V NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. SARA ABDUL GAFOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 to 17 herein (for short 'the Respondents') filed O.S. No. 354 of 2009 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against Respondents 18 to 70 and the Petitioners herein (Defendants 3 and 27), for the relief of declaration to the effect that they are the owners and possessors of Acs. 7.28 guntas of land, in Sy. No. 129/52, and for perpetual injunction. The Petitioners filed I.A. No. 2461 and 2462 of 2009, individually, with a prayer to reject the plaint under Rule 11 of Order VII Code of Civil Procedure Through separate, but similar orders, the trial Court dismissed the same. Hence, these revisions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The Petitioners contend that the Respondents have been litigating for the suit schedule property in one form or the other for the past several decades, and that even after they lost in every forum, they filed the present suit to open another round of vexatious litigation. It is also their case that the suit is barred by res judicata, and by limitation. They contend that the trial Court did not appreciate the matter from the correct perspective and that the plaint is liable to be rejected. Reference is made to various proceedings, that have ensued on earlier occasions.

(3.) Sri K. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the question as to ownership and identity of the land and possession over it were decided by this Court, way back in the year 1976, in CCCA No. 14 of 1972, and that in turn was followed by several proceedings, such as, LGC Nos. 29 of 1992 and 15 of 1996 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, and that the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint, as being without cause of action or as the basis for another round of vexatious litigation. He further pleads that the allegation of fraud made by the Respondents, vis-a-vis the judgment in CCCA No. 14 of 1972 was dealt with by the Special Court in LGC Nos. 29 of 1992 and 15 of 1996, and the findings recorded by the Special Court were affirmed by this Court in its judgment in W.P. No. 9931 of 2006.