ATMARAM Vs. DEVIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard fnally, by consent of both the learned counsels.

(2.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dtd. 18/12/2019 passed on Exh. 21 in Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 2017 by which the petitioners (defendants) application for rejection of plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 (c) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure was came to be rejected. The defendants have raised objection to the maintainability of suit by stating that suit is barred by law of limitation, and requisite Court fee stamps has not been paid. The trial Court has turned down both the objections by passing impugned order.

(3.) The facts in brief are such that respondent (plaintifs) have fled Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 2017 for declaration that sale deeds are not binding on their share, possession of the suit land and for perpetual injunction. It is the plaintifs case that suit land admeasuring 3 Hector 72 R out of Gut No.78 (old survey No. 39/2) was originally owned by one Jankiram. The plaintifs grand-father Nathu Khandu was the protected tenant of the suit property. After demise of Khandu, his four sons, including plaintif's father Damu became protected tenants of the suit land. Later on in terms of Sec. 38(E) of The Hyderabad Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 all four brothers acquired ownership of tenanted property. There was partition, in which suit property came to the share of plaintif's father Damu. After demise of Damu, name of plaintif's mother ( defendant No.3) was mutated to the revenue record of the suit property.