The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. J.

6. Baba Balkishan Das (died), Puajri Fatharao Bai., aged about 63 years, Wo.Late Baba Balkishan Das Mahaveer Singh, aged about 43 years, S/o_Late Baba Balkishan Das. Pavan Singh., aged about 40 years, S/o.Late Baba Balkishan Das. Vinodh Singh., aged about 38 years, S/o.Late Baba Balkishan Das Laxman Singh., aged about 35 years, S/o.Late Baba Balkishan Das. 7 fogj,a Qai, 999!. aQo^u! 27 yea.rs, D/o.Late_Baba Batkishan Das. (Ail are lesidents of H.No.1-24, Nanakramguda, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District).

8. Sunderhan Sridhar Bena R/o.Flat No B, 17. Bonde sar, ased aboute2 r"",. r;J::il.til,T1"';'"t'o" I Road. Kolkata - 700099 ( D-2) ...RespondenUDefendant No.2 t.A. NO: 10F 2017(ASMP. NO: 803 0F 20 171 Petition under order XLI Rure 5 of cpc R/w section 'r51 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,'the High court may be preased to stay aI further proceedings pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in o.s.No. 803 of 2009 on the file of vlll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar dated t5-1i-2016 pending appeal in the interest of justice. Gounsel for the Appellant :SRl M N NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 : SRI p VIDYA SAGAR REDDY The Court delivered the following: Judgment I I i 1 1 i i I .l I I I t THE HONOURABLE SMT...'USTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT No.3I7 of 2Ot7 JUDGMENT: Challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.1 l.2016 passed in O.S.No.803 of 2008 by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, the present Appeal Suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, legal heirs of late Baba Govind Das, filed a suit seeking declaration of absolute ownership the suit schedule property measurlng Ac.2_Og guntas at Temple Alwai, Malkajgiri Mandal, and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 25'06. 1985 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No. 1, as null and void. They also sought recovery of possession. The plaintiffs claimed that the property was originally gifted to Baba Govind Das in 1341 Fasli and, after his death, devolved upon his son Baba Lakshman Das and thereafter upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant No.2 was only a lessee pa).1ng Nuzul rents till 19g5, 2 SXS,J A.S.No 317 of 2017 and they came to know in July 2005 that defendant No.2 had sold the property to defendant No.1 without title.

3. On the other hand, defendant No.1 contested the suit, while <lefendant No.2 remained ex parte. Defendant No.1 denied the plaintiffs' ownership and claimed to have purchased the property from defendant No'2 under a registered sale deed in 1985 and had been in continuous possession since then. He also pleaded adverse possession. limitation. and lack of cause of actron. He further stated that ln 2006, the plaintiffs compromised the matter, received Rs.6O,000/- in full settlement, and executed affidavits relinquishing their rights. The plaintiffs denied executing such afhdavits and alleged them to be forged

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trlal Court framed three issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.l and 2 were examined and Ex.A 1 to A9 are marked. DW. 1 was examined and trxs.Bl and B12 were marked on behalf of the defendants. :r sKs,J A..S.No.317 of 2()17

5. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, uid-e order dated O2.O1.2002, decreed the suit holding that the tenancy rights in the suit property were inalienable and defendant No.2, having only leasehold rights, could not convey ownership to defendant No. 1 . The alleged affidavits and receipts relied upon by defendant No.1 were found not to be valid relinquishment documents, as relinquishment required compulsory registration. The trial Court found that the suit was filed within three years from the date of knowledge of the impugned sale and was not barred by limitation and concluded that the plaintiffs had established their ownership, declaring the plaintiffs as absolute owners, setting aside the sale deed dated 25.06. 19g5, and directed defendant No. 1 to vacate and hand over possession within three months. Aggrieved thereby, the appeallant/defendant No. I filed the present appeal suit.

6. Heard Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Sri p. Vidya Sagar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4 sxs,J A.S.No.317 of 2017 .1.:.:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial Court was contrary to law and evidence, as no proper issues were framed on the pleas of adverse possession, limitation, and non-joinder of necessary parties, which deprived the appellant of an opportunity to adduce proper evidence. He further submitted that the plaintiffs failed to produce the alleged lease deed or any proof of rent payments, and PW. I admrtted to not having seen the tenants, falsifying the claim of leasehold rights. He argued that Ex.AS, the alleged Nuzul deed, was not proved, and the trial Court wrongly treated defendant No.2 as a lessee rather than a purchaser under the sale deed of 25.O4.1956 and that defendant No.2, having enjoyed the property as absolute owner since 1956, validly sold it to the appellant in the year 1985, and the appellant had since perfected his title by adverse possession-

