Sivalenka Sambhu Prasad vs Annasaramananthaiah

This revision is filed against the order dated 30.06.2022 made in I.A.No.549 of 2021 in O.S.No.2958 of 2020 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, wherein the petitioners/defendants herein filed the said I.A., under Order VII Rule 11 r/w.Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) to reject the plaint.

The said I.A., was filed contending that the 1st petitioner is the Managing Trustee of the 2nd petitioner. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking decree of perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The respondents/plaintiffs have spun of illusion of cause of action against the petitioners/defendants so as to drag them into a frivolous litigation. On a plain and simple reading of plaint it is seen that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit only to abuse the process of law. The valuable suit property has been launched by the respondents/plaintiffs with an intention to protract the proceedings and the main grounds of the petition are that the averments made in the plaint do not disclose any cause of action. Furthermore, the relief of injunction against the true owners is not maintainable, and the suit is filed stating that they were appointed as care takers to look after the bunglow situated in plot No.511, H.No.8-2-686/13/5/3, Banjara Hills, Road No.12, Hyderabad by D. Seetha Rama Rao and his wife D.Neela Bhramara in the year 1991 and they were permitted to stay in the outhouse at the back side of the main bunglow and they are in permissive possession continuously for a period of thirty years in the suit property and that the defendants are trying to evict them without following the due process of law. As such, they filed injunction suit. It is also contended that no one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously even by long possession of years or decade, such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property. Possession is an incidence of ownership and can only be transferred by the owner of immovable property to another and the respondents/plaintiffs are claiming property basing on a non-existent Will alleged to be executed in the year 2014 by D.Seetha Rama Rao. Instead of producing the said Will, they have made frivolous averments in the plaint that Will is not in his possession.

A reading of the plaint itself would show that it is a vexatious, meritless and miserably failing to disclose any cause of action. Therefore, they prayed the Court to reject the plaint.

The respondents/plaintiffs filed counter denying the averments of the petition and contended that the nature of suit is only simplicitor injunction but not for declaration of title. Hence, petitioners have no right to ask for declaration of title which is beyond the scope of the relief prayed by them and there is no counter claim filed by them. On any account the relief prayed in the petition is not maintainable.

Sofar as, the prima-facie case is concerned the respondents herein have already filed the relevant documents to prove 30 years of long possession which is even supported by the letter issued by the defendants and which is the root cause to file the present suit and base of cause of action. Hence, the present petition is not maintainable to say that there is cause of action for the present suit.

The 1st respondent used to work as daily labour for a period of two years and his wife used to take care of Leelamma and her husband including cooking and serving. Petitioners have tried to sell the property and tried to create third party interest which would cause irreparable damage to the respondents/plaintiffs which cannot be compensated even on decreeing the suit. Therefore, the respondents are entitled for injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with their peaceful possession and restrain the petitioners from alienating the property, otherwise, they would loose their dwelling house inspite of spending their entire energy.

The trial Court considering the petition and counter averments dismissed the petition observing that the cause of action is a bundle of facts and questions of fact and law. Therefore, it cannot be decided in the interlocutory application, unless a full-fledged trial is conducted. The other contention is that there is no Will executed by D.Seetha Rama Rao as alleged by the respondents/plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property, but the said fact cannot be decided in the present petition and it can be decided during the course of trial only. With the above observations, the trial Court dismissed the I.A.

Heard Sri Vikram Poosarla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt D.Geetha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit filed by the respondents is a vexatious suit without any right or title over the property. The petitioners themselves stated that they are the care takers and relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they contend that care takers can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of their long possession.

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is cause of action to file the petition and at this stage, it cannot be decided whether there is a Will executed by D.Seetha Rama Rao and the existence of Will can be decided during the course of trial. As such, they prayed the Court to dismiss this revision petition.

Having regard to the rival submissions and as seen from the record, the suit is filed for simplicitor injunction praying the Court to restrain the defendants from interfering with their physical possession. According to the plaintiffs, they are the care takers of the property and there is a Will wherein the property is executed in their favour which is in possession of the defendants and they have to produce the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment in M/s.Maria Margardia Sequeira Fernandes and others Vs Erasni Jack De Sequeira (dead) through L.Rs (2012) 5 SCC 3701 wherein it was observed that care takers cannot acquire interest in the property. I too admit that care taker has no right to claim property wherein, he will be permitted to reside in the said property to care of the property, whereas in the present case, the plaintiffs are claiming property through a Will which is in possession of the defendants. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be decided that execution of Will needs adjudication and it can be decided only after a full fledged trial.

With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.