Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Pallemaneni Alias Palleneni Venkata … vs Sanapureddy Madhava Reddy on 21 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
ITEM NO.58 COURT NO.12 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.6892/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-09-2022
in CRP No.999/2021 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amravati]
PALLEMANENI ALIAS PALLENENI VENKATA RAJA & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SANAPUREDDY MADHAVA REDDY & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 59087/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 21-07-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR
Mr. Abhisek Das, Adv.
Ms. Megha Shaw, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Bherwani, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The matter has proceeded ex parte against the respondents.
3. The petitioners who are the plaintiff filed Original Suit
No.78 of 2017, seeking declaration of their exclusive right and
Signature Not Verified
title
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2025.07.23
over the plaint schedule property on the basis of the
17:32:08 IST
Reason:
Registered Sale Deed dated 13.05.1954 and for a further declaration
that the gift deed dated 28.09.2026 be declared as null and void1
and not binding upon the plaintiffs-petitioners.
4. The plaint of the aforesaid suit came to be rejected under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“for short,
the “CPC”) by the order impugned passed by the High Court on the
ground that the suit is apparently barred by limitation.
5. Since, the suit is for declaration of rights, it has to fall
under Articles 56, 57 or 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act,
1963 (for short, “the Act”) for the purposes of the limitation. The
petitioners have not claimed declaration with regard to any forgery
of any instrument issued or registered or that the adoption is
invalid, therefore, the suit as filed by the petitioners would
necessarily fall under Article 58 of the Schedule which provides
for limitation for a suit for declaration of any other relief
except those mentioned above. The limitation is 03 years from the
date when the cause of action first accrued.
6. Since the petitioners are claiming exclusive rights over the
property on the basis of the sale deed dated 13.05.1954, it has
rightly been stated in the plaint that the cause of action first
arose in 1954. The gift deed was executed on 28.09.2006 and the
earlier suit for its cancellation was filed by the petitioner in
2012 which means that the petitioners had the knowledge of the gift
deed. But, even then no declaration in respect thereof was sought
within a period of 03 years.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,
the suit of the petitioners, as filed on the basis of the plaint
allegations itself, is patently beyond a period of 03 years from
the date of cause of action for the suit first arose. The plaint
nowhere mentions that the cause of action for filing the suit had
arisen within 03 years of the filing of the suit in March, 2017.
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
opinion that the High Court has rightly rejected the plaint in
exercise of its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C.
2
8. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR) (NIDHI MATHUR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
3
[ad_1]
Source link