The High Court · 2025

plaintiffs dcnl ing t lrc ar crrtrcrtts ntadc thc aforesaid application, *herci. it rvas conte.crerr rhai a clcar cause ol action for lili.g the suit fbr Lhc rclieli ,rc,ti.r'rcrI rlrerr-:rr is rnade out in thc plaint and therclbrc, the contcntion ol'clefendurl No. I thar rhc suit is liable to bc.ejected on the grou,ds of rack or' t.rrse .l'actio, ard improper paylncllt ol ('ou11 tec IS rurrtcnablc; that thc e .rusc ol'action is a ( 7 LNA, I CIIP. No.234 of2021 mircd question of ticts and lan,, \\'hich can be decidcC only afici full- fledged trial of thc sLrit and therctbrc. Lhe application filcd by del'endant No. I is plc-nratLlre and thc salne cann()t be entcrtained aud irccold ingl,u''. praved to dismiss thc applicrtion

1. The trial Coult, on corrsiclcring the plcadings ol' both the parties and on hcaring the lc-arncd counscl upncaling lirr both the partics, vidc impr-rgr.red older dated 23.1 l.l0ll disnrissed the application by observing that in thc plaint, it \\'as thc casc ol the plaintill.s tl.rat afler their marriagc they rnoved to llydclabad and as th.-re \\,as no ncar lelative ol far-nil1' mernbcl to look after the strit schedulr. prollertics, sonre land grabbers managed to delcte thc- nanre' of their urolhe'r-llartrced Khatoon in the revenue records, uhich appearc-d till l97l-71 and the rrar.ne of Osrnan Khan, who is son o1' the plotccted trnant l)\ narne Chand Khan, n,as incorporatcd; that thc said Osrnan Khan rnanaged t"o palLn oll the said lands to def-endant r',\o.2, ri lro, iu tunt, sold thc saute to def'endant No. I vide registered sale deecl dated 10.0-5 2017; that the plaintilfs afe claiming right ovel the suit schedule properties as being succeeded from their mother; and that the plaintillt have sho*n the cause of action to 6 \.,i& ''hl Li,^ I ( l?P. \!t) 2.tl of )0.14 blinq ttrc suir,,\'irhin the liniitrrion 8- lhe t'iul (,.urt rir'tlier obse'rcd tli.r the issrr,r rrs r., \\hetrlcr thc suit is ba.r'ecl by lirnitatio, o.,ot is a urixcd q.esti ,rr.l Irrct arrl larr,:. 'ihicli can bc decicled onry alie' fu -tleclgcd tr.i.l. ( lr.llcrrqirrg thc said oltler'. thc plcsent Rcvision petition is fllcd trl dcf cntl Lr t \rr. I

9. [.carnecl coultsel Ior revision Pctitirtncr/dol..l(ll r]l ]\() I suhntitted that de1'endant Nrt.l purchasecl tlte sLriI schcclule ll1) j] ,tL,\ rilt(lcr. rcgiste rerl salo deed bcaring docurrent No.3g0(r/r0r7. drrrcd r l).()5.1r)r7 arrd trrc vcrdor of delcndant No.l pr-rrchasecl the saure i. thc r car. lr)7 r 'itic salc dccd bearing tlocuurent No.l l3/ I97 r a.d as such, tlrt rrl.i.rii'fis arc n.r lt) possession ol the suit schedulc properl_ies and irr sucl rrn cr crrt, tltc ('ourt l-ee should havc been paid undcr Section -i7 o1' tlri: . rr) ('orrrt Irees ancl Suits Valuation Act. Itowever, thc plaintil-l.s harc p ritl Cor-rr.t tcc r-rndcr Scction 24(d) Lhcreof, and the tr.ial Courr lailecl to al)l).c.i1te riris irsl.rcur

9.I . Lca|ncd counsel further subrrittecl tlrat c'cr- ii' llrc ar c.rrcnts a.cl thc allegations made by the plaintilts irr thc lrl:rint iLrc taken into considcration, the same does not constitute causc olr action lbr lllins tlre ir- l &f 1 LNA,I CRP.\'(t231.)12/)J1 suit and thelefbre, the suit is liable to bc rejected on that ground also

9.2 Learnccl couusel tirrthel stLbnritrcd that the Iinlitation peliod ol rrvelve ( l2) ycars lirr liling thc strit shor-rlcl bc rcckotlcd either liorn thc 1'ear 1959, r.r,hcn ivlol.rd. CoLrsc Ali hhan dictl. or liorn thc 1'car 198 I, rvhen his successor i.c., tris rvilt died. on thc contrary, the plaintil'l's lLlcd the suit in the year 1020, rvhicli is (rI vcars liom thc death o1'Mohd. Gouse Ali Khan and 39 ycars liom the clcath ol llanrced Khatoon and thus, tl.re suit is hopclcssly barred bv linritation.

9.3. Learned counsel lol rer ision pctition.r subrnitted that though the plaintiffs are clairning rights over the suit schcdtrle properlies bv rvay ol' Hiba. one ot' the three essentials ulldcr tlte Vlohatntnadan Larv, i.e., delivery ol posscssiotr is trot pror ed b1 thc plaintill's, thelefble, the Iliba is invalid in the eye of larv and as sttch, no valid title lloris to thc plaintifls

9.4 Learned counsel ftrrther subntitted that the aspects of abscuce of cause of action, improper paylnent of Court i'cc and limitation are not ploperty\ appreciated by the tliat Court arrd hcnce, thc trial Court has 8 E1,N4, I )..i|of 2U1 ':RP. ^t) conrmittcd gra\ c error in disnrissing the' eltplication liled by dclcnd:rnt No.l nnd prar t'tl lo allot, this Revision Pctition

