A plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC if it is clearly barred by the law of limitation or lacks a valid cause of action. Appellate courts should not permit the protraction of vexatious, sham litigation that seeks to challenge long-standing awards through clever drafting.

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.49 of 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy)

1. This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant/respondent/plaintiffs against the Order and Decree dated 19.04.2022 passed in I.A.No.306 of 2022 in O.S.No.55 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant was rejected on the application filed by the defendant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The plaintiffs filed suit vide O.S.No.55 of 2021 seeking declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Ac.40.00 guntas in GLR Sy.No.243 situated in Cantonment Area, Secunderabad against the sole defendant in pursuance of the liberty granted in W.A. No.150/2021 and directions issued by this Court, as well as earlier proceedings including W.P. No.5049/2016. The dispute pertains to property held for over 75 years, with both sides submitting substantial documentary records and referencing specific Court orders and dates for previous proceedings. The parties have approached the Court seeking adjudication of title, possession, and compliance with legal and procedural directions.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed a petition vide I.A.No.306 of 2022 in O.S.No.55 of 2021 for rejection of the plaint by invoking Order VII Rule 11 read with Sections 35-A and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The brief averments of the affidavit filed in support of the said petition are as under:

a) The defendant asserts that their family acquired and possessed the disputed property peacefully for over 75 years, as reflected in the documents dated as far back as 1955 and subsequent years, with government registration and mutation records supporting their continuous title. The suit is filed based on an entry in the GLR only which was allegedly prepared in the year 1945 and the land claimed by the plaintiffs is shown as B2 land and as per the plaintiffs’ own contentions, B2 land covers private land also. The name of the predecessors-in-title was recorded in the revenue record prior to independence and after independence, the State itself prepared Sethwar in the year 1950 and Khasra Pahani in the year 1954-55 after survey, proper inquiry, which carries a presumption of genuinity.

b) There is no pleading in the plaint or document filed along with the plaint to show that for the past 76 years, the State acted as owner or initiated any steps against the defendant without the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the relief of declaration of title on a reading of the plaint itself cannot be countenanced and the same is hopelessly barred by limitation.

c) The relief of cancellation of registered documents of title of the defendant and its predecessors-in-title which have been in existence since 1955 and 2006 has no legs to stand, since no such dispute was ever raised by the plaintiffs at any point of time. The Plaintiff State being the registering authority and having collected the stamp duty and registration charges, cannot claim ignorance for more than 65 years and 15 years respectively, more so without there being any specific pleading with regard to the same.

d) The act of acquiring part of land from the predecessors-