pgyV^q]afraQfakar v. 1. Aggeti Kamalamma

brothers-in-law, and one Mr. A. Satish and Mr. A. Pratap approached Mogli and demandcd rcpaymcnt ol' thc entirc sum due, which, inclusivc of intcrest. amountcd to Rs.9().-14,000/-. Late Mogli, citing financial difficulty, agreed to scttle the liabiliry'at Rs.75,00,000/-. As hc was unablc to discharge even thc said amount, he conscnted to execute a salc deed in t'avour of the petitioner in rcspect of a plot admeasuring 847.00 square yards (equivalent to 708.177 square metres) in Survct'No.568. Shayampct Jagir. Hanamkonda Mandal and District. ln contlrmation of his agrcement to cxecutc thl said sale dced. tt.l ( Rl'\f llllr, o lrli Latc Mogli had handed over thc original ; Ie dced dated '2009 and had

19.0(r.2tX)9 registered as document No.3794 'r pronrised to exccutc and register the sale dced n farour ol'the pctitioncr u ithin trvo or three months Iiom Au'l rst- 2024- On 18.10.2024. Latc Mogli died due to hcar attack leaving bchind thc tlelcndant Nos. I to 5 as legal hei: . Subsequentl1. thc petitioner has approached the defendan -: and requested thcnr to c\ecutc the sale deed. Initially. thel Lgreed and later thc\ arc tn'ing to alienate the property whrt I the petitioner canrc t() knorv on 30.12.2024. llence, th: Plaintiff has apprtrachcd the trial Court to seek for the r:lief of spccific perlirrnrarrcc to oxecutc and rcgister the said s I c deed. tnitially thr: Court has returned the Plaint u il r thc lollowing -5 objcctions on 07.0 I .2025 : Legal noticcs to the legal heirs of the deceaset )orrower arc nof girren. l l;xplain horr this suit is maintainable for spec lic perlbrmance rvhcn therc is no contract between the parties. All thc l)romisson, notcs and Ankadas are titnc I arrecl debts. ;l ) tt.J CRP No 2l8i ol20li iv. No written acknowledgement is made for the amounrs as menLioned in Para No. 7 of the Plaint

6. On 22.01.2025, the counsel for the plaintilT resubmined rhe plainr u ith thc lollowing cxplanations: i. Issuance of lcgal notice is not mandatory. Howevcr, the plaintifT in the presence of thc said Pratap and Satish approachcd the dcf'endants. (Affidavirs filed) ii. 1'he promise made by the deceased is oral onc. Hcncc. the suit on oral agreement is maintainable. iii. Promissory notes are lrled to show thc passing of considcration and thc suit is not lor recovery of moncy. They prove the receipt of consideration. iv. The acknowledgment is made orall1 by the deccased, rvhich is provcd by the affidavits of A.Prathap and Sri.A Satish.

7. fhe trial Court has rejected the plaint on thc following grounds: i. Petitioner has fited the documents i.e. Promissory notcs of vears 201 6 and 2017 . 'l'hercfore. the claims made under thosc documcnts are barred by limitation. ii. 'lhc petitioner contcnded thal late Mogli executed an acknowlcdgment of dcbt on 01.09.2019 and undcrtook to 6 l.l I ( l'.1) No I lsi oll02i cxecutc GI'A to an cxtent of 1000 squitr : yards. livcrl considcring that acknowledgement also, the c I im made by the I'lainrilT is hcy'ond three years t. 'l'he pctitioncr did not mention the date whr:r thc Mogli has handcd or cr thc rcgistcred sale decd and l) rccelpts werc obtaincd to that c['l'cct l\l I'etitioncr did not issue a legal notice to trr legal heirs ol' Mogli demanding them to execute the sale dc: I Oral agrccmcnt betucen tu'o living persons ca r be adjudicated uncler thc contract Act- Ilut it is an establisted rule that thc of'ter comcs to an end on the dcath ol the oli :ree. because an ofler can bc acceptcd only by the offerec Lnd not by any person. It cannot be acccpted by the tegal hci 'l ofthe ofl'erec.