10. ltt sr:l.r|orl o1' his conteutior.rs. Icarncd corrlsel lirr. r.crision pc't itionc li deG ntktnt No.1 rclied upon tltc firllorr inr: Lldrnl.nts ol' [he I Iorr'ble Suprernc (lourt (i) Ru.sheedu Khotoort (deod) throrryh l-rs. L's. ..lsltiq .41i, S/o Lieutenant Mohtt (deatl) thrt,tti:lt Lrsl (ii) Shri Mukund Bhtvart Trust anl Otltcrs l's. Shrinrunt Chhutrupati Uda.yutt Ru.je Prutt,l.,.sittlt Molturo.i IJltonsle und Artotlt cr) (iii) Doltiben l/s. Arvindbhai Kul.yattji Rltt,,rttrsuli (Guinr) deud through Lrs ancl Otltersl 1 l. 'l-lie categorical observatior-rs made by thc IIon'Lric Aper ('ourt in Rrtshcedu It'hatoott's case (cited supra) at palrrltr.ar.lr 1l ol the judemenl- arc c>ltractcd as hereunder:- r [20 r.1) 10 s(]c45J 0 24) SCC O nlinc .]t] l1 '?[2 r[2020) 7 SCu 36(r gri -i.*'F''':FEff&m,a..s$w 9 LNA, J CRP. Nr 2.:r4 of 2021 "ln ilfiohboob Sahab v. S.t'ed Isntttil und Others, (1 !\1o .lltdge Ilench referred to Seclion It7 o/ tltt Principlc.s o/ lrlulutnu:dan Latt Lt.t' Mtrlh. vhereirt tlrc t,sst'utittl.r o.f rttlid gi.li untlL't rlu Multtutrnrudctn Lavv huva becn e lttithtetl trnt/ protcctlerl to expliL'ote thc principle. ll'e tltink the rt'productittrt o.l tlte rclavtnt passoge v,ould hc scenrly. L'rttlcr St't:tiort i-17 of tlte Principles of Mahomedatt [.aw, by ,\hLllu, ]9tlt [iln., Ltlitcd bt CltieJ Justicc M. Hidu.rutullult, attrisases tllut \ritin! i.\ tlot cssantiol to the [pic]vulidity oJ o gili either of ntot'etrhlL or oJ intnnrable pt operDr. Set'tiott I JE tL'quit es tltttt it is (.\.\(tltiul to the volidity q/ o grft tltut the donrtr shotrlrl dive.sr ltrtuscl/' conlplelel)t oJ all ov'nersltrp and funttittion r.r'cr lhc .ttrltject oJ tlrc gili. Under Section l19. thret t'ssentiol.s ttt titc t,aliliry ol the gift should be, (i) a leclorutiott of gi/i by the chtrtor. (ii.) acccplance of the g{t, erptess or implietl, ltv <tt ou bcltull o/ the donee, and (iii) deliven, of posscssittrt o/ thc subject ol tlte gi/i b), the donor lo the doncc as rneutiotrcd irt St'ttion l5(). l.l tlrcsc condiliorts are conplietl r.itlt, lhc gili is tornltletc. Stt'tiou I50 specilically menlions that /br a vulid gi.li, tltere shottltl be delivery of possession o/ tlrc sub jt't t o.f tlta gi.li rtrtd tukrng oJ' posscssion oJ the gft b1' the doncc, Ltclltulb or cotutrtrt'tit,el.),. Then only the gift is contplele. Section I 5 2 ettvisu3iL's tlutt where the donor is in possession, u gi.ft of inttnovctble ltropertt of u'hich the donor is in actuol possessiort is nol ( ottlplete unless the donor physicolly clepurt.s .1iont tlrc pretnises t ith all ltis goods and chattels, and thc clonee lbrnally entL t's int() i I i ( g I t0 E I,M J (:l?l). No 2.14 nl ),)21 1ro.r.rr'r r1.)i ? [t rOuld. thus, be t,lear. tltu/ ti:,t.r,qh .qi/i ltl. i1 i\4ohantlttcd(n is nol rt,quiretl lo hc in wrilinl: (i,1tl oit,. (ltt(,ntl\) rteetl o, ht, t.cci.stet.etl trnder tltc Rcgi.strotio,t lt t. {r.,t tt .gi/i tU l)c ('ot)tl)letc. tlrcra .s,ltotlrJ be a tlt:clnrution t) ijtL, ,ty;lt bt. tltc tlono'. ttLtt,ltttrnt.t' ol tlte gili, c:1n.c.s.setl 1t1. jtt itli21l. I,t.or on helttr,t ,tr /ltt,tItttce, ttttrl tk:lit,cr.r of 1to55c.ss1r,r, ,), Iit(, .t)t()|)(,rtt. lltt' .: tltl,,t t-ntult(,r of the gtfi h tlta dottttt. t,, tlt(, Llt)nt,(,. clctrtic .sltrtrrld ttlic dt,lit,t,r.t, of tlrc, trtosscs;,iott t,t tlt(it /)i.r)/)(tt). t,tlhet ,t ttrallt ()t. (.on.\lt.uctivc l.r. ()tt pt.oo/. t), t,ta.r(, (,.\.\(,tttt(tl conditi()n.t. tltc gi/i bt,cotne.s contp/cle atul t.,,.til. !tt t.tt.re ol i,t,trs'.hlc l)t op?t |v i, /he po.s.ressi.tt of trtc (/( ,()t-. tI(, .\.11()ttr(I c'ont1t,'tttlt divcst 111111.r.r 1.1Uht..r icall.r of thc .trrltir t t o/.tl:. t:il/... ./111,

11. Irr .Si ri fuIukunl Bhavtrt Trust's case (cite(l igp13). II6p.ble .,\pcr ( oLrrt obser.,,ec, as IlereLrnclcr "lrt.{i-:t rltcr.e is tto or,(,nncnl in the plainr lo tlt, cl/it.r tltttt /ltt, lrt'c(1(((.\:t)t..\ \.ct.c ol r^|ore ctJ the lrensaclion.\ l-ltt, I i t t t ,: / t r / i r t t t lscrioo./it' ,t( ittg asidc /hc sale decd tyould .s,tut . ,.rrnnittty fi_ont lltc tlut. ,t/' rcgi.:lt.ation of tlte sunte ond a.s 1:r, lrtitlt .lg r.tl lht'Lrntitltiou lct, 1963, a.fte r thrce ),ears o/.tlt: t.{st.\tt.oti()tt. tltc Pl,rittIif/ i,s brtrretl .fi-om seeking canccllati.tt o.[.tltt .rtritl regitre ',ri solt dt'ecr or tru: crecree thdt utas r)t,\(d b?rot.(, -\r) ),cttrs ttrti/ tltc c:on.sequential jtr)gmenls. Wt, lt,rve trlrcrrt{.t, rcfbrred rr.r Scction 3 qf rl.te Specific Retief .t, t. lq6-] .flt,, plrrirttil.l ,rt ottr t'ier;, ltos miset.ably failett to (t\(:et.t(1itt /lt(, !], "' ' i'.,E5ffi:-::XI"i .;,r+;F.i;iji€*B*EEffi:T1 t'NA.l CRP. No 234 olZ0Zl existence of tlte fact by being diligeni. The question as to when a period of' limitation would tontntertcc iri rcspcct o-f' o registered docttmenl is no ktnger res irttcgro "

13. In Dahiben's case (cited supra), I lon'ble Apex CoLrrt has held as under: "Tlte unclerlying object of Order ltil llule I I fu) CPC is :lrut tf' in a sttil, no cause of actiott is disclosed, or te suit is barred by lintitutir,tn tutcler Rttle ll (d), the Court v'ould nol pennit the plainti/[ to unnecessarily protracl the proc'eeditrys in llte suit. lu such a case, it would be necessary lo pLLt on end tct tlte shctnt litigolion, so thotfurther judicial time is not fusted".

14. Per contra, learrred counsel lor rcspondent No. 1 and 2/plaintilli submil-ted Lhat it is settled principle ol law that Lvhile adjr-rdicating an application filed lor rejection of plaint, the arrennents made in the plaint and the docurnents, if any, filed along rvith plaint can only be consiclered, and the averrnents in written statement and doculnen(s), if anv, filed along with the written statement cannot be considered. Iiowever', in the present case, the application filed by delendant No.l is entirely based on the contentions raised in the written statemenl and the documcnts filed It l , I l2 t.N|1.I CRP. 0"o.23q af ,'DJ4 aJo'g rvith the said rvritte, slate.rent, wr-tich per,,., cauflot bc looked into u ltile ad juilicr_rting an application flled fbr rejcction tt.plarrrt. I 5 Lca,ccr cou.ser fbr- r'csp.ndent Nos. i arci r lur-trrer. sr-rbrnitted trrat Ilanrcecl l(hatoon *,as the pct .adar of the suit s:hedule properties anci aficl her dcnrse. clcf-endant No.2 unlawfulll, tanrperedi rnanip u lat ecl thc re\ erlre .eco.crs' trrerebl', delcting the name of FI.rneeri l(hatoon in the .c\ enuc rcc'rrds fi'orn the years lggr-rgg2, and fil:udLrre,tlv got urrtated his '.,rc i, ,race o1- rate lja,ecd Khatoon, with,,rl fblrou,ing thc due llrocess o1- larv a,cl lirrther, wi[h rnala fide intenti.n, he executed a salc decd in lavorrr oldeli:ndant No.i in the year 2017. I i r' i-ea,ed counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 rurther subrrittcd that the regar heirs of .latc Flaureecl Khatoo,, i.e., thc rnoLlrcr ard aunts or the plaintilli' r'ho are sti, arive, have, out of their.rvn vorilion, orali., gified their rcspective shares in the suit schedlrle propcrtres [o the plainrilfs b' u'ay ol an oral Hiba (gift)made in the prersencc ot.wilresscs on lt).03.2020. u.hich rvas subsequently reduced into rvriting by, wav ol a Mcrnorandum ol past Gift, therefore, the plaintiffs are legally cntitled to 13 r.NA, l Clll'. No.Z34 of2024 pursue the presertt litigation irr their persorlal capacity, inclLrding sccl<itrg dclivery olposscssion of tl.re suit schedule propertics.

