The court reiterated that issues of title and right to convey property require full trial, rejecting premature dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

ORDER :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri.G.A.Viswanatha Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Siri Rajashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. Defendant Nos.12 to 14 are the revision petitioners challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in O.S.No.245/2012.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

3.1. A suit in O.S.No.245/2012 came to be filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 with the following prayer in respect of the following property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’):

PRAYER

“WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass judgment and decree against all the defendants, declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for consequential reliefs be pleased to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.179/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge court, at Anekal and ot set aside the orders passed in FDP No.1/2009 and declared same is null and void and consequently registered final decree/partition deed dated 14.02.2012 stored in Book No.1, vide Document No.ABL-1-01076/2012-13 stored in CD No.ABLD106 dated 25.05.2012 is hereby declared as cancelled and for declaration, declaring that the registered agreement dated 26.07.2013 executed by the defendants No.12 to 14 in favour of Sri.P.Munireddy is not binding on the plaintiff and the same is declared as null and void and for consequential permanent injunction against all the defendants restraining them, their agents, supporters, workers, henchmen, coolies, contractors, family members, relatives or anybody claiming under them from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and grant such other reliefs together with cost of the suit as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, equity and law.”

SCHEDULE

1. Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.52/2 measuring 0-34 guntas, together with watchman quarters and stone pillars barbed wire fence, bounded on:

East by: land of Papamma, now land of Smt.Muniyamma

West by: land of Chinnanna

North by: Remaining land in the same survey number

South by: Government halla.

2. Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.52/2 measuring 0-33 guntas together with stone pillars barbed wire fence, bounded on:

East by: Land of Papamma

West by: Land of Chinnanna

North by: Land of Hanumareddy, now land of Muniyamma

South by: Remaining land in the same survey number

Both properties situated at Maragondanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District.

3.2. In the plaint, it is contented that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in the said suit by name V. Krishnan now represented by his legal representative - Smt. Dr. Padmaja Krishnan.

3.3. Plaintiff further contended that agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.52/2 measuring 34 guntas and Sy.No.52/2 measuring 33 guntas situated at Maragondanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District which is the suit property by virtue of a sale deed dated 19.04.2007.

3.4. It is also contended that defendant Nos.1 to 11 delivered the vacant portion of the suit property on the date of registration of the sale and thereafter, plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3.5. It is further contention of the plaintiff that revenue entries have been mutated and plaintiff is paying the taxes to the authorities.

3.6. Pu