8. t akins into cousideration thc total facts and cir: Lmstances of thc casc, docurncnts and plaint. lcamcd trial Court has rcj :ctcd thc Plaint opinin-e that thc prescnt plaint is clcarlr barrcd by Order- /II Ilulc - ll (a) and (d). For thc albrcsaid rcasons. thc trial Court has rti:ctetl the suit on

18.02.2025 in lintini as thcrc is no causc olaction and th: suit is baned bv limitation. 7 Kt...l CRPNo llSi oI20li

9. Aggricved by the ordcr passed by the trial Court' the petitioner has fited the present Civit Revision Petition on the following grounds: i. 'l'hc trial Court failed to propcrly appreciatc the dillercnce bctrvcen the l'laint not disclosing the cause o[ action and where there is no cause of action' l'hc trial Court errcd by delving into the merits of the suit ii. which cannot bc considercd at the thrcshold' iii. -lrial Court has mandated notice before thc institution of the su it which is incorrect' iv. l'rial Court has held that Agreement of sale which is oral is not binding on the legal hcirs of the Promisor/Olferer to exccute a rcgisterc<l salc deed, which is incorrect' lhe triat Court went wrong in dcciding that therc lies no v. cnfbrccablc right to thc petitionir which can be determined onl1" alier completion of the trial' vi.TrialCourtiailcdtoconsiderthesettlcdloga[positionthata plaint cannot be rcjected mercly beoause the Plaintiff is not entitled to anY rclieL vii.,I.rialCourthascommittedanellorbyholdingthatthe uuavailabilit.v of relief in the suit cannot be a eround lbr the 8 KI.J CRIr\"o ?t 85 oi 20t5 rc.icction fbr thc l)laint at the thresholcl vvhic r is bcyond the scope under Order - VII Rule - I I C.p.C. Trial (lout ought to havc appreciated thc Lct that an oral agrcement ol salc is pcrmissible as in the inst rnl_ case and the documents acknou,lcd_eing the rcceipt of , trious amounts frorn the pctitioncr should have becn consider: I lx. Thc trial Court also lailt:d to conceive the facl -rat Iimitation is a mixed question of Ihct and larv and the sam: is to bc applicd in lhe prcsent case and the suit cannot be rejt:r ted at the srage of rcgistration. x Thc trial Court laited to apprcciatc thc lact thrr law confers on every pcrson an inhcrcnt rreht to bring a sLLi at onc's pcril regardlcss. horv fiivolous thc claim may bc un css it is barred b), a statutc.

10. Mr. (l.A.li.. Shcshagiri Rao, lcamcd counsel lc. thc peritioner madc his submissions cxtensivch.and also placcd reliancc n the principle laid down in Chandan Khandcwal v. C. Ramakr.i ;hna Reddyr; Mohammed Nadeem Ullah Khan v. Mohammed Akber Ali2: M/s. Sri Surva Granites v. G. Venkateswarlur: Abdul Gafrr. v. State of 202{ (2) Al.l) 840 ( r s ) 202:l (4) ALD 736 ( rs) 201:l (5) At-t) 584 (^p) I l 9 KL.J (lRP No 2185 of2025 Uttarakhand{; Rasumalla Yellaiah v. Chief Commissioner, Land & Administration, Hyderabads; Sri Laxmi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. G.V. Mohan6 and Thanamki Prasad v. Guntamadugu PuliammaT. I l. As discussed supra. thc petitioner has filed the aforesaid suit for specific perfbrmance. dirccting thc defendants to execute register sale deed with dotivcry ol'possession in his tavour or in the alternative pass a dccrcc lor rccovery ol Rs.75.00.000/- against the def'endants towards damagcs lor breach of contract.

12. It is thc spccitic contcntion ol'the petitioners that the trial Court had gone into mcrirs olthe suit rvhich cannot be considered at thc thrcshold i.e. at S.R. Stagc.

