THANAMKI PRASAD Vs. GUNTAMADUGU PULIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in an unnumbered suit being C.F. No.3402 of 2004. The said suit was presented to the Court of the District Judge, Nellore. By an order dated 19-11-2004, the learned District Judge rejected the plaint at the threshold on the ground that the plaint allegations are vague, that the plaintiff did not file any supporting documents showing the title of 51 defendants to the land agreed to be demised in favour of the plaintiff and also pointing out certain minor procedural discrepancies. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule fallow lands situated at Oduru Diguva Rajupalem of Chillakur Mandal in Nellore District. It is the case of the petitioner that all the 51 defendants who own lands ranging from Ac.1.00 to Acs. 12.45 agreed to sell the land in their possession and executed a common joint agreement of sale on 9-5-2001 but failed to perform the vendors' part of the contract by accepting balance sale consideration. He also alleged that he agreed to purchase the fallow land at the rate of Rs.9,500/- per acre and paid at Rs.500/- per acre as advance to the defendants. In his suit, he made the following prayer. The plaintiff therefore prays for a judgment and decree against the defendants:- (a) directing the defendants to get the land measured, ascertain the survey number and receive the balance of sale consideration from the plaintiff and execute the register the sale deed in his name at his expense within a time to be specified by the Hon'ble Court, failing which the Hon'ble Court may execute and register the sale deed in his name (plaintiff) at his expenses; (b) directing the defendants to pay the costs of this suit; and (c) granting such further and other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this suit.

(2.) The office of the District Court raised two objections as to how the suit is maintainable against 51 defendants when the suit agreement of sale was not signed by all the defendants; and the total sale consideration payable towards purchase money is not mentioned. When the matter was placed before the Court, the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff were heard. Even without there being any trial of the issues that might arise, the learned District Judge appreciated the plaint averments in detail and came to the conclusion that the suit for specific performance was filed on an incomplete document and therefore it cannot be entertained. It is also indicated by the learned District Judge that for the absence of any proof of title of the vendors of the agreement of sale dated 9-5-2001, the Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry to trace the title of the vendors.

(3.) Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) enables the Court to reject a plaint when the plaint does not disclose cause of action, when the relief claimed is not properly valued, when the suit is barred by any law and when certain provisions are not complied with. The rejection of the plaint by a Court does not, however, bar a fresh suit. Be that as it is, though Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is not exhaustive at the stage of scrutiny of the case, no Court can appreciate the merits of the case and reject the plaint on the ground that the case of the plaintiff is not well-founded or devoid of any merit. In a suit for specific performance, as per Section 4 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (the Act), the provisions of the said Act alone are applicable. If there are any defects in the plaint for specific performance of agreement of sale, unless such defects go to the root of the matter, the plaint cannot be rejected at the stage of scrutiny. The Court cannot lose sight of the right of a seller or purchaser of the immovable property as conferred by the agreement of sale under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act) and the provisions of the Act. Under Section 13 of the Act, it is always open to the plaintiff/vendee to pray the Court to conduct enquiry into the title/ defective title of the vendor and then give a direction to the vendors to perform their part of the contract after accepting the balance of sale consideration, if any. In rejecting the plaint, the learned District Judge lost sight of the provisions of Section 55 of TP Act and Section 13 of the Act and also Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. By reason of the rejection, the petitioner is now deprived of his valuable right. All the flaws pointed out by the learned District Judge - some of which are curable by the plaintiff himself; at best can be a defence in the written statement. For these reasons, this Court is of considered opinion that this is fit case where the power of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India should be exercised in favour of the petitioner.