The High Court · 2025

Jayabheri Enclave. Near Botanical Garden, Ga;hibowli. Hvderabad. Reo. bv its Director Sri Kishore Duggirala, S/o Sri Sivarama Krishniiah, aged 63 yedrs 1 9. M/s Jaya-bheriProperties Pvt. Ltd., Having its office at plot No. .l Enclave, Near Botanical Garden, Gachibolr,,li, Hyderabad, Rep. Oy rti Director Sri Kishore Duggirala, S/o Sri Sivarama Krishnaiah, aged 63 leais 20.Sri Kishore_Dugglala, S/o Sri Sivarama Krishnaiah, Aged 63 years, Occ. business, Rlo A-24, Phase-ll, Film Nagar, HyderabadlTelang'ana_500 033. 21 Sri Maganti Raja Babu @lVlurali Motran, S/o Madhava Rao, Aged 7T yearc, Occ. business, Rlo A-24, Phase-ll, Film Nagar, Hyderabad, teiangan6 _ 500 033 , Jayabheri

22.Sri Maganti Ram lvlohan, S/o Maganti Raja Babu or Murali Mohan. Aqed 49 ye_qrs, Occ business, Rto A-24, phase-ll. Film Nagar, Hyderabad, Td'iangana - 500 033 23 lfl .Y 9yiqtnq, w/o Y. Ravindra Babu, Aged 60 years, Occ. Housewife, Rio Plot No.1219, Road No 36, Jubilee Hills, nyAeraO'aO - a3.

24. Smt. Y. Prathima, D/o Y. .Ravindra Babu, aged 4l years R/o plot No.53_C, Road No.1, Film Nagar, Jubitee hiils, HyOeLbad. 25 Smt S. Sridevi, Wo S. Krishna, Aged about 35 years, Occ Household, R/o Flat No.205, Saikiran Delux Apartments, Srinag6r co16ny, Hyderabad ' - 26. Smt R. .lyotfrS_Wlo R_ Latrth Prasad, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Household, -' R/o Flat No.205, Saikiran Delux Apartmients, Srinagai colony, HyOeriUid.

27. Smt. K. Hemalatha Rao, House wife, R/o Flat No.205, Saikiran Delux Apartmeits, Srinagar'colony, Hyderabad. late K. Keshava Rao, Aged 71 years, Occ. -Wo

28.K. Prakash, S/ K. Keshava Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ. business R/o Kovvur town, West Godavari district, Aged54 years, Occ. business, R/o plotNo.i21g, f Road No.36, Rep. by his GPA Holder K. Srinivasa Rao, S/o K. Suryanarayans, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad

29. D. Gopal Ji, Sio late Nageshwar Rao, Aged 43 years, Occ. business, R/o H.No.13-3-7481A12, L.B. Nagar Ziaguda, Hyderabad - 500 0.,l2

30.D. Bajranga Ji, S/o D. Laxman Ji, Aged 59 years, Occ. business, Rio H.No.13-3-7481A12, L.B. Nagar, Ziaguda, Hyderabad - 500012

31. D. Laxman Rao, S/o late Tukaram, Aged 51 years, Occ. business, R/o H.No.13-3-748lN2,L.B. Nagar, Ziaguda, Hyderabad - 500 012

32. Mohan Singh, S/o late NarayanSingh, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-33, Nanakramguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. Dist, 33.Gopal Singh, S/o late Narayan Singh, Aged 38 years, Occ. agricutture, R/o H.No.1-33, Nanakramguda village Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. Dist.

34. Kundan Singh, S/o late Narayan Singh, Aged 55 years, Occ. agriculture, Ro H.No.1-33, Nanakramguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. Dist.

35. Ramesh Singh, S/o late Narayan Singh, Aged about 43 years, occ. agriculture, R/o H.No.1-33, Nanakramguda village,

36.Ashok Singh, S/o late Narayan Singh Aged 48 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o H.No.1-33, Nanakramguda village, Serilingampally [\/andal, R.R. Dst 3T.Akkineni Ramesh, S/o ALV Prasad, Aged 82 years, Occ. business, R/o H,No 8-2-293l82lFl34lA. Road No.11, Film Nagar, Site ll, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad - 33.