15.1. . Lcarned counsel lU1her contcnded that thc triai Cottti. '-rn consicleration ol' the contentions raised and the subnlissions maclc otl bchall ot'both pa|ties, has rightly disrnissed the applicatiotl arrd tro gr-ounds arc rnade out to interf-ere with the well-rcasoned ilnpr.rgncd order ot the trial Court and theretbre, the Revision l)ctition is liable to be rlisurisscd as thc sauc is devoid of any melit. (lonsidcration:- l(r. The principal contentions that q'erc utged on behalf ol' del'cndant No. I fbl rejection ol the plaint are thtee fold, Jirstly, there is rro cartsc of action fbr trling the strit, sect.tndly, the suit is bar-red by lirnitation and tltirdl.t', proper Court t'ee is not paid.

17. As legards the llrst Iimb of contention, it is settled principlc' ol'lair that thc avertnents nrade in the plaint and the docutnents, il- an1 ' tited along with the plaint, should onty be looked into/considcred rvhile ad.iuclicating Lhc application llled under Order VII Rule l1 CPC, arrd the l4 i : i:j j-l- ..:t:*.i} "{&, i. \,e, i 0llP. no.2 j I t)[/02.i and thc docunrcLtr;. il.any, Irled alone a\erntents ilt ilt-, riritten statelrent r.r ith u rittcn ,,lu tcntcnt cant)oI be considcr.cc.l I 8. .,\s re gar.cls tlre contclt tiorl o1'leanrccl counsel that tlrcr.c rs rr,r ol'6311sg ol-action lirr fling rhe suit. ir the pla int, Lrlder. thc hcacline .(.ausc hcrcunder:- lrr-rcr is jon petitiorre r .lrs [o be. sccn that IN ol- actiorr,. it is rnentionerl :rs ''(ttt .Slc./11,6/1,7" ,1, ,1,r, slrenuout ted a c C of tl.e rtf' aclirtn ;ccking tt t""'"""ecl t0'5')i)I7 t'-r'sc ';ttttt t /t fit, rltc /),,(rttt-.tjo,,/-trte sctrccause tr.rtL,tt. rht, prctitttif/ rrrr", .\(t,t1,' ro(o1c.1 it nrrt ,,,trt,to 'u,te otr r t) rtQ 211t11 atttr t.,ritttr cs till it is det.lcrt e,i a.t uull ttrt,i t'oitl .to 41,s11 u r/irec/iort kt the, iit/t.siklar ,l 1t, lt r': I nrtr r.rt n t i,lo ntlo /, o"'""n tlt ant,it's irt the rtrtr,t,tias thtccr 20 rt) ,r.,'r" b,' deletittg tlte nattte o/ I)alLrrtltrrt ,\,,,. /. ,,,r, n,,,j"020 tltt,,.1t1.1(, o./. tlte,,,rr,':::;'n;::"':; :: 2) .l l02o trltcrt tlta pluinti/f during the courte ct/.his enqtrit.ias in rlte Tahsilclor.s O//ice ,l4nh r,, hr"rr, ra,u Otr'"'r'::" iVoritlo,t ,1,. ,.ut.\, t)/ Ltt.tiou .r eek in|fo.s.rt,.\.,sr, ,r r , ,, 1 I'1 t 1/.:tt tttt)\.t, itt tltr, tOnt/t ,t1t F..ht.tr, t.t tJ the 2()20 j I I I g !i t !. i t I,iI f A $ : F , I d F $ t l5 1-NA, / CRP. No J3 t ul2021 whctl the plctintiJ/ Jbtlttt thut the de.fbnclant Nt'' 1 rr''czs lr 7.rr.rs.scss iort tt/'tht' schetlttle 'A' prarnises' (hl The ctttrse tl' action -fitr the decloralion ol 'B' scltetlrrla Propert.l cts ntrll und void arosc ltt thc nronth ttf Deccntber 2019 tvhen in ltis scurt'h to trneorlh lhe int'alitl erecutions of sale deetls raluting lo ltis anceslral cstate thc plaintiJf ccrnte across the .stLle dcecl ctatetl 02-04-20 l3 and his search .lirrther led to the illegol cntries ln the Pohunies dalad 1993 1991. v'hich trprtn them tomirtg to light in unttrrul FeL'trttttn' 2020 neetl trt be cancelLed by' t ctt' o'/ appt'rt1trittte proccctlings' thereby the possession ol the prentises c<tnsecprcnllt' treeds kt be delivrctt' as .sttch the cttttse r'tf acliotl nol onl)' contmences o11 02-01-2013 wl'tich is the tlcrte of erectrtion oJ the '\ale Deatl btrt s lill c'ttntittues (c) Th.e Ctruse oJ'Action ttf 'C' schedule pr()perlv arose on 09-07-20 t3 i e., the date on which the Defe ndant No. 3 ttntl 1 eret:tttctl a Ragd Sale Deed dctted 09-07' 1.013 in Jat'our oJ. tlrc Dcf andant No l and utntitttrt's rilt it being tleclat'ecl os null and void ctnd conseqtrerill' the Tehsiltlar lt4aheshwararn l{undal being isstLecl clirections to amend the Pahanies doted 201g-2020 pertaining to Nandupally Village us depictetl itt the schedttle 'C' the cause oJ oc:tictn commcnces fron F ebrutu'y 2020 which the illegal nature oJ the enlire cante to light and continues till approPt'iate direclion are issued to the Tahsildur Maheshwaranr Manclal lo carry out antendnrcnts anLl possessiott oJ the premises handed over the presettt n ;l . i0 B LNn,l (:l?P. No.2.?1 of 2024 k/) Catt.sa of at,ti,rt./itr. tlte ,D, st.hachrle. pt.r,1,,,1.1.r, oro.\a on 05- I I :0 ll tLltttt ,r Rt,gtl. .Strlc Deecl clo/t,,, )_j_ t l_2A t1 r1.1.\' r\1,.,111c,/' h.t tltc DcJantltrnl No. I rt .fot,r-ttu. o/. [)c-,,tr,/rtrtt ,\'Lt. I trtttl t.ctrttirtLras lill it is tlt,, l.racl as ntrll untl r,titl trril tt1t1t1.r11:y1itle proccctlirts.s st,ekine tltc cctr:r'tiltrliott ,tl llrt, ntttutatl nurncs of tlt., I)e./atttlunt No. I t,r.r, t.ur.r.icrl orrt in palturtrcs datccl 2tt I )_2())() and ull ./irt, r.t, Pulronic.t. thtr.s the (.(lt.\e oj'u(tt,)tr cotttintres ontl ,rr.:.o .\lldll L:()ntitlttc lill lxt.s.rcssiott o1 .lic hetir in.q stltarlrrla'l)' is ltctrulatl t)\:er tfie l)l1i4tifJ. l-hus. ti )nr rhe abo\ c. it is cr ident tltat th., IlainLifls ar.c not in pt.artti.sc.s

19. posscssion of rlrc strit schcclulc nr'opct.tics. The plainri,.fs unrler.the hearling 'Causc ol- actio.' ha\c re rcr.ccl o,l' to the tra^szrclic,rs tl)at have taken place in tlre ycar':;20 I7 and p.i.r', i.e., 2013 ar.rd 20r4. ,vithout rcfering to the earlicr triLnsrrcli..s that rra'e take. 1rlace ir.r r.c;Pect ol' thc sub.icct pl'opcrt)' i.e., llr,: salc decds ol'the ycar I9(r7 and l() / [111s1.gs 1.ngly, ttrc plaintills havc sor-rqltt cieclaration of sale deeds thaL lravc takcn place in the yea.s 201 l. l0 I 4 and 20 r 7 as uurI and void. Hc-r.c:, it is cxplicit that the causc ol- action sltrxr n in tlrc sLrit is not comprehcnsive.

