IMPORTANT POINT
A plaintiff can seek cancellation of a deed affecting their property rights even if not a party to the deed, provided they demonstrate a valid cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Priyadarsini, J.

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 08.06.2022 in I.A.No.505 of 2022 in O.S.No.34 of 2022 (hereinafter will be referred as ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge – cum – Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy (hereinafter will be referred as ‘trial Court’), the plaintiff preferred the present appeal to set aside the impugned order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the plaintiff/appellant to file the present appeal, are that the plaintiff filed O.S.No.34 of 2022 against defendants seeking cancellation of two sale deeds dated 16.04.2021 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 respectively and declaring them as null, void and not binding on the plaintiff and for a consequential perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule properties. After receipt of summons, the defendant filed petition vide I.A.No.505 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint. The brief averments of the affidavit filed in support of the petition are as under :

(i) The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts as the plaintiff has no cause of action and the plaintiff has initiated vexatious litigation only to harass the defendant. The plaintiff has cleverly drafted the pleadings, which created illusions of the cause of action, which is not permitted in law.

(ii) A suit for cancellation of an instrument will be maintainable only when filed by the party, who has executed such a document. But the documents, which plaintiff is seeking to be cancelled were not executed by the plaintiffs. Hence, from the pleadings in the plaint, it is clear that the plaint is barred by law.

(iii) The suit is nothing but a vexatious suit initiated only to create hardships for the petitioner/defendant, who has obtained the work commencement letter from GHMC authorities. The real intention of the plaintiff is to stop the construction of the house in suit schedule house.

(b) In reply to the petition averments, the respondent/plaintiff filed counter, the brief averments of which are as under:

(i) In recitals of the documents, the defendant mentioned that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property but he did not mention as to how he acquired the title. This itself shows that the defendant played fraud during the Covid-19 pandemic, as the property was under lock and key, he executed the fictitious sale deeds that are liable to be cancelled by the Court. The defendant has approached the Court with unclean hands as he does not have any right to claim that the suit schedule property belongs to him.

(ii) Though it is contended by the defendant that there is no cause of action, it is very much evident that from the date of execution of fraudulent sale deeds i.e., 16.04.2021 the cause of action arose for filing the suit. The plaintiff is the absolute owner and filed suit for cancellation which is maintainable. In fact, the defendant is not having any right to claim that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, hence, he is a third party to the suit proceedings.

(iii) It is stated that the permission by the GHMC authorities for construction will not give any right or title to the property. The officials of GHMC are in collusion with defendant. A proper enquiry in the suit proceedings is required to be conducted to decide the rightful owners of the suit schedule property. At this juncture the suit cannot be rejected, hence, the petition filed by the defendant is liable to be dismissed.

(c) The trial Court after considering the rival contentions, allowed the petition and thereby suit of the plaintiff was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the plaintiff filed the present appeal to set aside the impugned order.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of appeal.

5. The two