IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the court to scrutinize the averments in the plaint and the documents relied upon to ascertain the existence of a cause of action. Additionally, the court emphasized that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring consideration at the time of trial.

JUDGMENT

1. Since the issue involved in both the revisions is common and they also arise out of O.S.No.626 of 2019, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. C.R.P.No.911 of 2020 is directed against the order dtd. 17/3/2020 in I.A.No.2139 of 2019 in O.S.No.626 of 2019, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein (defendant Nos.6 to 9) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') seeking rejection of plaint, was dismissed.

3. C.R.P.No.1004 of 2020 is directed against the order dtd. 17/3/2020 in I.A.No.2157 of 2019 in O.S.No.626 of 2019, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein (defendant No.15) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') seeking rejection of plaint, was dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents in both the revisions. Perused the record.

5. Respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.626 of 2019 filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule land against the petitioners herein and other respondents alleging that fraud was played by the then Patwari of Khanapur Village, wherein the names of petitioners and other respondents, more particularly the names of predecessors-in-title of the petitioners and other respondents have been recorded as pattadars and possessors of the respective lands from khasra pahani 1954-55 onwards. While the revenue entries remained so, there was sale of the suit schedule lands and mutation of names of subsequent purchasers. Fraud had been discovered in the year 2001 when the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted report dtd. 15/5/2001 about wrong entries being made in the revenue records in the suit Sy.No.65. On the basis of report of the MRO, the officials concerned made corrections in the revenue records. The said corrections were set aside pursuant to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.20104 of 2005 dtd. 2/7/2008. The State Government preferred writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge vide W.A.No.1103 of 2008 and by judgment dtd. 20/11/2013, the writ petition was dismissed with an observation that in the event the Government wants to approach Civil Court to establish correct title, it is free to do so. Hence, the present suit was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5.

6. The revision petitioners filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and is also barred by limitation. The respondents-State resisted the said applications by filing counter affidavits. The trial Court on a consideration of the material on record dismissed both the applications vide separate orders dtd. 17/3/2020. Challenging the said orders, the present revisions are filed.

7. Mr.A.Venkatesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.R.P.No.1004 of 2020, submits that the plaint averments do not disclose proper cause of action, particularly on the plea of fraud, as to who committed the fraud and the manner of commission of fraud is also not stated in the pleadings. Learned senior counsel further submits that the entries in the revenue record from 1941 to 2001 were not challenged by the respondents-State at any point of time for about 60 years. The respondents-State is estopped from claiming that the entries in the revenue record are erroneous and fraudulent and as respondents-State are the custodians of the revenue record, the ground of fraud is not tenable. Learned senior counsel further submits that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition and writ appeal, held that the fraud is an old story and the present suit as filed is not tenable on the same ground. In support of his contentions and submissions, he placed rel