Telangana High Court
Male Sriramulu Goud vs Vemula Shamanthakamma on 16 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
APPEAL SUIT No.242 of 2024
16th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
Between:
Male Sriramulu Goud.
...Appellant
AND
Vemula Shamanthakamma and 4 others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri P. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri K. Sreenivas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the
entire record.
2. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/respondent
No.1/plaintiff aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.03.2024 passed
in I.A.No.76 of 2022 in O.S.No.121 of 2022 on the file of the learned
Senior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy (‘trial Court’), wherein a petition filed
under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC seeking rejection of plaint has
been allowed and the suit has been rejected as barred by law.
Background of facts:
3. The appellant herein filed suit for declaration of title with respect to
Schedule A, B and C properties i.e., agricultural land totaling to Ac.16-29
RY, J
AS_242_2024
guntas situated in various survey numbers of Kurmmida Village,
Kalwakurthy Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. In addition, the appellant
sought declaration of sale deed dated 15.06.1989, to be declared as null and
void and for recovery of possession from respondent Nos.1 and 2 and a
direction to respondent Nos.5 to delete the names of respondent Nos.1 and
2 from the pattedar and possessor column from the years 1995 onwards till
date and for costs of the suit. The appellant filed suit claiming to be
adopted son of Male Balram Goud, resident of Vemula of Midjil Mandal,
Mahabubnagar District. The said Male Balaram Goud and his wife Male
Jangamma during their lifetime purchased the suit schedule A, B and C
properties jointly with K. Kurmaiah and K. Chinna Balaram under
unregistered sale deed to an extent of Ac.25-10 guntas and under registered
document No.191 of 1966 dated 25.06.1966. Their names are mutated in
the revenue records and pahanies for their respective shares. Further, there
was a compromise decree in O.S.No.228 of 2014 dated 02.12.2015 and in
terms of said settlement, vide Lok Adalat Case No.422 of 2015, shares
were allotted in between Male Jangamma, K. Kurmaiah and Chinna
Balaram. As per said order, the appellant’s adoptive mother, Male
Jangamma, got Ac.8-9 guntas in Survey No.122 and Ac.4-16 guntas in
Survey No.125 totaling to Ac.12-25 guntas. Further, the appellant’s
adoptive father purchased Schedule C property to an extent of Ac.4-4
2
RY, J
AS_242_2024
guntas in Survey No.122 of Kurmmida Village. The appellant was in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule A and B properties.
The appellant’s adoptive mother, Jangamma, died on 15.08.1989 intestate
and the adoptive father expired on 14.01.1999 intestate. Ever since the
appellant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property till the
year 2004.
4. In the year 2004, respondent Nos.1 and 2 took possession of the suit
schedule properties in the guise of wrong entries in pahanies. The appellant
verified the pahanies and learned that the names of respondent Nos.1 and 2
are entered in the pahanies with effect from 1995 onwards. In the year
2010, the appellant made an application dated 16.01.2010 for certified
copies of revenue records and after securing the same learned that there
was a fabricated sale deed dated 15.06.1989 created by respondent Nos.1
and 2. The appellant filed revision under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in
Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, challenging the entry of names of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the respondent No.3 vide file
No.D1/3550/2007 (case No.D1/21/2007). The said petition was dismissed
vide order dated 25.01.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed
writ petition W.P.15303 of 2014 and said that writ petition was disposed of
on 10.08.2022 with a direction to file appropriate proceedings before
3
RY, J
AS_242_2024
appropriate forum and therefore, the suit has been filed seeking declaration
of title and recovery of possession.
5. In said suit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed I.A.No.76 of 2022 under
Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint as barred by law. It is pleaded
that the unregistered sale deed has been validated and the proceedings
challenging the same was dismissed and no suit shall lie against any
Government Officer who made entry in the revenue records as per Section
9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020. The
appellant has pleaded that possession was taken over on the basis of wrong
entries in the pahanies in the year 2004. Such being the case, the suit ought
to have been filed within a period of 12 years from 2004, but the suit was
filed in the year 2022 i.e., after expiry of limitation. Since the pleading
itself is clear according to respondent Nos.1 and 2, no other material is
required to ascertain limitation. Further, it is pleaded that under
unregistered sale deed dated 15.06.1989 from Male Balram respondent
Nos.1 and 2 acquired possession and continued the same by validating the
unregistered sale deed vide proceeding No.ROR/2023/1989 dated
03.08.1984. Hence, according to respondent Nos.1 and 2, the suit is barred
by limitation and therefore, liable to be rejected.
