The High Court · 2025

...Petitioner/1 st RespondenUPlaintiff AND 1 2 9 . ^Bql1!i,- S/o G. Ivlahankali, Aged 37 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 3-16-106/6, Venkat Reddy, Ramarithapur, Hyderabad -13 Q _{n.1s^u.ya, Wtq c-. Mahankati, Aged 60 years, Occ. household, Rio. H.No. 3-16-106/6, Venkat Reddy, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad -13. .Respondents/Petitioners/Defendant Nos.2 & 3

3. K EshwarRao, S/o. K. Shankaraiah, Aged about 59 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 1-3-3, Petrovella, Balamrai, Secunderabad.

4. Tte Sub-Registrar, lstamps and Registration Department), Marredpally, Secunderabad, Office at Tarbund (Near BHEL Enclave), SecundeiabSO Cantonment Area, Secunderabad.' ...Respondents/Respondent Nos.2 and 3/Defendant Nos.1 and 4 Petition under section 151 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim suspension orders made in lA No. 1 of'201g in cccA No. 27 of 2019, d1.04-02-2019 pending the above appeal, in the interests of justice. lA NO: 4 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pteased to permit the Petitioner herein to take out substituted service on the Respondents 7 & 8 in l.A. No. 01 of 2023, LA. No. 02 of 2023 and l.A. No 03 of 2023 in C.C.C.A. No. 27 of 2019 collectively by publishing the notice of hearing in English News Daily Deccan Chronicle local edition in th6 interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellants :SRl T SURYA SATISH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI N RAGHAVAN Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Gp FOR APiTEALS Counsel for the Respondent No.s : SMT. AARIFA IMRAN KHAN The Court delivered the following: Judgment ) THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CTVIL COURT APPEAL No.27 OF 2019 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal hlecl by the appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 2g.11.201g passed in O.S.No.2O1 of 2013 by the learnecl XIi Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short "the trial Court,,).

2. The appellants herein are the defendants 2 and 3, the respondent No.1 rs the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the defendant Nos. 1 and 4 before the trial Court. The parties herein are referrcd to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and.clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the suit schedule proper[y bearing No.5365/A (old) corresponding to Municipal No.9 3-562 (new), situatcd at Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad, belongs to Kundan Bai W/o. Sitaram and that plaintiffls elder siste r by name Kovvuri Saraswathi Bai was the tenant of the said house for a long time and she developed a close friendship with Kundan Bai. It is further averred that in 1966, when Kundan Bai intcnded to sell the suit schedule property, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same. It is his case that as Kundan Bai expressed doubt that the plaintiff may dislodge her \/ ,/ I I l 2 ETO,J CCCA No.27 2019 friend Sarawathi Bai from the house after purchasing the house, the plaintiff has consented to purchase the property in the name of Kor,vuri Saraswati Bai as l"t purchaser and Butchamma (mother of the plaintiff) as 2nd purchaser. Accordingly, a registered sale deed was executed on 12.09.1966 for which the salc consideration was paid by the plaintiff. It is his case that he paid an advance sale consideration of Rs.50O/- to Kundan Bai ancl the balance amount of Rs. 15O0/- was paid by the plaintiff to Kundan Bai in rhe presence of Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad arrd that subsequently, on29.l1.1966 Kowuri Saraswati cxecuted a release deed in favour of Butchamma and recorded that she is a benami and that she did not pay the sale consideralion for ptlrchase of the suit house. Kowuri Saraswati and her husband Shankaraiah had been the tenants of Butchamma as per the Rental Agreement dated 08.05.1972. It is his case that in the year 1986, the younger brother of plaintiff namely U.Prahalad hled a suit in O.S.No.319 of 1986 on the Iile of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for partition of properties including the suit schedule propert5r herein and ttrat Kowuri Saraswati was also impleaded as 7e defendant in the said suit. In the said suit also, K.Saraswati has claimed her half share as a legal heir of Butchamma but has never raised a contention that she was the purchaser under the sale deed and in the judgment delivered in ,| 3 ETD,] CCCA No.27 2019 O.S.No.319 of 1986 it was observed that the suit schedule property herein was purchased by him. Item No. 1 of the said suit is a subject matter of the present suit. It is further averred that Kowuri Saraswati Bai never had any title over the suit schedule property and that she passed away on 0L.02.2006 ieaving her daughter Kasturi and her son Eshwar Rao (1st defcndant) and that her husband pre-deceased her. It is his case that Saraswati Bai was paying rent ro the plaintiff @ Rs.SO/- per month initially and that plaintiff got issued notices to Saraswati Bai on three occasions i.e. on O2.O3. 1988, 20.O7.t988 and 22.O8.i-9Ba demanding her to clear the arrears of rent. The plaintiff also has not taken any harsh steps against her for non-payment of rents on regular basis. After the death of Saraswati Bai, the l"t defendant who is the son of Saraswati Bai has locked the house and whcn the plaintiff protested, he inducted Jayasree who is the daughter of his sister Kasturi. It is his case that a preliminary decree u,as passed in O.S.No.319 of 1986 holding that the plaintiff was rhe sole and absolute owner of the suit house and that before filing a final decree petition, his brother U.prahalad died on tO.O2.2OOg. Another younger brother U.Venkateshwar prahlad has unlawfully sold away middle pcrtion of the suit schedule property under O.S.No.319 of 1986 to one Ch.Lakshmi Tulasi ancl as such, the plain\iff hled the suit in O.S.No. 139 of 20 1O on the file of I ./ 1 ./ 4 ETD,] CCCA No.27-2019 Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against U.V.Prahalad, Boddu Veena, Ch.Lakshmi Tulasi and Ch'Gopal Rao for cancellation of the said agreement of sale. It is his case that taking undue advantage of his weakness, lst defendant has inducted Jayasree in the suit schedule house and Jayasree expressed that she would pay rents for the said house but she has not paid any rents and dodged away the matter for years together and after four years she vacated the house' The lst defendant is the son of Saraswati Bai and Shankaraiah, he once again locked the house after Jayasree vacated the house and when the plaintiff intendedtotakelegalaction,heapproachedtheplaintiffstating that he wanted to purchase the house,.for which the plaintiff has refused. Subsequently, the 1't defendant has sold away the property to the defendants 2 and 3 under a registered sale deed videdocumentNo.l4loof2012dated21.06.2012whichisinvalid and void as the vendor himself does not have a proper title and thatthesaiddocumenthastobecancelled.Thus,theplaintiffhas frled the present suit seeking declaration of the sale deed dated

