High Court · 2025

10.Ch. Venkata S hraran Kumar, S/o. Shivaiah'Aged about 55 years' Occ' Business,H N t 1-124.sJi'il;g;'l G;daiinnarim' Hvderabad T S;' 11 Dutta Naqend'a r',,rut, slolBiliJrlgoJnota rumai Aoed about 10 vears' Occ. Busines: R/:. Plot No 27, Old Vasavinagar' uomirunity Hal" Karkhana' iiiu*iisiri l-lvleraoad'500 0'15 T S "q'tt''ru'gendra K-u-m;rr Aoed abot t 30 years' occ Housew re R,o ptot'NiJzT biq^V^Jggyinagar' Comriun'tv Hall' Karkhana, f-ir ln.''algiri' Hyderabada-5uu u lc r 'o ^ 13 smtA Padrnr ur,o n iil'lflill';G;'bo'i49v""t occ H')usewife R/o. PIot No 17 ()ld v"t]j"iillg"?lco"*rn'niiv H'tt 'Karkhana ri umalgiri Hvderabad-5t)0 C'5' T S' (iesoondentr /RespondJnts/Defendants 3.to 1 3 are formal partie; to this i,"ii[n ri',o reliei is soug h e$$tJEil?./RESpoNDENrs/DEFEN DANrs IA NO :1OF 2O24 Petition und( )r Soction 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumst ances stated in the affidavit fik:c rr s upport of the petition' the High Court nray be pleased to Additional Districr. ' uCglr:, Ranga Reddy District AT L B Nagar C.R.P.No. 2093 OF n?A Petition uncer Article 227 ol the Constitution of lndia' against the Order made in LA.No.62 ot 2024 in O'S'No'1042 of 2O22 dated 04'05 2024 on the file of the lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B'Nagar B"T"E?".r, 56 vears, Ot c. Atlriculture vears, Occ . \g'lculture Beerrppa @ Beeresh @ Beeraiah" S/o Latevenkataialr' Aged about 2. Be6rlaSriniv rs, l;lo ijJeiageerappa @ Beeresh @ Beeraiah'i.iged about 31 '0ln!'i:'3X'fl ?3$"1i r Nos' 1 ro 3 ':;t*'J:Tllll,fl";'f ,f :?;Tlf i',lJort, Rar qZ Fleddv District T S "@-X?:d?l[,Pni,?f , '..dEirTiil'rie'C5/PErlrloNERS/DEFENDAN AND 1 Smt. Marell:,Vartala, Wo Marella Krishnaiah f99d about 60 yerrrs"Occ ' ilil#i,;ii:'riJ nlno rslii6*,1ruiNo ct' R. R:Residencv Kcclanda Ram i'i#; d; ir.oov art'h"i.l'oir J'ir'-nad''. uvderabad-500036 r s' 2 smt. Kenclv tla ,*rroop"H"rnl wio ("s"oati'n^daSw^amyrAg<:d about-52 ' ;;;;.,'o";l ni,it"norol nlo. u No t 1-14-295t8'.opp siris cornpanv strt 'N'r?;; d;i;, i;" i);;; L;;;: ijrr'io ursuoa, L B'Nasar Hvderabad-500074' T.S,