4
RY, J
AS_242_2024
6. The appellant herein opposed the petition while acknowledging the
pleadings of the plaint as true, admitted that on 16.01.2010 he obtained
certified copies and learnt about the sadabainama dated 15.06.1989.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 never purchased the suit lands under unregistered
sale deed and they never were in possession. On the same day, the sale
deed was validated while proceeding dated 03.08.1984, but said validation
was done on erroneous grounds. The appellant admitted withdrawing
W.P.No.15303 of 2014 with liberty to pursue other remedies. Since the suit
is filed after withdrawing the writ petition, the appellant contended that the
suit is filed within the period of limitation and that there is no cause for
rejection of the plaint.
7. The learned trial Court, upon considering the case of the respective
parties, held that the appellant failed in his attempts on the revenue side and
thereafter, filed the suit showing the pendency of writ petition No.15303 of
2014 as a guise for overcoming limitation. It is held that the contents and
averments of the plaint themselves clearly reveal that the suit is barred by
limitation. The cause of action paragraph shows that respondent Nos.1 and
2 have taken illegal possession of the suit schedule property in the year
1996 and the suit ought to have been filed by the year 2008, while so the
suit is filed in the year 2022. In view of the same, the learned trial Court
5
RY, J
AS_242_2024
held that the suit is barred by limitation and therefore, rejected the plaint,
leading to filing of the present appeal.
Grounds of appeal:
8. In grounds of appeal, the appellant pleaded that he was dispossessed,
as per plaint in the year 1996 and the suit ought to have been filed within
12 years from 1996. In that context, it is pleaded that the appellant was in
possession along with his adopted parents till the year 2004 and only upon
verification of records he came to know that the names of respondent Nos.1
and 2 were entered in the pahanies from the year 1995-96 onwards.
Further, in cause of action paragraph, it is mentioned that the appellant was
dispossessed from the possession column in the year 1996, but does not
mean that he is admittedly dispossessed from the suit schedule property in
the year 1996. Further, the appellant pleaded that the trial Court failed to
appreciate the time spent in pursuing legal proceedings before the Joint
Collector under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass
Books Act, 1971 and writ petition No.15303 of 2014 from the period 2007
onwards up to the year 2022. Further, permission was taken from the High
Court while withdrawing W.P.No.15303 of 2014 to pursue other remedies.
The appellant pursued proceedings before the Joint Collector and the High
Court, challenging the wrong entries in revenue records and when the High
6
RY, J
AS_242_2024
Court was not inclined to interfere in the allegations and counter-
allegations, the appellant had withdrawn the writ petition. Since liberty was
granted, by this Court, while disposing of W.P.No.15303 of 2014, the
appellant contends that under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, the suit
cannot be rejected as barred by law.
9. Further, it is pleaded that there were no valid proceedings for
regularization of a private sale deed dated 15.06.1989 as such issuance of
notice and payment of proper duty is invalid. By bringing the private sale
deed into existence, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have fabricated the
proceedings and therefore, pleaded that the order passed is not in
consonance with Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and Section 14 of Limitation
Act, 1963 and therefore, the order and decree passed by the learned trial
Court are liable to be set aside.
Contentions of the appellant:
10. The learned counsel for appellant argued that the question of
limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and therefore, cannot be
decided in interlocutory proceedings under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It is
submitted that there is a need for leading evidence to prove the issue of
limitation. Further, it is argued that the appellant was actively prosecuting
7
RY, J
AS_242_2024
the proceedings before the Joint Collector and this Court in revision as well
as writ petition and said time period ought to be deducted while counting
the limitation and if the same is done, the suit would fall within the period
of limitation and there would be no cause for rejection of the plaint on said
ground.
11. In that context, the learned counsel for appellant relied upon
judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Ganesh Keshav
Patole v. Sheetal Sikandar Darne1, wherein it is held that issue of res
judicata and limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and it cannot be
decided while considering application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC
and whether the suit is within limitation or otherwise is to be decided on
the pleading of parties.
12. Further, reliance is based on the judgment in the case of Karam
Singh v. Amarjit Singh 2, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
held that a plaint should not have been rejected as barred by limitation.
Further, it is held that a suit when based on Will Deed, the Will comes into
operation only upon death of the testator. After death of the testator, the
validity of the Will was questioned throughout and ultimately said issue
was settled in the year 2017. In between whether the defendants perfected
1
2018 SCC OnLine Bom 649
2
2025 INSC 1238
8
RY, J
AS_242_2024
their title by adverse question is a mixed question of law and fact and
therefore, held that the suit ought not to have been rejected at the threshold.
13. Further, in the case of Anil Bhambri v. North Delhi Power Ltd.,
the High Court of Delhi held that the trial Court refused to give benefit of
period spent by the appellant in pursuing the proceedings for similar relief
before the Consumer Forum, New Delhi. In view of said proceedings, it
cannot be said that there is lack of bona fides for denying benefit under
Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 to the appellant.
