Jangili Sathaiah vs Jangili Kishan Rao

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.12.2021 passed in I.A.No.219 of 2020 in O.S.No.97 of 2019 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet, whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking rejection of the plaint. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner filed this revision petition.

The petitioner herein is the first defendant and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit.

The respondents-plaintiffs herein filed suit O.S.No.97 of 2019 seeking to declare them as absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property, to grant perpetual injunction and to direct the defendant Nos.2 to 4 to rectify the entries in all the revenue records. During the pendency of the suit, even before filing of the written statement by the defendants, an application is filed for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC read with Article 58 of the Limitation Act by the first defendant stating that the suit is barred by limitation on the ground that (a) as the plaintiffs filed suit based on gift deed Nos.5254 of 1992 and 5255 of 1992 dated 01.11.1992 when revenue records reflected the name of the first defendant and the same is very much is known to the plaintiffs through such entries in revenue records suit should have been filed within the limitation period, (b) in para 8 of the plaint the plaintiffs asserted that the first defendant illegally managed the revenue authorities to get his name entered in the revenue records in 1976-77 till 2003 and as such the cause of action to file the suit for declaration of title arose for either plaintiffs or to their donors and the limitation ends by 1979, and (c) as per para 8 of plaint when the second defendant after conducting denovo enquiry advised the parties to approach civil Court vide Lr.No.B/1366/2014 dated 29.02.2016 and thus, the cause of action for plaintiffs starts from then and it is to be filed on 26.06.2019 and therefore it is clearly beyond limitation.

The second plaintiff in his counter in the application submitted that after the death of his grandfather-Late Jeedaiah suit schedule properties devolved upon the plaintiffs’ father-late Mallaiah who in his life time gifted it to the plaintiffs in the year 1992 through said deeds. The revenue officials on proper enquiry mutated their names and as such there is no necessity for them to file any suit at that time. Taking undue advantage of illegal entries made in the revenue records from 1976-2003, the first defendant filed an appeal against mutation vide Case No.D2/1441/2015 and the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the second defendant for denovo enquiry. Thereupon, the second defendant conducted denovo enquiry and advised the parties to approach the civil Court for settlement of the disputes. Therefore, the first defendant filed O.S.No.51 of 2016 and obtained ad interim injunction and later on filing counter the said I.A.No.115 of 2016 was dismissed on merits and thereafter, the first defendant withdrew the suit and tried to interfere with possession of the plaintiffs and as such it gave cause of action to file the suit for plaintiffs.

The first defendant filed rejoinder by stating that the suit schedule property was joint property as can be seen from Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55. According to which, the land in suit survey number was in the name of the father of the petitioner-late Jangili Narsaiah. Suppressing the said document, the plaintiffs filed this false suit though their father’s name was never entered in revenue records since 1954 till date. The plaintiffs kept the gift deeds in dark till 2003 and they were void due to non-acceptance and they also suppressed the fact that the Revision Case No.F2/124/2016 dated 18.08.2018 wherein the Joint Collector cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds of the plaintiffs. Later various criminal cases were foisted against the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land. In O.S.No.51 of 2016 the then counsel on record for the petitioner could not file panchanama dated 17.06.2017. As per the order dated 21.05.2020 passed by this Court in C.C.No.2106 of 2016 in W.P.No.28765 of 2016, the application vide I.A.No.115 of 2016 was dismissed and the suit was withdrawn in view of the orders of the Joint Collector. Recently, this Court granted police protection vide its orders dated 21.05.2020 passed in W.P.No.3899 of 2020 and directed the revenue authorities not to interfere with the possession of the first defendant-petitioner herein over land in Sy.No.628 vide orders in W.P.No.12470 of 2020 dated 04.08.2020. As per the case law reported in SRIHARI HANUMANDAS TOTALA V/s. HEMANT VITHAL KAMAT 2021 (3) LS 1 (SC) it is held that to reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to; that the defense made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application, the Court while deciding such application must have due regard only to the statements in the plaint and that whether the suit is barred by any law must be determined from the statements in the plaint and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other material including the written statement in the case. The plaintiffs claimed title over the suit schedule property saying that after their grandfather’s death it devolved on his sole son who in his life time gifted it in two parts to the plaintiffs through registered gift deeds in the year 1992.

