Telangana High Court
Mohd Bin Salam vs Smt Laiqunnisa on 9 June, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.211 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1
aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2021 passed in I.A. No.471 of 2019 in
O.S. No.13 of 2018 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, for
dismissing the petition filed by him for rejecting the plaint under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC.
2. The respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and the respondent No.2
is the defendant No.2.
3. The plaintiff filed the suit against defendant Nos.1 and 2 to
declare the registered sale deed documents No.419 of 2011 and 420 of
2011 dated 13.01.2011 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant
No.1 as illegal and sham documents and to declare her as the owner of the
lands covered by the said documents and to grant perpetual injunction to
restrain the defendant No.1 from alienating the suit land to others.
4. As per the plaint averments, the husband of the plaintiff was
conducting Real Estate business and he met defendant No.2 and offered to
purchase nearly 30 to 40 acres of lands within the limits of Venkatraopet
Village, Talakondapally Mandal. Defendant No.2 sold his lands to an
2
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
extent of Acs.10.01 guntas in Sy. Nos.80 and 218 of the same village
through registered sale deed document No.1576 of 2007 dated 06.02.2007.
At the instance of defendant No.2, one Chakali Dasharatham @ Ranaveer
Janaiah also sold Ac.5.00 gts., of land in Sy. No.79 through registered sale
deed document No.68 of 2008 to the plaintiff and an area of Ac.0.36 gts.,
and Ac.4.04 guntas in Sy.No.79 through separate registered sale deeds
document Nos.59 of 2008 and 61 of 2008. For the sale transactions, the
husband of the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- to defendant No.2
within two months. As the husband of the plaintiff could not pay the said
amount within two months to defendant No.2, defendant No.2 held a
panchayat and the husband of the plaintiff agreed vide document dated
09.07.2008 to pay a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, total Rs.20,00,000/-
within five months and in default, to re-convey the purchased lands to
defendant No.2. The husband of the plaintiff could not pay Rs.20,00,000/-
within time to the defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 did not allow the
husband of the plaintiff to enter into the said lands for non-payment of the
agreed amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. Meanwhile, the husband of the plaintiff
died on 17.09.2009 leaving the plaintiff as his legal heir. Defendant No.2
was maintaining his possession over the purchased lands of the husband of
the plaintiff. The plaintiff approached defendant No.2 for possession of the
purchased lands by her husband, but defendant No.2 did not agree to
3
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
deliver the possession of the purchased lands to the plaintiff except on
payment of the amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. The plaintiff could not succeed
and approached defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 assured the plaintiff that
he would arrange delivery of possession of the purchased lands from
defendant No.2 without paying the agreed balance amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- to defendant No.2 and advised the plaintiff to execute
registered sale deeds of the said lands in his name, so that he would see that
the purchased land would be delivered from defendant No.2 to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff believed the defendant No.1 and executed registered sale deed
document Nos.419 of 2011 and 420 of 2011 dated 13.01.2011 in favour of
the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 approached the Tahsildar,
Talakondapally to implement his name in the revenue records in ROR and
obtained patta passbooks. The plaintiff at the instance of the defendant
No.1 lodged a complaint before the South Zone Police Team, CCS, DD,
Hyderabad, which was registered as Crime No.31 of 2011. But, the Court
acquitted the defendant No.2 for the said offences. As the possession of the
purchased lands still remained with defendant No.2, the defendant No.1
approached the Tahsildar, Talakondapally and filed a petition to record his
name as cultivator of the said purchased land. The Tahsildar issued notice
to defendant No.2 in File No.B/1642/2015 and conducted spot enquiry and
found that the husband of the plaintiff or the plaintiff or defendant No.1
4
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
were never in possession of the suit land at any time and defendant No.2
alone was in possession of the land. As such, the Tahsildar did not agree to
record the name of the plaintiff or the defendant No.1 as cultivators of the
suit land and closed the file. Defendant No.2 got issued a legal notice
dated July, 2016 to plaintiff and the defendant No.1 for payment of
Rs.20,00,000/- as agreed by the late husband of the plaintiff otherwise he
would get the sale deeds executed by him in favour of the husband of the
plaintiff cancelled. The defendant No.1 gave reply that he was no way
concerned with the amount, but he was the purchaser of the land from the
plaintiff and he was in possession as the owner of the land. But, the actual
possession of the lands covered by the registered sale deeds remained with
defendant No.2 only and defendant No.2 did not allow the plaintiff to enter
into possession of the suit lands. The plaintiff further averred that more
than three years period was over, but the defendant No.1 did not take any
steps for taking possession. The sale transaction made by the plaintiff to
defendant No.1 was without delivery of possession and without
consideration and it was only a sham transaction.
