An application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC is limited to determining if the plaint discloses a cause of action; the court cannot adjudicate the merits, admissibility of documents, or evidentiary validity at the threshold stage, as these questions are reserved for the trial process.

ORDER :

HARINATH.N, J.

1. ​ The petitioners have filed these Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs)aggrieved by the common order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri in IA No. 700 of 2019 and IA No. 772 of 2019 in OS No. 35 of 2019. The petitioners are defendants in the suit filed for specific performance.

2. C.R.P.No.1209 of 2022 is filed by the Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.35 of 2019 and C.R.P.No.1210 of 2022 is filed by the Defendants Nos.2 to 5 in O.S.No.35 of 2019.

3. Both the interlocutory applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking the rejection of the plaint were dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge. As such, the present CRPs are filed. The following grounds are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner ;

i. The nature of the suit schedule property has lost its character of assignment in terms of GOMS No. 41 dated 17.02.2016, and the agreement of sale dated 16.01.2016 would be an absolutely Void and unenforceable document.

ii. The plaint A schedule property is standing in the name of the mother-in-law of the petitioner, who filed CRP 1210 of 2022 and that the property would have to be partitioned amongst the surviving family members.

iii. The execution of the agreement of sale dated 16.01.2016 is also disputed by the petitioners.

iv. That there is no cause of action for filing the suit and that the suit cannot be tried on documents that have no evidentiary value.

v. The suit based on a void agreement of sale would be barred by law.​

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even as per the averments of the plaint at para 5, the nature of the land was changed by virtue of the issuance of GOMS No. 41 dated 17.02.2016. It is submitted that the land forming Schedule A of the suit schedule property was assigned land, and the government, by virtue of the land pooling scheme, has acquired the property. It is submitted that, by the date of execution of the agreement of sale dated 16.01.2016, the land has changed its character from being an assigned land. It is submitted that the agreement of sale would be void, as the petitioners could not have transferred any right, title or interest in the property, over which they have neither any right nor possession. ​

5. It is also submitted that plaint ‘B’ schedule property never existed on paper and never existed as on 24.07.2017. It is submitted that the relief of specific performance cannot be granted for a property which does not exist with defined metes and bounds as on that date. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is no cause of action for filing the suit in view of the change of nature of the schedule ‘A’ property. ​ The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even as per the averments of the plaint at para 5, the nature of land was changed by virtue of issuance of GOMS No. 41 dated 17.02.2016. It is submitted that the land which forms the Schedule A of the suit schedule property was an assigned land and government by virtue of the land pooling scheme has acquired the property. It is submitted that, by the date of execution of the agreement of sale dated 16.01.2016 the land has changed its character of being an assigned land. It is submitted that the agreement of sale would be void as the petitioners could not have transferred right, title and interest for the property over which they have neither any right nor possession. ​

6. It is also submitted that plaint ‘B’ schedule property never existed on paper and never existed as on 24.07.2017. It is submitted that the relief of specific performance cannot be granted for a property which does not exist with defined metes and bounds as on that date. ​

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the following judgments for substantiating his stand that there is no cause of action for filing the suit in view of the change of nature of the schedule ‘A’ property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Yadaiah