THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 769 of 2023

ORDER

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order and decretal order dated 10.02.2023 in I.A. No. 670 of 2022 in O.S. No.144 of 2022 passed by the II Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri, at Medchal.

2. Heard Sri. R. Ranganath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. Dishit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

3. The Petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit filed by the Respondents herein for declaration of title, declaration of the Gift Settlement Deeds bearing Doc. No.14634 of 2018 and 14635 of 2018 as null and void and for grant of consequential perpetual injunction.

4. While so, the petitioners herein filed the underlying interlocutory application seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) on the ground that cause of action for the plea of adverse possession was not disclosed.

5. The Trial Court on hearing the parties, held that on a meaningful reading of the averments in the plaint, the circumstances mentioned therein disclose sufficient cause of action. The Court further held that the plaint cannot be rejected on the threshold merely because an alternate plea of adverse possession was raised.

6. The present revision is preferred aggrieved by the same.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner herein by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Achal Reddy Vs. Ramakrishna Reddair & Ors, [(1990) 4 SCC 706], contended that a plea of adverse possession cannot be raised on the basis of an agreement of sale since the agreement holder recognizes the title of the vendor.

8. He further contends that no specific pleading is made as to when the possession of respondents had become adverse. By placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Mayar (H.K.)

Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Ors, [(2006)3SCC100], it is contended that cause of action must be real and not illusionary.

9. Per Contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondent contends that the plea of adverse possession is an alternate plea raised by the respondents, notwithstanding the same a perusal of the plaint would reveal that the respondents herein were claiming physical possession over the plaint scheduled property from the date of the original sale deed i.e., 22.06.2000, which by itself is adverse to the title of the petitioner No.3 who at the said point of time was the owner of the property. It is further contended that the petitioners herein are seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that no relief can be granted to plaintiff, and that the same cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint.

10. I have taken note of the contentions urged.

11. At the outset it is beneficial to note that the power of rejection of plaint is conferred on the Courts to ensure that meaningless and abortive litigation are prevented from occupying the time of the Court (See: Azhar Hussein vs. Rajiv Gandhi³)

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, [(2003)1SCC557], held that the Court while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code has to only consider the averments in the plaint and that the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. The Central Bank of India and Ors, [AIR2020SC2721], held that the pleadings in plaint ought to be read as a whole without compartmentalizing, isolation, dissection, inversion of the language in the plaint, in order to ascertain its true meaning.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mayar (H.K.)’s case (supra), held that so long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination, the Court cannot reject it on the threshold

3 1986