20. l, the i,starrt case, thc plaintiffs ar.c ciai,rinr: r.ights.ver the suit schedr-rlc properlrr's b1' rray of Hiba exccuted by trrrce daughters of the '/-/ .- : -=--E==-E- =:=GEGE -,-6*FdEitE'*I@i, -.:fi€..; l1 i.NA, l Cllt'. Na.231 0l2021 original owncr-Mohatnmad Gousc Ali Khan' L.r addition to that' thougl't threc daughtels ot ihc original o\\'net' are claiming to hat'e succecdcd to thc suit scheclulc propel-tie-q after the death o1' their rnotl-rer-Llamecd Khatoon, in thc 1'ear l9E l, not even a scrap of paper or document is {lied eitheL in thc lirrn-r of pal-rarlies, lnutation in rcvenue records' etc'' rvhereiu their namcs t[ere retlected as pattadars in respect of the suit schcdule properties fioni thc year 1981 onrvards' On thc other hand' it is apt to notc tl.rat ir.r the plaint, thc plaintil-ls have vagrLcly stated that det-endant No 2' without having any manner ot' r'igtrt ol title over the suit scl'reclu [c propefiies, has got thc name of Llameed Khatoon cleleted in the pahanies and got il-Iterpolated his natrc l lou'ever' in the ptaint' there is no whisper as to r.vhy the daughters of Mohammad Gouse Ali Khan-the original owner. have not choscn to challenge the mutation proceedings issued in lavour of det-endant No-2 lt appears that they have kept silent rvithout agitating their rights belore the revenuc authorities for getting their names mlltated in the revenue records by deleting the name of defendant No 2 anclthtLs'hal,ingtclnaitredassilentSpcCtatorS,theya[lorvedmultiple transactions to take place in respect of the suit schedule propefiies' In such I : i E I a I E t8 : B :,'ri . \i::.'1.:, \f:ir1.r:,.. I NA,I CRP. No 234 of2024 -'' backcL.op of thc lact-s and circuntsrallces ol the case. tirc predcccssors- itl- title of the plaintilfs. u'l.rit stcpp.-t1 into thc shoes ol tl'cjr mother by *av of successigr-r, her c utterll failed t.r establish eithcr rhril title or possession over the suit scl,c'dule irl.opcr'1ics. the|eb1 . entitling li1,''t1l Lo gili thc sarne to the plaintills. l'hus. ri,iLhout [ho rLsscfligt-t of rigl-rl: olthe prccleccssors- in-tile of the plaintiffs, the plaintifls have no loct s standi to seek the rcliels of declaLstion of sale dcecls said to lrar,'e bectr r'tecLttcd ip thc y'ears 20 l3 or 20 lzl or l0 l7 in rcspccL of the suit schedule r|opctlies as ntlll and void. By not i,indicating/assert ing tl'reir rigl-rts l'1 u'a1' of a proper clocument, the plaintil-ft )iave sinrplv and ir-r fact. r.a-uLrell sLated that one Osman Ali Khar-r. the son of the cultivator of the srrit schcclule properties b1, name Chand Khan. has urana-ucd to palrll ofl lh: said properties to dct'endant No.l ['hus, ail thesc t'acts go to show ti at the plaintiiTs have got the plaint clcverly drafted. theleby creating al illusion of cause of action, which is irnpcnnissiblc in la*' and has to be curtailed at the threshold. 21 . The albrcsaid vierv of Lhis Courr is fortlficcl by the judgment of tlre Hon'bie SL4rremc Court irr I.T.C. Lintited l:s. Debts Recovery .;ffiM &, ?e-r*{€ss6?*te*ratrtwrxlxi't&f & 19 LNA, J CRP. No.z34 o12024 Appellate Trihunal ond othersa, wher.ein it is held as fbllows:- ''l-lte que.sliort i.; tltetlter o r.t:a! cau.se r{ aclion has been set ou.t in 1|rc plaitt! or .sonrcthirry 1nu-eh illuson, has bcen stated with o view 10 ??t o,"!/ ol Ot'dcr l:tl Rule I I C P.C. Clever dra/ting c'raotin! illusions of cause ol-rtction arc nol pernti ed itt latv ctnd a cleur right to stLe.should he sltou,n in the plainl".

22. This principie has been reiteratcd by a Division Bench ol the Hon'ble Sr.rprcrne Cor-u'r in Rajendra BQoria antl others l/s. Henrunt Kumur Jtlan ond othersi, *.hcrein it is obscrvecl as hereunder:- " Under Order I/l[ llule I ] C PC:, the tlut.,- is cast upon the Court to delcrnitte wlrctlter the pluint t{isclose.s a cau.se of action b1t scrLLtiuizing tlrc overnrcnt; in the plaint, read in conjunctictn tuith the docnnrcrtb relied upon, or whether the suit is barrcd by on1, 1411,. T'lis Ccturt hcr.s held lhat the tmderlying objecl of Orcler l'[[ Rule I CPC is that y,hen o plaint doesnot tlisclose o cause of action, thc Court would not permit the plairtii/f'to unnecc.ssaril.l' pt.ott dct the proceedings. It has been held thnt in sutlt u cct-se. it tt,ilL be necessdry to pttt dn enrl to the shttnt litigrttion.so tlnl /iu tlter ju.dicial time is not wasted."

23. As legalds [he scope of Ordcr-VII Rule 11 CpC, the Hon'ble 1(1998) 2 SCC 70 .1022112) SCC 641 L] ) E:rruz:r&&&'f -*.,. . ,-.,.,'-- -.---- - 20 t.N i, J CRP. No.231 ol2024 Suprernc Corirt in Mudonru.i Sri Rtnn Cltandra _llttt,lhy vs. S1,ed Jafuf , obscrvecl as h cle r-rnder:- 'l/'cleye" tlruftrng ctf'/lrc pluint luts r:r.eatcl ri,t, il/u.sion of'a cutt..sc o.f tt:tion, tlrc cour! vr.ll rtip it itt lhc bt.Lc! tr, tlrc ccu-licst .yc.t lhal bogt s litigttlion trill encl ut the curlicr .ttugt:

24. In tl-re lislrt of the abo'c .iLuigr-re,ts olthe II.n'ble Supremc crou.t arcl in 'iew of Jre foregoirg discr-rssio. as to thc cristeace of cause of action, tliis court, on scrutirry of the a'c.,rcrts i:r thc plai^t read in conjunction r.,,itl'r tl're documeul-s L.clied upon by the plaitrtifft, holds that thc plaint does not disclose a causc of actio, tbr fitini:. -he present suit and the plaintitli liave cleverly drafted the plainr. creating rhe illusion ofcause of action and as such, as observcd b1, the Hon,blr: Suprente Court in Mtdunuri Sri Rurna Chondra Murthy, s case (citecl ;r pra) a.d Rajendro Bajoria's case (cited supra), the same has to be nippccl in the bud stage i.c.. at thresh.ld so l.har bogrrs a.d shanr litigation crds at the earliest, rvithout u*eoessarily protracting the proceedings. ard lur.ther judicial time is not rvas tccl. 25 As regalds thc cor-rtcntion of lcarned counsel lor revision 6(20t7) 13 SCC 17 4 2t LNA, ] CRP. Na.234 af2021 petitioner that the suit is hopeiessli, balred by limitation and as such, the samc is not maintainable, it is sr'ttlcd la\\' that the lssue ol lirnitation is a urixcd que stion of faci anci. lau, )-6. To adjLrdicate upon the issuc as to r.r,hethel thc suit is bared by lirnitation, as contended by iearned connsel lbr revision petitioner/ del-endant No.l, it is scerningil' necessary to retbr to the relevant provisions of the Lirritatior.r Ac1 and also the ralio decidendl laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this rcgald 21 . It is relevant to note that plaintilfs ale clairning tl.rat the suit schedtrle propefties wcre oralll, gilted to them on 20.03.2020 by Siraj Khatoon, Rukhiya Khatoon, and Ilat'cez Khatoon, who are daughtels to be daughters of Hameed Khatoon

