APHC010099702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 24 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 678/2026 BETWEEN: 1. TUMMALA TULASAMMA, W/o. T.LAKSHAMANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT No.342, ALEKHYA TOWERS, BAIRAMALGUDA, INNER RING ROAD, HYDERABAD, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT No. 107, MYCONACROPLIS APARTMENT, CYBER HILLS COLONY, HYDERABAD. 1. GALIVETI NAGARATNAMMA, W/o. G.SIVARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT D.No. 1/129 CHENNAMUKKAPALLI VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2. RAYAVARAM NARAYANAMMA, W/o. R.GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R CHENNAMUKKAPALLI VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3. RAYAVARAM SRINIVASULU REDDY, S/o. R.GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. BUSINESS, CHENNAMUKKAPALLI VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 6. THE SUB REGISTRAR, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 678/2026 TUMMALA TULASAMMA, W/o. T.LAKSHAMANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT No.342, ALEKHYA TOWERS, BAIRAMALGUDA, INNER RING ROAD, HYDERABAD, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT No. 107, MYCONACROPLIS APARTMENT, CYBER HILLS COLONY, ...PETITIONER AND GALIVETI NAGARATNAMMA, W/o. G.SIVARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT D.No. 1/129 CHENNAMUKKAPALLI VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. RAYAVARAM NARAYANAMMA, W/o. R.GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT D.No. 1/129, CHENNAMUKKAPALLI VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. RAYAVARAM SRINIVASULU REDDY, S/o. R.GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. BUSINESS, CHENNAMUKKAPALLI VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. TAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. THE SUB REGISTRAR, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO TUMMALA TULASAMMA, W/o. T.LAKSHAMANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT No.342, ALEKHYA TOWERS, BAIRAMALGUDA, INNER RING ROAD, HYDERABAD, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT No. 107, MYCONACROPLIS APARTMENT, CYBER HILLS COLONY, ...PETITIONER GALIVETI NAGARATNAMMA, W/o. G.SIVARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT D.No. 1/129-1, CHENNAMUKKAPALLI VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, RAYAVARAM NARAYANAMMA, W/o. R.GANGI REDDY, AGED ESIDING AT D.No. 1/129, CHENNAMUKKAPALLI VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, RAYAVARAM SRINIVASULU REDDY, S/o. R.GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. BUSINESS, CHENNAMUKKAPALLI VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. TAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, THE SUB REGISTRAR, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Order dated 05.01.2026 in I.A. No. 366 of 2025 in O.S. No. 15 of 2025 passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoti, and to allow the said Petition, and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALEEMULLA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 05.01.2026 passed in I.A. No.366 of 2025 in O.S. No.15 of 2025 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoti. 2. The parties hereinafter referred as arrayed in the suit in order to avoid confusion. The revision petitioner is the 6th defendant in the suit and 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit and the respondents 2 and 3 are the mother and brother respectively of plaintiff in the suit. The respondents 3 to 5 are official respondents, the relief against this respondents is not mutate the name of the defendants 1 and 2 or any third parties in the revenue record. 3. The respondent No-1 filed suit for partition against the respondent No.2 and 3 asserting that an extent of Ac. 0.73 of cents in Sy. No. 45/2 of land was given to her as pasupukunkuma and the rest of the properties are the joint possession and enjoyment of both the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 inherited from the original owner of the property. 4. While the suit is pending the revision petitioner herein filed an I.A. 197 of 2025 in the suit O.S. No: 15 of 2025 on the file Senior Civil Judge Rayachoty under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead her as 4 party respondent for impleadment as defendants in the suit, pleading that brother of D-2 sold the property in Sy. No: 45/2 which is item No-14 of the suit schedule property to one Palle Sreenuvasulu Reddy who in turn executed irrevocable G.P.A.-cum-agreement for sale dated 03.08.2010 latter he failed to execute the sale deed the 6th defendant (the revision petitioner) filed suit for specific performance on transfer from Rajampet to Kadapa was renumbered as O.S. No: 32 of 2019 and the same was decreed 14.07.2021 and E.P. 579 of 2021 was filed under order XXI Rule 34 and the same is pending before the execution court. Thus D-6(the revision petitioner has become the owner of the property hence is the proper and necessary party to the suit. The said I.A., filed to implead was order by the trial court vide order dated 24.07.2025. 