ORAL ORDER:

Introduction:

In a suit for declaration and consequential relief of revenue-

entry correction, the question is, does a wrong revenue entry per se give a cause of action to the plaintiff?

Facts:

2. The appellants filed Special Civil Suit No.47/2018 before the Third Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, against eight defendants, actually from the same family. In that suit, the plaintiffs sought the following reliefs:

(a) To declare that the plaintiffs are the “owners in occupation, possession and enjoyment of the suit property”;

(b)“to direct the Mamlatdar of Salcete to delete erroneous names recorded in occupant column”.

3. Later, the defendants filed their written statement.

Simultaneously, they also applied under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC;

they wanted the trial Court to reject the plaint.

4. In the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the defendants contended that the suit is barred by limitation and also suffers for want of cause of action.

5. On the merits, the trial Court rejected the defendants'

contention on limitation. But it accepted their contention on the lack of cause of action. Thus, through the impugned judgment, it rejected the plaint. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have come before this Court in this First Appeal.

Submissions:

6. Shri Bhobe has submitted that the plaint clearly reveals the cause of action. Despite that, the trial Court has misunderstood the ratio of Shri Vidhyadhar Atmaram Umarye @ Venkatesh Atmaram Umarye v. The Chief Secretary, Government of Goa1 and held that a mere wrong revenue entry does not provide cause of action for a person to approach the court.

7. On the other hand, Shri Daniel has contended that the plaint does not whisper anywhere in what manner the alleged revenue entry has given cause of action to the appellant. According to him the plaint is silent on that count.

8. Heard Shri A.D. Bhobe, the learned counsel for the appellants; and Shri V.K. Daniel, the learned counsel for the respondents.

1 2014 (4) ALL MR 734

Discussion:

9. It requires no reiteration that the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC depends on the plaint averments and the plaint averments alone. So it suffices if we refer to a couple of paragraphs from the plaint. Paragraphs 8, 13, and 14 of the plaint read thus:

8. The plaintiffs submit that though plaintiffs are lawful owners of the suit property, defendant no.1 late husband's name is figuring in Form I & XIV and the plaintiffs have acquired knowledge about the said erroneous entry in Form I & XIV, when the plaintiff no.1 had obtained Form I & XIV, dated 02.02.2018.

13. The plaintiffs submit that the defendants have no right of whatsoever nature of the remaining area admeasuring 11747 square metres.

14. The plaintiffs submit that since the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property and erroneous entry of late Shri Caetano Felix Sivano Menezes recorded in occupant column to be deleted in property plot bearing survey no.109/2 of village Sarzora, Taluka Salcete Goa.

10. Finally, we may refer to para 17 which sets out the cause of action, and it reads:

17. The plaintiffs submit the cause of action to file the present suit arose on 02.02.2018 when the plaintiffs had obtained the certified copy of Form I & XIV dated

02.02.2018 and since then it continues.

11. I reckon the plaintiffs have asserted that they are the owners. They have also denied that the defendants have any manner of right or interest in the property. Finally, they have pleaded that on 02.02.2018 they secured certified copies of the revenue records and came to know that the name of the first defendant’s husband was recorded as the owner or occupier of the property. Thus, they have felt that this entry may cause prejudice to their interest. So they wanted correction of that entry; it is, it seems, to dislodge any presumption as to the title based on a revenue entry. Perhaps as a matter of abundant caution, they also wanted the trial Court to declare that they are the owners.

12. Here, I may note two t