The court ruled that a plaint should not be rejected unless it clearly fails to disclose any cause of action, emphasizing that issues surrounding ownership and partition requires full trial and cannot be adjudicated solely at the preliminary stage.

ORDER :

K. SUJANA, J.

This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.02.2023 passed in IA.No.248 of 2023 in OS.No.469 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, whereunder, the said I.A., filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.10 and 11 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (for short ‘CPC’) with a prayer to reject the plaint in O.S., on the ground that a) the plaintiffs have no cause of action to bring suit against defendants for partition of suit properties ; b) suit is barred under law ; c) the Court fee paid on the plaint being improper ; and d) suit being frivolous, vexatious and meritless, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that OS No 469 of 2022 was filed by respondent NOs.1 and 2/plaintiffs seeking partition of the suit schedule properties against Defendant Nos.1 to 3 who are family members of the plaintiffs, and the other defendants who purchased or acquired interest in the properties from defendant Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiffs contend that the suit schedule properties are coparcenary properties, inherited from their great-grandfather, Mr.Rikkula Narasimha Reddy, who acquired the properties as an illatom son-in-law in Yasojigudam Village. After his demise, the properties were partitioned among his three sons, and later, B.Sidda Reddy, the father of defendant No.1, orally divided the properties equally between his two sons. The plaintiffs, who are the daughters of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and sisters of defendant No.3, claim a share in the properties as coparceners.

3. Before the trial Court, the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs have no right or interest in the plaint schedule properties, and the suit is barred under law. The plaintiffs' great-grandfather, B.Narsimha Reddy, married Rikkula Siddava and went to her village, Yasojigudem, as an illatom son-in-law, acquiring no right or interest in his in-laws' properties. The properties devolved on B.Sidda Reddy, B.Raji Reddy, and B.Rami Reddy from their mother, Rikkula Siddava, after her demise. The defendant No. 1 and B.Narsimha Reddy succeeded to the properties of B.Sidda Reddy by way of succession, making them the exclusive and separate properties of the defendant No.1 and his brother.

4. The petitioners further submitted that the claim of petitioners over the properties is contrary to the recitals of the registered sale deeds, which state that the defendants Nos.1 to 3 purchased the properties with their own funds. Allegedly, the plaintiffs made alienations of the properties purchased in their names, holding out as their true and real owners. The suit is also barred by limitation, as the registered sale deeds were executed long prior to the institution of the present suit. Additionally, the Court fee paid on the plaint is not proper, and the plaintiffs were never in joint possession of the suit property with the defendants. The petitioners prayed that the plaint be rejected at the threshold, relieving the defendants of the burden of carrying frivolous, vexatious, and merit-less litigations.

5. Contrary to the above, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondents before the trial Court stating that the relief as sought for by the petitioners is not maintainable under law and facts, and was filed based on false and baseless allegations. It was contended that the suit is maintainable under Section 17 of CPC, as some of the immovable properties fall within the jurisdiction of the