B. PRAKASH RAO, J.

( 1 ) SINCE these two matters arise out of common order, they are being taken up together for disposal.

( 2 ) IN the appeal and the revision appellants/petitioners are the plaintiffs, who seek to assail common order passed in the main suit and in LA. No. 798 of 1998 dated 12-8-1998 on the file of the I Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing an application filed under Order 7, rule 11 (a) C. P. C. and rejecting the plaint in the suit, as has been filed by them.

( 3 ) IN the suit, the plaintiffs sought for the release of the suit property from attachment and custody from the Defendant nos. l to 6 and to restore the same to the plaintiffs by duly re-fixing the boundaries as per the panchanama or in the alternative to 1 deliver the land as agreed to 3rd defendant ] vide Memo Dated 2-2-1985; in case of any difficulty in doing so to compensate the plaintiffs by suitable adjustment and allocation of other land nearby or in such other manner as the Hon ble Court feels just and convenient including delivery of the land mentioned in the panchanama and sketch; to direct Defendants 1 to 6 to render accounts of the income and expenditure during the period of the temporary custody and management; for costs; and for such other reliefs.

( 4 ) SOON after the appearance, the respondents i. e. , Defendants 1 to 6 filed the present application under Rule 11 (a) of the order 7 of Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint, inter alia, on the ground that the suit as has been filed in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court dated 17-9-1997 is not maintainable in view of the facts; firstly that the person, who was given right to file a suit viz. , Azizunnisa begum, D/o late Ghulam Azimuddin, died and therefore it is only her legal representatives are entitled to file, but the suit having been filed by the present plaintiffs tracing the title from Azizunnisa begum D/o late Gulam Azimuddin, have no cause of action; secondly, the plaintiffs claim under the registered sale deed dated 23-3-1985 was not brought to the notice of any Court in the earlier round of litigation; and thirdly, 1st plaintiff claimed to be the G. P. A. of Azizunnisa Begum D/o late Gulam Azimuddin and purchaser from azizunnisa Begum D/o Azizuddin, who are quite distinct and separate persons and therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled to file any suit. Hence, the plaint is liable to be. rejected.

( 5 ) DENYING the said objections, the claim of the plaintiffs is that the suit has been filed duly in terms of the direction given by the Supreme Court and the plaintiffs being purchasers are entitled to file the suit in view of the death of their predecessor in title, who was given a right to file a suit as per the orders of the Supreme Court and further all the objections as sought to be raised do involve a consideration on facts after an enquiry and therefore it cannot be reject at threshold.

( 6 ) CONSIDERING all the pleas and objections from both sides, the Court below allowed the application and rejected the plaint, inter alia, holding that the Supreme court has directed filing of the suit to a named person and since the said named person died, the plaintiffs cannot file a suit and therefore they cannot have any cause of action. Further, the sale deed claimed by the plaintiffs was not brought on record in the earlier proceedings, which was pursued only on a plea that the plaintiffs are the G. P. A. holders but not as an agreement of sale holders and therefore in view of the death of the executant of the power of attorney, the authority no longer subsists. It was also observed that no where in the plaint or in the counter to the present application there is any averment as to the date of death of the late Azizunnisa begum and no death certificate was also filed and therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled to the benefit under Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act or even under section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also ob

Click Here to Read the rest of this document