IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity to reject a plaint if it creates an illusion of cause of action, ensuring vigilance against vexatious litigation.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 25.01.2022, passed in I.A. No. 478 of 2022 in O.S. No. 8 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Chevella, R.R. District.

2. O.S. No. 8 of 2014 is filed by respondents/plaintiffs for declaration, rectification of entries and for perpetual injunction against the petitioner/defendant. During the pendency of the suit, I.A. No. 478 of 2022 was filed by petitioner/defendant for rejection of the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, petitioner/defendant preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon a law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dahiben vs. Arvindhbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 in which on page 380, Para 24.4, it was held that, it is the duty of the Court to reject a plaint at the earliest stage if by clever drafting of plaint, a plaintiff has created the illusion of cause of action. It was further held that the Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious and abuse of process of the Court.

4. He further relied upon a law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sopan Sukhedo Sable vs. Asst. Charity Commr. (2020) 3 SCC 137, in which on page 146, Paras 11 and 12 and page 149, Para 21, it was held that an ingenious drafting of Plaint creating illusory causes of action must not stop a Court from rejecting a Plaint which discloses no real cause of Action. In the present case, the Cause of action mentioned in Para No. 8 of the Plaint pertains only to the consequential relief of injunction and not the main suit claim. Upon a meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, there appears to be no cause of action to support the main reliefs sought in the Suit, namely, those of declaration and rectification of entries.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

6. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed Suit declaration, rectification of entries and for perpetual injunction in respect of suit land bearing Sy. No. 118 admeasuring Ac. 1.24 guntas (comprising of Sy. No. 118 admeasuring Ac. 0.32 guntas, Sy. No. 118, admeasuring Ac. 0.32 guntas) situated at Kammeta Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Respondents/plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 118 admeasuring Ac. 1.24 guntas. They stated that originally Malkapuam Parma Reddy and his three sons, M.Anantha Reddy (defendant No. 1), M. Gopal Reddy (plaintiff No. 1) and M.Buchi Reddy (plaintiff No. 2) together constituted a joint Hindu family and the said Parma Reddy was the Kartha of the joint family. The said joint family owned and possessed agricultural lands as well as residential houses in Kammeta Village as shown in a table in Para No. 2 of the plaint.

7. Respondents/Plaintiffs further stated that with the consent of their father, plaintiffs and defendant got the lands partitioned among themselves in the presence of elders in the village and also gave the details of the lands in tables in Para No. 3 of the plaint. After the partition, all of them have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. During the life time of Parma Reddy, he executed a gift settlement deed dated 10.09.1979 bearing document No. 502 of 1979. In the said gift deed, the allotment of the shares in respect of plaintiffs and defendant is clearly disclosed. Respondents/plaintiffs and petitioner/defendant are having equal shares to an extent of Ac. 0.32 guntas each.

8. Respondents/plaintiffs stated that the residential house and remaining agricultural lands which are standing in the name of their father also partitioned long back but to avoid further litigation admitting the past partition between the plaintiffs and defendant, they have once again executed partitioned deed dated 09.06.1992. As per the family settlement whatever the properties