21.06.2012 to be null and void and seeking a direction against the defendants to handover the possession of the suit schedule property in his favour' _:.:, , ,i,', 5 ETD,] CCCA No.27 2019

4. The defendant No.l has filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the suit is barred by limitation. He further contended that the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.319 of 1986 is entirely different from thc present suit and he denied that his mother was the tenant oT the suit schedule properly. It is his case that his mother Saraswati Bai has purchased the suit schedule properly from Kundan Bai in the year 1966 and that the plaintiff is no way concerned with the suit schcdule property and that there is no evidence to show that the consideration '"vas paid by the plaintiff from out of his own funds. His contention is that mere appearance of his name and signature in the endorsement made by the registration authority saying that the payment is made in his presence will not give any right to benami transactions. He further denied that Sarasn,athi Bai was a tenant in the suit schedule property.

5. The defendants No.2 and 3 have also hled wr.itten statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff. They further stated that they are the absolute owners of the suit scheclule prcperty having purchased the same vide sale deed dated. 21.06.2012 from defendant No.1 herein. It is their case that originalty Badri prasad was the absolute owner and possessor of the premises No.5365/A situated at Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad and he sold the said ././ 6 ETD,I CCCA No.27 2019 house property in favour of Kundai Bai and inturn Kundai Bai has sold the property in faovur of Kor.vuri Saraswati Bai and Smt.Uckoo Butchamma jointly under a registered sale deed dated

21.09.1966. Uckoo Butchamma had expired in the year 1974 leaving behind an unregistered Will dated 18.06. 1973 bequeathing her half share to her daughter Saraswati Bai, thus, making Saraswati Bai as the absolute owner and possessor of the entire house bearing No.9-3-562 (old 5365) admeasuring 50 Sq.yards. It is their further contention that Saraswati Bai expired on Ol.O2.2006 and her husband pre-deceased her, therefore, defendant No.1 has become the absolute owner of the property by virtue of Hindu Succession, thus he sold away the property to them. Thus, they contended that the plaintiff is no way concerned with the suit schedule property and that he is not entitled for the relief prayed, as the sale deeds are valid conveying the title in their favour. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for trial: "1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of sale deed dated 27 .06.20 12, executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 as null and void? 7 EID,J cccA No.27 2019 2l Whether the plaintiff is entitled for clelivery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants 2 and 3? 3) To what relieP"

