(Prayer: 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 topleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned Common Order and Decree passed in I.A NoS.700/2019 and 772/2019 in O.S No.35/2019, Dt.16.03.2022 on the file The Senior Civil Judge Court, Mangalagiri and consequently allow the I.A No.700/2019 in O.S No.35/2019 and thereby reject the Plaint in O.S No.35/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court,Mangalagiri and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings in 0.S No.35/ 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court at Mangalagiri,Guntur District pending disposal of CRP in the interest of Justice

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 toto allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned Common Order and Decree passed in I.A NoS.700/2019 and 772/2019 in 0.S No.35/2019, Dt.16.03.2022 on the file The Senior Civil Judge Court, Mangalagiri and consequently allow the I.A No.772/2019 in O.S No.35/2019 and thereby reject the Plaint in O.S No.35/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court,Mangalagiri and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant STAY of all further proceedings in 0.S No.35/ 2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court at Mangalagiri,Guntur District pending disposal of CRP in the interest of Justice.

Common Order:

1. The petitioners have filed these Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs) aggrieved by the common order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri in IA No. 700 of 2019 and IA No. 772 of 2019 in OS No. 35 of 2019. The petitioners are defendants in the suit filed for specific performance.

2. C.R.P.No.1209 of 2022 is filed by the Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.35 of 2019 and C.R.P.No.1210 of 2022 is filed by the Defendants Nos.2 to 5 in O.S.No.35 of 2019.

3. Both the interlocutory applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking the rejection of the plaint were dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge. As such, the present CRPs are filed. The following grounds are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner ;

                  i. The nature of the suit schedule property has lost its character of assignment in terms of GOMS No. 41 dated 17.02.2016, and the agreement of sale dated 16.01.2016 would be an absolutely Void and unenforceable document.

                  ii. The plaint A schedule property is standing in the name of the mother-in-law of the petitioner, who filed CRP 1210 of 2022 and that the property would have to be partitioned amongst the surviving family members.

                  iii. The execution of the agreement of sale dated 16.01.2016 is also disputed by the petitioners.

                  iv. That there is no cause of action for filing the suit and that the suit cannot be tried on documents that have no evidentiary value.

                  v. The suit based on a void agreement of sale would be barred by law.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even as per the averments of the plaint at para 5, the nature of the land was changed by virtue of the issuance of GOMS No. 41 dated 17.02.2016. It is submitted that the land forming Schedule A of the suit schedule property was assigned land, and the government, by virtue of the land pooling scheme, has acquired the property. It is submitted that, by the date of execution of the agreement of sale dated 16.01.2016, the land has changed its character from being an assigned land. It is submitted that the agreement of sale would be void, as the petitioners could not have transferred any right, title or interest in the property, over which they have neither any right nor possession.

5. It is also submitted that plaint ‘B’ schedule property never existed on paper and never existed as on 24.07.2017. It is submitted that the relief of specific performance cannot be granted for a property which does not exist with defined metes and bounds as on that date. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is no cause of action for filing the suit in view of the change of nature of the schedule ‘A’ property. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even as per the averments of the plaint at para 5, the nature of land was changed by virtue of issuance of GOMS No. 41 dated 17.02.2016. It is submitted that the land which forms the Schedule A of the suit schedule property was an assigned land and government by virtue of the land pooling scheme has acquired the property. It is submitted that, by the date of execution of the agreement of sale dated 16.01.2016 the land has changed its character of being an assigned land. It is submitted that the agreement of sale would be void as the petitioners could not have transferred right, title and interest for the property over which they have neither any right nor possession.