28. As rcgards the validity ol-olal gift i.e., Hiba, the legal position is well settled, which has been reiterated by thc llon'ble Supreme Court time and again in a catena of decisions, that the three essentials of a gift under Mol.rammadan Law, i.e., (i) declaration of the gift by the donor; (ii) acceptance of the gilt by the donee and (iii) delivery of possession, t-. 22 I.Nli, J CIIP. No 231 t)f 2t)2,{ 'tl -r&t ira'c tcr bc conrplicd riitir t. rnakc orar gift (Hitrrl r,aLicr. 1'rrougrr. tr-rc Rrrics ol N,lollrnrntadan l_au. do not rrandate that i iil-,a hrs ro be rec.lucecl to rr.iting. orl' .n trllilling of a[ Lhc three a{bresrr cr e-ss.'rriars. the Hiba bccor.nes colnplctc and irrevocablc. l9 L the p.csent casc, adrnittecflv, plaintif rs a.e r-ot i. Posscssi.. or the suit scheclule p.opc.ties and further, in thc s,it. rrer. souqht trrc r.cliel .l reco'erv of posscssion of thc suit scl-red,rc proic 1ics. brsecr o^ oral gili (Hiba) pur':ro.tcd to ha'e gi'en in their rh, o,,* or1 20.03.2020. -l herefb.c. o.e ol- the esscntials or IIiba i.e ., crerivcrr .r possession is not cornplied with. thcreby. the Hiba dated 20.03.2020 b,rcornes invalici under thc Mohanr,ada^ larv and conscq,entll,, ,o .ighrs erc tr.arsf'cLred tcr plaintills iu resltcrct of the sr_rit scheclule propcrties. i0 Nou', thc aspect as to whether the sr-rit scekins .ire rericfi sousht fbr thc'rcin has bce. illed r*ithin the p.cscribecl pcr.rr,ci of rinritation, AS cn'isaged u.dcr rhe Lirnitation Act, 1963, has to be r1,..r,:1.,,,;,.,...,

31. The Lirnitation Act, i963, cor-rsolidates ancl aruends the Indian Lin'ritation Act, i908, with regard to lirnitation lbr fil ne of suits, appeals -a) LNA, J CRP. No.234 of2A24 and applications, and lor purposes connected therewith. The law of limitation contains the nrocedurzrl Ilulcs arrd docs not conler anv sr-rbstanlive right or defines an),calrse of action. but. sirnply plescribes that the lemcd,v can be exercised only Lrp to a ccltair-r period and not bcyond )- Thele is also another important principle r-rnder the Larv of Lirnitatiorr, which is crystallizcd in thc lbrm ol maxim lltaL "when once the time has hegtut to run. nothing stops it" -

33. Section 2O of thc Lirnitation AcL tleti-rcs the expression "period o/ limilatiort" as the peliod of lirnitation prcscribcd fbr any' suit, appea[ or' application b1, the Schedule and '7-z'csc ribetl pcriod' means the period of lin'ritation computed in accordancc rvith thc provisions of the said Act i4. Article-59 of tl.re Schedulc of the Lirnitation Act, 1963, prescribes the peliod of limitation fbr titing a suit lor cancellation olan instrument or decree or for rescission ol a contract. uftich reads as under: Description of suit Period limitation Time from which period begins to run k f.i€iT'-?Effi@L .,mr*&e.e8&E.i':.' :,.t X**'itS*; 24 -59. l'o clt,rcel or sei aside atr in strLrrnertt or clecrcc or lot- Lhe rescission ol a aontract. Thlee vtrars

1.N4, J CRP. Na.2.l1 of2024 rllltg the Whcn the tncts enLi plainLill- to have thc in Struncnt or riecree can c:e llecl or set asicli or thc cotrtracL rcscincled first rr:cornc knorvn to hirn i5. F'om the saicl z\rticrc-59, ir is disceLnible th:rr pcrioil o1'rirnitation lor hling a sr,rit fbr canccllation o. sctting aside of ii^ irrstrLL,rent or crccr.ue, is thrce vca.s 1l-om tl're daLe of kno*,lcdgc orthe saicr r)strurneur.

36. Articles 6'1 and 65 of trrc Limitation Ac1. 196r. cad as 1bilori.s Pcriod lirnitation 'f rvclvc yeals of Timc 1r-,rm rvh ich pcriod begins t,) run When the disposse .s ion. o1- I)cscription ol'suit posscsslon iurr,tor able basecl on

64. F-or' propcIt] prcvious possession iutc not on tiLle. n,lten thc plaintiff r,r,Jrile in possession of the nropell\, has tcen d isposscsseci. 1,1 25 LNA, ] CttP, No.2J4 ufZ0Z,l Tr elve years When the possession of the c1el-cndant becoutes adverse to the plaintill-

65. Iror possession irnmovable propefi\' or atly intercst therein lrascd ot'r title

37. F'orn a plain rcading of Articlc-64, it is clear that a suir fbr-reco'er.y ofpossession, bascd on previous possession and not based on tittc, should tre tlled ri,ithin a period ot' l2 year.s l}om the dare of clispossession. lE. Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 corresponds to Article 142 of tl-re Limitatio. Act, 1908, ivhich envisagcs that whe. possession is sought Ibr based on title, and where the possession of def-enda.t is adverse to the plaintitl. thc limitation fbr filing the suit is twelve yea.s liom rhe date ol such aclvcrse dispossession.

