A cause of action must consist of material facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove their right to relief, and must be read in its entirety.

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.01.2023 passed in IA.No.1220 of 2022 in OS.No.98 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder, the application filed by petitioner/defendant No.8 under Order VII Rule 11(a) (b) and (d) of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) seeking rejection of plaint, was dismissed observing that existence of cause of action is mixed question of fact and law.

2. The brief facts before the trial Court are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession, and for declaring certain registered documents as null and void, against the petitioner/defendant No. 8 and respondents Nos.3 to 9/defendant Nos.1 to 7. The petitioner contended that the suit is false, ill-conceived, and untenable in law, lacking cause of action, and undervalued. Per contra, the respondents/plaintiffs denied the allegations, stating that the suit for partition is maintainable among family members, and that the defendants Nos.5 to 8 manipulated records by creating certain documents. They also contended that the plaint discloses clear cause of action, and that the reliefs have been properly valued. Being aggrieved by dismissal of IA.No.1220 of 2022, this revision is preferred.

3. Heard Sri K.Rajashekar, learned counsel for petitioner/defendant No.8. None appeared for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the trial Court is contrary to law, facts, and probabilities of the case. He contended that the suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs is barred by limitation, as they challenge the sale deeds from the years 1999, 2015, and 2016, which limitation period is only 3 years, that already expired in the year 2019. He lamented that the trial Court erred in dismissing the Order VII Rule 11 application, ignoring the question of limitation being pure question of law which could be adjudicated at the preliminary stage itself. He avowed that the plaint is vexatious, meritless, and does not make out any ground and that the plaintiffs deliberately had not sought for the relief of setting aside or cancellation of registered sale deeds and gift deeds in favor of the defendants. He asserted that the plaint is defective as it does not state the age of the parties which is a crucial fact in a partition suit. Furthermore, the respondents have not properly valued the reliefs, and the suit is false, ill-conceived, and untenable in law, amounting to an abuse of the court process. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order.

5. Having regard to the submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that while dealing with an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC the Court has to consider the plaint averments and the documents filed by the plaintiffs along with plaint.

6. On perusing the plaint averments, it is seen that the plaintiffs claim the subject properties through one Aerra Narsaiah stating that he is their great grandfather, who was the owner, possessor, and pattadar of vast agricultural lands situated at Dubbacherla Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Upon his demise, his properties devolved upon his three sons, namely, Pochaiah, the grandfather of the plaintiffs; Ramaiah, who died issueless; and Kistaiah, the father of defendants 1 to 4. Thereafter, an oral partition took place among his legal heirs, resulting in the division of properties owned by Aerra Narsaiah.

7. The contention of petitioner is that there is no cause of action for filing suit, whereas, the cause of action column mentioned in the plaint would show that when plaintiffs requested the defendant Nos.1 to 4 for partition, they refused for the same, due to which the plaintiffs filed suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action for filing suit. Whenever, the petition is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC the Cour