13. It is apt to notc that Order - Vll Rule - II of CPC deals with 'rejection ol plaint' on the lbllos ing grounds: " l l. Rajeuion 0f plaint. fhe plaint shall hc rcicctcd in thc lbllo\\'ing cases- (a) rrhcrc it dots not rlisclrrse a cause ofaction (lu{)E) lrr 5y q7 t007 r5 L^l I l15 2006(l)At.l)m7 2005 ({)-q.L I ll9 l0 _.1 C(l'No:llii,,ll0li (b) uhcre thc rclicl claimcd is undcn'alued, and thc pla ntiff. on being required hr the (lourt k) corrcct thc valuatiolr \ itllin a timc 1rl bc lircd b1 the ( ourr. lails to do so- (c) uherc the rcliefclainred is properlr valuctl- bttt th,r rlaint is retLrmcd upon paper insullicientll stampcd- lr plaintill- on bcing required b\ the ('oLrrt to supl,l the requisite slarrp-paPcr rrilhin a tinrL'to hc lircd by' tlrr r'ottl.t. fails to do so: (d) uhcrc thc suit appear\ lionr lhc slalctttenl in thc fl irrt k) bc barrcd b1 anr larr': Providod that the time fixcd b} the ('ourt lirr the co r rctiolt ol'the vrluation or suppllinl ol thc recluistte stltnr pitper shall not be c\tended unlcs\ tltc (otrn. ti,r Teii\('rr. t() be rccordcd. is satisficd that the plarntifl \ras prlenlcd lt rtnr catrsc ol'an erceptional nature tirrrn eorrcetirtg thc r,rl talion or srrpphing the rcquisitc starnp paper. a\ thc citrc rr r\ be- uithin the tinrc fixcd b\ the C()urt anrl that relusal t( \tcnd srrch tinrc u'ould carrsc uravc iniusticr: to thc plaintill.

14. It is settled law that the trial Court can e,. rrcise the power under Ordcr - VII Rulc - I I o[ Ct'C at an] stagc of th r suit cven bclore registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the dcl-' Idant at any time belbre conclusion of trial. Power undcr thc said provisio r can bc cxercised both at threshold of thc proceedings. and in abscncc .)l' anv statutory restriction. at an) stage ol the subsequent l)roce r,ings. Howcver, preliminary ohjcction should bc raiscd at thc earlisst. Ihc said principle :_"'1::--- KI-,J CRI' No 2165 of202i was also laid down in Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of Indias' In paragraph No.18 of the said judgmcnt. the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as lollows: "18. ln Samar ,\inghv. Kcdar Nath [1987 Supp SCC 6631 this Coun while dealing with an election petition has hcld that thc porrcr to sutnmarily reject conferred by Ordcr 7 Rulc I I ol'thc ( odc ot'Civil I'rocedure can be cxercised at the thrcshold of thc procccdings and is also available, in the absertcc of an1 restrictiorl statutorily placed, to lre ercrcisetl at an] stagc of subsequent proceedings. llorrcver- the Court has also emphasised the need ol' raising a prelin.rinary objcction as to maintainabilitl as carlr as possible though the pou'er of the Court to considcr thc samc at a subscquent stage is not taken arvaY."

15. It is apt to notc that trial Court has power to rcjcct the plaint suo molu at an)' stage. 'lhe said po*'er, though legally permissible judicialty recognized. is to be exercised u'ith caution and only in the cases wherc the dcfect is patent. incurable and discemable from the plaint itself u,ithout requiring anl,enquin into the disputcd f-aots. The trial court is not only cmpoyiercd but is also under a dury' to consider the applicability of *. (uooi) t s(:t' I l-; ,--*t^-7 Kl r ( RP \o I llr: L)lloli -7 Order - VII Rule - 11 of CPC at the threshold stagc. ir :iudurg prior to registral.ion or numbering ol thc ptaint and cven bc i rc issuance of summons to the delcndant. I6. In M/s. Patil Automation Private Limit d r'. Rakhcja Engineers Private Limitede. the Apcx Court in pararra.r r No.68 held as lb llows:- ''68. On a consideration ol tho schcmc ol thc Ordr r ; IV V and VII of the Code of Civil pror:edure. rve lr i ,c at thc lollorving conclusions: (A) A suit is commenced by prescntatron o('l I ainr. Thc datc of the presentation in terms of Scction :(l)ol' thc Limitation Act is the date ol presentatiot) Ir thc purpose of the said Act. By virluc of Order I\ l ulc l(3). inslitution of the plaint. however. is comple r ,. onlr .,vhcn thc plaint is in conlormity with thc rcquircn t rr ol' Order VI and Ordcr Vll. (B) When the Court decides the question as to 1\ i c ()l sumrnons Undcr Order V Rule l- rvhat thc Corrr nust consider is whether a suit has bccn duly instituterl. (C) Ordcr VII Rule lI does not providi that the ( ,r Lrt is to discharge its duty ol'rejecting the plaint onl-r t I urr application. Ordcr VII Rule ll is. in lact. silenr r:rour any such requircment. Since summon is to be issuL. in .r dulr- instituted suit, in a casc where the plaint is tr rrctl Under Order VII Rule l1(d), thc stage begins r I rhar '. ntR lo22 sc lE+t I t3 KI.J Ct(f No 2lE5 ot2025 time when the Court can rcjcot the plaint Under Order VII Rule I l. No doubt it u'ould takc a clear casc q'herc the Court is satislied. 'l hc (lourt has to hear the Plaintill belorc it invokcs its powcr bcsides giving roasons Undcr Order VII Rule 12. [n a clcar case. uherc on allegations in the suit, it is lound that thc suit is barrcd by any [aw, as would be the case. where thc Plaintilf in a suit under thc Act does not plead circumstances to takc his case out of thc rcquiremcnt ol' Section llA- thc plaint should bc rejectcd without issuing sunllnons. lIndoubtcdly, on issuing summons it rvill bc alriays open to the Defendant lo makc an applicalion as rrell [Jndcr Ordcr VII Rule I L ln other r.rords. the pos'cr lJnder Order Vll Rulc ll is availablc to tlie C'our1 to be exerciscd suo motu. (See in this rcgard, the -iudgmcnt of this Court in Madiraju Vcnkata Ramana Ra-iu (supra)."

