The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. This Memorandum of First Appeal is frled under Section 96 r/w Order 43 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 19O8 (for short 'CPCJ assailing the judgment and decree passed in O'S'No'383 of 2Ol2' dated 07.10.2015 by the IIt Senior Civii Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, wherein the suit Frled by the respondent-plaintiff for eviction and damages is partly decreed' 2 Appellanr is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in OS.No.383 ot 2Ol2- 2l28 BRMR,J CCCA.No.3 2016

3. 1. Respondent-plaintiff has hled suit for evi damages @ Rs.3,OOO/- per month from August, 2() appellant-defendant in respect of House bearinS admeasuring 72 Square yrds out of 144 Square yrds Sai Nagar near Indira Gandhi Statue, Tukaramgate falling in Sy.No.B44l13 p, T.S.No.33, Block No.t, \v Malkajgiri Village of Maredpally Mandal, Hyderabac boundaries. tion and for I against the No. 10-5-391 Street No. 15, iecunderabad rrd No.732 of District with

3.2. It is stated in the plaint that respondent t) owner of the suit schedule property and he acquired r Government of A.p. under Registered Deed unctr i dated 28.01.2010 with document No.l5g of 2Ol constn-lcted a house in a piece of land admeasuring I the year 2O0O and he has applied for regularizarion ,r house on the Government land under C_O.M.S.IJ 16.02.2008 and accordingly the Governmenr has r same. Respondent-piaintiff has paid an amount of. i uide Challan bearing No.157050 dated 06. I0.:2() No. 190347 dated 26.12.2009 and Challan No.L 26.12.2OO9 in favour of Government of A.p. rintifl is the re same from Conveyance ). He has '4 Sq.yrds in his dwelling .166, dated pproved the :.5,76,18O/- )9, Challan )555 dated

3.3. The respondent-plaintiff has introduced the deft.r clant who is none other than his own brother into possession of.tlr ee rooms of 3l2A BRMR,J CCCA.No.3-2o16 the said house (suit schedule properry) by providing all facilittes like drainage, electricity and water connection as his licensee. Respondent-plaintiff demanded the defendant to vacate and hand over the suit schedule property but he has developed an evil intention, refused to vacate and hand over the possession to the

ptaintiff. Appellant-defendant has Iiled suit in OS.No.6O4 of 2Ol0 before the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad and the same is dismissed on 16.1 1.201 I and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

4.1 . Appellant-defendant filed his written statement and contended that originally the mother of the respondent-plaintiff and the appellant-defendant acquired lhe House No.10-5-39 l and she herself constructed two separate houses along with lwo separate stair cases and entrances wirh that of separate electricity bills and water connections and distributed each house to the appellalt-defendant and respondent- plaintiff and she used to reside in House No.10-5-39 I part. The respondent-plaintiff taking advantage of the G.O. without the knowledge of the appellant- defendant got transferred the entire suit schedule property in his name and thereby cheated the appellant-defendant and his family members. Respondent-plaintitf has created a false story of introducinf tIe appellant-defendant as a licensee for the purpose of hling the case and to grab the suit schedule property and other 4128 BRMR,J CCCA.No.3_2016 properties which were acquired by his mother latr: Smt.R.Laxmi Bai. District Collector, Hyderabad made enquiry wit: regard to the forgery of documents by the respondent-plaintiff w 1 I the help of Tahsildar, Marredpally.

4.2. Tahsildar, Marredpally has submitted his r :port to the District Collector on 20.O4.2012 uide Iretter No.B/75( 7 /2Ot\. The report of Tahsildar, Marredpally goes to show that th respondent- plaintiff has obtained Transfer Certilicate to the ( <tent of 144 Sq.yrds in premises bearing No.10-5-391 with forgr I documents from Collectorate. Appellant-defendant after knov' rg the same has lodged a private complaint before X ACMM, and he same was referred to P.S. Tukaramgate for the offences under iections 406, 42O, 379 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for st rrt 'IPCJ and case in Crime No.16 of 2019 is registered and charg: sheer is filed and numbered as CC.No.1O22 of 2O1O, the sarrr is pencling. Appellant defendant has also filed another criminai case against the respondent-plaintiff and his family members f,r lheir illegal acts and the same is numbered as CC.No. 186 i o ' 2OiO of P.S. Borvenpally pending on the file of the XI Ad : tional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad for the cf :nces under Scctions 465, 4ri8 of IPC. 5l28 BRMR,J CCCA.No.3 2016

5. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of suit schedule property?

2. Wtrether ttre defendant is liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.3,0OO /- per montfi from August, 2O I 1?

