Khata No.572 in the year 2012, 2013. The plaintiff filed a revision petition before the Joint Collector, Kothagudem and the case bearing Number 10/2021 was transferred to the Special Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 19.06.2021 cancelled the pattedar passbook relating to Khata No.572 and directed both the parties to approach the civil Court. 8. On 02.03.2024 when the plaintiff was carrying out agricultural operations in the suit land, the defendant trespassed into the land and obstructed her and therefore the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and that the pattedar passbook issued in favour of the defendant is not binding on her and for rectification of the entries in pahani record and I-B register and for perpetual injunction against the defendant. 9. From the above averments in the plaint it is quite clear that the plaintiff claims title over the suit land and sought for perpetual injunction against the defendant as she is in possession of the land. Importantly, the plaintiff filed the suit following the observation made by the Tribunal directing both the parties to approach the Civil Court. 9. From the above averments in the plaint it is quite clear that the plaintiff claims title over the suit land and sought for perpetual injunction against the defendant as she is in possession of the land. Importantly, the plaintiff filed the suit following the observation made by the Tribunal directing both the parties to approach the Civil Court. The period of limitation of three years has to be reckoned from the date of the order of the Tribunal passed on 19.06.2021. 10. The plaint is dated 04.03.2024 and so the suit was within limitation. The plea taken by the defendant that the period of limitation has to be counted from date of the injunction order in I.A.No.77 of 2014 in O.S.No.124 of 2014 is not sustainable in Law for the reason that the period of limitation in the suit started to run only from 19.06.2021. 11. For the foregone reasons, this Court finds that the plaint averments would disclose that the suit is not barred by limitation and hence the plaint is not liable to be rejected. 12. The low er Court did not commit any illegality or impropriety or procedural irregularity in coming to the conclusion that the plaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, there are no reasons to interfere with the order impugned dated 16.11.2024 passed in I .A.No.258 of 2024 in O.S.No.79 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, in the present Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shallstand closed.