17. In lVladiraju Venkata Ramana Raju v. Peddireddigari Ramachandra Reddy'o the Apcs Crrurl itt paraq.raph No.24 held as lollows: "24. Ordinarily. an application lbr r-c'iection of clection petition in Iimini. purportcdly undcr Order 7 Rulc I I lor non-disclosure ol'cause ol'action. ought ttl procced at the threshold. lor, it has to bc considercd onll' on thc basis ol institutior.ral dclccts in the clection pctition in refercnce to thc grounds specilicd iu clauscs (a) to (f) ol Rule ll. Indecd, non-disclosurc ol'cause of action is covcrcd b)'clausc (a) thcrcin. Concecledly. Order 7 CPC '0. (uotti) t.t/scc t t.l Kl l ( RP {o I l8: ol l()15 gcneralh, deals with the institution ol' a plai t. Il dclinerrtes the rcquirements rcgarding the particLrl rs to bc contained in thc plaint. relief to be speciticalll s atcd. lor rclrcf to bc founded on separate grounds. po: rdurc on adrnifting plaint. and includes rotum ol'plair t lhc rejection of'plaint lbllo,'vs thc proccdure on adrr rting plainl or evcn bclirre admitting the same. il'the ( ,r rt on plcseutation of thc plaint is of the vicw that thr. tamc does not fulfill the statutory and instir.r ional requirements relerred to in clauses (a) to (l) ol'R r e I l. 'fhe po*'cr bestowed in the Court in temts o1- Il r c I l ma1 lso bc exercised by the Court on a Lrn)al application moved by the delcndant aller Ircing .:r-r,etl rvith thc summons to appear bofbre the Court. llc i rat us it rnav. thc application under Order 7 Rulc 1 [ cir.: :rvcs consideration at the threshold_ (emphasis sultplictl)

18. 'ln Selvaraj v. Koodankulan Nuclear Pov er Plant India Limitedrr the Apcx Court in paragraph No.29 hcld as foll:r,r.s.- "29. lir sum up, the Court may rejcct the plaint I elirrc nunrbering and entering it in the Rcgister ol'SLr rs. it' fiom a reading ol the plaint. it is seen that thc : uit is barred hy any law. or if it sullers from any pror.r jupxl inflrmih. adumbrated supra. 'l'he Court. at thal ,tage. cannot and is not cxpected to conduct a roving , r quirr into thc merits of the matter by testing the correct t:ss ol' the p laint-averments even prior to its insr tr rtion_ (emphasis supplicd)" {201I,,1 Cl('-5-i! s(-C Onl,inc l\1ad 25 t4 5 KI-,J CRI'No 2185 of2025 t- .

19. In Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusalir2, the Apex Court held that the power conferred on the trial Coun under Order - VII Rule - I I of CPC, to terminate a civil action is. howevcr. a drastic one. and the conditions enumerated in Order - Vll Rulc - I I of CPC are requircd to be strictty adhered to. [n exercise of power undcr the said proviso, the Court would determinc if the assertions madc in the plaint arc contrary to statutory taw, or juridicat dicta, ltrr dcciding whcthcr a case lbr rcjccting thc plaint at the threshold is madc out.

