Back
T. VINOD KUMAR
Y. Anisha Reddy – Appellant
Versus
K. V. Narasimha Reddy – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order and decretal order dated 10.02.2023 in I.A. No. 670 of 2022 in O.S. No. 144 of 2022 passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri, at Medchal.
2. Heard Sri. R. Ranganath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. Dishit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
3. The Petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit filed by the Respondents herein for declaration of title, declaration of the Gift Settlement Deeds bearing Doc. No. 14634 of 2018 and 14635 of 2018 as null and void and for grant of consequential perpetual injunction.
4. While so, the petitioners herein filed the underlying interlocutory application seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) on the ground that cause of action for the plea of adverse possession was not disclosed.
5. The Trial Court on hearing the parties, held that on a meaningful reading of the averments in the plaint, the circumstances mentioned therein disclose sufficient cause of action
A plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold if it discloses some cause of action, even if alternate pleas are raised; the merits must be determined at trial.
(1) Adverse Possession – Plea of adverse possession is not always a legal plea – It is always based on facts which must be asserted and proved.(2) Foundation for plea of adverse possession must be la....
A cause of action must be established from the plaint alone; external defenses cannot be considered for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
A plaintiff can maintain a suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession, contrary to the High Court's ruling.
The cause of action is a bundle of facts and cannot be decided at the preliminary stage of the suit.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC allow for alternate defenses like adverse possession, provided they are substantiated in pleadings; courts should be liberal in permitting such a....
The court affirmed the principle that the onus of proof for adverse possession lies with the party claiming adverse possession, and that adverse possession cannot be used to obtain a decree for decla....
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