38. Kurra Srinivasa Rao, S/o K. Narayana Rao, Aged about 52 years, Occ. business R/o Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

39.ASN Raju, S/o AVS Raju, Aged 59 years, Occ. business R/o Plot No.1684, Road No.10, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad.

40.A, Srinivas Ram Raju, S/o AVS Raju, Aged 50 years, Occ. business, R/o Plot No.168,4, Road No.'10, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad.

41.A. Venkata Narasimha Raju, S/o AVS Raju, Aged 57 years, Occ. business,. R/o Plot No.'1684, Road No.10, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad.

42.Smt. K. Ratna, Wo K. Sudhakar Reddy, aged about 65 years, Occ. business, R/o H.No.8-2-32419, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

43.Anumula Appi Reddy, S/o A Rami Reddy, Aged 68 years, Occ. business, R/o Rentapalla village, Sattenpalli Mandal, Guntur District.

44.Mls. Sri Sairam Projects Ltd., Rep. by its Director Sri Rama Krishna Pilaka, S/o P.S. Krishnamurthy, aged 54 years, R/o H. No.8-3-231A1//'17, Krishna Nagar, Hyderabad - 45

45.Smt. Ch. Vasumathi, Wo late Ch. Madhava Rao, Aged 78 ears, R/o Plot No.5, Road No.9, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad. 46C N h. Ramesh, S/o Sri Madhava Rao, Aged 63 years, R/o Plot No.277, Road o.9, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

47.Ch. Ramesh Babu, S/o Sri poornachandra Rao, Aged 45 years, R/o Plot No.241, Kamalapur colony. Phase-ll, Hyderabad. 7/

48. M. Anuradha, Wo M.S. Raju, Aged 53 years, Rlo B-24, Journalist colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 4g.Chalasani Venkata Narayana, Sio late Sreerama Murthy, Aged 54 years, To Pedamaddali village, Krishna District. 50-Smt. Surya Devara Vijaya Laxmi, Wo S. Srinivasa Rao. Aged 48 years, Yadava Bazar. D.No.'16-15-9'1 , Old Guntur. Guntur District

51. P. Renish Reddy., S/o Patnam lt/ahender Reddy Aged 27 years, Road No.'12, Baniara hills, Hyderabad.

52. Suryadevara Sreenivasa Rao, S/o Suryadevara Subba Rao Aged 52 years, Yadava Street, Old Guntur, Guntur district (Respondents 3 to 52 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay further proceedings in OS 592 of 2018 on the file of the lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L B Nagar, pending disposal of the current Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. M.V. PRATAP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 'l & 2 : SRI N. SRIDHAR REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1170 OF 2020 Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 24-02-2020 in l.A.No. 915 of 2019 in O.S.No. 592 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar Between: A.Venkata Narsimha Raju, Son of AVS Raju, aged about 56 years, occ. Business, R/o PIot No.564, Road No.31, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/ Petitioner / Defendant No. 40 AND '1. Mala Brijkumar Bahktani, Wio Brijkumar Motilal Bhaktani, aged About 64 years, Occ. House Wife, R|o.102, 1st floor, Breeze Building, Charkop Manav CHS PIot No.3, Opp Jain Temple Sector -5, Charkop, Kandivali, West Mumbai, Maharashtra400 067.