20. Thus. the Apex Court consistently' hcld that the power under Order - VII Rule - I I ol CPC can be exerciscd suo-ntottt evcn bclbrc surnmons arc issued or thc plaint is registered, prol ided the defcct is evident fiom the ptaint itsell-. 'l'he aim is to prcvcnt misuse of .iudicial time and protect defendants lrom fiivolous litigation. l'herelbre. rvhile the power is broad, it must be used with carc. Only incurable dcl'ccts. those that are patent and jurisdictional .iustiti rcjcclion. ['rocedural lapscs likc undcrvaluation or deficient Court f'ee ma1' be rectificd. But wherc the plaint discloses no cause of action or is barrcd by statuts. the Court is dury bound to reject it. r'. 2o206at onr-ine s(-- )62 t6 I.I.J ( Rl No I llti or lali

21. In Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jagbir. Sawhanyrr. the Calcutta IIigh Court held that Code of Civil procedure i; not cxhaustive and does no1 crprcssll providc a remcdv lor cvery evrr tualtt1,. [n cases whcre thc circuntstances so warrant and necessities of r stice so rcquire. the Clourt is entitlcd to act upon thc assumption of pr:;cssing inhcrent powcrto acLex debiro justitiae so as to do real and substarr ial.iustice.

22.. In Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners and pan i :s. Vessel M.V. Fortune Exprcsst{, the said principle was uphcld by the.,r rer Cou11.

23. [n Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumarrs, the Apex C<,1 r held that rhorc is arr inhcrcnt rieht in cvcr\ person to bring suit ofa civil r ature and unlcss the suit is harrcd b'statutc. one may. at one,s peril to hr re a suit ol .ne's choicc. It is n. ansrvcrs to a suit howsoever frivolous tr: claim. that the laq' conf'ers no such right to sue. A suit fbr its maintairr I ilitv rr:quires no authorit\ ol'las and it is enough lhat no statute bars the sr i .

21. In Abdul Gafurr, the Apex Court held that tht \pcx Court hcld that rulc ol- plcadi,gs postulate that a plaint must contr i r rrar.erial lacts. whcn the plainr read as a whole does not disclosc materir I lacts giving risc to a cause of action which can be entertained by a Civil louft, it may be rejected in terms ol'(lrdcr - VII, Itule - I I of the Code. S rrilarl_v. a plca ol t. AIR t9l I ( ''. ltt0r, s( ( i too i. (r97J) I S(.C -.t91 670 "1. t7 KL.J ( RP No 2lll5 ol:025 'l bar to jurisdiction of a civil cou( has to be considcred having regard to the contentions raised in the ptaint. For the said purpose, avcrmcnts disclosing cause ofaction and the reliefs sought for thercin must be considered in their entirefy and the court would not be justified in dctermining the qucstion, one way or the other, only having regard to the relieti claimed de hors the l-actual averments madc in the plaint.

25. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satypalr6. thc Apcx Court held that il on a meaningful, not formal reading ol the plaint. it is manif'estly Vexatious, and mcritless, in the sense ol'not disclosing a clear right to sue. the Court should exercise its powcr - undcr thc said provision And il clever drafting has created an illusion of a oause ol action. it should be nippcd in thc bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under order - X of cPC. Nonethclcss, the fact remains that thc suit has to be disposed of either by the High court or by the courts subordinate to it in a meaninglul manner as per thc procedure prcscribed in the Code and not on one's own whims.

26. In R. Ramjibhai Dhyabhai v. Narottamdas LallubhairT, the Apex Court held that when the right to sue accrues is aqain a qucstion ol fact, thesc questions of fact shall have to be decidcd not bl mcrc glance at ' I1977) r 5(d {o7 - a1p lrd st t'rt: KI I ( lt,' \o I lSi (jl ll )li the averments made in thc plaint but on evidence adducet. rn either sidc. In such cases the plea of limitation becomes a mixed qucstit,r of law and l'act. unless on an examination of thc averments madc in the r aint ox lacie the suit is barred bv limitation, the ptaintiff cannot be r r,_suited at thc thrcshold u ilhout crrnducting an enquiry.