3. To what relief.)

6. Respondent-plaintiff is examined as PW. 1, got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Appellant-defendant is examined as DW. 1 and got marked Exs.Bl to B15, also examined DW.2-A.Sai Baba and his evidence is eschewed as per docke[ order dated 25-07.2014. Independent Witness is summoned through Court. The learned trial Court instead of showing the Court Witness as CW.1, shown him as DW.2 and got marked Exs.C1 to C3. 7 .l . The leamed trial Court after analyzing the evidence of the parlies has decreed the suit in part directing the appellant- defendant to vacate and handover the physical possession of the suit schedule property within tw'o months from the date of judgment (O7.10.2015), with regard [o damages suit is dismissed'

7.2. Respondent-plaintiff has not filec1 any Appeal against dismissal of the suit for damages in respect of issue No.2.

8.1. Learned counsel for the appellant CefenCant submits that the learned trial Court has placed morc reliance on the evidence of PW.l and Exs.Al to A8, erred in not considenng the evidence 9f 6128 BRMR,J CCCA.I{o 3 2016 DW. 1, Exs.B 1 to B 15 and also failed to consider tl : evidence of DW.2 and trxs.Cl to C3. Ex.Al was obtained by th respondent- plaintiff by playing fraud and by submitting forged z rd labricated documents which was established by the evidence rf DW.2 and erroneousiy believed Ex.A1 document and decreed tht suit.

8.2. The learned triai Court failed to consider Er ;.B1 and 84 which categorically speak that the suit schedule prr rerty claimed by the respondent-plaintiff was in fact acquired by -Ie mother of the parties herein during her life time and MOtl ras executed under Ex.B4 to share the property equally among tJr 'mselves and that the respondent-plaintiff failed to establish that sl it property is not part of the propert5r purchased by the mother : the parties- In spite of clear lacunae in the case of the responderL, plaintiff, the Court below decreed the suit. The learned trial Cr consider the crucial admission made by pW. i i urt lailed to his cross- examination with regard to the existence of two hous in possession o[ both the parties and a]so failed to criminal case filed by the appellant-defendant :s u,hich are :onsider the against the respondent-plaintiff in CC.No.1861 of 2010. The earned trial Court lailed to consider Ex.C2 - Enquiry Report anc llso erred in holding that no proper procedure was followed wh.l conducting the enquiry by the Revenue Inspector. The learnc, erred in holding that the respondent_plaintiff has p- trial Court ved his title BRMR.J CCCA.No.3 2016 by virtue of forged and fabricated sale deed (Ex.Al) and erred in holding that appellant-defendant has not proved his possession under Exs.Bl and 82.

8.3. The learned trial Court has not assigned any reason why the evidence of the MRO is not considered with that of Exs.C1 to C3. The iearned trial Court failed to consider MOU (Ex. Ba) wherein there is a distribution of properLies of late Laxmi Bai who expired on 15.O5.20O8 and the judgment and decree suffers from serious legal issues and lapses and prayed to set aside the same. g. tearned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court has properly considered the evidence adduced by the parties and rightly decreed the suit directing the appeliant- defendant to vacate and hand over the physical possession of the suit scheduie property within two months from the date of judgment, no interference is ca11ed for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal. 1O- Learned counsel for the appellant and respondent have hled their written submissions. I 1. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material'

12. Now the point for consideration is: whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil 8128 BRMR,J CCCA.No.3 2016 Courts at Secunderabad in OS.No.383 of 2012, dar.r I 07.1O.2O 15 suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, c.r es it require interference of this Court?

13. 1. Ex.C 1 is the letter dated 06.09.2011 from t1r office of the Collector, Hyderabad District addressed to tl r Tahsildar, Marredpally Mandal and called for the report i r respect of regularization of Government lani admeasuring 142 in pre mises bearing No. 1O-5-39 l, Sai Nagar, Trr Square yrds aramgate in Sy.No.844l 13 P of Malkajgiri Village. The letter (Er Cl) reads as under: Lt.No.R2l76 / 2l )OOA Thc Tahsildar, Marredpall_v Mandai. Sir, GOVERNMENT Ot. AI{DIIRA IREVEIII'E DEPARTMEITTI OFFICEOFTHF OLLECTOR }IYDERABAD DJS 'RICT. Dated: 06.09.201 Sttb. Transfcr o[ Rtghrs of Government Land - Hvderabad District Secunderi,bacl Drvrsion - Marredpally Mandal - Request oiS, R. Narsing Rao S/o R. Babaidh for regularization of Gove1n66'n1 land encroached admeasuring I44 Sq. y(: premises ).'o. I0 .--391 . Sai Nagar, TukaraEAte in Sy. trt<,. aaa/l3p oi Matkajgiri village - Orders issued _ Ob.iictio I petition liled b| Sri Rarhod Nandu & (3) others tocanc,:i the conveyance deed execured in favour of apptcant - Report callcd lor Request Reg. i 2 3 4 G.().Ms.No. 166, Revenue (Assn.pot) Dept, dI16.02.0g A/o Sn R. N.rrsing Rao, Appl.No.432S, daNil. Tahsildirr, triarredpalll. Lt.No.B I gO2 I Og, dt O4_05_2OO9. Mir.rutes oi rhc Districr Level Committee Meeting held on 2.- 05.09. Pr-oceechngs of rhc Dist. Collector, Hyderabad No. even, dt04.01.10. Representarron of Sri Rarhod Nandu & (3) others, dt 3O.08 5 6 eR 010 9l?B BRMR,J CCCA.No-3_2016 Attention is invited to the reference Sth cited, wherein the District Collector, Hyderabad has issued orders to regularize the Govt- land to an extent of 144 Sq. Yds in premises No.i0-5-39i, Sai Nagar, Tukaramgate, Marredpally fatling in Sy.No.844/ 13p, T.S.No-33, Block I, Ward 132 of Malkajgrri village of Marredpally Mandal in favour of Sri R.Narsing Rao S/o R. Babaiah and coflveyance deed was executed on

28.O 1.2010- ln the reference 6th cited (Copy enclosed), Sri Rathod Nandu & (3) others have hled an objection petition that the said land was acquired by their mother late Smt. R.larqni Bai w/o l,ate Rathod Balaiah durinB her life time for stay along with grand children in the said premises and further submltted that Sri R.Narsing Rao S/o R.Babaiah have suppressed the above facts and obtained the transfer of rights traudulently and requested to cancel deed of conveyance executed in favour oI Sri R.Narsing Rao for the said land. ln the above circumstances, it is requested to enquire into Lhe represcntation submitted by Sri Rathod Nandu & (3) others and submit a detaited report for taking further necessary action in the matter. Yours faith[ully, sd/ - For Collector, Hyderabad District I I Att.€stedl I sd/- Superintendent

13.2. Ex.C2 is the Report of the Speciai Revenue Inspector , Marredpally addressed to the Tahsildar, Marredpally Mandal, dated

28.03.2012 which reads as under: ReDort of the Soeclal Reveuu€ Insoector. Mar redoallv. RL No.49l t2 To The Tahsildar Marrcdpall]- l\,1andal. Sir, Dr.28. 03.2012 BRMR,J CCCA.No.3,2016 Sub Ret Transfer of Rights of Govt. land, Marredpalll- Mandal - request of R.Narsing Rao s/r, R.Babaiah regularization oI admeasurir-rt; premises No.IO-5-391, Sai Nagar, Tukaramgat( in Sy.No. a44 / 13 /P of Malkajgiri vil-tage - Repor. submrtted Reg. Collec tor Hy d, Lr.N o.R2 / 7 67 2 / 2OO8 dt. 0,6.O9.2C 1 With reference rc above, I submit that, I was instructed to coo enquiry in respect of the objection petition nled by R.Nandu an<L 3O-O8-2O10. In pursuance of the instructions of the Tahsildar I ha locality at Premises No. l0 5-391 , Tukaramgate. Enquiry revealed address Sri Narsing Rao anrl R.Nandu Family's are residing separrr .uct detailed 3) otliers on been to tlle r above said 'ly. Further enquirv* reveals rhat actually rhe properties (1) 10-5-i l0 (2) 10-5- 824lA (3) lO-5 39I/1 belongs to rheir mother R.laxrni Bai wh expired on 15.O4.2008 and Iclt the follor,..ing family member behind. Furthe - rer husband already expired long back. Family membc. of deceased Laxmi Bai Sl.No Name Relationship 1 2 3 5 Smt. R. i(alavath i Daughter Sri R, B .reem Rao Sn R- N irrsing Rao Sri R.Nandu Sri R. U:nr:sh Son Son Son Son Present Residence Address io-5-530, tndira ta<Ini Nasar Plot No.30 Tukaramgate lo-5-391 Sai Nagar l0-5-391 Sai Nagar to-,-424 / A,t Therefore the above famrly members are share holders for th: deceased motl..er propenv- Lqcal enquiry further revealed 1t R.Narsrng Rao S1o. R Laxmr Bai undcr guise of the forgec, documents obraLned rhe Transler Rrght Certihcate in his otLl respect of prernises No tO-S 391 Lo an extent of 144 Square / Sy.No.844/ l3 co-rclared ro T S.N-o.33, Block I, Ward No.132 of trl vide Hyderabad Drstric,. Collecror procceding No.R2/2276/2 04.ol 20lo_ Remarks xpired his \,{rife 1.Bharya Laxmi rbove said rt one Sri fabricated name in ls falts in tkajgiri vg, 08 dated ru2a BRMR,J CCCA-No.3-2O16 Further I submit that in the local enquiry it is also noticed that a court casependingbeforetheXAdditionalM'M.courtabovesaidpropertya8ainst R.Narsing Rao and other family members' This is for information Yours faithfullY, sd/- For Special Revenue lnspector, dt.2a.o3.2012 MarredPalIY.