7. At the time of trial, the plaintiff got examincd PWs I and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A20. On behalf of the defcndants, DW1 was examined ltut no documents were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decrcc, the present appeal is preferred by the defendants 2 and 3.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri T.Surya Sartish, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.Aarifa Imran Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

10. The learr-red appellants counsel has submitted that the judgment passcd by the trial Court is contrary to the weight of evidence and that the impugned judgment is against the principle laid down in P.Rajgopal Red.dg v. Pqdmlni Chandrashekharant. He further argued that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the present suit r,vas filed after the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988J has come inro force and thus, there is a bar under Section 4 of the Act by virtue 'AR rge sc z:a \ 8 ETD,I CCCA No.27 2019 of which the suit is not maintainable. He further argued that the trial Court has wrongly understood the purport of the judgment in Nagamma and others a G.Kamalamma and other* deiivered by the Division Bench of this Court. He further argr-red that though the plaintiff claimed to be the real owner of the suit schedule property but he never made such a claim or declaration against the alleged Benamidars Smt.Butchamma and Saraswati Bai. He further argued that the plaintiff failed to prove his case and that the trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence on record and simply believed the version of the plaintiff and has decreed the suit. He contended that the plaintiff never asserted his right or has taken over the possession oJ the suit scheduie property ever since 1966 which itself defeats the case of the plaintiff. He further argued that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not trustworthy and that the trial Court failed to appreciate the same and has simply placed reliance on their evidence and decreed the suit, therefore, prayed to set aside the decree by allorving this appeai.

11. The learned counsel for respondent No.5, on the other hand, has submitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and purchased the same with his own funds in the name of his sister and mother as he was the elder son of the 200\1) Arr 281 I 9 ETD,.I CCCA No.27 2019 family and further out of affection he has allowed his sister to stay in the premises on payment of meager rents. She further argued that the plaintiff has issued notices to Saraswati Bai on three occasions and the same are placed on record, which would clearly show that Saraswathi Bai was his tenant but not tl-re owner of the suit schedule property, Saraswathi Bai further has contested the suit in O.S.No.319 of i9B6 wherein she has claimed the half share of the properg' as the legal heir of Butchamma but not as purchaser of the propert5r. She further argued that defendant No.1 who is the son of Saraswati Bai entertained an evil intention to knock away the property and thus, has created the story of Will alleged to have been executed by Butchamma in favour of Saraswati Bai and that Saraswati Bai succeeded to the suit schedule property. She further argued that the del-endants failed to place the Wilt or any other document on record to show their bonafides, she therefore submitted that the trial Court has passcd a well reasoned judgment and prayed to uphold the same.

72. Based on the above rival submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the sale deed dated 21.06.2012 is not a valid document and is liable to be declared as null and void? I \ \ 10 ETD,I CCCA No.27_2019 2l Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit schedule property? 3) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is sustainable in law and under the facts? 4l To what relieP

