Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Kommineni Narendra S/o Late Veeraiah – Petitioner
Versus
Ravela Rama Mohana Rao @ Ramalingaiah S/o Late Somaiah – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 2200 of 2022
Decided On : 20-01-2023
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER VII RULE 11 - REJECTION OF PLAINT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - ENDOWMENTS TRIBUNAL - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ARTICLE 58 - ANDHRA PRADESH PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1994 - SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND RECOVERY OF POSSESSION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title over the suit schedule property, recovery of possession of the property, and permanent injunction against the defendants. Defendant No. 6 filed an application to reject the plaint on the grounds of limitation and lack of jurisdiction of the civil court. The trial court dismissed the application, and the defendant filed a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by limitation. The court also held that the civil court had jurisdiction to hear the suit, as the suit was not barred by any law and the Endowments Tribunal did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 2. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to hear the suit in light of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the cause of action arose on the date of the alleged interference with the plaintiffs' possession of the property, and not on the date of the notice issued by the official respondents. Therefore, the suit was not barred by limitation. 2. The court held that the suit was not barred by the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as the suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession, which were not matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Endowments Tribunal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of the trial court.
ORDER :
1. Defendant No. 6 in the suit filed the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against common order, dated 27.04.2022 in I.A. Nos. 542 and 543 of 2021 in O.S. No. 59 of 2021 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 59 of 2021 against revision petitioner and others for declaration of title over ‘A’ schedule property shown as ABCD in the plaint plan as private property of the plaintiffs over which they are having absolute right, title interest and possession and for consequential relief of recovery of possession of ‘B’ schedule property shown in between points BB2B3 and A2B3 CD forming part and parcel of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property free from obstruction by evicting/removing the encroachments of structural constructions made by the defendant therefrom and for permanent injunction, etc.
3. In the plaint it was contended inter alia that ‘A’ schedule property, tiled house and house site, is ancestral property of the plaintiffs; that plaintiffs got the property by way of succession; that decades back, grandfather of plaintiff No. l got constructed tiled roof house in between points AAZ and BB2 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule site for the purpose of storage of agricultural produce; that persons passing through their village used to take rest on the pails of the said tiled house and the property is located at the main junction and cross roads of the village; that ‘A’ schedule property is commonly known and called as Ramalingaiah Satram; that in due course, suit schedule property was succeeded by plaintiff No. 1 and it is their private property; that the property of defendant No. 6 is situated towards South of the suit schedule property and is having access into the Western side, Thulluru to Guntur road; that ‘A’ schedule property was levied to tax and later by Resolution No. 57/69-70, dated 31.03.1970, tax was exempted till 1989; that in the revision held in 1989-90, since property is private property, property tax was levied and collected vide assessment No. 753; that later in the revision in the year, 1994-95, once again exemption was given and it continued till the year 1999; that from 1999 tax was levied with assessment No. 667 and property tax was collected for the schedule property in the name of plaintiff No. 1 till 2008 and by that year the assessment number was 620; that the plaintiff got effected modifications in the schedule property and converted the same into shops and leased out to tenants for running businesses; that during the year, 2008 some of the busy bodies in the village made false complaints to the government; that in said connection, in the month of February, 2008 the then Tahsildar, Thulluru issued notice to plaintiff No. 1 to submit explanation for which plaintiff No. 1 offered his explanation, dated 22.02.2008; that Tahsildar dropped further proceedings; that defendant No. 6, who has no right, came to the suit schedule property along with mob and caused damage to the articles of shop in ‘A’ schedule property and also damaged part of tiled roof house and obstructed construction works of the drainage canals started by the APCRDA, in front of the suit ‘A’ schedule property; that plaintiffs and others objected for the same; that again on 15.11.2018, defendant No. 5 along with his staff, without issuing any notice, came to the suit schedule property and with the support of defendant No. 6 and some others caused damage to the articles of the shopkeepers in ‘A’ schedule property; that defendant No. 6 illegally encroached the vacant site lying towards South and East from out of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property; that the encroached property is shown as ‘B’ schedule property; that plaintiffs as well as shopkeepers lodged complaints against defendant Nos. 5 and 6 before SHO, Thulluru Police Station; that defendant No. 5 issued notice, dated 17.11.2018 to plaintiff No. 2 calling upon to produce record of t
A suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is maintainable in a civil court, even if the property in question is alleged to be an endowment property.
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if it discloses a cause of action and is not barred by any law.
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over disputes concerning endowment properties governed by the Endowments Act, and jurisdictional issues must be resolved through a full trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering documents filed along with the plaint for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The judgment emphasized....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC if it is clearly barred by limitation, and if the plaintiff was well aware of the facts gi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
