1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5254 OF 2006

P.V. GURU RAJ REDDY REP. BY

GPA LAXMI NARAYAN REDDY & ANR. ...APPELLANTS

VERSUS

P. NEERADHA REDDY & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1.

This appeal seeks to challenge two separate though largely

similar orders both dated 26^th June, 2003 passed by the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition Nos.1398 and

1399 of 2003. By the aforesaid orders, the High Court, in reversal of

the order of the learned trial judge, has allowed the applications filed

by the defendants under Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”). Aggrieved, the

plaintiffs are before us in this appeal.

Digitally signed by

Vinod Lakhina

Date: 2015.02.13

16:19:22 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

2.

Original Suit Nos. 71 and 72 of 2002 were filed by the

plaintiffs (appellants herein) for declaration of title and possession.

The case of the plaintiffs in both the suits were more or less similar.

According to the plaintiffs as they were living abroad they had reposed

trust and faith in defendants Nos.1 and 2 who are their close relatives

(sister and brother-in-law of plaintiff No.1) to purchase immovable

property in Hyderabad in the name of the plaintiff No.2. According to

the plaintiffs, they had made funds available to the defendants Nos. 1

and 2 for the said purpose and had entirely relied on them.

3.

The specific case of the plaintiffs in Original Suit No.71 of

2002 is to the effect that the property belonging to one Professor N.S.

Iyengar was identified for purchase and an agreement was drawn up

with the said person. According to the plaintiffs, they were informed

by the defendants that Professor Iyengar has resiled from the

agreement which required filing a suit for specific performance.

According to the plaintiffs when they visited Hyderabad in

November/December 1999, they could notice some construction

activity in the plot belonging to Professor Iyengar. It is at that point of

time that they had made enquiries and could come to know that

though the suit for specific performance filed by the defendants was

decreed, the sale deed was executed in the name of the defendant No.4

3

who is the brother-in-law of the defendant No.1. It is thereafter that

the suit being Original Suit No.71 of 2002 was filed.

4.

Insofar as Original Suit No.72 of 2002 is concerned, the

plaintiffs' case is that the property belonging to one Professor B.

Ramchander Rao was identified for purchase. Though the defendant

Nos.1 and 2 informed the plaintiffs that the needful was done, it

transpired that the said property was purchased on 31.8.1979 jointly

in the name of plaintiff No.2 and the defendant No.3, who is the son of

defendant No.1. According to the plaintiffs immediately after they

came to know of the said facts, they had issued a legal notice on

20.12.1999 and on receipt of the reply to the said notice which

contained an unequivocal denial of the plaintiffs' claim, the suit being

Original Suit No.72 of 2002 was filed. Both the suits were filed in July,

2002.

5.

Rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC is

a drastic power conferred in the court to terminate a civil action at the

threshold. The conditions precedent to the exercise of power under

Order VII rule 11, therefore, are stringent and have been consistently

held to be so by the Court. It is the averments in the plaint that has

to be read as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action

or whether the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise

of power under Order VII rule 11, the stand of the defendants in the

4

written statement or in the application for rejection of the plaint is

wholly immaterial. It is only if the averments in the plaint ex facie do

not disclose