RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR. versus NASYAM JAMAL SAHEB & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 28-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
589
RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR.
v.
NASYAM JAMAL SAHEB & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2717 of 2023)
APRIL 28, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or. VII r. XI (a) and (d) –
Rejection of plaint – The respondents-plaintiffs had filed a suit in
the year 2014 before the Trial Court seeking declaration of title,
permanent injunction and cancellation of various documents –
Appellants-defendants submitted that the suit of plaintiffs was based
on premise that there was an error in partition deed dated
11.03.1953 and subsequent transactions – The appellant-
defendants, filed an application under O. VII r. XI to reject the
plaint – Trial Court dismissed the said application – Appellant filed
revision application before the High Court, which was also dismissed
– On appeal, held: By clever drafting and not asking any relief
with respect to partition deed, the plaintiffs have tried to circumvent
the provision of limitation act and have tried to maintain the suit
which is nothing but abuse of process of court and the law – If
partition deed was to be challenged which as such, the plaintiffs
are attempting to do virtually, the suit would be barred by limitation
having being instituted after lapse of 61 years from the partition
deed – Plaint ought to have been rejected being vexatious, illusory
cause of action and barred by limitation – Judgment of High Court
and Trial Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. It appears that the suit is essentially based upon
the premise that there was an error in partition deed dated
11.03.1953 and in partition deed survey number 706/A9 was
wrongly mentioned. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the
plaintiffs that one ‘S’ (son of original land owner) and other
descendants including the vendors of the appellants never had
any right to effect transaction in respect of land in survey number
706/A9. Deliberately and purposely, the plaintiffs have not prayed
any relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953 though
it is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that there was an error in
   [2023] 5 S.C.R. 589
589
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
partition deed dated 11.03.1953. It is to be noted that pursuant
to the partition deed dated 11.03.1953, after the demise of the
original land owner, his five children got partitioned the properties
under a registered partition deed dated 11.03.1953. Since 2010,
the appellants are in possession of the land purchased vide
registered sale deed dated 24.08.2010. Without challenging
partition deed dated 11.03.1953 and even subsequent gift deed
dated 24.01.1968, the plaintiffs have instituted the present suit
with the prayers which is nothing but a clever drafting to get out
of the limitation. If partition deed dated 11.03.1953 was to be
challenged which as such, the plaintiffs are attempting to do
virtually, the suit would be hopelessly barred by limitation having
being instituted after lapse of 61 years from the partition deed.
[Para 5][596-C-F; 597-A-B]
2. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the various
decisions on the applicability of Order VII Rule XI to the facts of
the case on hand, this Court is of the opinion that the plaint ought
to have been rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII
Rule XI(a) and (d) of CPC being vexatious, illusory cause of action
and barred by limitation. By clever drafting and not asking any
relief with respect to partition deed dated 11.03.1953, the plaintiffs
have tried to circumvent the provision of limitation act and have
tried to maintain the suit which is nothing but abuse of process of
court and the law. [Para 6][599-C-D]
T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 :
[1978] 1 SCR 742; Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Charity
Commr. (2004) 3 SCC 137 : [2004] 1 SCR 1004;
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal
(2017) 13 SCC 174 : [2017] 5 SCR 294; Ram Singh
Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364
: [1986] 3 SCR 831 – relied on.
Raj Narain Sarin Vs. Laxmi Devi and Ors. (2002) 10
SCC 501; The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative
Society Ltd. Vs. Government of Palestine and Ors. AIR
(35) 1948 Privy Council 207; Subhaga and Ors. Vs.
Shobha and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 466; Nusli Neville
Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 557:
[2019] 15 SCR 795 – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
591
Case Law Reference
[1978] 1 SCR 742
relied on
para 3.4
(2002) 10 SCC 501
referred to
para 3.8
(2006) 5 SCC 466
referred to
para 4.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.