Plaint Without Mentioning Cause of Action Liable To Be Dismissed: HC

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court held that a plaint that does not disclose the cause of action is liable to be dismissed in limine without the defendant having to face trial. The panel in ‘Bajrang Lal Agarwal versus Susheela Agarwal and others’ dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. He filed a civil suit against his mother and siblings claiming partition of property and to set aside a connected gift deed executed inter-se the defendants. The defendants successfully contested the suit with an application to dismiss the suit. The XI Additional Civil Judge, city civil court, allowed the petition and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the order Bajrang Agarwal filed an appeal. Senior counsel Vedula Srinivas contended that the suit required a full-fledged trial, given that the respondent-mother was only the ostensible owner and not the real owner of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, Vedula Venkatramana, senior counsel appearing for the mother, pointed out that she was the absolute owner of the property, a house. Counsel submitted that none of her sons had any legal right to seek partition or allotment of the house property or 1/3rd share thereof since the respondent-mother was the absolute owner. The panel of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarshini pointed out that the contradictory statements made in the plaint cannot be seen as inconsequential but one that collapses the substratum of the appellant's case, as the plaintiff. In other words, it is not merely a case of approbation and reprobation but of the plaintiff setting up mutually-destructive causes of action. To reiterate, once the appellant/ plaintiff acknowledges that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of the mother and the mother had absolute ownership of the property, the plaintiff cannot subsequently plead that the very same property is transformed to a joint family property, which is amenable to partition. Speaking for the bench, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya said that the plaint did not contain any prayer for declaration that the suit schedule property as a joint family property available for partition. The plaint only contained a prayer for partition. Moreover, the partition was curiously for three shares, as opposed to four, between the mother, the appellant, and the brothers.

HC takes up plea on Warangal graves

The Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea over desecration of a grave in Warangal. Justice T. Vinod Kumar was dealing with a writ petition filed by B. Amrutha Lakshmi challenging the action of Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (GWMC) in alleged desecration of graves at Sakarasi Kunta, Kareemabad, in Warangal. The petitioner contended that the authorities without issuing any notice had arbitrarily initiated desecrating and violated provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act. The petitioner sought restoration of the desecrated graves, which were established on land donated by the petitioner’s family as a burial place for Aaradhya Hindu community. The judge questioned whether the land was officially designated as a burial ground in municipal records, to which no reply was forthcoming. The judge directed that status quo be maintained and ordered notices to the respondents.