2. Satyam Brij Kumar Bhaktani, Son of Brij Kumar Motilal Bhaktani Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o.102, lstfloor, Breeze Building, Charkop Manav CHS Plot No.3, Opp Jain Temple Sector -5, Charkop, Kandivali, West Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 067. 7

3. Guru Nanak Educational Society, Rep. by its President Tavinder Singh Kohli Son of late Avatar Singh Kohli, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Business, having its Regd office No.82, 2nd floor, Vikrampuri Colony, Karkhana Road, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents/ Plaintiffs IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.592 of 2018 on the file of the lll Additional District and Session Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P BALAJI VARMA Counsel forthe Respondents: Sri N. SRIDHAR REDDY clvll REVISION PETITION NO: 138 00F 2020 Petition under Article 227 ot Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 24-02-2020 in l.A.No. 914 of 2018 in O.S.No. 592 ot 2018 on the fite of the Court of the lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar Between: A. Srinivas Ram Raju, aged about 50 years, Occ. Business R/o Plot No.285, Road No.25, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/ Petitioner/ Defendant No. 39 AND

1. Mala Brijkumar Bahktani , Wo Brijkumar Motilal Bhaktani, aged About 64 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o.'102, lst floor, Breeze Building, Charkop lVlanav CHS Plot No.3, Opp: Jain Temple Sector -5, Charkop, Kandivali, West Mumbai, Maharashtra400 067.

2. Satyam Brij Kumar Bhaktani, Son of Brij Kumar Motilal Bhaktani Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, Rlo.1O2,1st floor, Breeze Building, Charkop Manav CHS Plot No.3, Opp: Jain Temple Sector -5, Charkop, Kandivali, West Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 067.

3. Guru Nanak Educational Society, Rep. by its President Tavinder Singh Kohli Son of late Avatar Singh Kohli, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Business, having its Regd office No.82, 2nd floor, Vikrampuri Colony, Karkhana Road, Secunderabad ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. BALAJI VARMA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. SRIDHAR REDDY The Court made the following COMMON ORDER / THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CrVIL REVISION PE-TITION Nos.l158, ltZO & tga0 l2O2O COMMON ORDER: Since tl-rr: Iis and parties involved in these revision petitions are same, these matters were heard together and are disposed of by ivay of this common order.

2. CRP.Nos.t158, l17O and 1380 ot 2O2O are filed by delendant Nos.35, 40 and 39 respectively, challenging the orders dated 24.O2.2O2O passed in IA.Nos.984, 915 and 914 of 2079 respr:ctively, in OS.No.592 ot 2OL8 by the III Additional Distrrct Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.

3. The brief facts of these cases arc that thc revision petitioners who are defendants in the above suits filed the above IAs., under Order VII Rule 1 I of the Civil procedure Code (for short 'CPCJ praying for rejection of plaint. After hearing both sirles, the trial Court dismissed the said IAs., uide impugned orders d.ated 24.02.2O20 observing that the plaint discloses some cause of action and the same is sufhcient even tJ'rough the chance of success for the plaintiff in the suit, are rcmote. Hence, these revisions. / 2

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, and learned counsel appearing for respondents, respectively, in all the revision petitions

5. Learned counsel lor petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are replete with glaring illegalities and contraventions of established legal principles. He contended that the plaints and supporting documents hled by the plaintiffs woefully fail to disclose valid cause of actions for the suits, particularty with regard to the reliefs sought for recovery of possession and cancellation of registered documents executed since the year 197 I . He lamented that egregious lacunas were further compounded by the respondents' categorical admission in their pleadings in OS.No.27 of 20 1O, wherein, they unequivocally acknowledged executing a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in the year 197O, authorizing the attorneys to sell the lands, which were coupled with the subsequent sale to third parties, renders the suit irrevocably barred by limitation. He asserted that the respondents have engaged in a blatant exercise of creating an illusory and manufactured cause of actions, replete with frivolous and 7-. / 3 mischievous assertions, which are utterly devoid of any factual foundation.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners incessantly contended that the failure of respondents to specify the date of land acquisition proceedings for the Outer Ring Road (ORR), which occurred in the year 2005-06 and that the same is a giaring omission which would highlight the infirmities in their case. He averred that the respondents cannot be permitted to circumvent the law of limitation through clever drafting, artfully omitting crucial details that u,ould unequivocally render the suit barred, and that the attempt of respondents to create a cause of action through false statements made on oath is utterl]. unsustainable in law, and that the same warrants stringent reprobation. In support of their contentions, reliance was placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusalir, C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K. Senthil and Othets2, and in the judgment rendered by this Court in Bajranglal Agar:wal Vs. Susheela Agarwal and ' 1zozo1 z scc:oo '? (2022) sCC OnLine sC 1330 4 \ Others3. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow these revision petitions, setting aside the impugned orders dated