3. Bi;la Venka esham. S/o.Veeraiah. Aged about 30 years Occ " R/; s;'t;p, iViiage,snaniaipJiv tllinaa!Rangaheddv Distri:t T S-. ^gricultural 4 Birta yadai: h Slo veeriiiir- [gdO ibo,4 28 yeirs. Oc_c.'Agricultural. Rio . ' 5i;;";;;Uiage.shantarpallvMandal Rangi Reddv District l S 5. Smt. G. Ver'na ilevr,, wloVe-itit".*at" Ra6 Aged-about 62 yt)ars' occ' " no,j""norJ A-t'iLz-z-w)il, o o. cotony, Ambeipet, Hvderabac'T S' b 7 8 o 10 11 years' Occ' -53 ^Occ "C61Vil6 N". ie, M;saJna vittage,'xokapet, Gan'dipet Mandal' C Naoi Reddv.. S/o.C. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about Er;1ffi; Ranoa Reddv District, T.S. ir, 'V!"r-rir6nirurn kr*rr , S/o.Shivaiah, Aged about 55 years aijsin"iJ, ii.rlo.1-lzc,sai Nagar, Gaddiannaiam' Hyderabad, T S - - rtr7. a"iri, i"hes,, Partnerstiip iirm having its RegiStered office at B-108 ,"i i'iiij brUi.ni ioriyn Center Commercial Mokila Village, Shanl(arpally rrrrrnoii R.R District-SO'1203, T.S. Rept. by-its authorized p.'*Itlt-- ,-,^^ venkatRaqnavaMoqanti,s/o.M.V.EswaraRao,Agedabout45years'ucc' n;ililJal. RTo ViIa oi, Subishi waterford Homes, Mokila Village, Sfiankarpally Mandal, R.R.District-S01203' T.S rimmailSari.taioal Reddv, S/o.T. Govind Reddy, Aged about 5'1 years' occ silil;;"irlCto. Vitla zo, Subishi waterford Homes Mokila Village' Sfranf<arpatty Mandal, R.R.Diskict-SO1203, T S. D;tt; irdq;d* Kumar,, S/o Dutta Nagendra Kumar' Aged.ab.out.40 years 5;"d;:i;;d. ni". pr,ji tro.zz, oto Va"savinagar, communitv Hall' Karkhana Tirumaloiri Hvderabad-S00 015, T.S i;i'B:'B;; sii uriJ""i, w7o Dutta Nasendra Kumar' Ased.about,30 vears' Occ. Housewife, R/o. Plot No.27, OldVa,s?yiElg^ar' Communrty Halr' Xi*hrnr, Tirumalgiri. Hyderabada-500 015' T S' sili'nl plorr;, Wi" h,, 'sii-ti"iiJiu, Ased about 4e vears, occ Housewife' nTo pioillt z7, od vrtarinigii Corn'munity Hall, Karkhana' Tirumalgiri' Hyderabada-500 01 5, T.S. iil"_...rOuntin"spondentsi Defendants 3 to 1 1 are formal parties to this betitibn as no relief is sough against them ) IA NO :1 OF 2024 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstdrncesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay allfurtherproceedingsino.s.No.lo42oF2022onthefileoflhelllAdditional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar pending disposal of above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI' A'TULSI RAJ GOKUL (,rl E^l s Co+, Counsel for the Respondent Nos'1&2 : SRI B'SHIVA KUMAR atN go1\ c P9e) The Court riade the following: COMMON ORDER -I THT) HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REUISIoN PETITION Nos.1017 AND 2093 OF 2A24 COMMON ORDER: Sinr:e the lis involved in both the revision petition:; are same, ttre l were heard together and are being disposecl of by this corLn Lon rtrder.

2. CRI '. No 1O 17 of 2024 is fried by rev Lsion petitionr:r /clefendant No.9, and CRP.No.2O93 of 20114 rs filed by revisio:r petitioners/ defendant NOs.1 to 3, in OS No t042 of 20221,, being aggrieved by the dismissal orders rlated 08.11.20113 and O4.O5.2024 passed in IA.No'2O8 ol 2023 which uras firt:d under Order VII Rule 11 (a) (b) and (d) c'f the Civil Pror edrrre Code (for short 'CPCJ praying to reje c t the suit, and IA. N o.62 I of 2024 which was filed praying to reject thc plain on the grounds that it is barred by limitarion, non- disclosur: of cause of action and gross undervaluati'ln of the suil., -esltectivelY. 2 SKS,J CRP.NoS-2O93 & tOtZ OF 2024

3. Heard Sri A.Tulsi Raj Gokul, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for respondents

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are erroneous and contrarJr to the settled proposition of law on the subject of rejection of plaint, and contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the plaint lacks a true cause of action, and the petitioners have perfected their title by adverse possession. He further contended that the respondents/ plaintiffs, rights have been extinguished due to their acquiescence and failure to challenge the alienations made by the petitioners. He pointed out that the respondents/plaintiffs had knowledge of the transactions and tailed to protest or take action, thereby acquiescing to the pelitioners, possession and title. He lamented that the trial Court erred in not rejecting the plaint despite observing that some of the pleadings and reliefs sought are hit by limitation. He averred that the plaint as a whole must be rejected, and not just parts of it. o 3 CRP.NoS.2O93 & 1017 OF 2024 SK.J,J

5. In su )porl of his contentions, learned counsel fr)r petitioner re liec on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Ocurt Ln Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Propertyl, . vherein it was held that " there cannot be rtrrA compartmen alizotion, dissection, segregation, and inuersion of the lanq,,age- of uaious paragraphs in the plaint." IIe incessantly r:ontended that the tria,l Court failed to apply the relevant 1e:g r1 p rir-rciples and rationales laid down in the cited judgrnr'nt t: the factual matrix of the case. In addition, he averrei ,ha: the plaint is liable to be rejected as it is barred by Jau', and that the respondents/ plaintiffs have failed to disr lose a cause of action. He placed reliance on the judgment r,:ndered in the case of Roop Lal Sathi v's. Nachattar Singh Gillz, whereunder, it was held that onlLt a part of tlut ,tlann.t cannot be rejected, the plaint as a uhole must be re-je:ted."

6. In adr.itir,u, he relied on the decision rendered in the case of T. tlheem Reddy and anr vs. Smt. P. LaxmiBai and others: , u'hereunder, it was observed that "the Cor.Lrt ' 1rsss1 z scc r.s. ' 1tsaz1 l scc oa. 'zorz 1s1 nr a+: T t' t I ;, 4 SKS,J CRP.Nos.2093 & 1017 OF 2024 has to scrutinize the plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or not.,, Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the revision petitions, setting aside the impugned orders.