8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court erred in declaring the sale deed dated 24.06.1985 as null and void without framing an issue to that effect and without cancelling the earlier sale deed of 1956, lvhich was never challenged and that the properties invoh'ed in earlier 5 SI(S,J 4.S.No.317 of 2017 suits were different, and the appellant was not a party to them. He further contended that the documents marked Exs.B1 to El12 proved continuous possession of the appellant for over two decades, and the suit was barred by limitation and that the affidavits Exs.Bl l and Bl2 executed by pW. 1, along with the receipt of Rs.6O,O00/- in full settlement, established compromise and estopped the plaintiffs from disputing title. The trial Court failed to appreciate the admissions of pW. 1, the evidence of DWs.1 and 2, and the absence of proof that the plaintiff was the successor of the original donee, making the suit in his individual capacity not maintainable. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court by allowing this appeal suit.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court and that the trial Court had properly appreciated the evidence on record. As defendant No.2 had no right to sell the property, he could not have validly conveyed it to defendant No. 1, and therefore, defendant No. I could not claim ownership over the suit schedule 6 SKS'J A.S.No.317 of 2017 property when his vendor himself had no title. He further submitted that the plea of adverse possession was not established, as the possession of defendant No.l was never hostile to the plaintiffs and was only through defendalt No'2' who himself was in permissive occupation as a lessee' Mere long possession without animus possidendi could not confer ownership. The suit was also filed within three years from the date of knowledge of the impugned sale, and therefore, it was not barred by limitation.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents conteuded that the alleged affidavits Exs.B 11 and Bl2 were not valid relinquishment deeds, as relinquishment o1 immovable property required compulsory registration. Such unregistered documents could not divest the plaintiffs of their rights- Further, the alleged payment of Rs.60,OO0/- was not proved by any independent or reliable evidence, and the trral Court rightly discarded the same. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the APPeaI Suit.

11. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal i 7 SKS,J 4.S.No.317 of 201Z I 11

111. 1V. Whether the ptaintiff is the owner of the suit scheduie property and, if so, whether he is entitled to a declaration of title over the suit schedule property? Whether defendant No.l has become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property under the sale deed marked as Ex.B1? Whether defendant Nos.1 and 2 paid Nuzul to the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint? Whether the judgment of the trial Court requires any interference? Point Nos.i to iii:

12. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusar of the materiar available on record, it appears that the main dispute was whether the plaintiffs had proved that they were the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, and whether defendant No. 1 could claim ownership through his vendor, defendant No.2. On examining the sale deed dated 2S.O4.tgS6 (Ex.A3 and Ex.B2), it is found that Ratna Bai ald Ram Mohan Rao, the legal heirs of the original lessee Manik Rao, transferred only leasehold rights (Nuzul rights) to defendant No.2. The recitals in this 8 SKS'J A.S.No.3r7 of 2017 document itself showed that the property was originally held on lease from the plaintiffs' predecessor, late Baba Govind Das. As tenancy rights are inalienable, no absolute ownership was conveyed under Ex.A3 and trx.E}2. Therefore, defendant No.2, having no valid ownership, could not have transferred any title to defendant No. 1 through the sale deed dated

25.06. 1985 (Ex.B- I and trx.A-4).

13. Further, it is also noted that the reliance on the alleged compromise and the affidavits by the defendants (Exs. B 1 1 and l2l said to have been executed by PW. 1. These affidavits bore inconsistent dates, were not supported by arry independent witnesses, and were not proved by reliable evidence. Moreover, they rvere only notarized and not registered. Under the law, if a person gives up rights in immovable property, the relinquishment must be by a registered deed. Since there was no such registered document, these affidavits could not take away the plaintiffs' ownership rights. The trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the plaintiffs did not relinquish their title. I I 9 SKS,J 4.S.No.317 of 2017 t4. Furthermore, on the issue of limitation, as seen from the record, it appears that the plaintiffs had issued a legal notice dated 18.07.2005 (Ex.Ag) soon after knowing about the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 (Ex.Bl). The suit was filed within three years from this date of knowledge. The defendants could not prove that the plaintiffs knew of the sale earlier, nor could they prove the essential ingredients of adverse possession, namely, continuous, open, and hostile possession with the intention to own the property. Regarding non-joinder of parties, the trial Court had considered the fact that the plaintiffs' sisters were married before the O5.O9.lggs amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, and there was no evidence to show otherwise; therefore, they were not necessary parties to the suit.

