IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Legand Estates Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Mir Zaheer Mohammed Khan - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 2515 of 2017
Decided On : 29-08-2017
Constitution of India. Article 227- Code of Civil Procedure Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with section 151 – Rejection of plaint – Petitioner (defendant) filed a petition under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with 151 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint alleging that the vendor of the petitioner namely M/s Hy Fed Foundation had purchased the property bearing M.No.2-4-1115 and 2-4-1115/1 admeasuring 1408 Sq. Yards situated at Kachiguda, Hyderabad by registered sale deed dated 03.12.1973 bearing document No.817 of 1974 from Faiz Mohd. Khan S/o Nawab Dr. Faiz Jung, father of the respondent. Smt. Khairunnisa Begum W/o Late Abdus Samad Khan @ Faiz Jung became entitled to the suit schedule property as she purchased the same in Court auction in E.P.No.37 of 61 in O.S.No.199/1 of 1952 and she having acquired the same had gifted the same to her son Fiaz Mohd. Khan, father of the respondent, on 14.07.1963 and delivered possession to him. The said Smt. Khairunnissa Begum died in the year 1964. Faiz Mohd. Khan was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and leased out a portion of the same to Government Jayasurya Homeopathy Medical College in the year 1972 –Held, whether cause of action is real or not, is a question to be determined only at the end of the trial, but, at the stage of considering the application under Order 7, Rule 11(a) C.P.C, the Court has to notice the allegations made in the plaint, irrespective of the pleas raised in the written statement of the defendant and decide whether the allegations made in the plaint would disclose cause of action or not. If the plaint does not disclose cause of action, the Court is entitled to reject the plaint at the threshold, though the power of this Court is drastic, but the Court cannot decide whether the cause of action is real or not at the threshold and reject the plaint. In the present facts of the case, the plaint disclosed cause of action and thereby, the Trial Court refused to reject the plaint by exercising power under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C and consequently, the order of the Trial Court cannot be faulted – Petition dismissed
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2017 passed in I.A.No.205 of 2016 in O.S.No.235 of 2011 by the XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court at Hyderabad dismissing the petition filed under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, hereinafter, referred to as "C.P.C."), filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner and respondent herein were the petitioner and respondent before the trial Court. Hence, for the sake of convenience, the parties to the revision will be referred hereinafter throughout the Order as arrayed before the trial Court in I.A.No.205 of 2016 in O.S.No.235 of 2011.
3. The petitioner (defendant) filed a petition under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with 151 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint alleging that the vendor of the petitioner namely M/s Hy Fed Foundation had purchased the property bearing M.No.2-4-1115 and 2-4-1115/1 admeasuring 1408 Sq. Yards situated at Kachiguda, Hyderabad by registered sale deed dated 03.12.1973 bearing document No.817 of 1974 from Faiz Mohd. Khan S/o Nawab Dr. Faiz Jung, father of the respondent. Smt. Khairunnisa Begum W/o Late Abdus Samad Khan @ Faiz Jung became entitled to the suit schedule property as she purchased the same in Court auction in E.P.No.37 of 61 in O.S.No.199/1 of 1952 and she having acquired the same had gifted the same to her son Fiaz Mohd. Khan, father of the respondent, on 14.07.1963 and delivered possession to him. The said Smt. Khairunnissa Begum died in the year 1964. Faiz Mohd. Khan was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and leased out a portion of the same to Government Jayasurya Homeopathy Medical College in the year 1972. Subsequently, the property has conveyed in favour of M/s Hy-Fed Foundation, a society registered under societies registration Act represented by its President Late Moinuddin Shaik Imam under registered sale deed dated 03.12.1973 and possession was delivered thereunder and in so far as other part of the schedule property, which was in occupation of the Government, the tenancy of Government was attorned in favour of purchaser under registered sale deed dated 03.12.1973 and M/s. Hy-Fed Foundation had been in possession and enjoyment of the said premises ever since till the date of execution of sale in favour of the petitioner herein, who has been in possession since the date of acquisition of the suit schedule property i.e. on 08.04.2008 under registered sale deed for valuable consideration.
4. Faiz Mohammed Khan, father of the respondent, died in the year 1975. Smt. Khairunnisa Begum W/o Late Abdus Samad Khan @ Fiaz Jung participated in the auction only after obtaining the permission of the Court vide orders in E.A.No.76 of 1962 in E.P.No.37 of 1961 on 06.07.1962.
5. Respondent has filed the above suit seeking the following reliefs:
(i) "Declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property.
(ii) Consequently grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff.
(iii) Consequently grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff.
(iv) Declaring that the sale deed 1399/2008 dated 08.04.2008 is not binding on the plaintiff.
(v) Declaring that dismissal decree in O.S.No.555 of 2001 as a fraudulent one and not binding on the plaintiff
(vi) Award cost of the suit and
(vii) Pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court might deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
6. Respondent in the plaint admitted the fact with regard to filing of a suit O.S.No.555 of 2001 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad against vendors of the petitioner for perpetual injunction in respe
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another
Surjit Kaur Gill v. Adarsh Kaur Gill
P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy
State of Orissa v. Klockner and Company
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal
Fatehji and Company and others v. L.M. Nagpal and others
Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. v. Hede and Company
Liverpool and London S.P. and I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr.
Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association
I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors.
Saleem Bhai and ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Chanumolu Radha Rani v. Thota Vishnu Rao and Anr.
Thota Rambabu @ Ramu v. Cherukuri Venkateswara Rao @ Pedababu and Ors.
Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property
Mayor (H.K.) Ltd. and others v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.