39. Advelting the aforesaid provisions of the Limitation Act to the present casc, it is to be seen that oncc the plaintitfs, claim over the suit scl'rcdule properties based on Hiba is negati',,ed, sincc the I{iba is invalid in the eye of [aw, necessarily, the case of the plaintills fall back to claim possession of the suit schedule propcrlies either based ou adverse 26 '&ii:.i ..{:: t.ti.1,I CRI). No.231 tI2A24 possession ol- thc delcnclants or on pfevlous posscss i,t r I 40 As 'cqa.cls trrc as,ccL of p.sscssion of trre suir schcdule propcrtics. tlrc plairtif 1.s irr thc praint Lrie,ser'es stated Lhar tire afbr.csaid thr.ee dauehters .1- i.he ori.' ir.l orvrcr'-ruroha, mecr Gouse \ i Khan. sr-rbsecluenl to theit' ntar,iaqes, have nto'ecl ouL of Hyderabad r.-d as, thcrc \vlts uo relati'e or raurily .nenrber to look after thc srril propcrrics, it rras 'car {allen prcf in thc hards o1- la,d grabbcrs. ivrro rranaq:cr ro ger the narne or. Ilarneed Khatoon dcleted in thc pahanies o1- the 1,ear.s I )7 1..12. l.e 4l Fronr thc ;rb.ve. it is evident tr-rat thc cronors o. ttre alreged Fliba. three dauqrtcrs o1- Mohamntird Gouse Ali K iran *,cr.e not in possessiou of thc suit scheclulc propcfties. Therel.ore ;.hc cprestion of the plaintifTs seckinc ol posscssion of the suit scheriulc pr.opcr.Lics l-ecovcfv bascd o^ thei. p'ei i.us possessio, does nor. ar.isc. L vcr.r in the contra positio,. i1- tl're piairtifts scek posscssio, of the strit s:hedr-rre proper.ties based on their pre'ious possession, the lirnitation for rring the sr-rit as per Articlc 6.1 of the Limitation Act is twelve years i.om thc date of disl.rossess ion. -t'hc plainritts cxcept stating that t,ie suit scr.redule proileftres *'el'c cncroachcd by the land grabbers, did rrot give the specilic 27 LNA,I CRP. Na.2:11af2024 date on i,i,hich they rvere so dispossessed florn the suit scheciule propcrties. in such an event, cven undet'Alticle 64 of the Lirnitation Act. the suit cannot be said to be filed rvithin the period of limiLation o1'ru,elve 1,ears 1r-orn thc date o I dispossession 42 Irnrthermorc, except making bald pleadings that the dct'er.rdants havc illcgally, encloachcd the suit schedulc properlies arrd got their names mutated in thc rovcnue lecords, the plaintills lailed to mentiou as to tl'om rvhich date tl're alleged possession ofthe delendants havc becorne adverse to the plaintiffs. 'fliis Court cannot [oss sight of the lact that in the plaint, the plaintiffs averred that the name of Hameed Khatoon appc:rred in the pahanies till the y'ear l91l-12 and thereafter, her name was clcleted and the narne ol Osman Ali Khan. who is son of the plotected ter-rant-Chand Khan, has been interpolated in the revenue rccords. Flom lhe afblesaid tacts, it is clcal that the possession of the defbndants becamc adverse to three darrghtcrs of the original orvner since the year-s 197 l-12. however, it scems that they, alter sleeping over their rights arrd having allou,cd utultiple transactions to take place in respecl of the subject properlies, alvoke alter a long period of nearly five decades b1, filing thc prescr.rt suit \ -() 1,NA J t.RP. No.234 al 2C24 for- rcco'crv ol possession. Hcnce. the suit filed r..,r. thc prairtiflt. e'e' bascd o. tlrc title of trreir prcdccess.r's, carnot bc s.rid to bc l cd r,r,ithi, thc lirnitatiorr periocl or- t*cr'e fiom date rvhc. trre possessi., of the 'e-a.s del'crdants [ras lre'co,re adrcrsc to the plairtill.s. Th:retbrc. thc suit fileci b1 the' plainti l-ls is no1 ri ithi, thc pe Liocl of lirnitatiorr as prescribed under Alticle 65 of rhe Linritation Act. 43' In vicu'of obscrvatio. ancr findings orthis c,rrt in the pr-ecedine par-as that thc plaintills ha'e crea[ed the illusion of crLuse of action. q,hich in lirct docs n.t c'rist- bv cre'cr d.afiing or the plaint ard hence, the same has to bc cu.bcd/cu.tailcd b1.'du11' r'e.ic-cting the prainr a.. the threshord, this couft holcls rhat rhe plaintifis ha'e faired to shorr rhat ,,right to sLLe,, accrued 10 thern 44' 'l'hc IIon'ble Suprenre court i, shakti Bhog f'ood Industries Ltrr. tts' Cenlrul Bnnk of InrriuT, obser'ed that tr'rc exprcs: i.r.r-"when the rigrrt to slle accrues" ,sed in Article l Ii of the Limitatro, Act, 1963, is ma.kedly disti^ct lrorn the erp.ession used in oth,:r- Articles in First Division ol the Schedure clearing rvith suits, r.r,hich unan-biguously ret-er. to 7(202r)) t7 Satc 26() w 29 LNA, J CRP. No.234 .12024 tlre happcning ola spccified event. Whereas Articie I i3, being a residuary clar-Lse. clocs not specily happening ol a particular event, but mcrely relers to the accr-ual oi cairse of action orr. the basis o1- u hich thc |ight to sue r,on[d accrue.

45. In thc inst;int case, the gencsis o1' cause of action arcrse aliel' exccution of sale cleed b_,- Halr]eed Khatoor-r in the year 1967 in favour of- osman Ali t(han and therealier, execution of sale dced by tl.re said osman ..\ti Khan in tar or-rr of delendant t'\o.2 in 1971 and also r'vhct.t thc name of Harnrrecl Khatoon rvas deietcd ti'om pahanies of the years 191 l-72 nd thc nar.ne o{'Ostntrn r\li Khan was incorporatcd therein'

16. Tirus, thc Light to sue by ureans of filing a suit arose alter execution of sale deed by Harneed Khatoon it1 the year 1967. The expression ''r,i ircu the right to sue accrucs" in Article 1 l3 of the Limitation Act nced not alrval,s mean "rvhen the right to sue first accrues"' For the right to suc to accrue, the right sought to be vindicated in the suit should have already come i[rto cxistence and there shouLd be an infringernent of it or at least a serious threat to ittllinge thc samc. '\ -it5:-:.1rl9a!i1i,*{.-,..- 30 LNA, J CRI). No.234 o[ ) 02,i 47 ' in the irr:tanr case, as observed supra, whe, n,r valici titre has been passed to the piaintills fio'rr thcir predecessors -i r-title. there is.o q,estion of tlreii ha'ing a Liglit to suc statiug their- r-irlrts in rcspcct of the said plopcrtit.s itle inliitrgecl or tjrerc is Lhreat to thc srrne. 4U. Furtlrcr. as regar.ds the entitlcr-ncnt ol tl.c plainlilfs to seek declaration oi' rcgislered salc deeds as null and voirl. it is appr.opriate to rcf'er to thc .iudernctrt or thc Fio.'blc- Suprc,re cot,r.r in [Jnta Devi rtrur. ollters versus ;lnurtd Kuntur antl otlterst rrherc n it is observed as hercunder " ln tlte ctrsc ttt lrurtd. partitiort look place tr.. I, ltack itt llte lear 1963. tlticlt i.y t'i,idert l).otn thc rer.,anLtc ..tcord entr.ie.y Tlrc sttit i.s /i.l.ed itt tltc tetu )0)-1. ie. rt.[ier ,t ocriod ti 5 j )teur.; ,t.to.tlrct.. ,rut^. tll /lt .lurnil.t, nter bct..s l,trcl ext:ct.tted regi.:teretl sole dcccls in thc yt:ar t r)7g. Thcst, .s;rl,:. t{ectl.r hctve been trt,,aclrccl, urul on lterustrl. it is observetl I'tt,l llrcse yvere in-fact rttgisteretL sole tleetls. A regi.sleretl clocttn;ent provitle.s a cornpielc (tccounl ol d lr(tn.tactiotl lo. t\) pdt.t)) intet.eslecl in tltc pratp,s r1-y '.

49. The categl.ical obscn,ations nradc b1, the Ilon ble Apex Court in I (2025) s'sCC 198 . ' '' . '' ']:']]: . -aa l,: J LNA, ] Cllt'. No.231 0J2021 Roj Narain Sarain (dead) through Lrs. And olhers Versus Locmi Devi anl olherse case are extracted as hetelrnder:- ".4.s rtolit'r'tl abote tha leurrrccl .single ludge of the Allahabad t !igh Court tltotryh clabortrtelt luid dowrt the requirentenl of Order' 7 Rtie I I tntl tlta true eJJbtt thcreof, but irt our t'ic.r, totalL.t, ntisreutl atul misultpliccl tlrc provision in the t'onlerluttl .fctcf.s. No expLtuttttiott v'hntsoever is ovailable in th.e pluint tts to tlrc .sittLulion trndcr v'hich the suit was.filecl o/ier abottt a lorrg periotl o.l J(.) vears. The knot'ledgc o.i thc deed ol'strle stonds d(:cePte(l ltl' reason o.f'the ctvermenls in the plaint itsel-f (t'irlc potct 9 of the plainr)."

