CRP/2475/2024 of Neela Bindu Pavani, Vs Kasani Venkateswarlu on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision petition has been filed against the orders of dismissal dated Ot.OZ.2L24in I.A.No.654 of 2023 inO.S.No. tZ2 of 2022 filed under Order VII Rute tt(b) r/wSection 151 of C.p.C. by the principal Junior Civit Judge atKodad, Suryapet District

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision petition are that the petitioner herein is thedefendant No. I in the suit liled by the respondentNo. l/plaintiff for cancellation of registered sa-le deed videdocument No. 1632 / 2021, dated 04. 12.202 l,registered in theoffrce of the Tahsildar ald Joint Sub-Registrar, Kodad andthe plaint was filed under Sectio n 26, order VII, Rule I ofC.P.C. In rhe plaint, it was averred that the plaintiff was theowner of the suit schedule property being agricultural landand was intending to sell the same and that the defendantshaving come to know about the sale of land, had offered to purchase the land to anextent of 2_OO gts., in Survey2_OO gts., in Survey l I

ld

TMD,J

cR.P.No. 2475 oJ 2024

Facts

No.99B/E/2, situated at Kodad Revenue Village anrt Mandal,Suryapet District and that the plaintiff has acceptecl the offerarrd entereC into an agreement for sale dated 03. l2.2O2l onreceipt of only part payment and registered the land in favourof defendant No.1 on 04.12.2021 after the defendarts agreedto pay the balance sale consideration to the plaintiff. It issubmitted 1.hat the praintiff registered the suit schedure randon 04.12.2021 in the Tahsildar,s Ofhce on the promise thatthe respondent No.2 would pay the balance sa_leconsideration after completion of registration. But rvhen theplaintiff came out from Tahsildar,s offrce immediately afterregistration, the respondent No.2 was not available ald hadintentionall5. escaped in order to avoid the payment ofbalance sale consideration and therefore, it was nothing butfraud, cheating ald misrepresentation and therefore, he hasfiled the suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed. Thesuit was lrlerl on O5.OT .2022, claiming that on 2g.O4.2O22, inthe evening hours, the plaintiff met the defendants No.l and2 at their l-rouse in Kodad Town and when the plaintiffrequested ttLe defendants for payment of the balalce saleconsideration as Der the \agreement, there was a refusal and\ _- TMD,JclRP-No- 2475 oJ 2024

in fact, there was an attack on the plaintiff and therefore thepetitioner frled a cognizable complaint dated 29 .O4.2O22,against all the defendants before the SHO, Kodad Town PoliceStation and in spite of receiving the same on 29.04.2022, FIRwas not registered against the defendants. Therefore, aprivate complaint was hled before the Court and the same ispending consideration and alleging that the plaintiff hasrequested the defendants several times about the pendingpayment of the balance and since no possession wasdelivered [.to ]the defendants under the document, the plaintifffiled the suit for cancellation of registered sale deedNo.l632/2O21, dated 04.12.2021, which was registered inthe office of Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Kodad.

3. The defendant No.1 has hled _a [written ][statement]denying the allegations made in the plaint and submittedthat the alleged original agreement of sale has not been filedby the plaintiff before the Court and therefore, there was nosuch agreement of sale deed dated 03.12.2021. It is furthersubmitted that the draft of the sale deed was prepared muchbefore the alleged agreement dated O3.12.2021 and so the \\

TIID,J

cRP.No. 2475 ol2024

question of entering the agreement by the defendalts withthe piaintiff on 03.12.2021 and getting the registered saledeed executed on the very next day i.e., 04.12.2021 does notarise. The defendants also denied that the plairrtiff hasapproached the defendants for the return of money at anypoint of time. It is also stated that the non-registration of FIRupon the c(rmplaint of the petitioner is false. It is furthersubmitted that the Xerox copy of the alleged agreement ofsubmitted that the Xerox copy of the alleged agreement ofsale, which '*,as filed along with the suit, does not show thesignature of the defendants No.1 and 2 and the part paymentsignature of the defendants No.1 and 2 and the part paymentendorsements are in no way concerned with the registeredsale deed and even if the amount of sale considerationmentioned in the alleged agreement of sale dated O3. 12.2021mentioned in the alleged agreement of sale dated O3. 12.2021of Rs. 1,60,O0,000/- is taken into consideration, the tria_lCourt has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is furtherCourt has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is furthersubmitted that the plaintiff has to pay the Court fee on theamount show,n in the agreement of sale but not on theamount sho'r,n in the registered sale deed and therefore, ifthe amount shown in the agreement of sale is taken intothe amount shown in the agreement of sale is taken intoconsideration, the Court before whom the suit is institutedhas no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the value of the\)\)

