Mutually Destructive Pleas No Ground To Reject Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that a plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that inconsistent and mutually destructive pleas were sought."Therefore, the contention that adverse possession cannot be claimed on the basis of an agreement of sale, since they are inconsistent or mutually destructive pleas, cannot be a ground to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of the Code. The...
The Telangana High Court has held that a plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that inconsistent and mutually destructive pleas were sought.
"Therefore, the contention that adverse possession cannot be claimed on the basis of an agreement of sale, since they are inconsistent or mutually destructive pleas, cannot be a ground to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of the Code. The merits of such pleas are to be adjudicated by the Trial Court after conducting a trial."
Justice T. Vinod Kumar relied on the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Kasani Narasimhulu Vs. Sathagowni Srinivas Goud & Ors and Gurdev Singh Vs Harvinder Singh to hold that a plaint can only be rejected when the plaint does not disclose any cause of action.
The petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petition were the defendants before the lower court and challenged the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application (I.A.) by the lower court filed for the relief of rejection of plaint in a suit filed for declaration of title, declaration of the Gift Settlement Deeds & perpetual injunction.
The petitioners contended that a prayer for declaration and adverse possession were contradictory to each other and could not be sought concurrently. The lower court, however, arrived at a conclusion that the plaint disclosed sufficient cause of action and dismissed the I.A. filed under Order 7 Rule 11.
On the other hand, respondents/plaintiffs contended that the plea of adverse possession was only an alternate remedy.
It was contended that the respondents were the owners of land in Malkajgiri District and in the year 2000, sold part of their property to the petitioner/defendants. However, the respondents continued to stay in possession and in the same year took up construction of KVR convention due to which they intended to purchase back the property from the petitioners/defendants. In 2003 an agreement of sale was executed and the Respondents purchased back the property.
They further claimed that even if the petitioner was deemed owner of the suit land, they had solidified their claim over the property by way of adverse possession as they never left possession of the land.
After hearing both sides, the Bench held "The above averments as pleaded in the plaint clearly disclose that the respondents were in uninterrupted adverse possession of the land from the year 2000 when the petitioner No.3 was the owner of the property. Therefore, this Court is of the view that a meaningful reading of the plaint discloses sufficient cause of action."
The plea was dismissed.
C.R.P No. 769 of 2023
Counsel for petitioner: R. Ranganath
Counsel for respondents: Senior Counsel Deepak Bhattacharjee, appearing for Dishit Bhattacharjee