A plaint cannot be rejected for lack of cause of action if the averments show a legitimate basis for the claims made, which must be determined at trial.

Aggrieved by the order, dated 19.09.2022 in I.A.No.455 of 2020 in O.S.No.953 of 2019 passed by the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. I.A.No.455 of 2020 is filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking to reject the plaint filed by respondent No.1 stating that the petitioner herein is defendant No.3 in main suit. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed O.S.No.953 of 2019 seeking partition of the suit schedule properties consisting of Schedule ‘A to O’ annexed to the plaint, out of which, ‘H’ schedule property consisting Ac.1-00 guntas out of Ac. 6.01 guntas in Sy.No.21/AA of Gandiguda Village of Shamshabad Mandal, belonged to the petitioner herein. It is falsely averred in the plaint that the said property was purchased by the brother of the petitioner under the registered agreement of sale-cum- GPA, dated 30.11.2006, but such document was never executed by the petitioner. Respondent No.1 cannot claim any rights over the same under the guise of the alleged heirship to one Sri C.N. Narender on the ground that he was not found for a period of more than eight years and the police closed the report given by respondent No.1 on the ground of missing of Sri C. N. Narender as ‘undetected’. The police officials did not take any comprehensive steps to trace out Sri C. N. Narender and a collusive report was obtained by respondent No.1 from the police. Without showing his right to be declared as a legal heir of Sri C. N. Narender, respondent No.1 cannot lay any claim over the properties shown to be those of Sri C. N. Narender. Respondent No.1 also failed to show that their sister Smt. C.N. Swarnalatha converted into Islam religion in the year, 1984 and she is not a necessary party to the present partition suit. The suit is misconceived, since respondent No.1 is not seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreements of sale-cum-GPA shown in favour of Sri C.N. Narender and respondent No.1 failed to pay the Court Fee on the relief of declaration of legal heirship claimed to Sri C.N.Narender. The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected.

3. Respondent No.1 filed counter stating that the plaintiff, defendant No.1, Sri C.N.Narender and Smt. C.N.Swarnalatha and the children of late C.N.Mukunda Rao and late Smt. C.N.Sowbhagya Rani,, Sri C.N. Narender purchased the suit A to F, J, J(a) & K schedule properties under the registered sale deeds with the investment made out of the joint family nucleus and also purchased plaint G, H & I schedule properties from defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 respectively under the agreements of sale-cum-GPA executed by them. Sri C.N.Narender along with the defendants Nos.10 to 17 also purchased ‘L’ Schedule property from defendant Nos.20 to 27, ‘M’ schedule property along with defendant Nos.15, 18 & 19 and ‘O’ schedule property along with defendant Nos.20 and 21. Sri C.N.Narender was not found for a period of more than eight years and on a report lodged by the petitioner regarding the missing of Sri C.N.Narender, the police at Shadnagar Police Station, made investigation and filed a final report as ‘undetected’. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the only legal heirs of Sri C.N. Narender, since their sister Smt.C.N.Swarnalatha converted into Muslim Religion in the year, 1984 and they are entitled to be declared as the legal heirs of Sri C.N.Narender and consequently, they are entitled to seek the partition of the suit schedule ‘A to O’ properties.

The plaint ‘A’ Schedule property was purchased by Sri C.N.Narender from this petitioner under an agreement of sale- cum-GPA dated 30.11.2006 paying a valuable sale consideration. There is proper cause of action to file the suit and proper reliefs are sought for by respondent No.1. As respondent No.1 failed to effect the partition of the suit schedule properties and some of the defendants, who are