24.O2.2020.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and contended that the allegations made by the petitioners are entirely false , baseless, and devoid of any merit. They averred that the plaints would clearly discloses a valid cause of actions for the suits, as the respondents have specihcally pleaded that they came to know about the fraudulent GPA and sale deeds through a news article published in the month ol May 20 18. They lamented that the suits we re well within the limitation period as the respondents have pleaded sufficient facts to establish their title and claim for recovery of possession. They emphasized that the respondents' pleadings are clear, specific, and unequivocal, and that they have provided ample evidence to support their contentions. In addition, they asserted that the contentions of leaned counsel for petitioners are entirely outside the scope of Order VII Rule I I of CPC which governs 3 (2024) SCC OnLine TS 1823 5 the rejection of plaints. They reiterated that the plaints cannot be rejected on the basis of allegations made by the petitioners, as the same were unfounded and unsupported by evidence. In support of thcir contentions, they relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and. Others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Othersa, Chhotanben and Aaother v. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai ThaLkar and Otherss. Salim D. Agbotwala and Others v. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and Others6 Urvashiben and Another v. Krishnakant Manuprasad TrivediT, Srihari Hanumandas Totala v Hemant Vithal Kamat and Others8, P.V. Guru Raj Reddy and Another rz. P. Neeradha Reddy and Otherse, C. Natarajan v. Ashim Bai and Anotherlo, Shakti Bhog Food ludustries Limited v. Central Bank of India and Anotherlr and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Deadf by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and Othersl2. Therefore, while o lzoo+y : scc r3z ' lzots; o scc azz " lzozty tz scc roo ' (zot g) t3 scc gzz t lzozr; s scc ss ' 1zors1 a scc ::r 'o (zooo) ra scc tag '1 (2020) 17 SCC 260 " ltss+1 r scc r 6 advocating that there are no infirmities or illegdities in the impugned orders dated 24.O2.2O2O, they prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petitions as the same lacks merits'

8. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that suits were filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for cancellation of sale deeds executed in the year 1970' The frrst contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that the alleged GPA was executed in the year 1970 and the same was known to respondent Nos.l and 2 and that being so, they cannot hle suits stating that they came to know about the alleged fraud only in the year 2O18 when a news item was published in the print media. g. Admittedly, respondent Nos.1 and 2 alor.g with others filed OS.No.27 of 2OlO on 20.Ol .2O1O and in paragraph No'2 of the plaint there was mention regarding the execution of aileged GPA in the year 1970, stating that one Sri Motilal Chandumal and his family were displaced from West Pakistan during the partition of India and had a verified claim for compensation and that he was allotted land in Sy'No'288 of 7 Poppalguda Village in the year 1970, and additional lands in Sy.Nos.289-296 were allotted in the year 1955. It was further stated that the said Motilal constituted attorneys, including Sri V.A. Vaswani and Hasaram Hassanand, through a GpA in the vear 197O, and disposed of the lands in Sy.Nos.2g9-296 through them during his lifetime. Therefore, in view of the said mention made in the plaint, it cannot be said that the respondents were not aware of execution of GpA dated O2.lO.l97O. As such, there is no force in the saicl contention of respondent Nos. I and 2.