50. T[re I{on'ble Suplcme Cour:t in Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt' Ltd. \zs. State of Harvana &Anrl0 in observed as under: 'Registt alion oJ- o clocuntenl gives rutlice lo the world that such a cloc:urnet lrus hcetl ereculed. Registration provicles sulety ottcl sacurin' k) lrun.\Ltction:; relating Lo immovahle pt'opert)'. even iJ'thc doctntent is losl or destroyed. It givcs pubLicitt, nntl public e\posLu'e to docurnents thcreby preventing forgeries and .fi au.ds in regard lo ttansactions and c\ecution of docuneut.v. Registratiort provides infornttrtion to peoJtle who ntay tleal wilh a property, as to \ , (2002) li scc 501 ro [2012)1SCC 656 -:..,.,"'$F:+r ari-: 'r l,' tr 5r,r -' I,NA,I ):l'I ol 20.1 Ctll'. ^0 lltc ,trrl,rrt' ttirl cit. tit rtl tltc ri,qltls l lticlt ltt r\ "rj /r?'/i /2r1\'1" uilt,, tit ,: llj(il !)t'()l)at !).. 5t. -I.lre lIon.[llc ,\llcx (.tlirrt i liltutri Ilolals I)r:yttlt l-ititite &,,lnr. LInion o! Ittdirt ,-&,1nrtt ll()tcd tllat *ltilc crlacLrlrI '\'ticlc -i8 oi'the l/s. Lintitation Act. : ltt' lcgislettrrc hacl tlcsigrlccllr llril(lc ir (lL'f rlrltlrL' lionr thc languagc of Article I l0 Ol'th,-. L.inlitttiorl Act, l90il I hc ('ou|t notcd that :rr)cl "ircclued" thr- tvorcl "fir'st" hls bect't tts..cl bL't\\ ccll thc ri otcls 'iLe Thc Court saicl ihal tllc slttllc rioltld tl.tclttl tlrlt 'r srrit i:; l.rascd ott nru[tip[e causcs ol actii.)|t. tltc Pcrio(l ot'liulitatiorr rr, tt tl llcqitl Ltl tttlt ll ont thc clatc nlten thc Light to strr' lltst iICCrllcd. Irl othcr' ,' or-ds. the CoLrrt held that successiyc-.. roiatiop ol-thc right noulcl trot qivc t:,c to liesh cause and the suit rvotr lc1 bc liablc to lrc disruisscd il it u as ['''] t''ttd the pcriod ol lirnitation coLrnted tionr tlte claY w hcn thc Iiglrt to stL,.' lrst ltccrttt'd 52 In this reqard. thc Horl,hle Sttl-lt.crlrc (.oLrrl. itr I)'ithool/s, Dltanruji]., at para 5 olthe iudg.nrcrrt hcltl as lirllou's "...... W"hcnt:tL'r'a tlot'trtncnl l.r rzgis/crt'ri 1111 1l7t't ttl (',qi\lt(tltotl becorne.s lhe rkrle ctl tlt'crnL'tl Litottlcdgt'. Irt ttllt'' ttts(t \!ltLr( o 11[2011) 9 g{t 126 1]AIR 2OOO SC 3 146 JJ LNA, ] CRP. No.234 of)021 Jact coulcl be discotcred b_t, duc diligence lhen deenrcd knon'lcdge itrsttltl be olLrihutetl to th.e pluintiff becattse a parn) conno/ be (tllovcd to a:-lcnd tire periotl o.i'lintitalion bv nterefi, cluinting thtrl lrc hud no knov,lcrlgc

53. Applying the la"r, Iaid dour.. in the a lbresairi .judgments to the instant case, it is to be noted that as the suit is based on lnuitiplc causes of' action, the period o1- limitation \^/orild begin to lun fiom the datc when the rigl'rt to sue llrst accrlrcd. In other rlolcls, '..he successir'e violation ol tire light would not givc rise to ll'csh carrsc and the suit would be liable to be dismissed if it rvas beyond the period of lirnitation courlted tiorn the day whcn the right to suc tlrst accrLrcd, i.c.. u'hen the t-rrst sale deed was executed irr the 1,eal 1967 arLd the subsequent sale deed in the ycar 1971 and furlhcr, dcletion of namc ol l'lanreed Khatoon fioni the pahanies of the years 1971-72 and r-nutating thc Lraurc of Osrnan Ali Khan, who is son ol the protected tcnant b1, nar-ne Chancl I(han, in levenue records of the vcar 1973-74.

54. in this context, it is also lclevant lo rct'er to the .iudgrnents of t[-re Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unru Devi's case (cited supra) and in Suraj Ltmp Industries Pvt Lttl's case (cited supra), u,hcrcin it is observed that 1 l+ LNA, I of2A24 CRP. ^a.:'31 registration provides complete infolrnation to thc pt ople u'ho nra), dcal with a properL),as to the natute aud ertent of thc light:; r'hich pctsons tnay hare, aflecting that propcrtl . In thc t.eth ol the s,rid .jLrdgnrcnts. IL Is evident that thou_qh thele are legistered salc deeds ol ll)c vears 20 l3 and 20 izi per-taining to the suit schedule properties. .,r hich ale in the knon'ledgc of'the plaintiffs and are staring at theln. lil(l r-c licis scckir-rg to dcclare the said rcgistcred sale deeds as null uncl void. rvithout establishing tlreir rights ovel the suiL scl'rcclulc propt:r'ries aud the predccessors-in -title of the ptaintifls. having slept o\ ..r' tirc lratter \\,ithout initiation of ar,y legal proceedit'rgs against the urutatioLr ol'larnc o1'Osrnan AIi Khan right 1r'om the years 1912-13 in thc pahanics. ancl altel so man) decadcs, through the plaintifls havc ventured to 1-lr: th: prcscnt suit, seeking to levive theil rights and the same is u,holly irnpcrrnissible in law

55. [n addition to the afore-urentionecl reasous for hrldinp Lhat. the suit is not maintainable under law and hence, the plaint i.-s I ablc to bc rcjected a[ the threshold, the principle of doctline of accluiest circc also applies to the instant case

56. The Hon'ble Supremo Court in Choirnrun, ,Stute Bunk of lrtdio & r1.tr{1!llLfl * : _- d 35 LNA, J CRP. No.234 of 2t)2 4 Anr, v. M.J. lamestr, lias elaborately Ciscussed the doctrine of acquiescence snd 6bscpvetl as hereunder "39. ...... Dot:lrittc tti ctcrltLieste tttc i.s cin eqrtriub!a doctrinc whiclt applies trircn a parh' lrut'ut'! ct riglll :;londs bv ond' sees dealing in o ttlctt'tlter incotlsiste t v rth tltut riglt' whiic the rtci is in progress ttnt! after thc violalitttt is contplcted. v'i''iclt contluct reJlects his assent ot'rtccord. ]lc cannot afiettt'artl" t:otnplain' In Literal sense, llrc lerm acquiescence meu,ts silcnl assent, tocit consent, concurren(te, or ucceptfi ce, x'hich denoles conduct thal is evidencc of on itttentiotl of u porty to obondort an equitable right und ttlso to denote t'ontlttcl from wltich another party will be iustifietl irr inferring sttclt otr i lentio't' Acquiescence can be eillrcr tlirecL x"itlt .litll kttort'lcclge und express approbation ctr indirecl v'lrcre tt per'son hra'ittg lite right to set asitle the action slands b)'anti 'sces anollrcr dealing in a ntanner inconsistent v,ith that rigli antl in spite of the infringement takes no action min oritlg ucc'('pldnce l kttvcver' acquiescence will not appLy i.f Lapse of tinte is of no iniportancc or consequence." The posiliott erpounclet{ us altot'e ccrtaittlt) request consicleraliott tt'itlt reJbrence to th( fit(ts of tltis r:a:;e' In that regard we wiLl hove to cttrt.citler whellrcr tln e v:tts acquiescence on part o.f the responclent attd if so, t'hether lultse of time, d any, is of' no importonce or conseqttence, v"ith reference to tlxe facluoL positiott' in victt oJ thc exTtttsilion 13 2021 Scc onLine1061 ) \ :..: a It t: i6 \i:, LNA J aRP. |ia.231 af 2i)2+ tltereunrler 'tlrut acquiescence vottkl nctt upplv y'',aosc oJ titne is oJ no irn.porlrutce or r:onscquence'. 57 Thc Doclrirt,: ol- Acqlicscence is rlLritc rlistilct fr.orn clelar. Acquiescencc virtualll, destl'oys the right ol thc pcr-son. Gir en the afbresaid legal position, indircct acquiesccnce on the part o1'plaintitfs can be i.I'erre d till the fili,g of the suit. and not for tl'rc lreriocl posr filinq ol- the suit. Ner.'erthcless, acquiescence bcing in the n:rl rirc of estopl_.,e] bar s pJrintilfs fionr clairning violation o1'the .ight of iair r -'l)rese uiati()r.

