THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1814 OF 2023

ORDER:

I have heard Ms.Nandita Guha, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.Cheruku Ramesh and Mr.P.Prasanth, learned counsels appearing for respondents.

2. This revision petition is filed assailing the order dated 27.03.2023 in I.A. No.2869 of 2022 in O.S. No.230 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet.

3. The revision petitioners who are defendants (hereinafter ‘the petitioners’) in the suit, filed petition under order VII Rule 11(d) read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for short ‘the C.P.C.’) for rejection of plaint filed by the respondents/plaintiffs.

4. The respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter ‘the respondents’) filed the suit seeking declaration over the suit scheduled property (for short ‘the subject land’) against the petitioners. The trial Court after considering the materials, dismissed the petition.

Thus, this revision.

5. The assertion of the respondents is that, they are sons of one Ankaiah and the subject land has been devolved on them on hereditament, after the death of their father. The petitioner No.1 who is a neighboring land owner with similar name of petitioner’s father, in 1998-1999 dubiously got mutated his name against the subject land. On knowledge, the respondents/plaintiffs approached the Tahsildar and after due proceedings, got modified the entries in Pahani. Accordingly, from 2000-2001 to 2007-2008, the name of the petitioner’s father had been entered. However, the revenue authority/Tahsildar without any notice again passed another order dated 07.04.2008 reflecting the name of the petitioner No.1. Against such action, the respondents reapproached the Tahsildar of the year 2010 and sought for records of the proceedings of the Tahsildar of the year 1998-1999 which was answered in negative, showing the reason that the records are not available. On appeal, the Collector remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Thus, the Tahsildar took up the matter and finally passed order dated 08.02.2011 directing the parties to approach the Civil Court. Dissatisfied, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Siddipet for rectification of entries. The RDO after considering the material, once again relegated the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration. The Tahsildar conducted a fresh inquiry and passed order dated 13.05.2015 observing that the respondent’s father sold out the land to the petitioner No.1 and by noting that the respondent No.1 alone is pursuing the matter, dismissed the respondent’s claim. The order was again carried in appeal before the R.D.O. by the respondents, who dismissed the same vide order dated 19.12.2019.

6. It is also contended that, while the appeal was pending before the RDO, the petitioner No.1 sold the subject land to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Thereafter, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 further sold the subject land to the petitioner No.4. On 25.01.2019 and on 22.01.2020, the petitioner No.4 trespassed into property and dispossessed the respondents from the subject land. Thereupon, the suit was filed in the year 2020.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents in the suit specified that the cause of action arose in the year 1999 and the Article 56 of the Limitation Act, 1963 contemplates three years as the period of limitation for seeking declaration. Thus, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Further, the plaintiffs nowhere in the plaint explained how the suit is within limitation. The enumeration of proceedings before the revenue authority is only to cover up the period which cannot be considered for saving the period of limitation. That apart, the revenue authority had passed Section 13(b) of the ROR Act certificate way back in the year 1999 in favour of the petitioner No.1 which is equivalent to registered title document and as the respondents got knowledge about issuan