27. In Sri [.axmi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.6. erstwhile High court ol A^dhra Pradcsh at Hyderabad on consider tion .f principle laid down h1 thc Apcx Court and High Courts held in pr r rgraph No. l.r as "15. Ihc cventual conspcctus from a concatcna irn of the.judgrncnts rc f'crrcd to hercinabove shows thus \\ hcthcr a plaint discloses a cause of action or n r is cs\ent;all\ a qucstion o1' lact. In order to decide he qucs[ion as k) whether the plaint shall be relec ciJ rurrdcr clauses (a) and (d) ol. Ordcr 7, Rule I I ol hc ( Lrdc. thc averments rnade inter alia in the plaint I rd thc docurnents annexcd thcrcwith iIany alone sha I bc takcn into consideration. Thc plca takcn in thc wr t jn statcmcnt and the probable defence ivhich he d(li'rrdanr mighl raisc ,'n mcrils are no( germirrrL i\r consrdcrarion. In the process. thc plaint in its cnrir ry rnust bc considcred to be corrcct. The test is a, to \hether il thc averments in the plaint are takerr as corrcct in cntirctv, a dccree could bc passed. So lon_c as thc claim as madc in the plaint discloses some cause ol. aclion or raises somc questions fit to be decided Ir. a JLrdtlc. thc merc lact that the case is vague and is r ol t9 KI ,J CRP No I l3i ol:015 $- likely to succeed, is no ground lor striking it out l'hc Courr shall not enter upon a trial of thc issucs affecling the mcrits of the claim madc inter alia in the plaint' 'l'he purported failure of thc pleadings to disclosc a cause of action is distinct from thc absence o[ lull parliculars. I'he contentions issues which shalI havc to be decided on the evidence adduccd on cither sidc cannot be decided at the threshold for rejccting the plaint or not, unless on the allcgations madc in the plaint itself the Court can arrive at a colrclusion thal the suit is clcarly baned by any law. be it a qucslion ol'a limitation or any other question. A distinction shall bc drawn between a case where the plaint itsclf does not disclose a cause of action and a case where alter considcring the entire malcrial on record a conclusion can be arrived at that there is no cause of action- [l'thc plaint is asked to be rejected at thc thrcshold' the former case is germane, but not the latter' l-he Court can exercise the power to reject the plaint at an) statse of the suit. The Court should guard itself lrom any camou0age or trick in the pleading sought to be made so as to create a cause olaction. Where the litigation is uttcrly vcxatious and abuse of the process ol'the Court' can hc yet another ground to re.iect thc plaint "

28. [n paragraph No.4l of the said judgment' it was held that il the suit on thc face ol it appears to be frivolous' the plaint can bc rejccted or not albcit it is not one of the grounds enjoincd under Rule - 1'l ol Ordcr - VII of tlro Code. Frivotity is again a ground which rcquires a detailcd enquiry unlcss it is a case wherc liivolitv is u'rit large on the lace ol'thc 20 K1,,J CRP No 2lEt of202i averrnents nlade intcr alia in the plaint, on that ground tht rlaint cannot be rejected at the thrcshold.

29. 'l'he scopc of enquiry in an application filed urr lcr Order - VII. Rulc - I I ol'thc C'odc seeking rc'jcction of thc plaint is inrl, cd limited. 'l'he Court cannot go bc1'ond the fbur comers of thc plaint antl ii e dooumcnLs. if any, annexed therew ith.

30. In Ragam Yellaiah v. Chinta Shankaraialrr, thc erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradcsh at I [l,dcrabad held that scr c .al othcr lactual aspccts are also to hc gone into while deciding a questi()l rf larv involved incidentally. the rejcction of the plaint at the threshold carr ot be sustained. All these aspects to be gonc into. at the time of regular tril .

31. In thc light of thc alorcsaid principlc. comins r. the Iacts ol'the casc on hand. as discusscd abovc. thc petitioncr filed ttr aforesaid suit seeking spccific pcrlbrmancc dirccting thc dcf'er,dants o cxecutc and registcr sale deeds uith deliverv of possession in his irour or in the altemativc to pass a dccrcc fbr rccovery ol Rs.75.00 lr fis against the defendants towards damascs lor breach of contract. Hc ias specificallv pleaded that he has paid money to late Mogli, husband rr d larher ol'rhe respondents rcspectiYelv, he conscnted to execute and reeil ler sale dccd in 2(O l (-i),\[.I .l ()r 2l KI ,J CRP N-o 2185 oll(r2i l'avour of the petitioner in respect o[ open plot admeasuring 847 square yards in Survey No.568, situated at Shayampet jagir, I lanumakonda Mandal and District and that he has handed over the original rcgistered sale deed bcaring document No.3794 of 2009, dated 19.06.2009 to thc pctitioner with a promise to execute and register a sale deed within frvo or three months. 'l'he pctitioncr has also specifically pleaded that alier the death of Mogli. hc approached the defendants, his legal heirs. lnitially. they agrced and latcr they arc trying to alienate the said land to third parties.

