Smt. Uzma v. 1. T Karthikeyan

TI+6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2604 OF 2024 ORDER: This Revision Petition is filed questioning the validity and Iegality of the order dated 05.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.996 of 2022in OS.No.630 of 2022 on the file olthe I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. By the impugned order, the application filed by rcvision petitioner/defendant No.2 under Order Vll Rule I I CPC seeking to reject the plaint in OS.No.630 ol 2022 was dismissed. f . Heard Sri Muhammad Veqar llussain, learned counsel for revision petitioner. Despite service of notice on the rcspondents. there is no representation on their behall, hence, the tnatter is being disposed of basing on the rnaterial available on record

4. The petitioner is defendant No.2, respondent No. 1 is plaintiff and respondent No.2 is defendant No.I in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arraved in the suit.

5. In nut-shell, the facts of the case, required for disposal o[the present Revision Petition, are that plaintifl filed the al'orementioned 2 LT,1, J ('RP.I o.2604 of 2021 suit against the defendants to declare himself and his mother as Icgal possessc,rs ol the suit schedulc property, and not teltants or lrcspasscl's thercol, and also to declare the sa,c dccd bearing docurnent No.1955 ol 2022 dated I 1.04.2022 as null and void and to cancel the same; that when the said suit rvas pending adjudication, defendant No.2 filed an application in IA.No.No.996 ol-2022 to re.ject the plaint (). In thc affidavit flled in supporl of the applica..ion. dcfendant No.2 avered that def'endant No.l is the owner of th: suit schedulc propefty; ttut plaintiff and his mother, who is his guardian, are tenants of the suit schedule property; that def'er dant No.l sold arvay the suit schedule properly to defendant .\o.f under a legistered sale deed, dated 11.04.2022; and that defendant No.2 having tenninated the tenancy, filed a suit br eviction in O.S.No.82l of 2022 on the file of the II Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, which is pending adjudication. It fuflher averred that the suit schedule proporty is the self- acquired property of defendant No.1, as such, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the said property and that, sul)pressing all the said material facts, the plaintiff filed suit-OS.No.63l of 2022 and , I f; t I i i : i i I l I t i I 1 ! i ! I I I I ; 3 LNA, J CRP.No.2604 of 2024 hence, the said suit is not maintainable and accordingly, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

1. Opposing the said application, the plaintiff filed counter contending that defendant No.2 failed to mention the relevant provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., under which clause of Order VII Rule ll CPC, the said application to reject the plaint is filed and hence, the said application is liabte to be dismissed in limine

8. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 05.10.2023 dismissed the application with an observation that in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it has to be only seen as to whether the plaintiff has shown cause of action or not and fu(her, observed that bare perusal of pleadings of plaint, clearly manifcsts that the cause of action arose in the year 2017 when the plaintifls lather left the plaintiff and his mother for no apparent reason and when the plaintiff s mother filed Maintenance Case before the F'amily Court at Nellore in the year 2021 and when plaintifls mother received notice dated 19.05.2022 for eviction. The trial Court further observed that the contention of defendant No.2 that ttrE plaintift has no locus standi to hle the suit is not a ground for 1 4 LNA, .I tiRP.No.2604 of 2024 rejection of plaint as contemplated under Order \, It Rule 1 1 CpC Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revisior r petition is filed b1'defendant \o.2. 9 . Learnccl counsel for the revision petitioner /rlefendant No.2 submitted that the suit schedule property is t -u: seif_acquired propefty o1- defendant No. l, as such, the plaintitl' and his mother. have no rigl-rt over the same and have no locus standi to file the suit and hence, the suit is not maintainable. He furthcr subrnitted that though tlic suit is filed seeking four reliefs, the Cc,urt lee is paid only for one relief, i.e., for cancellation of the sa[e deed and that apafl, even if the cause of action mentioned by the p..aintiff is taken into consideration, it does not constitute a valid causre of action fbr fiting the suit, but the trial Courl failed to apprecizLtr: these aspects properly and en oneously dismissed the applir:ation filed by def-endant No.2 and hence, prayed to set aside the ir npugr.red order.

10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel lbr the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 relied on the following.juclgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Coufl: 5 LNA, J CBP.No.2604 oI2024 (i) Raj Narain Sarain (dead) lhrough Lrs. Antl others Versus Laxmi Devi and otherst (ii) Qm Prakash Srivastava vs. Union Of India and anorhe12 (iii) Church Of Christ Charitqble Trust and Educational Charitable Sociely Rep. by lt's Chairman vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust Rep. by lt's Chairmans I l. The categorical observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Couft Rr7 Narain Sarsin's case (cited supra) are extracted as licrcunder:- "As noticed above, the learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court though elaborately laid down the requirement oJ Order 7 Rule I I and the true effect thereof, but in our view, totally misread and misapplied the provision in the contextual facts. No explanation whatsoever is available in the plaint as to the situation under which the suit was filed a/ier about a long period of 40 years. The knowledge of the deed of sale stands accepted by reason of the averments in the plaint itself (vide para 9 of the plaint). "

