ORDER :- The revision petitioners are the defendants 8 to 11 in O.S. No.125 of2004 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the dismissal of their application (I.A. No.1287 of 2004) filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint.

2. The respondents 1 to 8 herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents 9 to 15 herein are the defendants 1 to 7 in the suit.

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred as they are arrayed in the main suit.

3. O.S. No.125 of 2004 has been filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the four Registered Sale Deeds bearing Nos.3667, 3668, 3669 and 3670 of 2000, dated 24.6.2000 in favour of the defendants 8 to 11 are null and void and also for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants 8 to 11 from encumbering the suit schedule property either by way of sale, gift or mortgage or doing any construction over the said property. The suit schedule property i. e. the property alienated under the Registered Sale Deeds in question as described in Plaint A to D Schedules is situated in Sy.No.5 of Kanteswar Village. The plaintiffs also filed LA. Nos.517 and 518 of 2004 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants 8 to 11 from encumbering the suit property and from making any construction thereon and both the said applications were dismissed by a common order dated 14.6.2005. In the meanwhile, the defendants 8 to 11 (Revision petitioners) filed LA. No. 1287 of 2004 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint The said application was also dismissed by the Court below by a separate order on 14.6.2005. Aggrieved by the dismissal of LA. No. 1287 of 2004, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the defendants 8 to 11.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner while submitting that the conclusion of the Court below that the petitioners failed to make out any of the grounds specified under Rule 11 of Order 7 of C.P.C. is erroneous, contended that on the face of it the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and therefore the same is liable to be rejected on that ground alone.

6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that since the rejection of plaint is a matter between the Court and the plaintiff, the defendants in the suit cannot interject in it and therefore the well considered order passed by the Court below in dismissing the application warrants no interference by this Court.

7. Before going into merits of the case, it is necessary to notice some of the essential facts as pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiffs as under:

The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of one K. Ganga Goud, who was the founder President of the 1st defendant society (hereinafter referred to as Gouda Sangham). He purchased Ac. 1.35 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.4 of Kanteswar Village, Nizamabad District from Rama Goud under a Sale Deed, dated 9.7.1960.Similarly, the 2nd' defendant, which is an educational society, purchased Ac.2.31 guntas of land situated in Sy.Nos.5 and 6 of the same village from one Mendi Bakkanna.

At the instance of the 2nd defendant society the above said lands were exchanged between the 2nd defendant society and the 1st defendant - Gouda Sangham represented by Ganga Goud to suit their convenience. Consequently, the 2nd defendant society continued in possession of Ac.1.35 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.4, whereas Ac.2.31 guntas situated in Sy.Nos.5 and 6 was given to the 1st defendant - Gouda Sangham which was completely looked after by late Ganga Goud. Though the agreement for exchange was oral, the same was acted upon and the name of K. Ganga Goud was entered in the pahani patrikas in possession column from the year 1961-62 onwards against S.Nos.5 and 6. Late Ganga Goud was looking after the land comprised in S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document