THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3638 of 2025

O R D E R:

Challenging the order, dated 23.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.510 of

2023 in O.S.No.77 of 2024 (old O.S.No.108 of 2016) by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy (for short ‘trial Court’), the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner-defendant No.3 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

seeking to reject the plaint was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr. V.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

3. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

3.1. The trial Court failed to consider that the plaint is liable to be dismissed, as respondent Nos.2 and 3-defendant Nos.1 and 2, in their written statement filed on 14.03.2017, clearly stated that the subject land i.e., land admeasuring Ac.03.25 gts. and Ac.0.15 gts. in Sy.Nos.73/1 and 74 respectively situated at Cheduruvelly Village of Veldanda Mandal, had already sold to the petitioner herein prior to filing of the suit itself. Despite this, respondent No.1-plaintiff, with full knowledge of the sale, failed to implead the petitioner until 31.08.2021 i.e., after more than four years. Thus, the claim against the petitioner is barred by limitation, which is evident from the record and need not be established through trial. Even though there was a glaring omission to implead the petitioner after knowledge of the sale in his favour, the trial Court erroneously held that the suit was filed within limitation.

3.2. As per Section 3 of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882, a registered document is deemed to be within the knowledge of all the concerned. Therefore, the relief sought for cancellation of the gift deed bearing document No.1325 of 2008, dated 26.02.2008 is not maintainable, as it is time barred by more than eight years. Likewise, the registered sale deed, dated 24.10.2016, executed in favour of the petitioner, cannot be challenged in the suit proceedings.

3.3. The plaint is liable to be rejected as the plaintiff has not shown any cause of action within limitation and has not sought any relief against him. Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., and the trial Court was not required to embark upon a full-fledged trial. The dismissal of the petition on the ground that the specific sub-section (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. was not mentioned is unsustainable, especially when the affidavit sets out the clear grounds. Furthermore, a mere prayer for cancellation of a gift deed, without any consequential relief regarding possession either for perpetual injunction or recovery of possession is not maintainable, and the suit is thus barred by law.

3.4. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order.

4. A perusal of the record reveals that respondent No.1-plaintiff and respondent No.2-defendant No.1 are the own brothers of respondent No.3-defendant No.2. As per the averments in the suit, respondent No.2-defendant No.1 executed a registered gift deed bearing document No.1325 of 2008, dated 26.02.2008 in respect of the subject land, in favour of respondent No.3-defendant No.2, by impersonating the signatures of respondent No.1-plaintiff. Respondent Nos.2 and 3- defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement on 14.03.2017, wherein, it was clearly stated that respondent No.3-defendant No.2 had sold the subject land to the petitioner-defendant No.3 and also executed a registered sale deed in his favour.

5. The suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff contains no specific allegations against the petitioner. Notably, even after respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their written statements on 14.03.2017, disclosing the sale in favour of the petitioner-defendant No.3, respondent No.1-plaintiff failed to implead the petitioner until 31.08.2021 i.e., after a delay of more than four years.

6. Upon examination of the impugned order, it is evident that the trial Court dismisse