5. The plaintiff further averred that defendant No.1 tried several
times to take possession from defendant No.2, but he could not take
possession of the lands as such, the purpose of execution of the suit
5
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
registered sale deeds by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1 had been
defeated and the defendant No.1 stopped his efforts for taking possession
of the lands from defendant No.2. The plaintiff and her followers
approached defendant No.1 and asked him to comply his promise. The
defendant No.1 did not take any steps for handing over possession and
advised the plaintiff to take her own decision on 28.06.2016. The plaintiff,
as such, made a request to defendant No.1 to get the suit registered sale
deeds cancelled or released in favour of the plaintiff through registered
document, but the defendant No.1 refused to re-transfer the suit lands in the
name of the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of
sale deeds executed by her in favour of defendant No.1 contending that
defendant No.1 did not purchase the lands from the plaintiff for
consideration and the plaintiff did not deliver the possession of the land to
defendant No.1 and only on the condition that defendant No.1 should
obtain possession from the defendant No.2, the documents were executed,
as such, the suit documents were not followed by consideration and
delivery of possession and they were illegal and void. She stated that the
cause of action for the suit arose on 13.11.2011 when the plaintiff executed
the registered sale deed document Nos.419 of 2011 and 420 of 2011 in
favour of the defendant No.1 and on 28.06.2016 when defendant No.1 did
not agree to execute any registered document to re-convey the lands to the
6
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
plaintiff and advised the plaintiff to take her own decision to take
possession of lands from the defendant No.2. The suit was filed in the
month of March, 2017 by the plaintiff.
6. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statements.
7. During the course of trial, defendant No.1 filed I.A. No.471 of
2019 to reject the plaint, as being barred by limitation and that there was no
cause of action to file the suit. The defendant No.1 filed an affidavit in
support of the petition submitting that the story created by the plaintiff was
totally false and she executed the sale deed in his favour by receiving the
sale consideration. The relief claimed by her was barred by the law of
limitation. It was the case of the plaintiff that the sale deeds were executed
in his favour in the year 2011. The sale deeds disclosed receipt of sale
consideration and were bereft of any condition attached to it. It was not the
case of the plaintiff that the sale deed was conditional and that the
conditions were incorporated in it. The suit was not filed within three years
from the date of execution of sale deed. As per Article 59 of the Limitation
Act, three years period was prescribed for filing the suit for cancellation of
registered documents. The contention of the plaintiff was that the subject
documents were not followed by consideration and delivery of possession
as such, the said fact was known to the plaintiff at the time of execution of
7
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
the sale deed itself and it was not her case that she came to know about the
non-payment of sale consideration and non-delivery of possession at a later
date. There was also no cause of action in the plaint and prayed to reject
the plaint.
8. The plaintiff filed counter contending that the suit was filed
from the date of knowledge and as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the
suit was filed within the time from the date of knowledge. The sale deeds
were obtained by fraud by defendant No.1, as such, the question of filing
the suit within three years from the date of the sale deed would not arise.
The grounds for rejection of plaint as laid down under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC were not applicable to the facts stated in the affidavit. If necessary, an
issue can be framed in the suit that the suit was barred by limitation, but the
question of rejection of plaint would not arise.
9. The trial court, on considering the contentions of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the
said dismissal, the petitioner-defendant No.1 preferred this revision
petition.
10. Heard Sri Mahmood Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-
plaintiff.
