ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ramesh Ranganathan and S. Ravi Kumar, JJ.
Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Bhargavi Constructions & Ors. —Respondents
Appeal Suit No.968 of 2013
Decided on 25.6.2015
(ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VII, Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — If suit explicitly or impliedly barred by any law — Can a plaint be rejected under O. VII, R. 11 (d) CPC. [Para 12]
Result: Appeal allowed
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.—The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.107 of 2010. They sought a decree in their favour, and against the defendants, to declare para 18 of the compromise recorded in O.S. No.481 of 2007 before the Lok Adalat dated 22.08.2007, in so far as it related to land admeasuring Ac.9.29 gts of land in Sy. Nos.271, 272 and 273 shown to have created rights in favour of defendant No.31 i.e., M/s. Bhargavi Constructions represented by Sri V. Ramachandra Rao, as nonest in law for having been obtained by fraud and collusion, by playing fraud upon the plaintiffs; and for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, especially defendant No.31, their agents, servants, employees etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule A, B and C properties.
2. In this plaint filed in O.S. No.107 of 2010, the appellants stated that the 1st plaintiff had purchased land admeasuring Ac.25.00 cts in Sy. Nos.262, 274 under registered sale deed dated 06.07.1974 from Sri Jamaluddin and others; the first plaintiff also purchased Ac.6.10 gts from Sri Jamaluddin in the year 1975, which was confirmed by a deed of confirmation dated 24.04.1985; Sri Mohd. Kareemuddin had obtained a loan from Sri K. Mutyam Reddy, and had mortgaged the land admeasuring Ac.6.10 guntas, in the year 1982, by executing the mortgage deed; in addition thereto, land admeasuring Ac.12.20 gts was also in possession of the plaintiffs since June, 1993; between themselves, the plaintiffs were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of a total extent of Ac.50.00 gts of land in Sy. Nos.262 to 274 in Poppulaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; as Sri Md. Khairuddin, Ajeemuddin and Kareemuddin, were interfering, the 1st plaintiff filed the injunction suit in O.S. No.333 of 1992 which was decreed in his favour; as the patta was not mutated in his name, the 1st plaintiff filed O.S. No.259 of 1994 against Sri Jamaladdin and others for declaration of his title and for perpetual injunction; on O.S. No.259 of 1994 being dismissed on 05.04.2004, the 1st plaintiff filed A.S. No.2323 of 2005; during the pendency of the said appeal, the 1st defendant filed O.S. No.481 of 2007 for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 28.12.1995 in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.51.29 gts in Sy. No.262 to 274 of Poppulaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; the plaintiffs, in the present Suit, were arrayed as defendants 22 to 25 therein; however, on the intervention of mediators, a compromise was arrived at; under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs were to relinquish Ac.41.34 gts, and the 1st plaintiff would be left with Ac.9.29 gts; from out of the total extent of Ac.41.34 gts, it was agreed that Ac.10.20 gts of land would be transferred in the name of Sri Ratangapani Reddy i.e., the son-in-law of the first plaintiff; the remaining land was to be given to the 1st plaintiff; an area of land, admeasuring Ac.6.25 gts, had been acquired for the outer ring road; the schedule of payment of money was also incorporated, in the compromise, only to the extent of Ac.25.00 gts; the defendants surreptitiously added therein that the plaintiffs had given up their rights in respect of land admeasuring Ac.9.29 gts in favour of M/s. Bhargavi Constructions, represented by Sri V. Ramachandra Rao, who were not parties to O.S. No.481 of 2007; no compromise could be recorded with persons who were not parties to the suit; immediately after the compromise was recorded in the Lok Adalat, a sale deed was executed on the same day in favour of M/s. Grandbay Estate Developers Ltd and Venezia Estate Developers Ltd., vide document No.8379 of 2007 dated 22.08.2007 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.14.02 gts in Sy. Nos.263 to 270; another agreement of sale with irrevocable GPA dated 22.08.2007 was entered into with Sri K. Ratangapani Reddy in respect of land admeasur
Batchu Subba Lakshmi v. Sannidhi Srinivasulu
A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P.
State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh
Bar Council of India v. Union of India
Sanjay Kumar v. Secretary, City Civil Court Legal Services Authoirty, Hyderabad
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh
Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd.
A.P. Scheduled Tribes Employees Association v. Aditya Pratap Bhanj Dev
State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subba Rao (Dr.)
Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi
Svenska Handelsbanken v. Indian Charge Chrome
Union of India v. Chaturbhai M. Patel & Co.
A.L.N. Narayanan Chettyar v. Official Assignee, High Court, Rangoon
Sangramsingh P. Gaekwad v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad
Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B. v. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare
Maharashtra Power Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Dabhol Power Co.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.