THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 411 of 2025

ORDER

Heard Sri J Venkateshwar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and learned counsel for Respondent and perused the record.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2025 in I.A. No.89 of 2024 in O.S. No.15 of 2023 passed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda.

3. The Revision petitioner herein is the defendant No.1 in the suit filed by the respondent herein vide O.S. No.15 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) for declaration of title as owners and possessors, and to declare the registered sale deed dated 24.01.2015 executed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 and their mother Nerella Karuna in favour of petitioner/defendant as null and void.

4. The petitioner herein /defendant No.1 in the suit had filed the underlying interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 11(a)

&(d) of the Code seeking rejection of plaint claiming that no cause of action has arisen to file the present suit.

5. The Trial Court on hearing the parties, held that there is no illusory cause of action as being claimed by the petitioner, and the suit is filed within the limitation period. Holding so, the Court below dismissed the interlocutory application.

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

7. Petitioner contends that, he has purchased the agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 1.00 gts in Sy. No.956 at Mirayalaguda village from one Nerella Karuna and her two sons viz., respondent No.4 and 5 herein; that, Nerella Karuna and respondent No.4 and 5 being the wife and son of Nerella Srinivas, grandson of original pattedar of Nerella Krishnaiah who held land to an extent of Ac 17- 01 gts, which on his demise having devolved on to his two sons in equal share, which has further devolved on to their sons; and that the petitioner vendors being wife and sons of late Nerella Srinivas who inherited land to an extent of Ac. 2.12½ gts have sold land to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts to the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 24.01.2015 in respect of which the present suit is filed by respondent No.1 to 3 herein.

8. Petitioner contends that, on he purchasing the land to an extent of Ac 1.00 gts and being delivered with possession, on being sought to be interfered with, he had filed a suit vide O.S. No. 32 of 2015 seeking relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of suit property against various person including respondents herein who were arrayed as defendant No. 13, 14 and

16.

9. Petitioner further contends that, in the aforesaid suit filed by him, the respondent No.1 to 3 having filed their written statement on 10.03.2016 denying the plaint averments, filed the subject suit beyond the period three (3) years limitation from the date of knowledge and thus, the same is barred by limitation.

10. Petitioner thus contends that, the Court below ought to have rejected the plaint on noticing that the plaintiffs averments are made in order to create illusory cause of action, and that the power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.1 does not comply with the requirement of Section 18 of Indian Stamps Act and thus, the suit as filed that is barred by limitation.

11. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent No.1 to 3/plaintiffs, it is contended that the vendors of the petitioner have no right, title or possession over the suit schedule property in Sy No. 956 as on the date of execution of alleged sale deed, as by that time, their ancestor i.e. Neralla Papaiah had already alienated entire land which has fallen to his share, but taking the advantage of non mutation of the land on to the name of purchasers, the vendors of the petitioners obtained amendment in the revenue records and basing on such amendment, the alleged sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner.

12. I have taken note of the contentions urged.

13. At the outset, it is trite la