TMD,JcRP.No. 2475 oJ 2024

agreement is more than one crore. Further, it is stated thatconsideration mentioned in the registered sale deed is paidthrough a cheque bearing No.0o0776 of Accountconsideration mentioned in the registered sale deed is paidthrough a cheque bearing No.0o0776 of AccountNo.3633O1S01173 of ICICI Bank, which was realized. by theplaintiff through his account and so the plaintiff is notentitled to seek cancellation of the registered sa,le deed. Thus,it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.plaintiff through his account and so the plaintiff is notentitled to seek cancellation of the registered sa,le deed. Thus,it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. Thereafter, the defendants Iiled I.A.No.654 of2023 :under section order VII, Rule ll(b) r/w Section 151 ofC.P.C., for rejection of the plaint on the ground that theplaint pleadings are silent about the balance amount to bereceived and that the praintiff has valued the suit atRs.14,99,5OO /- and, has not mentioned the amount coveredby the agreement of sale and even if the agreement of sale istaken into consideration, the alleged value of the property isRs. 1,60,OO,O00/ - and therefore, the trial Court before whomthe plaint is frled has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.It was further submitted that the plaint does not mention thesale consideration according to the agreement of sale and asto how much is to be received. The said application wa cRP.No. 2475 ol2024

opposed b'y the respondent/ plaintiff by filing a counreraffidavit sta.trng that the trial Court has not returnecl the suitfor undervieluation of the suit a:nd therefore the suit ismaintainabte.affidavit sta.trng that the trial Court has not returnecl the suitfor undervieluation of the suit a:nd therefore the suit ismaintainabte.

5. The trial trial Court, however, vide orders datedhowever, vide orders datedvide orders datedorders dateddatedO1.O7.2024 has dismissed the I.A.No.654 of ,2023 inO.S.No. 172 of 2022. Challenging the same, the present CivilRevision Petition has been hled.

The trial trial Court, however, vide orders datedhowever, vide orders datedvide orders datedorders dateddated

6.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as thelearned counsel for the respondents have been heard.

7. 'lhis Court frnds that the following questions arise for consideration: (i) whether the suit was undervalued; and(ii) whether the plaint does not mention the saleconsideration to be paid and therefore, there is no cause ofaction for frling the suit; and (iii) whether the plaint can berejected on these grounds?

8. The I.A., was Iiled for rejection of the plaint underOrder 7 Rule 11 of C.p.C. The provisions of Order 7 RuIe 1lof C.P.C. rea<l as under: I

Rejection of Plaint: TLLe plaint shall be rejected in tlefollou,rtng [cases.'-]

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) uLere the relief claimed is underualued, and theplaintiff, on being required bg tlte Court ta coraect the ualuationuithin a time to be ftxed bg the Court, fails to do so;plaintiff, on being required bg tlte Court ta coraect the ualuationuithin a time to be ftxed bg the Court, fails to do so;

(c) uLrcre th.e relief claimed is properlg ualued, but theploint i.s retumed upon paper insufftciently stamped, and theptaintiff, on being required bg tlte Court to supplg the requisiteploint i.s retumed upon paper insufftciently stamped, and theptaintiff, on being required bg tlte Court to supplg the requisitestamp-paper uithin a time to be ftxed bg *Le Court, foils to do so; (d) tuLrcre the suit appears from tLLe statement in tLLe plaintto be borred by any lau;to be borred by any lau; t [(e) uhere it is not filed in duplicateJ

2 [(fl uhere the plaintiff fails to comply tuith tLLe prouisionsof rule 9:lof rule 9:l

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking rejection of the plaint on both grounds i.e., (a) and (b) of theabove provision.above provision.

10. On perusal of the plaint, it is noticed that theplaintiff is seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed onthe ground that entire sale consideration as per theagreement of sale has not been received. But the plaintiff hasnot mentioned the total sale consideration agreed to be paidand lihe arnount which is still unpaid.

Ih,D,J

CRP.No 2475 of 2024

1 1. Admittedly, the plaintiff has already registered theproperty in the name of the defendant ard therefore, thepresumption to be drawn is that the entire sale consrderationas mentionr:d in the sale deed is paid. Without mentioningthe terms of the sale agreement, the sale consideration andthe balance sale consideration to be received, the plaintiffcannot seek relief of cancellation of the registered sale deed.

