SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1082

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. Madhavi Devi, J.
Neela Bindu Pavani - Petitioner
Versus
Kasani Venkateswarlu and others – Respondents
CRP No.2475 of 2024
Decided On : 31-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shaik Madar
For the Respondent: S. Dinesh

A plaintiff must clearly state the cause of action and relevant details in the plaint for it to be maintainable; lack of such specifics can lead to the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Suit for cancellation of registered sale deed - Petition for rejection of plaint for failure to disclose cause of action and undervaluation - Court held that plaint did not specify balance sale consideration or relevant facts to establish a right to sue, necessitating rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a). (Paras 7, 9, 10, 12, 22)

(B) Court Fees - Jurisdiction - Court clarified that the proper valuation of the suit is based on the sale deed's consideration at the time of plaint presentation; rejection on grounds of undervaluation was ruled out. (Paras 18, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is the defendant in a suit seeking the cancellation of a sale deed due to alleged non-payment of the outstanding sale consideration. The plaintiff claims he was subjected to intimidation and that registration under the deed was fraudulent as the payment terms were not honored. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
Rejection of the plaint was warranted due to the absence of vital details required to sustain the cause of action, despite the valuation being adequate under the law. (Paras 12, 22)

Issues: Main issues included whether the suit was undervalued and if the plaint failed to mention the sale consideration, thereby lacking a cause of action for the suit. (Paras 7, 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for clear disclosure of the cause of action in the plaint and found that any conspiracy theories of fraud did not outweigh the fact that the plaintiff had registered the property in the defendant’s name. (Paras 12, 22)

Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. basic facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. defendants' claims and assertions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. questions of undervaluation and cause of action. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. legal standards on plaint rejection. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. conclusion and ruling on the civil revision petition. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

ORDER :

T. Madhavi Devi, J.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the orders of dismissal dated 01.07.2024 in I.A.No.654 of 2023 in O.S.No.172 of 2022 filed under Order VII Rule 11(b) r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kodad, Suryapet District

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioner herein is the defendant No.1 in the suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff for cancellation of registered sale deed vide document No.1632/2021, dated 04.12.2021, registered in the office of the Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Kodad and the plaint was filed under Section 26, order VII, Rule 1 of C.P.C. In the plaint, it was averred that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule property being agricultural land and was intending to sell the same and that the defendants having come to know about the sale of land, had offered to purchase the land to an extent of 2-00 gts., in Survey No.998/E/2, situated at Kodad Revenue Village and Mandal, Suryapet District and that the plaintiff has accepted the offer and entered into an agreement for sale dated 03.12.2021 on receipt of only part payment and registered the land in favour of defendant No.1 on 04.12.2021 after the defendants agreed to pay the balance sale consideration to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff registered the suit schedule land on 04.12.2021 in the Tahsildar’s Office on the promise that the respondent No.2 would pay the balance sale consideration after completion of registration. But when the plaintiff came out from Tahsildar’s office immediately after registration, the respondent No.2 was not available and had intentionally escaped in order to avoid the payment of balance sale consideration and therefore, it was nothing but fraud, cheating and misrepresentation and therefore, he has filed the suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed. The suit was filed on 05.07.2022, claiming that on 28.04.2022, in the evening hours, the plaintiff met the defendants No.1 and 2 at their house in Kodad Town and when the plaintiff requested the defendants for payment of the balance sale consideration as per the agreement, there was a refusal and in fact, there was an attack on the plaintiff and therefore the petitioner filed a cognizable complaint dated 29.04.2022, against all the defendants before the SHO, Kodad Town Police Station and in spite of receiving the same on 29.04.2022, FIR was not registered against the defendants. Therefore, a private complaint was filed before the Court and the same is pending consideration and alleging that the plaintiff has requested the defendants several times about the pending payment of the balance and since no possession was delivered to the defendants under the document, the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of registered sale deed No.1632/2021, dated 04.12.2021, which was registered in the office of Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Kodad.

3. The defendant No.1 has filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that the alleged original agreement of sale has not been filed by the plaintiff before the Court and therefore, there was no such agreement of sale deed dated 03.12.2021. It is further submitted that the draft of the sale deed was prepared much before the alleged agreement dated 03.12.2021 and so the question of entering the agreement by the defendants with the plaintiff on 03.12.2021 and getting the registered sale deed executed on the very next day i.e., 04.12.2021 does not arise. The defendants also denied that the plaintiff has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top