32. 'fhus. the agrccment is oral. The said Mogli receivcd the albresaid payments. Ever since the date of handing over thc afbresaid rcgistered salc deed of thc said Mogli, the petitioner is in possession of the said sale dccd as purchaser of thc aloresaid plot. 'fhcre is specific assertion to the said lact in paragraph No.7 of the plaint.

33. l hc trial Court retumcd the plaint, mainlv on the grounds: (i) the petitioner Iailed to issue notices to thc legal heirs of the deceased dcmanding execution and registration of sale deed to perlorm contract; ii) thcre is no contract bctween thc parties; and iii) all the promissory notcs Ankados arc timc barrcd debts and iv) no written acknowledgment is made fbr thc amounts rcceived by the said Mogli. ,, ).2 I\I,.J ( Rl) No I ll35 oll025

34. tn thc light ol'the abovc. it is apt to note that ()rir agrecment is a valid agreement. Whether there is an oral agreement hct veen thc Mogli and the petitioncr with rcgard to salo of thc alorcsaid plor i a triablc issue. According to thc petitioner. late Mogli during his lile tintt randed over the original registcrcd sale dced in respect of thc sub.iect prop( r v to him with a promise to cxcoute salc deed within two or three montl i lrom August,

2024. He has llled the said original sale decd along with laint. The said document is mentioncd in the list ol'documents. He has rri ;o liled original promissory notc/Ankada and original acknowledgment tlr bt cxssulgd 6, late Mogli.

35. tn llrig Mohan v. Sugra Begumt', th. Ap,, Court held as follorvs: ..'l'hcre is no rcquirement ol larv that an agrocnrc ll or contract of salc ol' imntovablc properry. should o I ;.' be in r.vriting. Hou,cver. in a casc rvherc thc p[aintitt: onre lbnv:rrd to seek a dccrec frx- spcci[ic porlbrrnan, e ol' contract ol' salc ol immovablc property on the bir: is ol' an oral agreenrcnt alonc. hcavy burden lics or the plaintillis to prove that therc was consensus aiL.dcm bet$,een the parties lbr a concludcd oral agrecm..r t lor salc of immovatrle propc(y.. Whether thcre was ; ch a concluded oral contract or not would bc a quesli, n o1' lact to be dctcrrnincd in the lacts and circumstarc:s o1' ,, (t990),t SCC t+Z 23 KL.J CRP No 2l8i of202i F each individual case. It has to be established by the plaintillis that vital and fundamental tcrms tbr sale of immovablc property wero concluded between the parties orally and a rvritten agreement il'any to be executed subsequently r,vould only be a formal agreement incorporating such tcrms which had alrcady been settled and concluded in the oral agreement "