8
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that
the trial court failed to take into consideration the averments in the plaint
wherein the plaintiff herself admitted about the knowledge regarding the
law of limitation. From a bare perusal of the plaint pleadings, the plaintiff
was not entitled to any relief as claimed by her as she herself admits that
her husband committed default while purchasing the property and that the
defendant No.2 was the owner of the suit schedule property. When the title
of the plaintiff itself was defective, she could not seek cancellation of sale
deed in favour of the defendant No.1. The trial court failed to take into
consideration the admission made by the plaintiff that the defendant No.2
was in possession of the suit property. But, surprisingly she was seeking
the relief of injunction against the petitioner-defendant No.1 in respect of
the suit schedule property. The trial court failed to take into consideration
that the suit was barred by law of limitation. From a bare perusal of the
plaint pleadings itself, the order passed by the trial court was against law
and as a result of non-application of judicial mind to the law and facts and
relied upon the following citations:
2. Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)
dead through Legal Representatives and others 2;
1
(2018) 13 SCC 480
2
(2020) 7 SCC 366
9
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
3. C.S. Ramaswamy v. V.K. Senthil and others 3;
4. Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust vs Shrimant
Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj
Bhonsle and another 4;
5. Rajpal Singh v. Saroj (deceased) through LRs. and
another5;
6. Vasantha (dead) through LR. v. Rajalakshmi @
Rajam (dead) Thr. LRs. 6;
7. Rajendra Bajoria and others v. Hemant Kumar
Jalan and others 7;
8. Raghawendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh
(Dead) by LRs.8;
9. Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational
Charitable Society v. M/s. Ponniamman Educational
Trust.9 and
10. Fatheji & Company & Another v. L.M. Nagpal &
Others. 10
12. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff, on the
other hand, contended that the petitioner-defendant No.1 filed the present
petition for rejection of plaint on the ground that the respondent No.1 had
no cause of action to file the suit. In fact, cause of action was clearly
mentioned in the para No.6 of the plaint. As per Order VII Rule 11 (a) to
3
2022 (6) ALD 109 (SC)
4
2024 INSC 1025
5
2022 (4) ALD 20 (SC)
6
2024 INSC 109
7
2021 (6) ALD 221 (SC)
8
2019 (3) ALD 177 (SC)
9
2012 CJ (SC) 800
10
2015 CJ (SC) 463
10
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
(d) of CPC all the required particulars were furnished in the plaint. The
cause of action was a bundle of facts to be gathered on the basis of
averments made in the plaint and reading it in its entirety and if the plaint,
as a whole, discloses cause of action, the plaint could not be rejected and
relied upon the judgment in Kasani Narasimulu v. Sathagowni Srinivas
Goud and others [2014 (3) ALT 93]. He further contended that the date
of limitation for filing the suit was within three years from the date of
document or where the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the document set
aside or cancelled. So the suit was filed within the limitation from the date
of refusal for execution of the release deed and relied upon the judgments
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in:
1. Salim D. Agboatwala and others v. Shamalji
Oddhavji Thakkar and others 11 ;
3. C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai and another 13 and
13. The respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit contending that
he filed a written statement in June, 2018 and the revision petitioner-
defendant No.1 also filed a written statement in October, 2019 and the suit
11
2021 SCC OnLine SC 735
12
1982 SCC OnLine Raj 34
13
(2007) 14 SCC 183
14
(2015) (8) SCC 331
11
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
was coming for trial. The revision petitioner-defendant No.1 without
proceeding with the trial of the suit, as an afterthought filed I.A. No.471 of
2019 only to delay the proceedings without any justification. The issue
whether the suit for declaration and injunction was barred by limitation was
a triable issue and the suit could not be rejected at the threshold as per the
law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2018 SC 2447 and AIR
2018 SC 2635. The question of limitation was a mixed question of law and
fact which was to be decided during the trial, but not upon the application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. After taking into consideration the contents
of the plaint alone and by following the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, the trial court dismissed I.A. No.471 of 2019 in O.S.No.13 of 2018
by a reasoned order dated 30.11.2021 and prayed to dismiss the CRP.
14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P.V. Guru Raj Reddy,
Represented by GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy and another v. P.
Neeradha Reddy and others (14 supra) held that:
“Rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a
drastic power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action at the
threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under
Order VII Rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently
held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that has to
be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or
whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise of
power under Order VII Rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the
written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is
wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do
not disclose a cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears
to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In all other
12
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated in the course of the
trial.”
