ORDER :

M. Venkata Ramana, J.

1. The defendant is the petitioner. The respondent is the plaintiff.

2. The respondent, as the plaintiff, filed the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner restraining him from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs.

3. The property in dispute is described in plaint schedule as a vacant site of 90 ankanams within the specific boundaries. It shall be referred to, hereinafter, as, 'the suit site'.

4. The rough sketch is also appended to the plaint giving description of the suit site. It is shown as 'A B C D E F G H I' in the sketch. It consists of a regular slabbed house and a tiled portion as well as cattle shed, apart from vacant site.

5. The petitioner is claiming his right, title and interest to a part of the suit site shown as 'A B C I' in the rough sketch.

6. The claim of the respondent, as seen from the plaint, is that her husband Sri late Nukalapati Ramachandra Reddy had purchased the suit site in the year 1981, paying entire sale consideration of Rs. 30,000/- on 1.8.1981 from Sri late Puchalapalli Seetharami Reddy and in respect thereof evidencing the transaction on 31.10.1981, the owner of this property Sri Seetha Ramireddy had executed an agreement for sale and delivered possession of the suit site on 1.8.1981. It is further stated in the plaint that the petitioner, attempted to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the suit site and hence, she is constrained to lay a suit for the relief sought.

7. The petitioner resisted the claim of the respondent filing a written statement. His defence appears that he had purchased a part of the suit site, shown as 'A B C I' in the rough sketch appended to the plaint, from alleged rightful owner, who are closely related to the original owner of the suit site Sri Nukalapati Ramachandra Reddy.

8. The trial has commenced in the suit where the respondent has filed her affidavit in examination-in-chief.

9. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 72 of 2018 under Order VE Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC to reject the plaint. The main grounds urged by the petitioner in this respect are that, the suit, as filed, basing on an agreement for sale, without seeking relief of specific performance, for mere injunction against him, cannot lie. Another ground urged by the petitioner is that the claim of the respondent is barred by limitation.

10. The respondent resisted the petition mainly on the ground that it is filed at a highly belated stage, after being unsuccessful in his earlier attempts, in filing I.A. No. 445 of 2010 for temporary injunction against her, which was dismissed that was confirmed in CMA No. 2 of 2012 by the appellate Court, and, thereafter, in CRP, in this Court. It is further pointed out for the respondent that the petitioner is procrastinating filing one petition or other and having regard to nature of pleadings and cause of action set out by her against the petitioner, she is justified in seeking such reliefs.

11. Sri K.S. Gopalakrishnan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Rathangapani Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent, argued in support of their respective cases.

12. Now, the point for determination is-whether the grounds so urged by the petitioner in terms of Order VII Rule 11 CPC are acceptable and if the plaint as filed has to be rejected?

Point:

13. As seen from the pleadings of the parties, the respondent is basing her claim against the petitioner on the strength of an agreement for sale, dated 31.10.1981, and asserting her possession and enjoyment of the suit site, marked 'ABCDEFGHI' in the rough sketch appended to the plaint. She succeeded this property from her late husband, who, according to her, had purchased from the original owner Sri Puchalapalli Seetharami Redely, in the year 1981, who had delivered possession of the same to him on 1.8.1981, which fact is evidenced by the above agreement for sale. Thus, her case makes out that she is in lawful