13. POINT NOs.1 AND 2 a) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No. t has no title over the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff is the purchaser of the suit schedule property under a Benami transaction dated 12.09.1966. It is his contention that he has purchased the property out of his own funds but in the name of Saraswati Bai and Butchamma who are his sister and mother. That the vendor Kundan Bai was the friend of his sister and that the vendor expressed a doubt that if the property existed in his name he may dislodge Saraswati Bai out of the premises and that Saraswati Bai was in a poor condition and therefore, to purchase the property, he has put it as a Benami transaction i.e. in the name of his mother and sister. He has also pleaded that subsequently his sister Saraswati Bai has executed a release deed. b) A perusal of Ex.Al reveals that it is a certified copy of registered sale deed dated 12.09.1966 under which Kundan Bai has sold the property in the names of Butchamma and Saraswati I Bai, vi{to are the mother and sister of the plaintiff and that he has 11 ETD,I CCCI No.27 2019 paid advance sale consideration of Rs.SOO/_ to Kundan Bai and then, the balance of Rs. 1500/_ was paid to him in the presence of Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad and the same is endorsed by the registrar in the document under Ex.A1. c) Another clocument under Ex.AI3 /rental agreement between Buchamma and the tenants, dated 0g.0S. 1972 discloses that Buchamma as the owner has entered into rental agreement with the tenant who is the husband of Saraswati Bai. l.hus, the contention of the plaintiff is that if at a, saraswati Bai was the rear owner of the suit schedule propert5r, Butchamma would not have entered into a rental agreement with Shankaraiah who is the husband of Saraswati Bai, over the suit.schedule properfy rental agreement further discloses that he shall pay a rent @ Rs.SO/- per month for a period of 11 months payable by gfr day of each calendar month Further there are notices uncler Exs.A3 to A5 addressed by the plaintiff to Saraswati Bai asking her to pay the arrears of rent and Exs.A6 to Ag are the postal receipts and acknowledgments which prove that the said notrces were received bY Saraswati Bai. Thus, Exs.Al3 and A3 to AU prove the contention of the plaintiff that Saraswathi Bai was staying in the suit premises as a tenant along with her family but not as an owner of the suit schedule properfi. The I \/ ( t2 ETO,J CCCA No.27 2019 d) A perusal of the certified copy of the sale deed under Ex.A9 dated 21.06.2012 reveals that it is executed by defendant No.1 herein in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Defendant No.1 is none other than the son of Saraswati Bai and Shankaraiah. The recitals of the Ex.A9 reveals that Kowuri Saraswati Bai and Uckoo Butchamma owned and possessed the suit schedule propertlr and that Butchamma died long back leaving behind an unregistered Will dated 18.06.1973 bequeathing the suit schedule property to an extent of her joint share in favour of her daughter, as such Saraswati Bai became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Since Shankaraiah pre-deceased Saraswati Bai and Saraswati Bai died on O1.O2.2006, defpndant No. I herein has become the absolute owner and thus, he conveyed the title in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. e) It is ttre contention of the defendants No.2 and 3 that originally Badri Prasad was the absolute owner and possessor of the premises No.5365/4 situated at Ragimental Bazar, Secunderabad and he sold the said house property in favour of Kundai Bai and inturn Kundai Bai has sold the property in favour of Kowuri Saraswati Bai and Smt.Uckoo Butchamma jointly under a registered sale de€d dated 21.09.1966. Uckoo Butchamma had exFrired in the year 7974 leaving behind an unregistered Will dated l 13 ETD,J cccA No.27 2019

18.06. 1973 begueathing her half share to her daughter Saraswati Bai, thus, making Saraswati Bai as the absolute owner and possessor of the entire house bearing No.9-3_562 (old 5365) admeasuring 5O Sq.yards. It is their further contcntion that the Saraswathi Bai expired on O | .02.2006 and her husband pre_ deceased her, therefore, defendant No.t has become the absolute owner of the property by virtue of Hindu Succession, thus he sold away the property to them. Thus, they contended that the plaintiff is no r,r,ay concerned with the suit schedule properfy and that he is not entitled for the relief prayed, as the sale deeds are valid, conveying the title in their favour. But defendant Nos. 1 to 3 failed to putforth any documents to establish the title of defendant No. 1 herein. Though it is aleged that saraswati Bai became the absolute owner by virtue of a Will dated 1g.06. 1973, they failed to place it on record f) Exs.A14 to A2O are the documents pertaining to O.S.No.319 of 1986 Plaintiff's contention is that it was a parLitior-r suit filed by his younger brother wherein the Court has observed that the suit schedule property is purchased by the plaintiff hereir-r. A perusal of Ex.A14, the copy of judgment in O.S.No.319 of I9g6 reveals that item No. 1 in the said suit is the suit schedule property herein. It was*held to have been purchased by the plaintiff herein out of his \ I I I 14\ ETD,J CCC^ No.27 2019 t funds, through a benami transaction as he purchased the property in the names of his mother and sister. The record further discloses that the release deed said to have been executed by Saraswathi Bai in favour of Butchamma on 29.11.1966 is liled as Ex.Bg in the said suit O.S.No.319 of 1986. The plaintiff has failed to hle the same in the present case. However, it is revealed from Exs.Al3, 43 to A8 that Saraswati Bai stayed as a tenant in the suit schedule premises. This, disproves the contention of the defendants that the property originally belonged to Saraswathi Bai and Butchamma. The defendants further failed to place the Will or any document to show that Butchamma has bequeathed her share in favour of Saraswati Bai and that Sgraswati Bai became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Thus, the vendor in Ex.A9 i.e. defendant No. t herein could not prove as to how he derived title over the suit schedule property. Therefore, in the absence of any link document, it is hard to believe the version of defendants that defendant No. t had perfect title over the suit schedule property. When the vendor does not have title, he cannot convey a better title than what he has in favour of the vendees. Therefore, the sale deed under Ex.A9 cannot be held to be a valid document. \ \ 15 ETD,J CCCA No.27 2019 d The plaintiff herein is seeking declaration of the sale deed/Ex.A9 as null and void as he ciaims to be the real owner having purchased the property by paying the sale consideration bul in the namcs of his mother and sister. h) Now the question that falls for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim such a relief based on the Benami Transaction. i) The appellants counsel has strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in R.RaJagopat Reddg (dead) bg Lrs. V. padminl Chand.rosekharan (dead) bg Lrs.,3 and has submitted that Section 4 of the Act, 19gg, prohibits the suit by plaintiff herein becaus. h. ..r.rot claim an1. beneht under the Benami transaction but the respondent counsel contends that the said Act has no retrospective application and tha L it has to be applied prospectively, the sale deed pertains to the year 1966 ald thus, the Act, 1988 is not applicable to the case on hand. She further argued that in case of such transactions wherein the consideration is paid by another person, the intercst of that person who pays the consideration is protected under secl.ion g2 of the Trust Act ' 1rsss1 z scc o:o 16 ( ETD,] CCCj No.27 2019 j) It is pertinent to refer to Section 82 of the Indial Trust Act, 1882 and Section 4 of the Act, 1988 and the same are extracted hereunder: Section 82 ofthe Indian Trust Act 1882 "82. Transfer to oue for consideration patd by another - Where property is transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by another person, and it appears that such other person did not intend to pay or provide such consideration for the benefit of the transferee, the transferee must hold the property for the benefit of the person paying or providing the consideration. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 317, or Act No. XI of 1859 (to improve the law rclating to sales of land for arrcars of revenue in the Lower Provinces under the Bengal Presidency), Section 36" [Repealed by the Beuami Traasactions (Prohibition] Act, 1988 (45 of 19881, sectiotr 7(w.e.f. 19-5-19881.1 4 of the Act 1988: "4. Prohibition of the right to recover'property held benami.-(1) No suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. No defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against ttre person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, sha[[ be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property.' l2l k) It was held by the Apex Court in R.RaJagopal Reddg's case (supra 3) that "the words no such claim, suit or action shall lie" under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1988 meaning thereby no such suit, or action shall be permitted to be hled or entertained or I adAitted to the portals of any Court for seeking such a relief after coming into force of Section 4(1). The said Act came into force on I I I I 77 ETD,J CCCA No.27 2019