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Natrajan v. Ashim Bai and
another (13 supra) also reiterated the principles for rejection of the plaint
as extracted above.
16. In Salim D. Agboatwala and others v. Shamalji Oddhavji
Thakkar and others (11 supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
“Insofar as the rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation is
concerned, it is needless to emphasise that limitation is a mixed
question of fact and law.”
17. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead
through Legal Representatives and others (2 supra), the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that:
“23.2. The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and
special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily
dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence,
and conducting a trial on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is
satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds
contained in this provision.
23.3. The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit,
no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under
Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily
protract the proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be
necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial
time is not wasted.
23.4. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi [1986 Supp SCC 315] this
Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this
provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and
13
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial
time of the court, in the following words:
“2. …The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to
ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to
prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the
Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of
Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily
without point or purpose. Even in an ordinary civil litigation, the
Court should readily exercise the power to reject a plaint, if it
does not disclose any cause of action.”
23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is,
however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII
Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.
23.6. Under Order VII Rule 11, a duty is cast on the Court to
determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by
scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the
documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is
that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in
conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in
a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London
S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V.Sea Success & Anr. [(2004) 9 SCC 512]
which reads as:
“139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is
essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not
must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said
purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must
be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments
made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a
decree would be passed.”
23.12. In Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co.5 the Court further
held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and
to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form,
which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it
stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in
the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark
upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact. D.
Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman [(1999) 3 SCC 267].
14
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit
is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a
right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
23.14. The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by
the Court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint,
or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the
trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai v. State of
Maharashtra. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must
necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar
Hussain (supra).
23.15. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It
states that the plaint “shall” be rejected if any of the grounds specified
in clause (a) to (e) are made out. If the Court finds that the plaint does
not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the
Court has no option, but to reject the plaint.
24. “Cause of action” means every fact which would be necessary for
the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to
judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts, which are
necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs
claimed in the suit.
24.1. In Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam [(2005) 10
SCC 51] this Court held:
“24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which if
traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove an
order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other
words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law
applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the
defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since
in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly
accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right
sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is
founded”
(emphasis supplied)
24.2. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. [(1977) 4 SCC
467] this Court held that while considering an application under Order
VII 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:
15
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022“5. …The learned Munsiff must remember that if on a
meaningful – not formal – reading of the plaint it is manifestly
vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear
right to sue, he should exercise this power under O. VII, R.
11, C.P.C. 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 …”
(emphasis supplied)
24.3. Subsequently, in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which
creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is that a clear
right must be made out in the plaint.
24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the
illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Ramachandra
Murthy v. Syed Jalal [(2017) 13 SCC 174] held that it should be
nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest
stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or
suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious,
and an abuse of the process of the court.”
18. In Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy
(1 supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
“Under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C., the application is
maintainable only when the suit is barred by any law. The expression
“law” included in Rule 11(d) includes Law of Limitation and, it would
also include the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
19. In the light of the principles reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the above cases, the petitioner sought for rejection of plaint on two
grounds i.e. one barred by law of limitation and on the other ground that
there was no cause of action. The limitation for the purpose of seeking
cancellation of sale deeds is three years as per Article 59 of the Limitation
16
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
Act or when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree
cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first became known to him.
Thus, a protection was given to the person seeking cancellation that the
limitation may be reckoned from the date of knowledge or reason for such
cancellation. The plaintiff admittedly executed the sale deeds in favour of
defendant No.1 in the year 2011. As per her averments, the sale deeds
were executed with a condition that the defendant No.1 shall help her for
recovering the lands from the possession of the defendant No.2 and that on
28.06.2016 when the plaintiff and her followers approached the defendant
No.1 and asked him to comply with his promise, the defendant No.1 did
not take any steps for handing over possession and advised the plaintiff to
take her own decision for taking possession of lands. Thus, the plaintiff
was aware at the time of executing the registered sale deed itself that the
sale deed was bereft of any sale consideration and possession was with the
defendant No.2 and that she had not handed over possession to defendant
No.1. The case of the plaintiff was that there was a promise by the
defendant No.1 to help the plaintiff to recover the suit property from the
defendant No.2. But, no such condition finds place anywhere in the subject
sale deed filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint. No time period was
mentioned anywhere in the sale deed or plaint pleadings that within such
time the petitioner-defendant No.1 should take steps to recover the
17
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
properties from the clutches of the defendant No.2. The sale deed was a
registered instrument and as per the contents of the sale deed, the total sale
consideration was received by the vendor. It also states that the vendor had
delivered vacant and peaceful possession of the schedule property to the
vendee. The registered instruments have a sanctity attached to the same.