12. 'lhe Honble Supreme Court in the case of TheChurch of Christ Chatitable Trust & EducationalCharitable Society Vs. M/s.Ponniamman EducationalTrustl has observed as under:

"8. While scrutinizing the plaint auennents, it is theboundert dutA oJ the tial Court to oscertain the mateialsfor [cause of ][action. ][Th.e ][cause ]of oction is a bundle of factswhich taken uith the laut applicable to them giues theplaintlff the ight to relief ogaist tlre deknd.ant. Euery Iacttuhich is necessary for the plaintiff to proue to enable himto get a decree should be set out in deor tem1s. It isuorthtuhile to ll.nd out tle meaning of the words "cause ofaction" . A cause oj action must include some act done bythe defendant since in the absence of, such an act no cauieof actktn can possibly arcrue.'

13. Irurther in the case of Dahiben Vs. Anrindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Df thr.L.Rs and Others2, the Hon,trle Su{reme Court has held as under:\

I Civil Appeal No.484 I ot 2012, d,r.O3.O7.2012

2 MANU//sc/oso8/ 202o

In Vtdgadhnr u. Manikrao and Anr. MAI{U/ SC/ 0172/ 1999: (1999) 3 SCC 573 this Court held tLnt the words ["price]poid or promised or part paid and part prombed" indicntestlnt actuol poAment of the ulnle of the pi@ at the time oIth.e exeqttion of tle Sale Deed is not a sirc [qua ]non forampletion of the sale. Duen if the uthole of the [pice ]is [not]paid, but the document is executed, and thereafierregistered, the sale u.tould be complete, and the title woutdposs on b *E transkree under the transaction. The non-poAment of a port of the sale pice uould not offect theuaLidity of the sale. Once the tttle in the property hasolreadg passed, euen if the bolance sole corlsideration isnot paid, tle sale could not be inualidoted. on this ground.In order to cotlstitute a ["sale", ]the parties must intend [to]transfer the ounership of the [propertA, ]on the agreement [to]pay the price either in praesenti, or in future. The intentionis to be gothered from th.e recitols of the sole deed, [the]cnnduct of the parties, and the euidence on reard.

In uieut of tle laLu laid dou.tn bg this Court, euen ifthe ouemlents of the Plaintiffs are token to be true, thntthe entire sale ansideration hod not in fact [been ][poid, ][it]could not be a ground for cancellation of the Sale [Deed.]Tlrc Plaintiffs mag haue otfler remedies in lau for [recouery]of the balanre ansiderotion, but could not [be ][granted ][the]relieJ oJ cancellation of the registered Sa)e Deed.

We find tlnt the suit filed by the Plaintiffs [is]uexatious, meitless, and does not disclose a ight to [sue-]The plaint is liable to be rejected Under Order VI [RuLe]11(a).

14. Thus, it is seen that it is necessary to mention theexact cause of action in the plaint for the suit [to ][be]maintainable. In the present case, the [plaintiff, ]though [has]referred to the agreement of sale dated O3.12.2O21, he [has]not referred to the terms of the agreement of sale [nor the ][sale]consideration which has been [paid ][and ]tlte [balance ][which ][is]unpaid. When clear terms are not mentioned [in ][the ][plaint, ][it]woqld not be possible for the defendants to [plead ]or defend\-\

TMD,J

cRP.No. 247s o! 2024

their action. Further, it is seen that in this case, in thewritten statement by the defendants, they have not onlydenied the existence of the agreement of sale dated03.12.2O2I , but also that there was any balance saleconsideration to be paid. Therefore, for walt of reference ormention of cause of action, the suit is liable to be rejected.written statement by the defendants, they have not onlydenied the existence of the agreement of sale dated03.12.2O2I , but also that there was any balance saleconsideration to be paid. Therefore, for walt of reference ormention of cause of action, the suit is liable to be rejected.

15. As regards the ground of undervaluation of thepiaint, this Court hnds that the frnding of the lower Court isthat the Corrrt fee is the issue between the Revenue/Government arld a litigant and the same cannot beentertained at. the initial stage of the suit.

16. However, this Court finds that the Order VII Rule11 (b) of C.F'.C. provides that where the relief claimed isundervalued, the plaint can be rejected. The petitioner/defendant has raised the ground of undervaluation of the suitsince the plaintiff has relied on the alleged agreement of saleand that the [,Court ]fee should be paid on the balance of thesale consideration to be received as mentioned in theagreement of sale and not the sale consideration mentionedin the sale deed .

