JUDGMENT :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

Heard learned counsel Sri M. Naga Deepak for the appellant and the learned counsel Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar for the respondent.

2. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.7 of 2022 in the Court of I Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. Plaintiff claims to be a Dentist by profession. He married the defendant in the year 2007. According to the plaintiff, property bearing plot No.140 in Sy.Nos.74, 1001/1, 100/2, 100/3, 102 and 103 admeasuring 251.11 square yards situated at Durgamatha House Building Cooperative Society Limited at Gunrock, Trimulgherry village, Secunderabad Cantonment, described as schedule ‘A’ property, was purchased by the defendant vide Sale Deed dated 02.09.2015. Defendant paid total sale consideration of Rs. 37,66,650/-. In pursuance of the collective decision to build a house, plaintiff applied to Secunderabad Cantonment Board for permission to construct a house. The Cantonment Board has granted building permission on 20.11.2017. He paid the amount required for building permission and entire costs for construction of the building. In all, he has contributed Rs. 1,71,97,484/- for construction of building on suit schedule ‘A’ property. Plaintiff is living in the said property. It is further case that plaintiff and defendant decided to invest in a commercial property. Consequent to the said decision, they have identified the office space bearing no.918, having Municipal No.6-3-1192/1/III/918 in Block-III, admeasuring 1340.41 square feet including two Car parkings and jointly purchased for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,04,95,700-. It is schedule ‘B’ property.

3. According to the plaintiff, even though there were joint purchases made by the plaintiff and defendant, without informing the plaintiff, the defendant registered the said properties in her name. According to the plaintiff, in the year 2021, defendant suddenly left the house along with two children and has not responded for a long time. According to the plaintiff, defendant started claiming right over the schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and threatening the plaintiff to vacate the schedule ‘A’ property. In those circumstances, plaintiff prayed to pass decree in his favour declaring that plaintiff is a beneficial owner of the schedule ‘A’ property and consequently declare that the plaintiff is the true and rightful owner of 70% of the share of the schedule ‘A’ property; and to declare that he is a beneficial owner of schedule ‘B’ property and consequently declare that the plaintiff is true and rightful owner of 52% of the share in the schedule ‘B’ property.

4. In the said suit, defendant filed I.A.No.1093 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11(D) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying to reject the plaint on the ground of jurisdiction. According to the petitioner/defendant, dispute raised in the suit is a family dispute and there are Family Courts specially constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, ‘Act, 1984’) and the suit has to be instituted only in the Family Court, not before the regular Civil Court. In support of the said plea, reliance is placed on Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, 1984.

5. Respondent/Plaintiff opposed the said prayer by contending that suit is maintainable before the Civil Court. Alternative submission made was even assuming that dispute raised in the suit is a family dispute and that the Family Court alone has jurisdiction to deal with the dispute raised by the plaintiff, the plaint can be returned with liberty to the plaintiff to represent the suit before the Family Court.

6. Holding that in the matters between the plaintiff and defendant, Section 7 of the Act, 1984 vests jurisdiction in the Family Court and as per Section 8 of the Act, 1984, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law and accordingly, rejected the plaint.

7. We have heard learned senior learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for