19.05.1988. Thus, under Section 4(1) no suit can lie in respect of such a past benami transaction. Section 4(1) places a bar on a plaintiff pleading "benami, after coming into forcc of the Act and it is applicable to the suit which is filed after the Act came into force as on 19.05. l ggg and once this section came into lbrce, Section g2 of the Trust Act got repealed. l) The plaintiff has filed the present suit in the year 2013, which is subsequent to The Benami Transactions (prohibition) Act, 1988, therefor-e, he is not entitled to claim any relief towzrrds the property purchased benami by him, though the transaction is prior in date. The s:rid amendment is not applicable to the pending suits but it does not say that it is not applicabie to the already held transaction. Therefore, it is held that the plaintilf is not entitled to claim any relicf, under the ground that he purchased the suit schedule property out of his own funds but by benami transaction and that he is entitled to possession of the property. m) Though the defendant No. 1 could not prove his title to sell the suit schedule properry to defendant Nos.2 and 3, thc praintiff cannot depend on the weakness of the defendants case, he has to succeed on his own strength. As discussed supra, the plaintiff cannot claim any ielief due to the bar placed by af.l of the Act, 1988 ) ) a 18 ETO,J CCC-A No.27 2019 (, n) It is strenuously argued by the respondent counsel that in O.S.No.319 of 1986 which was hled for partition by the brother of plaintiff herein it was held that the suit schedule property herein belongs to the plaintiff and that the said judgment is marked as Ex.A14 in the present case and ptacing reliance on the said document, the plaintiff is the real owner of the suit schedule property whicl-r cannot be dealt with by the defendants. o) A perusal of Ex.A 14 reveals that it was held by the trial Court in the said judgment that the plaintiff has purchased the item No.l of that suit which is the suit schedule property herein, out of his funds through a benami transaction and it has passed a preliminar5r decree in the said suit. tf Lt all, the plaintiff wants to claim his right in the said suit which pertains to 1986, prior to the Act, 1988, he can pursue his remedies in the said case. It is not placed on record by the respondent counsel as to whether any appeal is filed against the preliminary decree in O.S.No.319 of 1986 or has the decree attained finality. However, it does not fall for consideraLion in the present suit. Even if Ex.A14 is taken into consideration, at best it can be held that the plaintiff in this suit has purchased the property through Benami transaction. But in the present suit he cannot claim any benefit out of the Benami tranqaction done by him by virtue of the Act, 1988. Therefore, it is 19 ETD,J CCCA No.27 2019 held that the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of sale deed/ Ex.A9 to be null and void under the ground that he purchased the property under a benami transaction and that he is the real owner of the property. Consequentially, he is not entitled to the relief of possession o[ the suit schedule property. point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