14. Further, in the case of P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan3, the
Supreme Court of India held that when the suit involves substantial factual
disputes existing concerning limitation and the scope of authority under the
power of attorney, rejection of the suit at the threshold is not sustainable.
15. Learned counsel for appellant relied upon Section 14 of Limitation
Act, 1963, which excludes the time of proceeding bona fide in a Court
without jurisdiction, to be excluded while computing limitations.
Contentions of respondent Nos.1 and 2:
16. In response, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 argued
that that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and that the suit is
3
2025 INSC 598
9
RY, J
AS_242_2024
barred by limitation. It is argued that the appellant had knowledge about the
documents way back in the year 2010 at the latest and the suit for
declaration of title and recovery of possession ought to have been filed
within 12 years of such knowledge, whereas the suit is filed after the expiry
of 12 years of limitation period and therefore, contented that the suit is
barred by limitation and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the
learned trial Court.
17. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 relied upon judgment in
the case of Ajay Gupta v. Raju @ Rajendra Singh Yada 4, wherein it is
held that the period of limitation cannot be extended except as under
Sections 4 and 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, i.e. when the last date of
limitation falls on a holiday.
18. Further, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 relied upon
judgment in the case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna
Singh 5, wherein it is held that when the suit is filed for declaration of a gift
deed, as null and void and not binding, after 22 years of execution of the
gift deed, without praying to set aside the gift deed, the suit is clearly
barred by limitation under Article 59 of Limitation Act, 1963. It is held that
4
AIR 2016 SC 3284
5
AIR 2019 SC 1430
10
RY, J
AS_242_2024
clever drafting was employed to bring the suit within the period of
limitation.
19. In the case of Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 6, it
is held that by clever drafting and not asking any relief with respect to
partition deed, plaintiffs tried to circumvent the provision of limitation and
tried to maintain the suit, and the same is nothing but abuse of process of
Court. It is further held that under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC mainly the
averments of the plaint only are required to be considered and not the
averments in the written statement and considering the averments of the
plaint as they are. It is held that the plaint ought to have been rejected as
being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation and is a
result of clever drafting.
20. On the basis of aforementioned citations, the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 contends that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Findings of the Court:
21. When the suit averments are considered, it is seen that there is a clear
pleading about cause of action arising on 15.08.1989 and 14.01.1999 when
the adoptive parents have expired. The appellant’s case is that he was in
6
2023 (4) ALT 38 (SC)
11
RY, J
AS_242_2024
possession of suit schedule properties along with the adoptive parents till
their death. That being the case, the alleged possession of the appellant
over the suit schedule properties has to be inferred to be upto 1999 till the
expiry of both his adoptive parents. Then the cause of action arose in the
year 1996 when the respondent Nos.1 and 2 took illegal possession of the
suit schedule properties. This pleading is clear to the effect that the
appellant lost possession in the year 1996 i.e., much before the death of his
adoptive father in the year 1999.
22. At paragraph No.4 of the plaint, the appellant claims to have enjoyed
possession over the suit schedule property till the year 2004 and in the year
2004 came to know about the possession of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in
the guise of wrong entries and pahanies. The contents of paragraph No.4
and the contents of paragraph No.8 cause of action are contradictory,
without any uniformity about the time upto which the appellant was
allegedly in possession and when he was dispossessed. Whenever a suit is
filed for the purpose of recovery of possession, it is necessary to mention
the time period when the appellant was dispossessed from the suit schedule
property.
23. Coming to the issue of whether the appellant is entitled to benefit
under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, it is seen that the appellant
12
RY, J
AS_242_2024
initiated a revision against the entries in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2
in the year 2007, that is, after a lapse of three years of gaining knowledge
about the wrong entries in the revenue records i.e., pahanies. The said
proceedings culminated vide Order dated 25.01.2014 in File No.D1/
3550/2007 (Case No.D1/21/2007). Thereafter, the appellant filed writ
petition in W.P.No.15303 of 2014 and said proceedings culminated on
10.08.2022.
24. It is a point to be noted that the relief sought in the proceedings
before the Joint Collector and the writ petition before this Court are with
respect to wrong entries, but not declaration of title and recovery of
possession. The relief before the Joint Collector could be only with respect
to wrong entries and their rectification, but not declaration of title and
recovery of possession. The appellant ought to have approached a Civil
Court for said remedies while pursuing the proceedings before the Revenue
Department for rectification of entries under A.P. Rights in Land and
Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, whereas the appellant, for reasons best
known, focused only on the proceedings before the Joint Collector and in
the writ petition, without giving any thought about recovery of possession
from respondent Nos.1 and 2. This fact situation gives rise to doubt about
the genuineness of the case presented by the appellant and his intention for
13
RY, J
AS_242_2024
actual recovery of possession, as recovery of possession and declaration of
title are reliefs which the appellant can never canvass before the Joint
Collector.