5. The Defendant (Revision Petitioner) has filed I.A. No. 366 of 2025 in O.S. No. 15 of 2025 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, seeking the rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC. The application contends that, pursuant to the decree in O.S. No. 32 of 2019, the Defendant has become the owner of the property in Sy. No. 45/2 (Item No. 14 of the suit schedule). Furthermore, it is argued that the Plaintiff (Respondent 1) lacks any right to the property and was required to file a suit for declaration under Article 58 of the Limitation Act from the date of the aforementioned decree. As the Plaintiff failed to 5 do so, the suit is barred by limitation and must be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the CPC. 6. Now the D-1 (the revision petitioner) filed I.A. 366 of 20205 in O.S. No: 15 of 2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Kadapa seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 rule 11 (a & d) of CPC interalia on the grounds (i) that pursuant to the decree passed in suit O.S.No. 32 of 2019 that D-1 (the revision petitioner) has become the owner of the property of Sy. No: 45/2 of item No: 14 of the suit schedule and the Plaintiff (R-1) has no right over the property in Sy. No 42/5 and the Plaintiff was required to file suit for declaration under Art 58 of the Limitation 1963 from the date of decree of the suit O. No: 32 of 2019 as the Plaintiff has not filed the suit for declaration the present suit O.S No: 15 of 2025 pending on the file Senior Civil Judge is barred by limitation hence it has to rejected under Order 7 rule 11 (d) of (ii) There is no real cause of action for the suit. (iii) the suit is not maintainable in the absence of prayer for declaration and cancellation of the Registered sale deed dated 03.05.2010 executed by the D-2 in favour of the petitioner’s vendor in respect of item No-14 of the plaint schedule (iv) the plaintiff played fraud upon the court by suppression of material form making false claim which plaintiff knows to be false. D-6 (the revision petitioner). 6 7. The following judgements were relied in support of above contentions: (1) T. Arivandandam Vs T.V. Satyapal reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 the Apex Court held that while considering an application under order 7 rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory. (2) Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal reported in (2017) 13 SCC 174 held that if clever drafting of the plaint has created the illusion of a cause of action, the court will nip it in the bud at the earliest so that bogus litigation will end at the earlier stage. (3) Dilboo Vs Dhanraji reported in (2000) 7 SCC 702 and (4) Smt. Uma Devi Vs Anand Kumar and others reported in (2025) 5 SCC 198 for the proposition held that immediately after the execution of the registered sale deed followed by mutation of entry in favour of the party on the basis of the registered sale deed it is deemed to have the knowledge of the said transaction and that by making vague averments in the plaint that earlier he had no knowledge and came to know about the transaction subsequently; by such clever drafting it would be impermissible for the plaintiff to bring the suit within the period of limitation which otherwise is barred by law of limitation. (5) Ram Prakash Gupta Vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta reported in (2007) 10 SCC 59 (6) Apex Court held for the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Rule 11 Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint 7 are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. (7) Ram Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Mehak Kalam (1986) 4 SCC 364 Apex Court held that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances by which the suit is barred by law of limitation. (8) Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle reported in (2024) 15 SCC 675 for the proposition that irrespective of the fact that issue of limitation is generally is a mixed question of fact and law and has to be decided after weighing the evidence on record. Allowing such suits to proceed would be abuse of process of law and would only cause harm to the defendants. (9) Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh reported in (2020) 16 SCC 601 for the proposition that the suit would be barred by limitation under article 59 of the Limitation Act , if it was filed beyond three years of the execution of the registered deed. 8. The trial court dismissed the I.A. 366 of 2025 vide order dated 05.01.2026 now the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India reiterating the same facts as stated in the affidavit filed support of the interlocutory application in I.A. 366 of 20125. 8 9. The trial Court while dismissing the I.A., interalia observed whether the suit is barred by any law or not always depends upon the facts and circumstance of each case and the averments made in the plaint are relevant, that the cause of action is nothing but bundle of facts which give rise to the plaintiff to file the suit, unless the plaint is read as whole the, it cannot be said that, there is defective cause of action which cannot give the right to the plaintiff and the application filed to reject the plaint was dismissed as it is not barred by law and it will not fall under the ambit of Order VII rule 11 (a) to (d) of CPC. 10. CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT: It is generally established that, that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. Limitation can indeed serve as a reason for rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under O.VII R.11(d) of the CPC. And it is also well settled for deciding an application filed under O.VII R.11 only averments stated in the plaint alone can be looked into. Merits and demerits of the matter and the claims made by the parties cannot be gone into while deciding an application filed under O.VII R.11 of the CPC. 11. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. In the case of Madanuri Sri Rama 9 Chandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 the question fell for consideration was whether the suit is barred by any law, would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The averments in the written statement as well as the contentions of the defendant are wholly immaterial while considering the prayer of the defendant for rejection of the plaint. 12. In Urvashiben Vrs. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi, (2018) 13 SCR 1242 it has been observed that the merits and demerits of the matter cannot be gone into while deciding an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC and held that: " That the issue of limitation is concerned, it is a mixed question of fact and law. The limitation can be the ground for rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under O.VII, R.11(d) of the CPC. Equally, it is well settled that for the purpose of deciding application filed under O.VII, R.11 only averments stated in the plaint alone can be looked into, merits and demerits of the matter and the allegations by the parties cannot be gone into. 13. In Sejal Glass Ltd. vs Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. And Ors reported in 2018 (11) SCC 780, the Apex Court held that the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or rejected as a whole but not in part. And in the case of Madhav Prasad Aggarwal and another Vs Axis Bank Limited and another reported in (2019) 7 SCC 158, held that rejection of plaint in part only against one of the defendant in 10 exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is impermissible such relief can be claimed by invoking other remedies including under Order 6 rule 6 of CPC at appropriate stage, hence the relief of rejection of plaint of rejection of plaint under Order 7 rule 11 (d) cannot be perused only in respect one of the defendants i.e., the plaint has to be reject as a whole or not at all, if the plaint survives against certain defendants and or properties Order 7 rule 11(d) has no application and the suit as whole must then proceed to trial. 14. In the case of Kum. Geetha, D/O Late Krishna vs Nanjundaswamy reported in (2024) 14 SCC 390 the Apex Court held in simple terms, the true test is first to read the plaint meaningfully and as a whole, taking it to be true. Upon such reading, if the plaint discloses a cause of action, then the application under Order VII rule 11 of the CPC must fail. To put it negatively, where it does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint shall be rejected and observed in the following. “The court cannot pre-judge the truth, legality and validity of the document or deed examining the merits of the suit under which the defendants claim title. This is not to say that the Plaintiffs have any less burden to prove their case or even that their case is probable. Simply put, the High Court could not have anticipated the truth of the averments by assuming that the alleged previous sale of the property is 11 complete or that it has been acted upon. The approach adopted by the High Court is incorrect and contrary to the well-entrenched principles of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.” 15. This Court refers the judgment in the case of Gram Panchayat of Village Naulakha Vs Ujaggar Singh & others reported in [(2000) 7 SCC 543]. The Apex Court has stated, that, even in an earlier suit for injunction, there is an incidental finding on title, the same will not be binding in the later suit or proceedings, where title is directly in question, unless it is established, that it was "necessary" in the earlier suit to decide the question of title for granting or refusing injunction and that the relief for injunction was found or based on the bindings of title. Even the mere framing of an issue may not be sufficient as pointed out in the case. And the said judgment is not binding on this plaintiff. 16. The property to an extent of Ac. 0.73 which is item No 14 in Sy. No 45/2 of the suit schedule property is claiming by the plaintiff as her exclusive property that was given to her as Pasupukunkama. The said property was sold by her brother, who is D-1, to the vendor of the D-6 (the revision petitioner) in the present suit. 17. Admittedly, the plaintiff (R-1) is not party to the suit O.S. No. 32 of 2019 which was filed by D-6 (the revision petitioner) for specific performance against his Vendor. According to the plaint averments, the 12 property in Sy. No 45/2 was gifted to the plaintiff as ‘Pasupukunkuma” Whether the D-1 possesses a saleable interest to sell the land to the vendor of the D-6 (the revision petitioner) is a question of fact to be determined in the suit during the trial. Besides that, the present suit concerns partition and includes additional survey numbers, a suit cannot be rejected in part, as it must be rejected in its entirety or not at all. While D-1 (the revision petitioner) claims an interest in 0.73 acres, the plaintiff asserts that the property is her exclusive holding. 18. This Court sees no flaw in the order of the trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one Thousand only), payable to the District Legal Services Authority and the petitioner is directed to pay the costs within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of this order, failing which the trial Court is directed to take necessary action to realise the costs. 19. Office is directed to mark a copy to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kadapa, for realisation of costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 24.07.2026 Harin 13 92 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO C.R.P.No. 678 OF 2026 Date: 24-07-2026 Harin