Between:

1.Arun Kumar Dama and another

… Petitioners–Petitioners–Defendant Nos.8 & 9

And

1. Madi Ram Reddy

… Respondent No.1 – Respondent No.1 – Plaintiff

2. Madi Yadi Reddy and six others

… Respondent Nos.2 to 8 – Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 – Defendant Nos.1 to 7

ORDER

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.158 of 2023 in O.S.No.54 of 2008, dated 12.09.2023.

2. Petitioners are the petitioners-defendant Nos.8 and 9, respondent No.1 is the respondent No.1-plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 8 are the respondent Nos.2 to 8 - defendant Nos.1 to 7 in I.A.No.158 of 2023 in O.S.No.54 of 2008.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9, respondent No.1 – plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 8 – defendant Nos.1 to 7.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9 submits that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the well-settled principle of law that a plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC if the relief claimed therein cannot be granted, ought to have considered the fact that the suit documents show that respondent No.1 - plaintiff has no right or interest of whatsoever nature over any of the plaint schedule properties and there is no cause of action to bring the suit against the defendants [respondent Nos.2 to 8 and petitioners]. The property in the hands of Janga Reddy was a separate property and respondent No.1 - plaintiff has no pre-existing right or interest over the suit schedule property and failed to consider that during the lifetime of Janga Reddy he alienated the suit property in favor of the petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9 through registered sale deeds in the year 1998 and 1999. Respondent No.1-plaintiff cannot seek partition of plaint schedule properties. It is a settled position of law that self-acquired property of a person would devolve upon his children only as per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act and that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act would have no application. The learned Trial Court ought to have seen that suit claim is ex-facie barred under law and that the Court fee paid on the plaint is not proper and ought to have considered that the registered sale deeds which have been challenged in the suit were executed long prior to three years of institution of the suit and the same is barred by limitation. It is not open to the respondent No.1 - plaintiff to claim that he is in joint possession with the defendants [respondents Nos.2 to 8 and petitioners herein]. The learned Trial Court failed to consider that a duty is cast on the Court to reject the plaint if the plaint fails to disclose an ascertainable cause of action. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Arshnoor Singh vs. Harpal Kaur and others¹1 (2020) 14 SCC 436 and (ii) Angadi Chandranna vs. Shankar and others²2 2025 SCC online SC 877.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 - plaintiff submits that the learned Trial Court has elaborately discussed in the impugned order and rightly held that the petitioners – defendant Nos.8 and 9 have not made out any case to reject the plaint and no interference is called for. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) M.Yogendra and others vs. Leelamma N. and others³3 (2009) 15 SCC 184 (ii) Rohit Chauhan vs. Surinder Singh and others⁴4 (2013) 9 SCC 419 (iii) Shyam Narayan Prasad vs. Krishna Prasad and others⁵5 (2018) 7 SCC 646 (iv) Aravapalli Subba Rao and others vs. Anne Seetha Ratnam and another⁶6 2016 (5) ALD 200 (v) Guraja Gangadhara Rao and others vs. Thotakura Sambasiva Rao and others⁷7 2025 (1) ALT 471 (AP) and (vi) Sanjay Gupta vs. Sonakshi Gupta and Others⁸8 2025 SCC Online Del 8806 and prayed to dismiss the CRP.

6. Learned counsel for the