The court ruled that a plaint must disclose a cause of action to proceed, and dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 is only appropriate when the plaint clearly fails to do so.

ORDER:  

The Civil Revision Petition (CRP) arises out of an order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Chairperson, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, by which an application (I.A.No.1389 of 2023 in O.S.No.71 of 2023) filed by the petitioners for rejection of plaint in the Suit filed by the respondents, was dismissed.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the Suit (O.S.No.71 of 2023) filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for decree of declaration that a registered Sale Deed dated 19.10.2009 is illegal, null and void. The plaintiffs also prayed for injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1,2 and 3 from encroaching into the suit schedule property or interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

3. The petitioners/defendants filed the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘C.P.C’), for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and that the Suit, as appears from the plaint, is barred by law. The Trial Court dismissed the petitioners’ application on the ground that oral and documentary evidence is required to decide the contentious issues.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/ defendant No.2 and 3 submits that the respondents have not made the original owner – one Bhagyamma - a party to the Suit and have also not produced the original unregistered Sale Deed on which the respondents sought a declaration. Counsel submits that the respondents, not being parties to the Sale Deed dated 19.10.2009 (Document No.5446 of 2009), cannot challenge the validity of the said document. It is further submitted that the Suit is barred under Article 58 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 (‘the 1963 Act’) which prescribes a period of 3 years from the date on which the right to sue first accrues for obtaining any declaration.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs relied on a Sale Deed dated 25.04.2004 as the plaintiffs’ document of title with regard to the suit schedule property and that the plaint mentions the grounds of legality of the said document. Counsel submits that the Sale Deed dated 25.04.2004 was filed along with the plaint and forms part of the cause of action which is required to be proved by the plaintiffs to maintain the Suit. Counsel submits that the plaintiffs’ case in the Suit is that the recitals in the Sale Deed dated 19.10.2009 do not corroborate payment of the sale consideration and the burden of proof hence lies on the purchaser/defendant No.1 to prove her ability to pay the sale consideration. Counsel submits that the only ground raised by the petitioners/defendants on the point of limitation is that the petitioners/defendants instituted a Civil Suit - O.S.No.134 of 2012 - seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the same schedule of property against the respondents/plaintiffs herein. Counsel relies on Article 59 of the Schedule to the 1963 Act, to say that the Suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs would have to be filed within 3 years from the date of knowledge of the facts entitling the respondents for cancellation of an instrument.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The facts involved in the matter may be simplified as follows.

7. The petitioners herein are the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the Suit filed by the respondents vide O.S.No.71 of 2023 seeking declaration that the registered Sale Deed dated 19.10.2009 is null and void and injunction against the petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondents (plaintiffs in O.S.No.71 of 2023). The petitioners herein filed an earlier Suit – O.S.No.134 of 2012 – against the respondents for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

8. The filing of the earlier Suit by the petitioners against the respondents forms the basis of