Issues involving mixed questions of law and fact, or where the determination of legal consequences depends on disputed factual foundations (such as the validity of an adoption), cannot be tried as preliminary issues under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court made the following: ORDER

ORDER:

Heard Sri Prabhala Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners are the defendants 6 to 9 in O.S.No.28 of 2014 on the file of the X Additional District Judge at Anakapalli.

3. The plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 4 filed O.S.No.12 of 1988, which was renumbered as O.S.No.28 of 2014. The suit is for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties along with the structures constructed thereon after eviction of the defendants as also for cancellation of the sale deeds in their favour.

4. The petitioners filed I.A.No.101 of 2022 with the prayer to decide the issue Nos.3 to 8 as preliminary issues, under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘C.P.C’).

5. By the impugned order, the I.A.No.101 of 2022 has been dismissed on 07.05.2024.

6. Challenging the order dated 07.05.2024, the civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court ought to have decided those issues 3 to 8, as preliminary issues, as the question of legal effect of adoption was involved. He submits that as per Section 12(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956(for short ‘the Act’), the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption. He submits that the deceased died on 30.08.1957 and the adoption was made by the deed of adoption on 31.08.1957 by the widow of the deceased.

8. I have considered the aforesaid submission and perused the material on record.

9. On a query made, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the factum of adoption is also under challenge in the suit.

10. Those issues 3 to 8, sought to be tried as preliminary issues, are as under:

“iii) Whether Kondapali Venkata Ratnam had no right to alienate the schedule property during her life and that she is entitled only to enjoy the schedule property as per the terms of the adoption deed dated 31.08 1957?

iv) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the cancellation of Registered Sale Deed dated 14.02.1985 executed in favour of first Defendant and Registered Sale Deed dated 01.04.1982 executed in favour of second Defendant by late Kondapalli Venkata Ratnam?

v) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of Registered Sale Deed dated 18.03.1998 executed in favour of third Defendant by second Defendant and also Registered Sale Deeds dated 12.12.1998 executed by the third Defendant?

vi) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to challenge the alienation made by late Kondapalli Venkata Ratnam after her demise in view of the findings given in Decree and judgment dated 18.11.2004 in OS 12/1988 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court. Anakapalle?

vii) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of the Plaint Schedule Property as prayed for?

viii) Whether the suit for mere recovery of possession or cancellation of sale deeds is not maintainable without the prayer for declaration of title of the Plaintiffs in respect of the schedule property?

11. A bare reading of issues 3 to 8 shows that those are not on pure questions of law. Those are either questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact.

12. Order XIV Rule 2 C.P.C reads as under:

“2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.

(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on pre liminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2),