6. It is also submitted that plaint ‘B’ schedule property never existed on paper and never existed as on 24.07.2017. It is submitted that the relief of specific performance cannot be granted for a property which does not exist with defined metes and bounds as on that date.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the following judgments for substantiating his stand that there is no cause of action for filing the suit in view of the change of nature of the schedule ‘A’ property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Yadaiah and Anr Vs. State of Telangana and others(Civil Appeal No.4835 of 2023, decided on 01.08.2023). The Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the Civil Appeal relating to nature of assignment and violation of conditions of assignment. It was held that the subject land was non-alienable and also held that the transfer of lands is in contravention with the provisions of A.P. Assignment Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt.Narayanamma & Anr.Etc. Etc. Vs. Sri Govindappa & Ors Etc.Etc.( Civil Appeal Nos.7630-7631 of 2019, decided on 26.09.2019), The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the civil appeal dealt with the issue of an agreement of sale which was relating to purchase of land and the transaction emanating thereto. A sale deed was executed without the knowledge of the plaintiff and the dispute was adjudicated on merits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue of filing a suit for specific performance after a long delay was not permissible and held that when the plaintiff entered into an agreement with only one of the co-owners and when the plaintiff failed to refer any suit against the sale deeds executed in favour of defendants therein held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance. Pemmada Prabhakar & Ors Vs. Youngmen’s Vysya Association & Ors(Civil Appeal No.7835 of 2014, decided on 20.08.2014), The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of granting of the relief of specific performance over an agreement of sale which was executed by one of the co-sharers, held that the agreement is not executable.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 are not maintainable for the simple reason that the plaint would disclose a specific cause of action. It is also submitted that the respondents have prayed for the grant of alternate relief, as reflected in the prayers before the trial Court. It is also submitted that the Respondent was aware of the change in nature of the suit schedule property by the date of the agreement of sale. However, the agreement of sale casts an obligation on the petitioners to transfer the benefit which has arisen out of the acquisition process of Capital Region Development Authority(CRDA) and the alternate commercial plot allotted by the CRDA to be transferred in the name of the respondent. It is submitted that when the plaintiff's prayer categorically indicates that a specific cause of action has arisen.

9. It is submitted that the cause of action is also specifically mentioned at clause IV of the plaint, as such, the claim of the petitioners that there is no cause of action for filing the suit is unfounded and against the record available before the trial Court. It is also submitted that the trial Court has passed a well-considered and well-reasoned order which does not warrant any interference at this stage. It is also submitted that the plaint is supported by various documents which shall be proved before the trial Court, and at the nascent stage, the attempt of the petitioners to scuttle the fulfilment of the obligations of the agreement of sale is detrimental to the interest of the respondents.

10. It is submitted that a substantial amount has been transferred to the petitioners, and there is no dispute on the receipt of the amount paid by the 1st respondent. It is submitted that the grounds raised by the petitioners for rejecting the plaint are unavailable and unfounded. It is submitted that Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC specifically requires the non-disclosure of the cause of action for rejecting the plaint. In the present case, the respondent No. 1 has specifically disclosed the cause of action with specified dates and events. In such a scenario, the applications filed by the petitioners were rightly rejected by the trial Court.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has placed reliance on the following judgments in the matter of Jageswari Devi and others Vs. Shatrughan Ram4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering civil appeals relating to the scope under order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC on non-disclosure of the cause of action. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, the petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC would have to be allowed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that defective cause of action cannot be considered for rejecting the plaint at the threshold by passing orders in an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC.

12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Perused the material record.

13. The short point for consideration is ;

                  Whether the common order passed in I.A.No.700 of 2019 and I.A.No.772 of 2019 in O.S.No.35 of 2019 deserves to be interfered with ?

14. The plaint filed before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mangalgiri is perused. Clause IV of the plaint would disclose the cause of action by referring to various dates and events. The prayer in the plaint also discloses that the respondent has sought alternative relief. The agreement of sale dated 16.01.2019 is executed on a Rs.100/- stamp paper, and the first defendant had signed and executed the same.

15. This Court is not venturing into deciding whether the 1st defendant is competent to execute the Agreement of Sale or otherwise, as the same would have to withstand the test of scrutiny of fact and law before the trial Court. This Court is also not venturing into whether the no-objection executed by the other defendants , transferring their interest and rights over the plaint ‘A’ schedule land to the defendant No.1, is binding on all other defendants. These would have to be considered by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial. It is neither advisory nor mandatory for the trial Court while considering the application for rejection of plaint to go into the aspect of admissibility or otherwise of the documents filed along with the plaint. It is mandatory for the Court to consider the admissibility and relevancy of the documents while conducting trial and deciding the suit on merits.

16. This Court, after perusing the plaint, is of the considered view that the plaintiff has disclosed the cause of action by referring to various dates and events. This would suffice to reject the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. The scope of the Court in entertaining an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is very specific, and it is a settled law that non-disclosure of the cause of action would suffice for allowing the said application.

17. On the facts of this case, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the well-considered and well-reasoned order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, in dismissing IA No. 700 of 2022 and IA No. 772 of 2022. It is left open for the parties hereto to raise all contentions before the trial Court for substantiating their respective stands before the trial Court for adjudication of the suit on merits.

18. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petitions are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.