10. ln addition, in the averments of the plaint, it was clearly stated that except signing below their names, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 u,ere not aware of the statements thereof, as the same were in trnglish and that the same were not read over or explained to them by their GpA holders, subsequenI to which compromise decree was passed. It was further contended that they have never seen the Advocate who was engaged on their behalf and that they were only aware that his name is Sri Rami Reddy, and that the said person filed caveats in respect of suit lands in OS.No.27 of 201O in the name of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, this Court is of the opinion that there -/ r ) 8 is no force in the said contention of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as there was no clear mention regarding the averments that were explained to them before they signed the document. 1 1. Given the averments of the case on hand, there is no dispute that the original allottee, Motilal Chandumal, passed away on 19.05.1976,leaving behind his wife Nirmala Devi and three chiidren: Brijkumar Motilal Bhaktani, Biharilal, and Jyothi Naraindas. Nirmala Devi later passed away. on 2|.O4.2OOB, while Brijkumar Bhaktani died on 2l.lo.lga2. The plaintiffs, being the children of Brijkumar Bhaktani, along with Jyothi Naraindas, are the only surviving legal heirs of the late Motilal Chandumal. However, the only contention of respondents herein is that Motilal Chandumal, the originai allottee, never executed GPA in favor of Hassaram @ Hassanand Le., defendant No.1. lnstead, verihcation wouid reveal that said GPA pertains to a mortgage deed executed by Ramesh Atmaram Patel in favor of Babulal Sankalchand and others. They specihcally contend that they discovered the same only in May 2018 through a newspaper article, prompting them to file the present suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and declaration of the sale deeds as 7 / 9 null and void, which they argue is within the limitation period. However, as discussed above, it is clear from paragraph No.2 of the plaint in OS.No.27 of 2OlO that the same was very much in their knowledge and the said GPA was executed in the year 1970. That being so, subsequently, hling a suit praying for cancellation of decree cannot be a ground for filing another suit.

12. At this stage, it is imperative to note that in the judgment rendered in the case of Dahiben (supra) paragraph No.24.2 it was held as under: "[n T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (19771 4 SCC 4671 this Court held that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decidcd is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words : (SCC p. 47O, para 5) "5. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful not formal-reading of the plainr it is 10 manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his porver under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, i[ clever drafting has created the iltusion of a cause of action, nip it rn the bud at the hrst hearing-. -."

13. From the above extracted portion, it can be observed that when examining a plaint, the Court should conduct a meaningful, rather than merely formal, reading to determine if it appears to be manifestly vexatious and meritless lf the plaint fails to disclose a clear right to sue, the Court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 1 I of the CPC ' However, the Court must ensure that the grounds for rejection are met. Moreover, if clever drafting has created an illusory cause of action, the Court should intervene at the outset and dismiss the plaint at the hrst hearing Keeping in mind the said legal position, it is pertinent to note that the matter was compromised between the parties in the year 20I7 itself, as such, after lapse of all these years, the -t 7 11 respondents cannot take the plea that they were unaware of the averments of the plaint and that they signed on it without knowing the contents thereof.

14. Howevr:r, it is to be noted that though learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on the judgment of Sopan Sukhdeo (srrpra 4) whereunder it was observed that " there cannot be ang compartmentalization, dissection, Segregation and inuersiorts of the language of uaious paragrapts in the plaint. If such a course is adopted. it tt-tould run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to u-thich a ptead"ing has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not pennissible to anll out a sentence or a possdge and. to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not mereLg tlte form thot has to be looked into, the_ pleading has to be construed as it slands without addition or subtraction or words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the partg concemed is to be gathered pimarily from the tenor and tenns of his pteadings taken as a uhole. At the same time it should be borne in mind, that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair_splitting technicalities", the same does not come to the aid of the L2 respondents as the same cannot be considered to the facts of the case on hand

15. From the above extracted portion, it is made clear that when interpreting a plaint, it's essential to consider it in its en[irety, rather than compartmentalizing or dissecting specific paragraphs or sentences. This approach ensures that the pleading is understood in its true context, as required by che fundamental principles of interpretation. Further, isolating sentences or passages from the rest of the plaint is not permissible, as it distorts their intended meaning. Instead, the pleading should be construed as it stands, without altering its wording or grammatical sense. The primary goal is to discern the intention of party from the overall tenor and terms of their pleadings. However, this should be done in a manner that avoids pedantic and overly technical approaches, which can lead to unjust outcomes. In the case on hand, merely denying the averments on the ground of being unaware does not give scope for any cause of actlon 7 13

