[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
D. Ramaa vs Mala Brajkumar Bhakttwoni And 51 Other on 23 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1159,1171 & 1357 / 2020 COMMON ORDER:
Since the lis and parties involved in these revision
petitions are same, these matters were heard together and are
disposed of by way of this common order.
2. CRP.Nos.1159, 1171 and 1357 of 2020 are filed by
defendant Nos.35, 40 and 39 respectively, challenging the
orders dated 24.02.2020 passed in IA.Nos.1043, 917 and
916 of 2019 respectively, in OS.No.593 of 2018 by the III
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.
3. The brief facts of these cases are that the revision
petitioners who are defendants in the above suits filed the
above IAs., under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure
Code (for short ‘CPC‘) praying for rejection of plaint. After
hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said IAs.,
vide impugned orders dated 24.02.2020 observing that the
plaint discloses some cause of action and the same is
sufficient even though the chance of success for the plaintiff
in the suit, are remote. Hence, these revisions.
2
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, and learned
counsel appearing for respondents, respectively, in all the
revision petitions.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the
impugned orders are replete with glaring illegalities and
contraventions of established legal principles. He contended
that the plaints and supporting documents filed by the
plaintiffs woefully fail to disclose valid cause of actions for the
suits, particularly with regard to the reliefs sought for recovery
of possession and cancellation of registered documents
executed since the year 1971. He lamented that egregious
lacunas were further compounded by the respondents’
categorical admission in their pleadings in OS.No.27 of 2010,
wherein, they unequivocally acknowledged executing a
General Power of Attorney (GPA) in the year 1970, authorizing
the attorneys to sell the lands, which were coupled with the
subsequent sale to third parties, renders the suit irrevocably
barred by limitation. He asserted that the respondents have
engaged in a blatant exercise of creating an illusory and
manufactured cause of actions, replete with frivolous and
3
mischievous assertions, which are utterly devoid of any
factual foundation.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners incessantly contended
that the failure of respondents to specify the date of land
acquisition proceedings for the Outer Ring Road (ORR), which
occurred in the year 2005-06 and that the same is a glaring
omission which would highlight the infirmities in their case.
He averred that the respondents cannot be permitted to
circumvent the law of limitation through clever drafting,
artfully omitting crucial details that would unequivocally
render the suit barred, and that the attempt of respondents to
create a cause of action through false statements made on
oath is utterly unsustainable in law, and that the same
warrants stringent reprobation. In support of their
contentions, reliance was placed on the judgments rendered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dahiben Vs.
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali 1, C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K.
Senthil and Others 2, and in the judgment rendered by this
Court in Bajranglal Agarwal Vs. Susheela Agarwal and
1
(2020) 7 SCC 366
2
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1330
4
Others 3. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow these revision
petitions, setting aside the impugned orders dated
24.02.2020.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by
learned counsel for petitioners and contended that the
allegations made by the petitioners are entirely false, baseless,
and devoid of any merit. They averred that the plaints would
clearly discloses a valid cause of actions for the suits, as the
respondents have specifically pleaded that they came to know
about the fraudulent GPA and sale deeds through a news
article published in the month of May 2018. They lamented
that the suits were well within the limitation period as the
respondents have pleaded sufficient facts to establish their
title and claim for recovery of possession. They emphasized
that the respondents’ pleadings are clear, specific, and
unequivocal, and that they have provided ample evidence to
support their contentions. In addition, they asserted that the
contentions of leaned counsel for petitioners are entirely
outside the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC which governs
3
(2024) SCC OnLine TS 1823
5
the rejection of plaints. They reiterated that the plaints cannot
be rejected on the basis of allegations made by the petitioners,
as the same were unfounded and unsupported by evidence. In
support of their contentions, they relied on the judgments
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sopan
Sukhdeo Sable and Others v. Assistant Charity
Commissioner and Others 4, Chhotanben and Another v.
Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and Others 5, Salim D.
Agbotwala and Others v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and
Others 6 Urvashiben and Another v. Krishnakant
Manuprasad Trivedi 7, Srihari Hanumandas Totala v.
Hemant Vithal Kamat and Others 8, P.V. Guru Raj Reddy
and Another v. P. Neeradha Reddy and Others 9,
C. Natarajan v. Ashim Bai and Another 10, Shakti Bhog
Food Industries Limited v. Central Bank of India and
Another 11 and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v.
Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and Others 12. Therefore, while
4
(2004) 3 SCC 137
5
(2018) 6 SCC 422
6
(2021) 17 SCC 100
7
(2019) 13 SCC 372
8
(2021) 9 SCC 99
9
(2015) 8 SCC 331
10
(2006) 14 SCC 183
11
(2020) 17 SCC 260
12
(1994) 1 SCC 1
6
advocating that there are no infirmities or illegalities in the
impugned orders dated 24.02.2020, they prayed this Court to
dismiss the revision petitions as the same lacks merits.
8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on
going through the material placed on record, it is noted that
suits were filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession
and for cancellation of sale deeds executed in the year 1970.
The first contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that
the alleged GPA was executed in the year 1970 and the same
was known to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and that being so, they
cannot file suits stating that they came to know about the
alleged fraud only in the year 2018 when a news item was
published in the print media.
9. Admittedly, respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with others
filed OS.No.27 of 2010 on 20.01.2010 and in paragraph No.2
of the plaint there was mention regarding the execution of
alleged GPA in the year 1970, stating that one Sri Motilal
Chandumal and his family were displaced from West Pakistan
during the partition of India and had a verified claim for
compensation and that he was allotted land in Sy.No.288 of
7
Poppalguda Village in the year 1970, and additional lands in
Sy.Nos.289-296 were allotted in the year 1955. It was further
stated that the said Motilal constituted attorneys, including
Sri V.A. Vaswani and Hasaram Hassanand, through a GPA in
the year 1970, and disposed of the lands in Sy.Nos.289-296
through them during his lifetime. Therefore, in view of the said
mention made in the plaint, it cannot be said that the
respondents were not aware of execution of GPA dated
02.10.1970. As such, there is no force in the said contention
of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
10. In addition, in the averments of the plaint, it was clearly
stated that except signing below their names, the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 were not aware of the statements thereof, as the
same were in English and that the same were not read over or
explained to them by their GPA holders, subsequent to which
compromise decree was passed. It was further contended that
they have never seen the Advocate who was engaged on their
behalf and that they were only aware that his name is Sri
Rami Reddy, and that the said person filed caveats in respect
of suit lands in OS.No.27 of 2010 in the name of respondent
Nos.1 and 2. However, this Court is of the opinion that there
8
is no force in the said contention of respondent Nos.1 and 2 as
there was no clear mention regarding the averments that were
explained to them before they signed the document.
11. Given the averments of the case on hand, there is no
dispute that the original allottee, Motilal Chandumal, passed
away on 19.05.1976, leaving behind his wife Nirmala Devi and
three children: Brijkumar Motilal Bhaktani, Biharilal, and
Jyothi Naraindas. Nirmala Devi later passed away on
21.04.2008, while Brijkumar Bhaktani died on 21.10.1982.
The plaintiffs, being the children of Brijkumar Bhaktani, along
with Jyothi Naraindas, are the only surviving legal heirs of the
late Motilal Chandumal. However, the only contention of
respondents herein is that Motilal Chandumal, the original
allottee, never executed GPA in favor of Hassaram @
Hassanand Le., defendant No.1. Instead, verification would
reveal that said GPA pertains to a mortgage deed executed by
Ramesh Atmaram Patel in favor of Babulal Sankalchand and
others. They specifically contend that they discovered the
same only in May 2018 through a newspaper article,
prompting them to file the present suit for declaration of title,
recovery of possession, and declaration of the sale deeds as
9
null and void, which they argue is within the limitation period.
However, as discussed above, it is clear from paragraph No.2
of the plaint in OS.No.27 of 2010 that the same was very
much in their knowledge and the said GPA was executed in
the year 1970. That being so, subsequently, filing a suit
praying for cancellation of decree cannot be a ground for filing
another suit.
12. At this stage, it is imperative to note that in the
judgment rendered in the case of Dahiben (supra) in
paragraph No.24.2 it was held as under:
“In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [T.
Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467]
this Court held that while considering an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC what is required to be
decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause
of action, or something purely illusory, in the
following words : (SCC p. 470, para 5)
“5. … The learned Munsif must
remember that if on a meaningful–not
formal–reading of the plaint it is
10
manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in
the sense of not disclosing a clear right
to sue, he should exercise his power
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care
to see that the ground mentioned
therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting
has created the illusion of a cause of
action, nip it in the bud at the first
hearing….”
13. From the above extracted portion, it can be observed
that when examining a plaint, the Court should conduct a
meaningful, rather than merely formal, reading to determine
if it appears to be manifestly vexatious and meritless. If the
plaint fails to disclose a clear right to sue, the Court should
exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
However, the Court must ensure that the grounds for
rejection are met. Moreover, if clever drafting has created an
illusory cause of action, the Court should intervene at the
outset and dismiss the plaint at the first hearing. Keeping in
mind the said legal position, it is pertinent to note that the
matter was compromised between the parties in the year
2017 itself, as such, after lapse of all these years, the
11
respondents cannot take the plea that they were unaware of
the averments of the plaint and that they signed on it without
knowing the contents thereof.
