T.A. NARAYANASWAMY Vs. T.N. RAGHAVENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

(2.) This CRP is filed under Sec. 115 of CPC against the order dtd. 2/3/2022 passed on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.800/2019 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., at Devanahalli, dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint. Hence, this petition is filed before this Court.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that the suit schedule property belongs to the petitioner and the relief sought in the plaint by the first respondent is for the relief of declaration to declare that he is the owner and in possession of the suit property. The learned counsel would submit that the property was already acquired and the possession was taken and the compensation also paid and now he cannot seek for the relief of declaration. The learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the sale transaction had taken place long back i.e., 53 years old transaction and after the lapse of 53 years, the suit is filed for the relief of declaration and not sought for any relief of possession since possession has already been taken. The suit is also barred by limitation. All these grounds are urged before the Trial Court when an application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The learned counsel also would submit that the suit is also hit by Sec. 34 of the Specific Relief Act. These are the aspects has not been considered by the Trial Court.