16. Furtht:rmore, on behalf of respondents, reliance was also placed on the judgment rendered in the case of Chhotanben (supra 5) whereunder, in paragraph Nos.19 and 2O it was observed as u nder: '19. In the present case, we hnd that the apl)('llant- plarn trffs have asserted that the suit was hlerl immediateh, after getting knowledge aboul the fraudulent sale deed executed by original De[endants I and 2 by keeping them in the dark about such executlon and within two days from the refusal b1- the originat Defendants l ard 2 to refr:rin from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of use and possession of the ancestra[ property of the appellants. We affirm the view taken by the trial coLrrt that the issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issuc and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order 7 Rute 1l(dl CPC. 2O. In the above conspectus, we have no hesitation in reversing the view taken by the High Court and rest.oring the order of the trial court rejecting the application (Ext. 21) filed by Respondent 1 t4 Defendant 5 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Consequently, the plaint will get restored to its original number on the hle of the IVth Additional Civil Judge, Anand, for being proceeded further in accordance with law, We may additionatly ctarify that the trial court shall give effect to the order passed below Ext. 17 dated 2O-l-2016, reproduced in para 8, above, and take it to its logical end, if the same has remained unchallenged atthe instance of any one of the defendants. Subject to that, the said order must be taken to its logical end in accordance rvith law." 17 . ln addition, reliance was also placed 1n lhe judgment rendered in the case of Salim (supra 6) whereunder, 1n paragraph No.8, it was observed as under "lnsofar as the rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation is concerned, it is needless to emphasise that limitation is a mixed question of fact and [aw. [t is the case of the appellant- plaintifls that only after making inspection of the records in connection with the suit land available in the office of Defendant 3 (Court Receiver) that they came across the correspondence and documents relating to the transactions and that , r 15 the proceedings before ALT were collusive, fraudulent and null and void. The appellant, plaintiffs l.rave even questioned the authority of the Courl Receiver to represent them in the tenancy procr.edings-"

18. At this stage, it is imperative to note that it is an admitted fact that while clealing with petitions filed under Order VII Rule 1 I of CPC, the Court has to consider the plaint averments only, along with documents hled by the plaintiff. That being so, in the cases on hand, in the averments of plaints, they mentioned regarding hling of suit in 2O 10, whereas, denying the same on the ground of being unaware of averrnents cannot be accepted. Though learned counsel for respondents relied on the above judgment stating that limitation is mixed question of fact and law, in the suit that was filed in the year 20lO it is apparently showing knowledge, therefore, tht: 21$6ys judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present cases.

19. In vieu, of the above detailed analysis on factual background of the cases, the respondents cannor contend that they were unaware of execution of GpA in the year 1970 and I ) 16 only came to know about the same in the year 2O18 through news article. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the version of respondents can be treated as clever drafting with intent to create illusory cause of action.

20. In view thereof, these revision petitions are allowed, setting aside the orders dated 24 .O2.2O2O passed IA.Nos.984, 915 and 914 ol 2Ol9 respectively, in OS.No.592 of 2018 by the tll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB.Nagar. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. AMMAJI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER T 1 l n. ,,, Additional District and sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy District at ,. b"';t3il t'.f[fr.V:**^rAp KUMAR Advocate roPuc] 3. One CC to P. VALAJI VARMA, Advocate (OPUC) 4. One CC to SRl. N. SRIDHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD CoPies kul/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2310412025 COMMON ORDER ilrl .: iai .-c 1 1 JUt 2025 o O t .,t t ?- ;i ,'.1ll :> // CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1158 1170 & 1380 0F 2020 ALLOWING TIIE ALt. CIVIL R[:VISION PETI'ftONS 6lu-