12. ln Om Prakash Srivaslava's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as hereunder:- I (2002) 10 scc 501 (2006) 6 scc zo7 1?oJ2) 8 scc 706 'z ) 6 t-NA, .1 r')RP..\o-2604 of 2024 "lt i.\ .\cttled lctv' that "cause of action,, colt.\.i.tts of a bundle (t foct.t. wltich give cause to enforce the lcgal inquiry for redrc.\s in o Court rf law. In other words. it is Lt bunclle of facts, rt ltich tuken v'ith the law applicable to them, gives the ltlaittrill a rigltt to cloim relief itself again.tr rhe tlefendant. tt ttlust itl( lude sonrc act done by the defendcrnt since in the absertcc of' such an act no cause of actict,.t would possibly accrte i)t ttoult/ arise. " l3 'l'he Ilon'blc Apex Court in Church of Christ Chariroble Trust and [,)ducatiottal Charitille Sociegt,s caso (cited supra) observcd as hcreundcr:- " ln victt, o.[ the shortfull in the plaint t..verments and stalutor.t' provi.rion.s, namely, Order 7 Rule t l, Rtrle l4 (t) ctrtd Rtrta l4 (1), Forns 17 and 48 in Ap1t,:rtdix.4 of the codc wltic'lt ut e stolutor.y in nature, u,e hold that the lcarnad singla .judgc of rhe High Court l-tas correctly concltttli:cl that in the absence of any catue r.tractictn shown as agoirrst the.first defendant, the suit caruutt be proceeded either fbr specific performance or for the recovery of mone.\, advanced which according to the plai,ttiffu,as given to thc se.cond defendant in the suit and rightty rejected the plaint as against the first defendant. (lnfc:riunalely, the di.vision bench fai.led to consider all those rele,vant aspects ._dnd erroneously reversed the decision of the decision of 7 LNA, J CRP.No.2604 oI2024 the learned single judge. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the division bench of High Court. "

14. There is no quarrel as regards the ratio laid down by thc Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. But, the factual scenario of the present case and the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid judgments are entirely different and as such, the said judgments are of no aid to the revision petitioner

15. The principal contentlons urged on behalf of revrsron petitioner/defendant No.2 are that firstly, there is no cause of action for filing the suit and secondly, proper Court fee is not paid.

16. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property originally belonged to his grandfather, who is defendant No.l, and that, ever since the marriage of the plaintiff s mother with the son of defendant No. I in the year 2011, they have been living in the suit schedule property; and that cause of action arose in the year 2017, when the plaintiffs father has abandoned the plaintiff and his mother and started living with his parents at Chittoor and fuither, when the plaintiff s mother received eviction I i '1 8 LNA, J CRP.No.2604 oJ 2024 notice on 19.05.2022 asking them to vacate th: suit schedule propefty. ll . The plaintiff IS claiming rights over thr: suit schedule property being grandson of delendant No. 1 , how et'er, t.tie legatily and validity of alleged sale deed executed by delerndant No.l in l'avour of defendant No.2 cannot be considered at tlis stage and the same shall bc determincd after full-fledged trial o1-'.he suit

18. Delendarrt No.2/revision petitioner maitill contcnded that the plaintiff/rr:spondent No.l has no locus stan(li 1o file the suit, and that the leliefs sought in the suit cannot be lyanted. It was further contended that the matrimonial disp -rl.es and other proceedings pending between the mother, father anci grandfather of the plaintifl have no rclevancc to the present liuit. It is also contended that there is no cause of action for Ii:irrg the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be rejected' Whert,65, it is specific contention of the plaintifflrespondent No.1 thrlt the suit is maintainable and defendant No.2 failed to sho'"v under which clause of Order VII Rule 1l of CPC the suit is liable' to be rejected 9 LNA, J CRP.No.2604 of2024

19. A perusal of the plaint discloses that there are specific averments to the elfect that the plaintiff, being the grandson, has interest and rights in the suit schedule property, which allegedly belongs to defendant No. 1. It is also pleaded that the sale deed bearing document No. 1955 of 2022, dated 11.04.2022, was executed by defendant No.l in favour of defendant No.2 only to defeat the maintenance claim of the plaintifls mother. It is also averred that in fact, defendant No.2 in whose favour the said sale deed was executed, is an advocate representing defendant No.1 in the cases filed by the plaintifls mother

20. It is settled principle of law that while adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule I 1 of CPC, only the averrnents made in the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint are to be considered. The pleadings and documents filed along with the written statement cannot be looked into.

21. In the instant case, admittedly, the plaintiff and his mother are in possession of the suit schedule propedy. This fact is not in dispute in the light of the eviction notice issued by defendant No.2 to the plaintifls mother, asking her to vacate the suit schedule property. The question as to whether the plaintiff and his mother I I I II \ I ! t0 LNA, J t.-RP.No.2604 oJ 2021 are in legal possession ofthe suit schedule propert' ,rr u,hether they are tenants can be decided only after full-fledged trial of the suit. Similarly, the issues as to whether the suit schedu e property is the self-acquired propeffy of defendant No.l or it is an ancestral propefty, and whether the plaintil.f, being a legal lreir of defendant No. 1, has any right or interest in the said p roperly can be determined only after full-fledged trial olthe suit.

22. In light of the above discussion, this Court finds that prima facie, the averments in thc plaint disclose a caus() of action. f.hc claims and reliefs sought for in the plaint can onl.r be adjudicated r-rpon after a full-fledged trial, in view of nature o I reliefs. Hence, no grounds have bcen made out for rejection ol lte plaint under any olClauscs (a) to (d) of Order VII Rule I I CpC. Accordingly, the Revision Petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

23. In the result, this Revision petition is dismiss,:c[ /t A Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shrlt stand closed No costs Sd/- S. til,\LLIKARJUNA RAO ASI;ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .SECTION OFFICER { I To,

1. The 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R. R. District at L. B l,lagar. 5"Bg*r.rytYTi?:s=%I One CC to SRI MUHAMMAD VEQAR HUSSAIN Advocate [OPUC] 2

3. Two CD CoPies I I GR/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2010812025 , I I t t t ORDER CRP.No.2604 of 2024 i ,rl,r -. i -.' ' o ( o l) 2 2 t,l8t/ 2p5 * o sripATc t DISMISSTNG THE CIVIL REVISION PET'ITION 4tt lD{-