Thus, the contents of the sale deed were contrary to the plaint averments
regarding non-receipt of the sale consideration and non-delivery of
possession. The contents of the plaint also would disclose that even though
more than three years period was lapsed, the defendant No.1 had not taken
any steps for obtaining possession from the defendant No.2 which would
make it clear that the plaintiff was aware of the three years period of
limitation for taking action against the violation of the alleged promise. As
the sale deeds were dated 13.01.2011, the three years period from the date
of execution of sale deed would lapse by 13.01.2014. But, the suit was
filed in March, 2017. As such, the same was barred by the law of
limitation. The contention of the plaintiff that on 28.06.2017, she
approached the defendant No.1 and asked him to comply with his promise,
is nothing but a clever drafting of the pleadings to bring the suit within the
limitation.
18
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
20. The plaintiff admitted execution of the registered sale deed,
but contended that consideration was not passed. In Vidhyadhar v. Manik
Rao and another 15, the Hon’ble High Court held that:
“The words “Price paid or promised or part-paid and part-
promised” indicates that actual payment of whole of the price at the
time of the execution of the sale deed is not a sine qua non to the
completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid but
the document is executed and thereafter registered, the sale would be
complete and title would pass on to the transferee under the
transaction. The non-payment of a part of the sale price would not
affect the validity of the sale. Once title in the property had already
passed, even if the balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale
could not be invalidated on that ground. In order to constitute sale,
the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property, on
the agreement to pay the price either in present or in future. The
intention is to be gathered from the recitals of the sale deed, the
conduct of the parties and the evidence on record.”
21. The recitals of the sale deed would disclose that the entire
consideration was paid. The conduct of the parties also would disclose that
the plaintiff had not questioned the registered sale deed within the period of
limitation i.e. within three years from the date of its execution and filed the
suit only in the year 2017 i.e. after a period of six years from the date of its
execution.
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v.
Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and
another (4 supra) held that:
15
1999 INSC 112
19
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022“The question as to when a period of limitation would
commence in respect of a registered document is no longer res integra.
In this regard, this Court in Dilboo v. Dhanraji [(2000) 7 SCC 702]
held as follows:
“20…… Whenever a document is registered the date of
registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge. In
other cases where a fact could be discovered by due
diligence then deemed knowledge would be attributed to
the plaintiff because a party cannot be allowed to extend
the period of limitation by merely claiming that he had
no knowledge.”
It was further held that:
“Once, however, a suit is filed by a plaintiff for cancellation of a
transaction, it would be governed by Article 59.”
23. In Rajpal Singh v. Saroj (deceased) through LRs. and
another (5 supra) also the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
“The suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed was required to be filed
within a period of three years from the date of the knowledge of the
sale deed.”
As the plaintiff is a party to the registered sale deed document, as
such, she is having knowledge of the contents of the sale deed. For a suit
to be filed for its cancellation, the plaintiff ought to have filed the same
within the period of three years otherwise, the same is clearly barred by
limitation.
24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in C.S. Ramaswamy v. V.K.
Senthil and others (3 supra) held that:
20
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022” Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not
enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the
plaint, otherwise merely by using the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs
would try to get the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may
be barred by limitation. Therefore, even if the submissions on behalf
of the respondents – original plaintiffs that only the averments and
allegations in the plaints are required to be considered at the time of
deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is accepted, in
that case also by such vague allegations with respect to the date of
knowledge, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge the
documents after a period of 10 years. By such a clever drafting and
using the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits
within the period of limitation invoking Section 17 of the limitation
Act. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the
period of limitation by clever drafting, which otherwise is barred by
limitation.”
