S.Bachi Reddy v. 1. S.Rajender Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: A P SURESH RAM The Court made the following: ORDER \ a '-) THEHoN'BLESMT.JUSTICETIRUMALADEVIEADA ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 30'06'2025 in t.A.No.47 4 0f 2024 in o.s.No.148 0f 2022 by the senior civil Judge at Kalwakurthy (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") Z. The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner/defendant No'3 and respondent No.1 is the respondenUplaintiff' The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity'

3. Heard the submissions of sri B.Madhusudhan B-ao, learned counsel for the petiticner and Sri A.P.Suresh Ram, learned counsel for resPondent No.1.

4. The learned petitioner counset submitted that the defendant No.3 has challenged the suit contending that it is not maintainable as there vras no cause of action to initiate the suit' He further argued that during the pendencV of the suit an amendment was br.ought about and the petition filed under order 1 Rule 10 of cPC was also allowed impleading the other parties and also that a 2 CRP No.2817 2025 \: \ petition seeking amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CpC for the relief of cancellation of gift deed was also allowed and that further in 2023 recovery of possession was further claimed by the plaintiff by filing zrnother application for amendment. Thus, defendant No.3 filed a petition under Order Vll Rule 11 of CPC contending that there ir; no cause of action for the plaintiff to maintain the suit.

5. l-he contention of the petitioner-defendant No.3 is that the plaintiff is relying on a Will which does not fall for consideration and that ba:;ed on that Will, he flled the suit and further that he has not paid thr: proper Court fee for all the other reliefs claimed by him. The trial Court has failed to appreciate that when .the cause of action ilself is not made out, the suit is not maintainable and that it ought to have been rejected but the trial Court failed to appreciate the sane. He further argued that the suit is barred by limitation, therefore, prayed to set aside the orders passed by the trial Court and reje,:t the plaint accordingly.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 - plaintiff has submitted that the petitioner and respondents have a common ancestor i.e. their grandmother. He further argued that the period of limitation commences from the date of Will, from which date the ) .\ 3 cRP No.28l7 2025 right to sue accrued to the plaintiff, therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation and that he has paid the correct Court fee with regard to the entries in the revenue records and therefore, the trial Court has rightly observed the facts on record and has also righfly appreciated the legal position and thus dismissed the petition. Hence, he prayed to uphold the orders passed by the trial Court and dismiss the present petition.

7. Perused the record.

8. 1.A.No.474 of 2024 in O.S.No.148 of 2022 was filed under Order Vll Rule 1'l of CPC to reject the plaint. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.148 of 2024. The plaintiff has filed the suit based on a Will deed said to have been executed by the original owner S.Anthamma, who happens to be the grandmother of the parties herein. Said Anthamma died on.02.11.2007 and the Will is dated 17.06.2007. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the suit with a prayer seeking declaration of title in his favour, recovery of possession from the defendants and also for correction of entries in ROR.

9. Since the petition is under Order VII Rule 11 of CpC, the same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: I i 4 CllP No.2817 2025 "11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the lbllowing cases:- 1a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on tEing required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper vithin a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (C) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be b,arred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (,) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9: F'rovided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite s:amp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court aTd that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."

10. The contention of the respondent No.1 i.e. plaintiff herein is that ever since Anthamma died in 2007, he was enjoying the property but however, the defendants have interfered with the possess;ion on 20.02.2014 and thus the cause of action arose on

20.02.2014, hence, the suit was filed in 2014. His case is that he filed the suit in the month of March, 2014 and subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, the defendants 1 and 2 have occupied the property unlawfully on 14.01 .2019, as a result, he filed the amendnrent petition seeking to amend the prayer for recovery of possess on, which was allowed. Another amendment was also sought by the plaintiff seeking cancellation of gift deed and /- CRP No.2817 2025 rectification of revenue records which was allowed by the trial Court.

11. The contention of the defendants is that the Will was executed in 2007 but the suit is filed in 2014, hence, it is barred by limitation. The aspect of limitation however is a mixed question of fact and law, and it cannot be decided at the threshold and shall be decided after a full-fledged trial based on the evidence let in by both the parties.

12. The another contention of the petitioner - defendant No.3 is that the plaintiff failed to pay the proper Court fee for rectification of revenue entries and also for declaration of unregistered gift deed as illegal.

13. Section 24(a) of the Telangana Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,.1956 (for short 'the Act'), is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: "24. Suits for declaration - ln a suit for a declaration with or without consequential reliel not falling under section 25 - (a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the movable property or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher;.." -,.-- 6 CRP No.2817 2025

14. ltny relief for declaration with or without consequential relief the fee is stipulated as per Section 24(a) of the said Act, hence, no additional Court fee is required in this regard, thus the contention of the defi:ndant No.3 does not stand on this count.

15. Further, the relief of rectification of records under Section 43 of the Act, the fixed Court fee is paid by the plaintiff, therefore, the plea of rJeficit Court fee also does not hold any strength

16. Another contention of the defendant No.3 is that there is no cause cf action. The plaintiff has filed his suit as the defendants interfered with his possession. The case of the plaintiff is that he was en.ioying the property by virtue of a will deed but since defendants started interfering with his possession, he claims declaration as the owner. The cause of action is made out through the avennents made in the plaint. Hence, it cannot be held that the plaint lar:ks cause of action. Thus, all the three grounds raised by the defendant No.3 failed in this regard.

17. When the ingredients laid down under Order Vll Rule 11 of CPC are not met with, the defendant No.3 is not entitled to any relief under the said provision. By observing the same, the trial Court ha,s dismissed the petition filed under Order Vll Rule 11 of ./ 7 CRP No.2817-2025 cpc, hence, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the trial Court dated 30.06'2025, therefore' it does not need any interference.

18. lntheresult,theCivilRevisionPetitionlacksmeritsandthe same is dismissed- No costs' Miscellaneous applications, pending if any' shall stand closed \ To, /TRUE COPY" SD'-M.NAGAMANI ASSISiANi NEGISTNRRe SECTION OFFICER

1. The Senior Civil Judge' Kalwakurthy' 2. One CC to SRI B MADHU SUDHAN RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI A P SURESH RAM Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies G o I, a i HIGH CC)URT D i0410912025 3 -: i GRP.No.2817 of 2025 s I I 2 3 JA}l 2026 : 'ti * ING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION ,r{ I