58. Intercstingly, suit is filed for declaratio, anci i:aLrcellatio, ol'salc deed bearing document No.3806/2017 dated 10.05.1r) 7 in respccr ol-'A schedule properly. sale decd bcari'g docuurertir.r.l 03112011 dated

02.04-2013 in respect of 'B' schedule proper11.. sale deed bcarinq docurnentNo.3 11712013 dated 09.07.2013 in rcsp.cL .r' 'c' schedule property, salc deed bearing document No. 471101-5 datcci 05.ll.l0t.l in rcspect of 'D' schedule properly and also for arnencl rent of pa.hanies for [he' 1'.ear 2019-2020 r.vhile showing 'cause of actio]r- as datc o1'erccution of above sale deeds. The plaintiffs have not sought lirr declar.ation ol salc decds bearing d.cumcnt No.125411967 dated 10.07 i967 ard sale deed 31 L,NA, ] CRP :\o.2.ll oJ2a24 bearirrg document No. 113/197i datcd 0i.03.r919 (sic 03.03 1971) u,hich are parcnt documents executeC in lur oLrr of cietet]dant No. I - Adlnittedl).. suit schedule propcrty uas alicnrteti tlrsti-t' in thc i,e'ar 1967 and subsequeutly, in thc year i971 anrl thosc rcgistercd salc de-eds arc not undcl challcnge in the prcseut suit. th,--r'rlbrc, eveu i1- sale dccd executed in lhvoul ol defendant No. I is declarcd as itull arrcl void. the parent docur-ncnts 1967 and l97l still renrain in oocration. [t appe'als that plaintilfs did not seel< for declaration ol' salc cleeds ol' the i cal i9(r7 and l97l as nLrll and void onlv bccausc ol lirnitation.

59. lt is perlinent to note thar suir is llled in the ycar' 2020, rvhich shows that in the interregnum periocl ol' rnorc thau 1lr c decades bctrveen the years 1967 and 2020, the plaintilts have allorved nrultiple tlansactions to take place in respect of the suit schedr.rlc propcrt\,, which renrailtcd unchallc'nged, therefbre, the doctrine ol'acquiesccnce scluarelr applies to the present case since plaintiffs havo sought to cleclale the sale deed executed in f-avour of defendant No. I as nLrlI and r.oid, ri'ithout secking the leliet of declaration of earlier sale deccls rvl.rich q,cre exccuted ir-r t967 and 1979 as null and void. This aspect shor'r,s the conduct ot'the plaintifli, and FF<i' =gE i:,,. 38 I,NA,I CRP \') 2.t I t,[ 2t 2 | tlrut lLpart. lirr th: foregoine. rcasons, this ('ou11 holcis lh:rt tire suit lilcd b1 nl.rrntilG is 'rrisconceived and is clcarlv ban'cd h. Irrrrrtation rnrl th,,' pl.rintilts. Ira, ing slept ovcr thc matter lbr decadcs i()rctlref ancl tirrthcr. hrrr ing allorrcd multiple transactions to takc plat.. ,rrc ntlt entitlccl tir al)ploach thc ('ouL1 and seek thc reliels sought lbl in .l-c suiL (r(). Perusai o1- iurpugned clrder r.vould disclose thrrt lhc tliirl ('ourt crcept obscr'..in,- that thc issLre of Iirnitation is a n'i icd (lLrestion ol la\\ ancl lact anrl ilrat the saicl issr-re can be dccided on[1 r,l.cr lLrll-l1cclged triai. Iailed to assiqn an) prollcr rcason fbr disrnissing tlrl agrplication lilccl by clcitr.rdant Nt,. I seeking to lc.iect thc plaint.

61. Fufther. in vicu, ol' the fbregoing lcasons tliscussion ancl thc lrnclings lecor'<lcd in tlrc pleceding paras, by tlLrlr lbllou inLl the raLioi prir-rciplc laid dorvn by the Hon'ble Suplerne ('.rLrlL i:r thc jtulgnrcuts. u hich ale citcd suprzr, this Courl holds that tlic tlitl C'ourt thilccl to scrutinize Lhr avennents in thc plaint in conjunctiorr s'itlr thc cloctu.ttcnts rclrcd upon 1r., hc plaintilli in a right pcrspective in ortlcr to deternrittc as to rvhether tlrc plaint discloscs cause of action and rr hcLhcl the sr-rit is lllecl u ithin linritrrtion or barrcd b1' limitation. The tr'rul ('or-r11 has qr()ss 39 I,NA, J LRP. Nl.234 oJ 2t)'14 misdirected itself in holding rhat tlre ratio laid dor,,,n by rhe Hon,ble Suprcnre Courl in Dthiben Vs. Arvintlbhai Rai ytntji Bhansului (Grjro) (dud) through LRs and olhersta is nol. applicable to thc instant case, Furlhermore, a pelusal of impugned ordcl shor^,s that the trial cour.t has failed to advcft to thc provisions of the Lir-nitation Act 'is-a-r,is thc factual rratrix ol the case as put forth by thc plaintifl.s in the plaint and grossll. erled in holding that the suit is filed u,irhin the pcriod of limitation.

61. As regards the disclosure of cause ol acLion in the plaint, this Courr. i. the pi-eceding paras has elaborately discusscd thc saicr issue a,d alier analyzing the same and following the ratio decidcncli of the Hon'blc Suprerne courl in the judgrnents citecl sup.a. hetd that plairt does not disclose cause of action and therefore, tl'rc sham and bogus litigation shall not be alloweci to continue and an end sl'rall be put to it. I lcnce, this court holds that the trial courl faited to prope.ly appreciate rhc lacts of thc case \ ard cornrnitted error in holding that the plaintitt.s havc shorvn the cause of action to bring the suit within the limitation. '1 [2020) 7 SCC 366 l. 40 LN 4, l Ct?t'. No.2:31o12021 6i l, '' ie*' of the above discussion and the i'l ct.al rnatrix or. the case. tl-ris cloLrrr is ol the corsidered opirio, that ure.c cle'er crrariing of trre plairrt c'e.rire an illusio. or cause or aclion, rvhich in fact doc.s r.rot exist docs rot i c'i'e rhe stale crairn of the pJaintiffs ,nl lurrher, rLs Lrre suir is clcarlv ba.rerl by rirnitatior, as lrerd supra, the prairrtift! arc ,or entitlcd ro seek tl'rc rclicl.s soLrgrrt fbr in the suit ar-rd the samc is liable to bc rc.icctr-d 64 Resr-rlra,tlr'. this I{* isio, petition is arlrxred. sctring asido rhe oldcr datccl 2i.11.1022 passed in LA.No.429 ot 102 I in OS.No.202 ol 1022 on thc ftle ol the principal Senior Civil .Jr.rdgc, Ibrahimpatnanr. Ilanga Ileddl District a,d consequently, I.A.No.429 of 20l r stand:r r llon'cd. Nlisccllancous petitions pending, if any, sLall stanrl closcd. No b) c osts Sd/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASISISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble Sri Justice (For His Lordship ki nd Perusal) SECTION OFFICER arityana Alishetty To, I[: ,1:fl,"J_.8:fi1"",

1. The Principal Senior Civit Judge at lbrahimpatnam, R.R Distrjct. 2. '1 1 LR Copies . Union of tndia Ministry of Law, Justice and company 4 The secretary, Advocates Association Library, Hioh court for the State of _ Telangana. iiigh Court Buildings ut ffvO-uiuUjO.''" ' 3 SlE 33 [ SElJffiYg]^ro n'ssbcrniES Advocate ropucl 7. rwo cD copies I IVIIRZA Advocate toPUCl &- Se.=:-:-. i::.:: *****&ii&*{d**.**.*,n'-r}--*- . t: : I I i HIGH COURT DATED:17rcW2025 a ,l 'i i, ) t\ .-r:\1 ' \ ORDER CRP.No.234 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRP 4 '\ '}) 'i- ,,, ,t/ N^A\ 0 4 r,l0l/ zlE ( +

6. t oes f,ATCHr.q *