15. In view of all this evidence and the exhibits on record, it appears that defendant No.l had no valid title because his vendor, defendant No.2, had none to convey. The conclusions of the trial Court on ownership, limitation, adverse possession, and non-joinder were supported by the documents and oral evidence. The decree declaring the t , 10 SKS,J A.S.No-317 of 2017 plaintiffs as absolute owners and directing defendant No. 1 to deliver possession of the property was, therefore, justified. Point No.iv:

16. In vieu. of the above discussion in pbint Nos.i to iir, lhere is no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court discussed a1l the issues and it is a well reasoned judgment and there are no grounds to interfere rn the judgment. 17 . In view thereof, this Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2016 passed in O.S.No.8O3 of 2008 by the iearned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending. shall stand closed sD/- P. OWRI SHANKAR E UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// $CTION OFFICER I I To,

1. The vlllAdditionar District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (with records if any) - S / 2 One CC to SRt trl N NARASIMHA REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI \uy 3 One CC to SRt P VTDYA SAGAR REDDY, Advocate IbpUCl' "\X 4. Two CD Copies ADK/GR I \ _. - _._-:-- --. .- .. - \,i1 . L ':i I l' t 1l HIGH COURT DATED:1910812025 .1.-'t /t.:,'-" /t :L' -) 2 I llP ?ri?5 * , _'i - i" .i'..' .,,,' 2 DRAFTS JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.317 ot 2017 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT "frurrnour cosrs IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT NO i 317 0F 2017 Between:

1. M.Rajeshwara Rao (D|ED as per LRs 2 to 4) ff|".".:H5l' [33 bt6: R/o.H No B-24, Tempteatwat, soijram, Aril'i, Hii"er"oad _ 500010 ...Appellant(Defendant No.1 ) 2 Ma.nnery Anuradha, aged_ about 55 years, wo. Ram Mohan, D/o. Late M. -t -"s o s' vitia iladi' r'r""' v" n,s,di' n i r"v, ir,,-Nli,; 3. Mannery Raiender. aqed about 47 years, S/o. Late Rajeshwara Rao. 4. Mannery Ravinder. aoed about 45 years, S/o. Late Rajeshwara Rao. R/o. H. No.B_24, Tempte"Atwat, eorirrm, Alrir'i] Hiolr"oad _ 5000.1 0. 5. Mannery Ramesh Kumar.. Aged about 52 years, Sio. Late Raieswara Rao Sales Executive, c/o. Haritha" nui, po'a*'r,rt'sisia, Academi6 city, Dubai. Appellant Nos.2 to 4 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Sore Apperrant No.1 as Der courr oroJiJited bi:dd2o2:, vide rA No. 1 0f 2020 in AS No.317 ot 2O\t. ^^ lppgllnt No.S is blo-qght on record as per Court Order dated 06.10.2023, vide tA No.1 0f 2ou 1 in As No.5i7 oiioTz. AND ...Appellant Nos.2 to 5 1 I J.

7. Baba Balkishan Das (died), Puajri Fatharao Bai., aged about 63 years, wo.Late Baba Barkishan Das Mahaveer singh, aged about 43 years, s/o.Late Baba Barkishan Das. Pavan Singh-, aged about 40 years, S/o.Late Baba Balkishan Das_ Vinodh Singh., aged about 3g years, Sio.Late Baba Balkishan Das Laxman Singh., aged about 35 years, S/o.Late Baba Balkishan Das. Pooja Bai, aged. about 27 years, D/o.Late Baba Barkishan Das. (Ail are residents of H.No.'1 -24. Ndnakramgudi,-$rt;grrp;'it ti,irrffi r)?rib"" Reddy District). ...Respondents/Plaintiffs B. Sunderhan Sridhar Benagal, aged about g?-y^e^qr9, Sfo Sridhar Bhavani' - nlo.riat No.8, 17. BondeiRoati', Kolkata - 700099 ( D-2)' ...ResPondenUDefendant No.2 Appeal under section 96 R/w XLI Rule (1)^of C P C against the-Judgment ana Oec?5e Oated '15-11-2016 made in O.S.No.803 of 2008 on the file of the Court oi tt'" Vf f f Additional District Judge' Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar' This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal' the Judgmeni and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upo-n hearing the arguments of sRl M N NARASIIVIHA REDDY, Advocate for the SRt p VtOyn SAGAR REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent Appetiants and Nos.2 to 7. -of This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: .l . That the Appeal suit be and hereby is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 1 5 1 1.2016 passed in o.s.No 803 of 2008 by the Vlll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar; 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- P. GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I I i To,

1. The Vlll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B Nagar 2. Two CD Copies ADK/GR 1 \ HIGH COURT DATED:19/08/2025 DECREE AS.No.317 of 2017 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS