THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Civil Revision Petition No.551 of 2021

ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 29.12.2020 passed in I.A.No.198 of 2020 in O.S.No.101 of 2020 by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad.

2. An application is filed before the trial Court for rejection of plaint on several grounds i.e., barred by limitation, defective readings sought for, non-jointer and mis-jointer of the properties, non-filing of Encumbrance Certificate and no proper Court fee is paid as per the market value and there is no jurisdiction for the Court but the trial Court considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the application with costs. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition is preferred.

3. It is mainly contended that suit is filed on the ground of under value and plaintiff did not file any market value certificate to the correct value of the suit and the Court fee was paid on notional value on that ground alone plaint shall be rejected so also as per the averments of the plaint suit is barred by limitation, plaintiff filed the suit under value and paid insufficient Court fee, the trial Court has no proper jurisdiction to try the suit, suit has to be filed within three (03) years but the trial Court without appreciating the facts properly, dismissed the application and therefore requested the Court to set aside the same.

4. A perusal of the plaint shows that suit is filed for declaration and recovery of possession by the plaintiff in which, he sought for declaration of title deeds pertaining to the properties A, B, C and D schedule properties as null and void and illegal and requested the Court to declare him as absolute owner of the said properties and also for delivery of vacant and physical possession from defendant Nos.1 to 13, defendant Nos.7 to 20. Plaintiff stated that he was a Diploma holder in Electrical Engineering, in the year 1979, in search of earning more money, the plaintiff went to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Then, the plaintiff was unmarried. The plaintiff from 1979 till date had worked and is working in Riyadh in different organizations. The plaintiff is a devout Muslim and has no bad habits or vices as such he sent amounts to his father to purchase immovable properties in the name of family members notionally. The father of the plaintiff retired in the year 1982 itself and an employee of RTC was not paid any pension. By 1983, defendants 3 to 7 were already married, defendant No.8 was a student, who was married in 1984, defendant No.9 was a student so also defendant Nos.10 to 13. He opened an account in Syndicate Bank, Mehadipatnam Branch, Hyderabad vide NRE A/c.No.531 jointly in the name of his father and operated the said account and also assigned cheque signing and withdrawing powers. Accordingly, his father purchased properties mentioned under A, B, C and D schedule properties. The custody of the title deeds and link documents remained with his father and his father died in the year 2009 but later his brothers lifted the properties in the name of others from then onwards they sold the properties to others he got gifted B and C schedule properties in his name. In the gift settlement deeds executed by defendants he never signed as he was not in India and entries in the passport clearly shows the same. He got executed rectification deeds for cancellation of said documents in the year 2015. Defendants 7 to 9 challenged the same in writ petitions before the High Court as such he filed this suit for declaration. In the limitation paragraph he himself stated that suit for declaration to be filed within three (03) years but he has also sought for relief of possession though relief of declaration not within the time as per the citation reported in “2017 (3) ALD 724” wherein it was held that the period of limitation applicable under article 58 or 65 is misconceived and misinterpreted. Here, the suit is within the limitation, he enclosed 32 documents along with