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.

ORDER :

G. RADHA RANI, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - defendant No.2 aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.107 of 2020 in O.S.No.8 of 2017 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial for dismissing the petition filed by him under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint.

2. The petitioner filed I.A.No.107 of 2020 in O.S.No.8 of 2017 seeking rejection of the plaint contending that he was the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0-26 guntas in Survey No.354/B situated at Dharoor Village of Jagtial Mandal and District having purchased the same from defendant No.1, who in turn purchased the same from its original owner Smt.Takur Narayana Bhai to an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas under a registered sale deed bearing document No.481/2005. Subsequent to the purchase, the defendant No.1 got mutated his name in the revenue records. Out of Ac.0-30 guntas, the petitioner - defendant No.2 purchased Ac.0-26 guntas from defendant No.1. As defendant No.1 failed to execute the sale deed, the petitioner - defendant No.2 filed a suit O.S.No.136 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial and the said suit was decreed on 21.06.2011. The petitioner - defendant No.2 filed E.P.No.19 of 2012 for execution of the said decree through the Court. He got executed the registered sale deed vide document No.4883/2010 dated 12.12.2014 at SRO, Mallial and the possession of Ac.0-26 guntas was delivered by the bailiff of the Court. The name of the petitioner - defendant No.2 was mutated in the revenue records. During the pendency of the mutation proceedings the respondent No.1 - plaintiff raised objection through her vendee Regalla Srikanth. However, on thorough enquiry, the Tahsildar, Jagtial granted mutation in favor of petitioner - defendant No.2 vide proceedings No.B/4981/2014 dated 22.07.2016 and his name was entered in the revenue records. As such, he became the exclusive owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0-26 guntas in Survey No.354/B of Dharoor Village of Jagtial Mandal. He got permission from the Gram Panchayat, Dharoor vide proceedings No.GP/37/2016 dated 15.09.2016 for construction of compound wall and tin shed. Accordingly, he constructed a compound wall, built a shed and was enjoying the same ever since the date of delivery of possession by the Court bailiff.

2.1. The petitioner further contended that the respondent No.1 - plaintiff was claiming her alleged rights through her mother, but her mother during her lifetime executed a registered sale deed in favor of defendant No.1 - respondent No.2 for an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas. Hence, the plaintiff had no any legal right and possession over the suit schedule land and there was no cause of action for filing the suit. The alleged cause of action was a created and concocted one. As such, the suit was liable to be rejected at the threshold. He came to know that the plaintiff was creating collusive and fictitious sale deeds in favor of third parties. The respondent - plaintiff prior to filing the suit itself sold away the suit schedule land by way of registered sale deed bearing document No.10619/2014 dated 12.12.2014 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar in favor of one Mr.Regalla Srikanth. In view of the said alienation and conveyance, her alleged right, title and interest if any in the property in question was ceased and the cause for the alleged grievance in the suit would not survive and prayed to reject the pl