Decided on September 20,2019

Chitteti Rambabu Appellant
Chitteti Maddi Ravamma Respondents


C Praveen Kumar, J. - (1.)Assailing the Order, dated 13.06.2019, passed in I.A.No.860 of 2018 in O.S.No.374 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, wherein an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., requesting the Court to reject the plaint on the ground that, it does not disclose any cause of action and that it is barred by limitation, came to be rejected, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.)The affidavit filed in support of the I.A. by the Petitioner/Defendant would show that, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration in respect of Item Nos. 1 to 4 of suit schedule properties claiming to be the absolute owner. Along with the said suit, I.A. seeking injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with her possession also came to be filed. It is said that, the husband of the plaintiff executed a registered a Will, dated 21.02.2004, vide Document No. 2282 of 2004, wherein Item No. 1 of the schedule property was given to her for maintenance. However, vested interest in Item No. 1 of the schedule property was created in favor of the petitioner. The structures in the Item No. 1 of the schedule property are under construction and not suitable for dwelling purposes. It is said that, the plaintiff suppressed the material facts and approached the court with unclean hands.
ii) It is said that, the respondent/plaintiff and the petitioner/defendant executed Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 28.07.2014, in favor of one Bethala Venkata Subba Rao, vide Document No. 2039/2014. As per the said document, Bethala Venkata Subba Rao paid advance amount of Rs.,2,93,000/-, on the date of registration as advance, and a registered Sale Deed came to be executed in his favor, on 07.01.2015. The petitioner/defendant is said to have purchased the said property again, on 16.05.2017, from Bethala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, who purchased Item No. 1 from the plaintiff and defendant by paying the sale consideration at Rs.5,31,000/-.

iii) Item No. 2 of the plaint schedule property was said to have been sold by the plaintiff and Adapa Venkata Ratnam to the petitioner/defendant, on 31.03.2015, for Rs.,1,07,000/- and got it registered as Document No. 969/2015 in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Nunna.

iv) Similarly, the plaintiff and Adapa Venkata Ratnam executed another Sale Deed, on the very same day, in respect of Item No. 3 of the plaint schedule property, for a sum of Rs., 1,00,000/-, vide registered Document No. 968/2015 in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Nunna.

v) In respect of Item No. 4 of the plaint schedule property is concerned, the same was sold by the plaintiff and Adapa Venkata Ratnam for Rs., 67,000/- under a registered Document No. 970/2015, dated 31.03.2015.

vi) As the entire plaint schedule properties were purchased by the petitioner/defendant and he being in possession and enjoyment of the properties, coupled with absolute rights; the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is barred by limitation. Thus, the application came to be filed for rejection of the plaint.

(3.)Counter came to be filed disputing the averments made in the affidavit.
i) In sofar as the Document dated 21.02.2004 is concerned, it is said that, it is a Will, as it came into operation after the death of testator. The possession of the property was given to the plaintiff by the testator.

ii) Having regard to the facts, the validity of the Document, dated 21.02.2004, has to be examined in the course of the trial and needs adjudication at this stage.

iii) After analyzing the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present Revision is filed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.