RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR. versus NASYAM JAMAL SAHEB & ORS.

RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR. versus NASYAM JAMAL SAHEB & ORS.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered rejection of the plaint because on a meaningful reading the plaint was a clever attempt to virtually challenge the registered partition deed dated 11.03.1953 (which would be barred by limitation) while omitting any direct relief against that deed; therefore the suit was vexatious, an illusory cause of action and barred by limitation, warranting rejection under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) CPC.

Parties
Appellants: RamiSetty Venkatanna & Anr.; Respondents: Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court (revision Petition Dismissed by High Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court and Trial Court orders set aside; plaint rejected
Legal Topics
Rejection of Plaint, Order VII Rule XI CPC, Limitation, Partition Deed, Cause of Action, Abuse of Process, Pleadings
Civil Procedure Property Law Limitation Law Rejection of Plaint Order VII Rule XI CPC Limitation Partition Deed Cause of Action +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RamiSetty Venkatanna & Anr.

Appellants

Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court (revision Petition Dismissed by High Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) CPC
  2. 2 Whether the suit is barred by limitation by virtue of challenge to partition deed dated 11.03.1953
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs have by clever drafting created an illusory cause of action to circumvent limitation

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered rejection of the plaint because on a meaningful reading the plaint was a clever attempt to virtually challenge the registered partition deed dated 11.03.1953 (which would be barred by limitation) while omitting any direct relief against that deed; therefore the suit was vexatious, an illusory cause of action and barred by limitation, warranting rejection under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) CPC.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court and Trial Court orders set aside; plaint rejected

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 03.03.2022 in CRP No.179 of 2021 set aside
  • Order of the Trial Court dismissing application under Order VII Rule XI set aside