74. POINT NO.3: In view of the reasoned findings arrived at pojnt Nos.1 and 2, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are not sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case. 15, POINT NO.4 In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree, dated 28.11.2018 passed in O.S.No.201 of 2013 by the learned XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, is herebg set aside. No costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO lJOINT REGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER To, 'l . The Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court at Secu nderabad(With records, if any)

2. Two CCs to the GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at 3. One CC to SRI T SURYA SATISH, Advocate tOpUCl Hyderabad (OUT) *t9^ One CC to SRI N GHAVAN Advocate IOPUCI ftPEWnAAJoctu .roPu{) HIGH COURT DATED:1 210612025 JUDGMENT+DECREE CGCA.No.27 of 2019 ALLOWING THE CCCA WITHOUT COSTS L{ L 2 DRAFTS 1- HI R E S'i4 c? ,\\ o(J t * JUL 2025 .2, ! '.) Jr Fr,^:f TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD i THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 27 OF 2019 Between:

1. G. Balra.i, S/o. G. Mahankali, Aged 37 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No 3-16-106/6, Venkat Reddy, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad -13.

2. G. Anasuya, Wo. G. Mahankali, Aged 60 years, Occ. household, R/o. H.No 3-16-106i6, Venkat Reddy, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad -'13. ...Appellants/Defendant Nos.2 & 3. AND 1 Uckoo Punareeekam, S/o. Uckoo Vishwanatharn, Aged about 76 years, Occ. retired officer of M/s. Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited, (merged with Punjab national bank) R/o. H.No 11-1-900/1, Chinta Bavi, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. (Died as per LRs 4 to 8) 2 3 4 K. Eshwar Rao, S/o. K. Shankaraiah, nged aUout r, ;::, R/o. 1-3-3, Petrovella, Balamrai, Secunderabad. :::t;:::i:::'- The Sub-Registrar, (Stamps and Registration Department), Manedpally, Secunderabad, Office at Tarbund (Near BHEL Enclave), Secunderabad Cantonment Area, Secunderabad. Smt Uckoo Susheela Bai, W o.Late Uckoo Punareeekam, Aged 78 Years, Occ : Housewife, R o .H.No.11- 1- 900/1 , Chintha Bavi, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. ...Respondents/Defendants No.1 & 4 5 Uckoo Srinivas Rao, S o.Late Uckoo Punareeekam, Aged 58 Years, Occ: Pvt Service, R o .H.No.1'1- 1- 900/'l , Chintha Bavi, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. 6. Uckoo Subrahma PvtService,Ro. 500001 am, S o.Late Uckoo Punareeekam Aged 55 Years, Occ: No.8- 7- 351 41 1, R R Nagar, HAL Colony, Secunderabad H.

7. Uckoo Ranganath.Rao, S o.Late Uckoo Punareeekam Aged 48 Years, Occ Pvt Service, R o .H.No.'l 1- 1- 900/1 , Chintha Bavi, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

8. Smt J Padmavathi, W o J Venkateshwar Rao, D/o Late Uckoo Punareeekam, Aged 62 Years, Occ Housewife R o H.No.216, Meenakshi Estates, Jeedimetla Village, Hyderabad 500055. Respondent Nos. 4 to I are brought on record as Legal Representatives of deceased respondent No. 1 as pCr Court Order dated= 22.01.2024, vide lA No 1 ot 2022 & l.A.No.3 of 2023 in CCCA No.27 of 2019. ...Respondents Nos.4 to 8 Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 28j12018 made in O.S.No.201 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI T SURYA SATISH. Advocate for the Appellants and of SRI N RAGHAVAN, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and GP FOR APPEALS for the Respondent No.3 and StvlT. AARIFA TMRAN KHAN Advocate for the Respondent No.5. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the CCCA be and hereby is allowed and the judgment and decree, dated 28.11.2018 passed in O.S.No.201 of 2013 by the Xil Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Secunderabad, is hereby set aside; 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ '.1 SECTION OFFICER ---I To,

1. T 2.7 he Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad wo CD Copies ADK V I I 1*i. I I i I HIGH COURT DATED: 1 210612025 DECREE CCCA.No -27 ot 2019 ALLOWING THE CCCA WITHOUT COSTS 1