"'l

)

17. However, on going through The Telangana Court-Fees and Suit Valuation act, 1956, this Court hnds thatSection 11 (1)(a) of the said Act provides that in "euery suit,th-e Court shall, before ordeing the plaint to be registered,decide on the allegations contained in tLrc plaint and on thematerials furnished bg the ptainffi the proper fee payablethereon."

Sub-Section (4) also provides that anA qtestion relatingto the ualue for the purpose of determining the [jurisdiction ]ofCourts shall be heord and decided before the hearing of thesuit as contemplated by Order XVIII in the First Schedule to theCode of Ciuil Procedure, 1908.

18. Section 37 of the said Act, refers to a Suit forcancellation of decrees, etc. In this case, the plaintiff isseeking the cancellation of tfie registered sale deed.Therefore, the determination of Court fee is to be underSection 37 of the said Act and for the sake of ready referenceit is reproduced as under:

Section 37: Suits for Cancellation of Decrees, etc.

37. (1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or*\fr propertA lnuing a moneg ualue, or otler document uthich\

i',,TMD,J

cRP.No. 2475 or 2024

purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or ertinguish"tuheth.er in present or in future, ong ,igit, title or interest inmoneA, mouable or immouable propertA, fee sha be computed. ontLrc ualue of the subject-matter of the suit, and such uarue shau bedeemed to be- (a) if r.h.e uthole decree or oth,er d_ocument is sought to becanceLled, tlte amount or ualue of the propertg for uthich thedecree u.tas passed or other d.ocument u,as e)ean'red.; (b) if a part of the d.ecree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or of the ualue of tte propertg.

(2) If tle decree or otlter docLtmenf js such that the liabilitgparticular item of under it canr),ot be propertg sptit up and belonging the retief to claimed the plaintiff or to relotes onIA to theap.laintiffs shrzre in any such propertg, yee shit be computed onparticular item of under it canr),ot be propertg sptit up and belonging the retief to claimed the plaintiff or to relotes onIA to theap.laintiffs shrzre in any such propertg, yee shit be computed ontl.Le ualue of such propertA or share or on th.e amount of thedecree, uthicl euer is less.decree, uthicl euer is less.

19. Thus, it is noticed that the term "value of the property" used in Section 37 of the Act is the consiclerationmentioned in the sale deed as on the date of presentation ofplaint for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction.

20. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Satheedevi Vs. prasannas, held that ',thile intczrpreting section ao of the Kerara court Fees and.Suits Valu.ation Act, 1959, u_thich b in pai material uithSection 31, of the Andhra prad_esh Court Fees and_ suitsValuation Act, j 956. It is further held. that the d.eemingclause con.toined_ in the substantiue part of Section 4O(1)makes it clear that in a suit fi.led. for cancellation of a 3 (2oto) s scc 622\

document uthich creates ang right, title or interest [in]immouable propertA, the court /ees is required to becomputed on the ualue of tlre property for uhich [the]document u.tas executed. To [put ]it differentlg, tle [ualue ]ofthe propertg for uhich tlte document was executed and notits market ualue is releuant for the purpose of court fee."

2L. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that [the]Court fee paid by the plaintiff on the value of the [registered]document cannot be said to be undervaluation arrd [this]ground is rejected.

22. However, on the ground of non-mentioning [of ][the]

cause of aclion in the plaint, the [plaint is ][liable to ][be ][rejected]and thus, the Civil Revision Petition [is ][allowed on ][this ][ground]alone.

23. Accordingly, the Civil Revision [Petition ][is ][allowed.]There shall be no order as to costs.

24. Miscellaneous petitions, if [uny,]

Civil Revision Petition, shall [stand ][closed.]

//TRUE COPY/'

pending in this

Sd/- A.V.S. PRASADASSISTANTGISTRA

GISTRAv

CTION OFFICER

To,

Al.l--i*.5!.-,ifar4-

1.

2.

3.

4. The Principal Junior [Civil ][Judge ][at ][Kodad, Suryapet District]

One CC to Sri [Shaik ][Madar, ][Advocate ][OPUC]

One CC to Sri S Dinesh, [Advocate ]IOPUCI

One CC rwo cD copies ? \A_

HIGH COURT

DATED:31 t12t2024

ORDER

CRP.No.24tS of ZOZ4

ALLOWING THE CRP

?+.f'q.LhCz(LL>)

1 rit. =\,,l'eo 14.(\\oo0 7 JAiJ 2025II9,,{Ott'a1icr:O-