THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3711 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner herein/defendant No.3, challenging the order, dated 13.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.1084 of 2023 in O.S.No.11 of 2023 by the learned Principal District Judge, Vikarabad (hereinafter referred as “trial Court”), wherein the I.A.No.1084 of 2023 filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to reject the plaint for want of cause of action and barred by limitation, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.3 and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. Hereinafter, the parties would be referred as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed the suit vide O.S.No.11 of 2023 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Vikarabad, seeking following reliefs:

1) Declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and title holders of the suit schedule property, by virtue of parental inheritance.

2) Declaring that the Sale Deed Documents No:1428 of 89 dated: 18-

07-1989 and the subsequent Sale Deed Documents No: 904 of 91 dated: 25-07-1991 and 818 of 13 dated: 23-02-2013 are illegal, impersonated, forged, fabricated and fraudulent documents, not enforceable under law cannot be acted upon, null, void, and does not bind the plaintiffs.

3) As subsequent relief, direct the Registration Office / Revenue Authorities to cancel / delete the Sale Deed Documents No. 1428/89 dated: 18-07-1989 and 904/91 dated: 25-07-1991 and 818/13 dated: 23-02-2013 from the Registration & Encumbrance Records / Books and ratify the Revenue Records accordingly.

4) And as ancillary consequential relief of delivery of the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs by ejecting the 3rd defendant, who is having only paper possession, from the suit schedule property.

5) Award mesne profits and costs of the suit, as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.3 filed I.A.No.1084 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to reject the plaint for want of cause of action and barred by limitation. It is stated by the defendant No.3 that in the plaint, the plaintiffs pleaded their father’s name as Mohammed Abdul Sattar S/o. Mohammed Khasim but in the sale deed vide document No.1428/1989 dated 18.07.1989, the name was mentioned as Abdul Sattar @ Jani Miya. It is further stated that plaintiffs pleaded that their father has not executed the sale deed dated 18.07.1989 in favour of defendant No.1 and the same was forged and obtained through impersonation and as such all consequential sale deeds have to be declared as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs. It is the case of defendant No.3 that the cause of action shown by plaintiff is illusory created with clever drafting and the suit is barred by law of limitation and ultimately prayed for rejection of the plaint. The plaintiffs filed counter affidavit through their General Power of Attorney (GPA) opposing the relief claimed by the defendant No.3 contending that the subject I.A.No.1084 of 2023 is not maintainable and the same was filed only to drag the matter on one pretext or other and in fact, Abdul Ghani, brother of Mohammed Abdul Sattar filed O.S.No.104/1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Vikarabad, against Mohammed Abdul Sattar and plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 and the said suit was decreed on 30.03.1990 and sale deed vide document No.18.07.1989 was executed during the pendency of said suit by way of forgery and impersonation. It is specific case of plaintiffs that when there is allegation of fraud, in terms of Section 17(1) of Limitation Act, there cannot be any period of limitation and therefore, the suit was filed within the period of limitation and the application filed by the defendant No.3 is liable to be rejected. The