7. On the other hald, the learned counsel for respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners, submitting that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court, dismissing the petition to reject the plaint is correct and justihed and that there are no inhrmities in the same. He contended that the contention of petitioners with regard to adverse possession is not sustainable, and that the rights of respondents have not been extinguished, and averred that adverse possession cannot be claimed by a person who is already in possession of the properry. In addition, he asserted that the contention raised by petitioners with regard to undervaluation of the suit property is also not sustainable, and lamented that the respondents have valued the suit property correctly and paid the required Court fee. In support of the same, he placed reliance on the provisions of the Andhra pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, which provides t t O 5 'lI{s,'J CRP.Nos.2093 & 1017 o[ 2024 I for the r aluzLtion of suits for partition and sepa rate possesslor Leatnecl counsel for respondents had incesserntly 8- contended thret the respondents' cause of action arose uhen they camt . to know about the fraudulent transactions and denial of th(r,r share by the petitioners' He specihr:aliy divulged t eat ,he cause of action for a suit for partition and separate l rosst:ssi.on arises when the plaintiff comes to knou' about thr denial of their share. He contended that the petitioncr; at't: not entitled to rejection of the plaint, and all the issue; raised by them can be decided during the [rial' Therefore u'l-rile advocating that there are no inhrmiti':s or illegalities rr: the impugned orders, prayed this Cou rt to dismiss tlre re vision petitions. g. Ha.'ing; regard to the rival submissions made and on going tLLr, rugh the material placed on record, it is notec that admittedly, ,1,S.No.1042 of 2O2O was filed for partition of subject property and declaration of registered sale deerls as null and roid. It was specihcally contended that executjon of registerer sal,: deeds on the part of the defendants \^'as very 6 SKS,J CRP.Nos.2093 & tOtZ OF 2024 much within the knowledge of plaintiffs and that they were one of the witness for the said document

10. To decide the application hled under:. Order WI Rule I 1 of CPC seeking rejection of plaint, the pleadings in the plaint alone have to be examined, in addition, reading of the averments in the plaint does not mean a formal reading, rather, the averments of the plaint must be reztd in a meaningful manner. Further, it was categorically held in the case of T:Arivandandam Vs. T.Satyapal and Another+ that "if cleuer drafting has been created tLe illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at tLLe first heaing bg examining the partg searchinglg und.er Ord.er X CpC".

11. Reverting to the facts of the cases on hand, suit was filed by plaintiffs/respondents for partition of suit property, declaration of sale deeds as null and void, contending that by playing fraud, the defendants/petitioners obtained signatures in the year 2OO2 wiLh misrepresentation that they will pay sale consideration but allegedly, no consideration was paid and a panchayat was also held o Na tgtl sc zq2t ;ii EE- \ 1 SI.S J CRP.Nos.2093 & lOlT t)F 2At1 several times in Jlis regard and in the panchayat held in t.he year 2022 wlren l)artition was refused, the suit was hled fc'r partition. Th 1t l)eing so, it can be said that the cantsc of action arose in the year 2022 itself. Fuithermore, the limitation as tectjs are applicable only to the extent of su it being barrec oi limitation on the ground of document s executed for t1" <: declaration, whereas, for partition su it there is n ) limitation Most importantly, u'hen tlre allegatrons a re .:r, ith regard to obtaining false signatures on the docume -its the Court has to go strictly by plaint averments, n rr [her words, the same cannot bc decidt d without pr,rl ,er a djudication, as such, the plaint cannot 1 re rejected.

12. At thi; jrt'ecture, it is relevant to note that thou5;h learned crlt ms,: I for the petitioners relied on sevelal judgments -endered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support o1' -ris contentions, this Court observes that the same are :nt,t applicable to the facts and circumstances of the cases cn eand and do not come to the aid of the petitioners in arLy way as the suit being filed for partition, the same ,)annot be decided without just and proper I I I i I j SKS,J CRP.Nos.2093 & lOrT OF 2024 adjudication of the Court. Therefore, in nutshell, this Court is of the hrm view that there are no illegalities, irregrlarities and inlirmities in the impugned orders dated Oa.fi.2}23 and 04.05.2O24 passed by the trial Courr in iO.*o.r0, o, 2023 and IA.No.621 of 2024 in OS.No. 1042 of 2022. There are no merits in these revision petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, these Civil Revision petitions dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagarwal 2. One CC to Sri A Tulsi Raj Gokul ,Advocate (OPUC) 3. One CC to Sri B.Shiva Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies ks /PSL \ { HIGH COUR T DATED:181A217.$25 \ I o 2i 1,, l

0. ,^\ (n ,coMMoN oiRDER CRP.No.I01'7 AND 2093 of 2024 DISMISSING THE C.R.Ps WITHOUT COSTS. b C\7'