Whereas the first defendant stated that neither the grandfather of plaintiffs nor father of plaintiffs had any title or right over the suit schedule property and as such it cannot confer any better title to the plaintiffs. Entries in revenue or municipal or other records are not conclusive and do not confer title. Basing on registered gift deeds, revenue officials on proper enquiry mutated their names and issued pattadar pass books and title deeds and as such it cannot be said that cause of action arose for plaintiffs in the year 1992 and the present suit is barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further argued that the first defendant colluded with revenue officials and illegally manipulated the records without their knowledge. If the first defendant is aggrieved by the mutation in favour of the plaintiffs, the cause of action is not for the plaintiffs but for the first defendant to file a suit for declaration of title. It was also stated that when the second defendant after conducting denovo enquiry advised the parties to approach the civil Court. The cause of action starts from then but the suit is filed on 24.06.2019 beyond limitation. In O.S.No.51 of 2016 an application is filed for temporary injunction and the suit itself was withdrawn after dismissal of the application and as such the cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration of title. The application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint can be decided considering the statements made within the four corners of plaint but not the contents of the written statement.

Now it is for the Court to see the pleadings in the plaint but not the defence set up by the defendants.

The trial Court also observed that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, which cannot be decided in the said application. It can be decided only after full trial. As both the parties are challenging the title of other party basing on revenue records and it was not decided in any earlier suit and it is not fit to discard the plaint at the threshold and it also reveals prima facie case and clear cause of action to file and maintain the suit and accordingly, dismissed the application filed for rejection of the plaint. Revision petitioner contended that cause of action arose in the year 1976-77 onwards and the right of the plaintiffs to sue extinguished in 1979 and as such there is no question of lapse of limitation and as per Section 9 of Limitation Act once the limitation starts and continues but cannot be recreated and thus, on this ground alone the plaint is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel also argued that the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge that the name of the first defendant entered in the revenue records at the first instance in the year 1976-77. As per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 suit is barred by limitation. The first defendant would state that O.S.No.293 of 1971 was filed by the his elder brother for rectification of wrong entries in the connected revenue records and since that time the Revenue Act is not in existence only civil Court had power. The elder sister-in-law of the petitioner filed suit for partition in O.S.No.151 of 1968 but did not claim the share in the land in Sy.No.628. As the name of the father of the first defendant was recorded as pattadar to the extent of Ac.40.21 guntas in Sy.Nos.626, 627 and 628 situated at Pahanigiri village. The share of the father of the first defendant was allotted in Sy.No.628 and the other two remaining Sy.Nos.626 and 627 was allotted to the share of other two branches i.e. Jangili Jeedaiah and Veeraiah. I.A.No.115 of 2016 in O.S.No.51 of 2016 was filed by the first defendant under wrong advice and for non-furnishing the documentary evidence the said application was vacated. Thereafter, the first defendant filed CMA No.817 of 2017 when he came to know about khasra pahani for the year 1954-55, he has withdrawn the suit on 24.06.2019 and appeal is dismissed as infructuous on 31.12.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a case law in RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGH V/s. RAM PRASANNA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRs CIVIL APPEAL NO.2960 OF 2019 decided on 13.03.2019 for the proposition that considering the averments in the plaint if it is found that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d). Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would rely upon a case law of the Madras High Court in A.RAMANATHAN V/s. M/s.TAMARAI MILLS LTD CRP (NPD) No.2874 of 2016 decided on 20.10.2016. holding to the effect that if the Court passes an order for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it has the force of decree and therefore, regular appeal lies under Civil Procedure Code and in fact, no revision would lie.

As the suit is filed for declaration, it has to be decided on merits after adducing evidence by both the parties. The contention of the first defendant that the suit is barred by limitation on three grounds mentioned supra by him is not tenable. The trial Court after considering the arguments advanced by both the counsel and the case law cited before it dismissed the said application. Admittedly, limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and as such this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order under challenge.

In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the order under challenge.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall also dismissed in the light of this final order.