14. However, it is to be noted that though learned counsel
for respondents placed reliance on the judgment of Sopan
Sukhdeo (supra 4) whereunder it was observed that “there
cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, Segregation
and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the
plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the
cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading
has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not
permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it
out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and
not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has
to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction or
words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The
intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily
from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At
the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic
approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting
technicalities”, the same does not come to the aid of the
12
respondents as the same cannot be considered to the facts of
the case on hand.
15. From the above extracted portion, it is made clear that
when interpreting a plaint, it’s essential to consider it in its
entirety, rather than compartmentalizing or dissecting
specific paragraphs or sentences. This approach ensures that
the pleading is understood in its true context, as required by
the fundamental principles of interpretation. Further,
isolating sentences or passages from the rest of the plaint is
not permissible, as it distorts their intended meaning.
Instead, the pleading should be construed as it stands,
without altering its wording or grammatical sense. The
primary goal is to discern the intention of party from the
overall tenor and terms of their pleadings. However, this
should be done in a manner that avoids pedantic and overly
technical approaches, which can lead to unjust outcomes. In
the case on hand, merely denying the averments on the
ground of being unaware does not give scope for any cause of
action.
13
16. Furthermore, on behalf of respondents, reliance was
also placed on the judgment rendered in the case of
Chhotanben (supra 5) whereunder, in paragraph Nos.19 and
20 it was observed as under:
“19. In the present case, we find that the
appellant-plaintiffs have asserted that the suit was
filed immediately after getting knowledge about the
fraudulent sale deed executed by original
Defendants 1 and 2 by keeping them in the dark
about such execution and within two days from the
refusal by the original Defendants 1 and 2 to
refrain from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of
use and possession of the ancestral property of the
appellants. We affirm the view taken by the trial
court that the issue regarding the suit being barred
by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a
triable issue and for which reason the plaint
cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of
the power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
20. In the above conspectus, we have no hesitation
in reversing the view taken by the High Court and
restoring the order of the trial court rejecting the
application (Ext. 21) filed by Respondent 1-
14Defendant 5 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
Consequently, the plaint will get restored to its
original number on the file of the IVth Additional
Civil Judge, Anand, for being proceeded further in
accordance with law. We may additionally clarify
that the trial court shall give effect to the order
passed below Ext. 17 dated 20-1-2016, reproduced
in para 8, above, and take it to its logical end, if
the same has remained unchallenged atthe
instance of any one of the defendants. Subject to
that, the said order must be taken to its logical end
in accordance with law.”
17. In addition, reliance was also placed in the judgment
rendered in the case of Salim (supra 6) whereunder, in
paragraph No.8, it was observed as under:
“Insofar as the rejection of the plaint on the ground
of limitation is concerned, it is needless to
emphasise that limitation is a mixed question of
fact and law. It is the case of the appellant-
plaintiffs that only after making inspection of the
records in connection with the suit land available
in the office of Defendant 3 (Court Receiver) that
they came across the correspondence and
documents relating to the transactions and that
15the proceedings before ALT were collusive,
fraudulent and null and void. The appellant-
plaintiffs have even questioned the authority of the
Court Receiver to represent them in the tenancy
proceedings.”
18. At this stage, it is imperative to note that it is an
admitted fact that while dealing with petitions filed under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court has to consider the plaint
averments only, along with documents filed by the plaintiff.
That being so, in the cases on hand, in the averments of
plaints, they mentioned regarding filing of suit in 2010,
whereas, denying the same on the ground of being unaware of
averments cannot be accepted. Though learned counsel for
respondents relied on the above judgment stating that
limitation is mixed question of fact and law, in the suit that
was filed in the year 2010 it is apparently showing knowledge,
therefore, the above judgment is not applicable to the facts of
the present cases.
19. In view of the above detailed analysis on factual
background of the cases, the respondents cannot contend that
they were unaware of execution of GPA in the year 1970 and
16
only came to know about the same in the year 2018 through
news article. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the
version of respondents can be treated as clever drafting with
intent to create illusory cause of action.
20. In view thereof, these revision petitions are allowed,
setting aside the orders dated 24.02.2020 passed in
IA.Nos.1043, 917 and 916 of 2019 respectively, in OS.No.593
of 2018 by the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District, at LB.Nagar. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 23.04.2025
PT
[ad_2]
Source link