36. In Y.V. Narasimha Sarma v' S' Appalaraju2o'the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradcsh at llydcrabad held as under: 'l "-......tlnder Soction 54 of thc Transfer of Property Act' it is not neccssary that an agreemcnt lor sale should bc here is no prohibition against oral contracts in ivriting. tbr sale. ln cvery caso. wherc a party comes up with a plea oforal contract of sale. it is the duty ofthe Court to scrutinize thc evidcnce very caretully before acccpting that plca. When valuablc properties arc involvcd' normally, the parties do not conclude the bargain by oral arrangcmcnt but rvhcn a party comcs to the Court pteading that he is entitled to a specific pcrformance based on an allegcd oral contract lirr sale. thc burdcn lies heavily upon hinl to establish by acceptable and cogent cvidcnce s hal hc pleadcd l his rigorous test is rvarranted in order to prevent miscarriage ofjustice The risk of orvncrs of properry being deliauded by rcsourceful litigants in the absence of the Court adopting a strict and rigorous test in respect of oral contract fbr sale. is real. " l98S(2)Ar. r 6il \L I ( Rl'N.llSi of llrli f-l . ln Abdul Rasheetl v' Abdul Hakeem2r' the : stwhile lligh Cou( of Andhra l'radcsh at Hyderabad hcld as under: o1' " . ..Thc burden ol proof naturall) lics on the plaintrl prove the allegcd agrcemcnt bi' realizablc' cogenl 'fhc larv' no doubt' recognl'/ '' convincing ovidcnce- oral lgrecment rrf sale anJ thcrc is no rcquircnttt larv that an agreement oi contract of salc ol immor rble propcfv should only be in rvriting However' in iL :asc where tho plaintiff comes lbrward to seck a dccr: for specifio perlbrmance of contract ol'sale of imn'r able propotly on the basis ofan oraI agreenlcnt alone l eavl bur<len lies on the ptaintiff to prove that tht--rt rvas consenstts ad idem betrveen the parties lor a corc ttded oral agre-cment for sale o[ immovable property Vr cther therc u'as such a concludod tlral contract or nol vould be rt qucstion of lact to bc dctermined in thc k't s antl circumstances of each indivirlual case " It is also apt to note that the petitioner hr: filecl aft-rdavits of Mr Amrutha Sathish and Mr Amrutha I)r rtaP in supporl of his contention that Mogli promiscd him to executc an'l register sale dced atong with cxPlanation submitted bY thc Pcttttone on the aloresaid rixcd qucstion of objcctions raiscd by thc trial Coutl Limitattou ts a third PartY 38 lau, and fact 1998 (6) AI.l lq9 I \q.- *-l i-'\ 25 KL,J CRP No 2 t85 of2025 -

39. The rial Court rejected the plaint on the aloresaid grounds by going into the merits ol the case. As hcld by the Apex Court in the albresaid iudgments, more particularly, Dahibenr2 r'vhercin it was hetd that the trial Court has to considcr the pleadings and documents filed by him while dealing with an application under Order - VII, Itule - I I of CPC.

40. It is settled law that the trial Court has power to reject the plaint at the SR stagc. But, at thc samc time, it cannot go into the merits of the case at thc SR stagc. 'l'he said principle was also held by this Court in Smt. Manjeeth Kaur v. Mr. Sardar Haricharan Singh22.

41. In thc presenl case. the trial Court rejccted thc plaint by going into the merits ol thc case including limitation, agreement is oral and there is no acknowledgement of debt by the dclendants etc. The trial Court failed to considcr specific contention olthe petitioner herein that late Mogli has handed over the original rcgistered sale deed bearing document No.3794 of 2009, dated 19.06.2009 under rvhich he acquired the aforesaid ptot, to the petitioncr herein with a promise to executc and register a sale deed within fivo or three months from August, 2024. Without considering the aforesaid aspccts and the principle laid down in l-he aforesaid decision- learned trial Court rejected the plaint vide impugned order dated ". CRP No.2l78 o12025. dccidcd on 0-1.07.1025 /o kt-.J ( RP No ll8i oll0l5

18.02.2025. Therefore, impugncd order is no1 on ap l eciation of the aforesaid assertions/plead ings of the petitioner in the plair t and impugned order is contrary to the principle laid down in the afbrc ;aid .iudgments. 'Ihus, thc impugned ordcr is liablc to be set aside.

42. The present Civil Revision Petition is acc,r dingly allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 prs ;ed by learned Principal District.ludge, I{anumakonda in OSSR No.l44 cl

2025. The trial Couft is directed l-o number the said OSSR il'thc same is ot rcrw ise in order and decidc it on mcrits. lf any application is frlcd by thc j :fcndants under Order - VII, Rulc - 11 of CPC to rcjcct the plaint. the t 'ial Court shall decide the same basing on merits and rccord available t r -influencing of any of the obsen,ations made in this order. In thc cirerrr rstanccs of the case, there shall be no ordcr as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions. if anr. pcnding in the revision shall stand closed. Sd/- T . ;RINIVASA REDDY IS TANT REGISTRAR I \ To, //TRUE COPY// One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice (For His Lordship kind Perusal) ;ECTION OFFICER Lak ,hman Affairs, New Delhi '1 . The Principal District Judge, Hanamkonda. 2. 11 LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justi ;e and Company 4. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of 5. One CC to SRI C A R SESHAGIRt RAO Advocate [OpUr) 6. Two CD Copies Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad. GR/kam ,| HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ORDER CRP.No.2185 of 2025 ,, "*a /. .: \ ,v. L:r. :.Q5 '.. I ", ll '// ./ ALLOWING THE CRP