Back
P. SREE SUDHA
D. Pentoji Died – Appellant
Versus
Shaik Abdur Rahman Bin Ali Ramzani – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 14.09.2022 in I.A. No. 140 of 2022 in O.S. No. 508 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, at L.B. Nagar.
2. Petitioners herein have filed an application vide I.A. No. 140 of 2022 in O.S. No. 508 of 2021, against the respondents, under Order 7 rule 11 of C.P.C. seeking to reject the plaint. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioners preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. Heard arguments of both sides at length and perused the entire evidence on record.
4. Respondents No. 1 to 3/Plaintiffs mainly contended that they have filed a suit vide O.S. No. 508 of 2021, for declaration of title, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and to declare the document Nos. 86 of 2010, dated 31.12.2009 and 307 of 2011, dated 29.01.2011, as null and void and not binding on them. They also stated that they clearly pleaded the cause of action in several paragraphs of the plaint and also paid the Court fee as per the market value certificate issued by the Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Gandipet Mandal. Section 99 of the
Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging decisions made under the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy Act, 1950, as per Section 99, which excludes such matters from civil adjudication.
The court established that transactions involving agricultural land require prior permission under the Tenancy Act, and failure to obtain such permission renders the transaction void.
Order VI Rule 17 CPC reads as amendment of pleadings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