25. In that context, it is pertinent to peruse the order passed by the Joint
Collector, the relevant paragraph is extracted below:
“The Respondents herein have filed a copy of Proc.No.ROR/23/89, dt.
03.08.1994 of the then MRO, Kalwakurthy along with copy of private
sale deed dt. 15.06.1989 and Statement of Male Balram S/o. Male
Buchaiah recorded by the MRO, Kalwakurthy. A perusal of copies of
private sale deed and sworn statement of Male Balram reveals that the
subject lands were soldout to the Respondents herein on 15.06.1989
for a sale consideration of Rs.35,000/- through private sale deed. It is
further revealed that the Revision Petitioner herein is one of the
attesting witness to the above proceedings. It is evident that the
private sale deed has been validated duly conducting proper enquiry
and collecting requisite stamp duty and registration charges and the
names of the Respondents herein have been mutated in the ROR
against the suit lands and they continued possession and enjoyment
over the subject lands, since from the date of purchase till to date as is
evident from the copies of the pahanies. There is no documentary
evidence to show that Revision Petitioner has cultivated the suit lands
at any point of time.
In view of the above circumstances the revision petition is hereby
dismissed.”
26. The above paragraph in the order of the Joint Collector can be
perused for the purpose of disposal of a petition filed under Order VII Rule
11 of CPC, as the averments of the plaint and contents of the documents
filed along with the plaint can be perused while adjudicating a petition
seeking rejection of plaint. Accordingly, when the contents of the order
passed by the Joint Collector are perused, it is seen that respondent Nos.1
14
RY, J
AS_242_2024
and 2 have filed a copy of proceeding No.ROR/23/89 dated 03.08.1994
before the MRO, Kalvakurthy and that the private sale deed dated
15.06.1989 was filed. In support thereof the adoptive father of the appellant
Male Balram has recorded his statement and as per said statement subject
lands were sold to respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 15.06.1989 for sale
consideration of Rs.35,000/-. The appellant herein is one of the attesting
witnesses to the said proceedings. The private sale deed was validated by
duly conducting enquiry and collecting requisite stamp duty and
registration charges and thereafter, the names of respondent Nos.1 and 2
were mutated in revenue records against the suit lands and they are in
continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject lands from the date of
purchase till the date till date i.e. from the date of purchase 15.06.1989 till
date. The contents of Joint Collector order clearly disclose that the
appellant herein approached the Court with unclean hands, though there
was no cause of action for filing the suit. The adoptive father of the
appellant has sold the subject lands to respondent Nos.1 and 2 by private
sale deed dated 15.06.1989 and also facilitated its regularization by
submitting a sworn statement. There is a clear finding that respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are in possession of the subject lands from the year 1989 as
against the dispossession claimed in the year 1996 or 2004 by the appellant.
Further, the appellant is an attesting witness to the proceedings before the
15
RY, J
AS_242_2024
MRO in proceeding No. ROR/2023/1989 dated 03.08.1994, which means
the appellant has full knowledge about the rights of respondent Nos.1 and 2
over the subject lands, but in any case proceeded to challenge the same by
way of revision before the Joint Collector. When the Joint Collector
dismissed the revision, the appellant filed writ petition and when this Court
declined to grant any relief, the appellant cleverly sought withdrawal with
permission to pursue other remedies. While seeking such a liberty, the
appellant did not seek indulgence of the Court to exclude the time period
spent in prosecuting the case before the Joint Collector and High Court.
27. The appellant did not approach the Court with bona fide for seeking
declaration of title and recovery of possession. The finding of the Joint
Collector exposes that cause of action is created with clever drafting.
Further, the alleged dispossession of the appellant in the year 1996 and
2004 is false with no iota of truth in the pleadings and therefore, the
appellant does not deserve any consideration or indulgence by this Court to
entertain the appeal.
28. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that there was no cause of action for filing the suit and the suit is
also barred by limitation as the appellant’s father had alienated the suit
schedule lands way back in the year 1989 and ever since respondent Nos.1
16
RY, J
AS_242_2024
and 2 are in possession of the same. Belatedly in the year 2007, the
appellant thought of challenging the rights of the respondent Nos.1 and 2
half-heartedly by approaching the Joint Collector for revision of
regularization order and correction of revenue entries and then approached
the Writ Court and withdrew the same on account of the writ petition
lacking merits. Though, there was no cause of action for filing the suit, the
appellant with mala fide intention of troubling respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed
the suit and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the
learned trial Court and the suit has been rightly rejected. In view of the
foregoing, the appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
29. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order and decree
dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned trial Court in I.A.No.76 of 2022 in
O.S.No.121 of 2022. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous
applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 16.04.2026
GVR
17
RY, J
AS_242_2024
23
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
APPEAL SUIT No.242 of 2024
16th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
W
GVR
18