25. Thus, the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff cannot
be permitted to bring the suit within the period of limitation by clever
drafting. The date mentioned as 28.06.2017 stating that she approached the
defendant No.1 on the said date is only a vague statement and amounts to
clever drafting.
26. Even with regard to the cause of action, the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable
Society v. M/s. Ponniamman Educational Trust (9 supra) held that:
“While scrutinizing the plaint averments, it is the bounden duty
of the trial court to ascertain the materials for cause of action. The
cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law
applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the
defendant. Every fact which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove to
enable him to get a decree should be set out in clear terms. It is
worthwhile to find out the meaning of the words “cause of action”. A
cause of action must include some act done by the defendant since in
the absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue.
21
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022In ABC Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies [(1989) 2 SCC 163], this
Court explained the meaning of “cause of action” as follows:
“12. A cause of action means every fact, which if traversed, it
would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his
right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts
which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right
to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the
defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can
possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right
sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It
does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every
fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a
decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a
right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action.But it
has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the
defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed
for by the plaintiff.”
In Sopan Sukhdeo Sable [Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Charity Commr.,
(2004) 3 SCC 137] in paras 11 and 12, this Court has observed as
under:
“11. In ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [ITC
Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70] it was
held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an
application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real
cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely
illusory has been stated with a view to get out of Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Code.
12. The trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and
not formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and
meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should
exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking care to
see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has
created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud
at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10
of the Code. (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC
467].)”
27. Thus the entire pleadings have to be taken into consideration
to see whether there is a case made out by the plaintiff for grant of relief.
22
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
As per the case of the plaintiff, the defendant No.2 was the person who was
in possession of the suit property and he was the person who was the real
owner of the suit property and that the husband of the plaintiff did not pay
the entire sale consideration. As admitted in the plaint, the husband of the
plaintiff was not allowed to enter into the suit property by defendant No.2
and the defendant No.2 refused to give possession of the suit property to
the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff herself is admitting to have a defective
title and there was no vested right in her to claim ownership. It is not her
case that she or her husband had paid the entire sale consideration to
defendant No.2 at any time. As per the averments of the plaint, she
admitted that there was a default condition in the agreement before the
panchayat that if the amount of 20,00,000/- as promised by the plaintiff’s
husband was not paid, the land would revert back to defendant No.2.
Admittedly, the plaintiff’s husband or the plaintiff did not pay the amount
of Rs.20,00,000/- as promised. As such, admittedly the land has to be
reverted back to defendant No.2. It was the defendant No.2, who should be
the aggrieved person as against the sale deed in favour of the defendant
No.1. As the defendant No.2 was admittedly in possession of the suit
property and the subject land has to be reverted back to him as per the
agreement, as such, he was the person who alone could take steps to get the
sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 cancelled. The plaintiff had no cause
23
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
of action and she had no right to sue in view of her defective title as
admitted by her in the plaint. As such, the plaintiff cannot claim ownership
over the property consequential to the relief of cancellation of sale deed in
favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiff not being in possession of the
property ought to have claimed the relief of recovery of possession also.
Claiming only declaratory relief without seeking the relief of recovery of
possession was also not maintainable. Thus, none of the reliefs sought in
the plaint can be granted to the plaintiff under law. When such a relief
cannot be granted to the plaintiff, the suit cannot be allowed to be
continued to go for trial and can be thrown out at the threshold. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajendra Bajoria and others v. Hemant Kumar
Jalan and others (7 supra) also held that:
“The court has to find out as to whether in the background of
the facts, the relief, as claimed in the plaint, can be granted to the
plaintiff. It has been held that if the court finds that none of the reliefs
sought in the plaint can be granted to the plaintiff under the law, the
question then arises is as to whether such a suit is to be allowed to
continue and go for trial. This Court answered the said question by
holding that such a suit should be thrown out at the threshold.”
28. The trial court committed an error in passing the impugned
order as such, it is considered fit to set aside the order passed by the court
below and to reject the plaint.
24
Dr.GRR, J
CRP No.211 of 2022
29. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting
aside the order dated 30.11.2021 passed in I.A. No.471 of 2019 in O.S.
No.13 of 2018 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar and the
plaint is rejected. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr.G. RADHA RANI, J
Date:09.06.2025
KTL