ROOPA Vs. P PILLA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 20, 21, 27 and 28 being aggrieved by order of rejection of I.A.17 filed by them under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint in respect of the portion of schedule item No.1 property measuring 1 acre 37 guntas said to be in their ownership and possession, are before this Court questioning the said order.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Sri. Sriram Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Sunil Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 plaintiffs before the trial court. Respondents 8 to 11, 41 and 44 are served and unrepresented. Notice to respondents 12 to 40, 45 to 51 have been dispensed with vide order dated 7.6.2014 and petition against respondents 4 and 5 has stood abated, as per order dated 18.11.2014. Notice to respondents 6, 7, 42 and 43 stands dispensed with, since appellants had not sought for any relief against them in their application filed in the trial court, which has been dismissed and is now under challenge in this petition.

(3.) It is the contention of Sri. Sriram Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the plaint ought to have been rejected by Trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 and he would contend that all the grounds enumerated under Clause (a) to (f) of Rule 11 is attracted to the facts of the case and as such plaint should have been rejected. He would elaborate his submission by contending that there is no cause of action for the suit and averments made in paragraph 13 of the plaint, is illusory and by clever drafting of the plaint, such a cause of action has been pleaded, so as to maintain the suit and cause of action pleaded in the plaint would not entitle the plaintiff for reliefs as sought for in the suit and same being couched with erroneous facts, plaint be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (a). He would also contend that suit in question is barred by limitation and the relief sought for is expressly barred under Articles 58, 59, 60 (a), 65, 109, 110 and 113 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. As such, he contends that Trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint, as prayed for by the petitioners by invoking Order 7 Rule 11 (d) and non examination of these aspects by the trial court has resulted in great prejudice. In support of his submission he has made a valiant attempt to contend that plaintiffs have suppressed various facts and contended that there is no cause of action for the suit. He would contend that relief sought for by the plaintiff to declare the suit schedule properties as joint family properties cannot be granted, since Trial Judge failed to consider that the said individual in whose name the properties are acquired, is not a family member for the purpose of joint family and therefore, relief sought for in the suit cannot be granted. He would also contend that facts put forth by the defendants and the documents produced would prima facie indicate that suit in O.S. No. 288/1949-50, came to be filed by one Channappa, against father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 and also against one Patel Muniswamappa claiming he is a family member of the original propositus Muniyappa, in respect of item No.1 property therein which is also the subject matter of present suit and described as item No.1 and in the said suit father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 herein had filed written statement contending that item No.1 is not a joint family property and it belongs exclusively to Patel Muniswamappa and there was severance of status in the joint family and its properties and nonconsideration of the findings recorded by the jurisdictional Court which rendered the judgment in O.S.No.288/1949-50 while adjudicating the application in question, has resulted in the application in question being rejected erroneously. As such he prays for allowing of the revision petition and prays for allowing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In support of his submission he has relied upon the following judgments: