HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has recently approved a revision petition by a local realty firm, overturning a trial court’s decision that denied the dismissal of a civil suit against the firm.
Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty remarked that the “plaintiffs have cleverly drafted the plaint, creating a false impression of a cause of action, which is not permissible in law and must be dismissed at the outset, especially since their case was barred by limitation.”
The legal dispute involves approximately 30 acres of land in Ibrahimpatnam, Rangareddy district, initially owned by Mohammed Gouse Ali Khan. The plaintiffs, his descendants, sought to nullify four sale deeds from 2013 to 2017, claiming the properties were sold illegally and requested restoration of possession.
They alleged that upon relocating to Hyderabad, land grabbers altered revenue records and removed their mother’s name as pattadar.
The realty firm, which acquired the land through a registered sale deed in 2017, argued that the lawsuit filed in 2020 was severely limited by time, as the earliest disputed transaction dated back to 1967. They contended that no valid cause of action existed and that the plaintiffs had no title, asserting that the alleged oral gift (Hiba) under Muslim law lacked validity due to the absence of possession transfer.
Justice Alishetty supported these arguments, stating: “Having neglected their rights and allowed numerous transactions to occur regarding the properties, the plaintiffs have now awoken after nearly five decades to file this suit.” As such, even based on their predecessors’ title, their suit could not be deemed timely filed within the 12-year limitation period from the date the defendants took possession.
Additionally, the judge noted that aside from claiming encroachment by land grabbers, the plaintiffs lacked specific details to substantiate their allegations. “Furthermore, other than making vague claims that the defendants illegally encroached on the properties and altered the revenue records, the plaintiffs did not provide specific details to support their case,” the judge observed.
Citing various Supreme Court precedents, the judge ruled that the trial court had erred in rejecting the defendant’s plea under the Civil Procedure Code, and subsequently ordered the suit to be dismissed at the outset.
