The court reiterated the legal principles governing the rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, emphasizing that the court must examine the plaint averments to determine if they disclose a cause of action and that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law that cannot be decided at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11(a).

JUDGMENT

M.Ganga Rao, J. - The petitioner, 1st defendant in the suit, filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in I.A.No.2209 of 2018 in O.S.No.5 of 2012 by the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, whereby the I.A. filed by the petitioner along with defendants 4 to 8 under Order VII Rule 11(a) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the plaint filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff, was dismissed.

2. The 1st respondent filed the above suit to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff against the defendants for the following reliefs:

"(a) Divide the suit properties into two shares and allot 1/2 such share to the plaintiff by way of passing preliminary decree taking into consideration of good and bad qualities;

(b) Declare the adoption deed dated 21.01.1972 is void one not binding on the plaintiff;

(c) Restrain the defendants and their men, agents from alienating the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit by means of granting permanent injunction;

(d) Grant costs of the suit; and

(e) Grant such other relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, as it is expedient in the interest of justice."

3. The defendants also filed Written statement inter alia denying the plaint averments.

4. When the suit is riped for trial, the petitioner along with defendant Nos.4 to 8 filed the present I.A.No.2209 of 2018 to reject the plaint stating that the suit schedule property belonged to the father of the petitioner by name Perla Nagi Reddy and he had two wives by name Chennamma and Sooramma. The said Nagi Reddy begot a daughter and two sons through his first wife viz., Savitramma, Perla Siva Reddy (Petitioner) and Perla Rama Prasad Reddy (husband of 1st respondent/plaintiff). The said Nagi Reddy also begot two daughters through his second wife viz., Jayamma and Rama Subbamma. The said Nagi Reddy and his two wives were died intestate. The younger brother of the petitioner by name Rama Prasad Reddy had died in the year 1967, leaving behind the 1st respondent as his legal heir. After death of Nagi Reddy, his second wife Sooramma and her daughters claimed their respective shares over the entire properties including the suit properties. Later, as per the elders settlement, the above said persons had took an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner and executed one registered Relinquishment deed in his favour on 15.06.1968 vide Document No.2069 of 1968 relinquishing their right of share over the entire properties including the suit schedule properties of the said Nagi Reddy. However, the 1st respondent took an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner and executed one registered Relinquishment deed in his favour on 15.06.1968 relinquishing her right of share over the entire properties of Nagi Reddy including the suit schedule properties. From the date of relinquishment deeds, the petitioner became the absolute owner of entire properties including the suit schedule properties of his father late Nagi Reddy. Except the petitioner, none have the right and title over the suit property in whatsoever manner. The 1st respondent in order to fulfil the desire of her husband (Perla Rama Prasad Reddy) took the elder son of the petitioner in adoption and executed an Adoption deed dated 20.01.1972. Later, the 1st respondent educated the elder son of the petitioner in good manner and performed his marriage with the 2nd respondent. Unfortunately, the elder son of the petitioner was murdered leaving behind the respondents 2 and 3 as his legal heirs. Later, for administrative purpose of the entire properties, the petitioner intended to prepare the partition deed for the entire properties of his father. At that time, the parents of 1st respondent along with elders came to the petitioner and requested to allot share to the 1st respondent for the purpose of welfare of his elder son. H