13.3. Ex.C3 is the Report of the Tahsildar, Marredpally Mandal' dated2o.o4.2ol2addressedtotheCollector,HyderabadDistrict which reads as under @ REVEIII'E DEPARTiIEITT Lr.No.B/7567l2011 To The Collector, Hyderabad Drstnct. Offrcer of the Tahsildar MarredpallY Mandal. Datedi 2O.O4.2012 S ir, Sub Transfer of Righrs - Govt. t ands - Marredpally Mandal - rll-"*", - Request of Sri R'Narsing Rao S/o ;;;;;il iilJ"nrian for Regularization of Government land "n..*h"a admeas"uring 144 Sq Yds Premises.No- I O- .i 39t, Sai Nagar' Tukararngate, Secunderabad rn )y N,', 8;4 / l3P Ir vumrjgiti village orders issued "t i".,ion petition filed by Sri Rathood Nandu & (J) o,h"." ,o cancel the conveyance deed executed in favour of applicant - Report - Submitted - Reg' Ref: I (l)llec(or Hvderabad Lt.No.R217672l2OO8 dt' 06-09-201 I i. n.poi, of ,n. Spl.R.l MarredpaUy report No 49l2012 d.t.28-03-2012. Iinvitekindattentiontothereferencescited,whereinwhilesending a copy ol the representation of Sri Rathood Nandu and (3) others' it has been asked ro cnquiry and send report into the matter' The matter has been gor enquired into by *re SpI R I of this office Enquire revealed lhar one Smt. R.Laxmi Bai W/o (i,ate) Rathod Balaiah during the life time got the self acqurred follouing properlies: 1U28 BRMR,J CCCA.No.3_2O16 1) t0-5-s3O 2) to-s-824 / A 3) 10-s-391/ I She expircd on 15-04-2O08, and left folloq,.ing legat heirs behinc her: No Prcsent ResidencC T I 2 3 4 5 Smt R.Kalavathi Daughter Sri R.Bheem Rao Sri R.Narsing Rao Sri R.Nandu Sri R.Umesh Son Son Son Son r Indira l0 5-530, Laxmr N Plot No. 30, Tuka lO 5-391,Sai Nagar 1O-5 391, Sai Na to-5-824 / A/ t D>:y red hi; vife R. Blll <ya Lax ri. Further in local enquiry, .eveais rhar Sri. Narsrng Rao anci Nandu Son of the deceased of Smt. R. Laxmi Bai are re; premises No.1O 5-S3O, Indi.a Laxmi Nagar, separately, and t.r properties are self acquired proper4, ol rhe deceased Smt. R. I Bai. Hence all the family members have got right for equal shz r furtler noticed thar Sri_ R. Narsing Rao one of the family memb obtained Transfer of Rrghts cerLificate Lo an exlenr of 144 Sq. \ premises No.lO 5-391 situated ar Sar i\-agar and falls in Sv.Nc. correlated ro T.S.No..i3 Blo( k I, Ward No. 132 of Malkajgrri Marredpally Mandal ivith lorged documents [.om the Collectorate This is for lavour of k ind rnformarron_ athood iing at rkshmi s. It is r have rds in +4113 .illage, Yours fairi f lly, sd/ TAHSILDI t, D|.2O.O4.2 12 Marred pally l4 ndal

14. The evidence of the respondent-plaintiff is tl : same with that of his plaint averments. [n his cross_examina.] )n he stated that except the suit schedule properry_ he has not pl rchased any other property and his wife has filed suit in OS.N.. ;34 of 2012 BRMR,J CCCA.No,3 2016 against the defendant (appellant herein) on the frle of XI Junior Civil Judge and aiso filed IA.No.874 of 2012 seeking ad-interim injunction which came to be dismissed after due enquiry, he also lrled suit in OS.No.581 of 2Ol2 against the defendant (appellant herein), also filed application in IA.No.968 of 2Ol2 for ad-interim injunction on the Iile of XI Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad' PW.l denied the suggestion that the suit schedule property was purchased by his mother and he suppressed the said fact, got approved the regularization for the entire property. He also denied the suggestion thar his mother is the owner of the property and she gave the same equally to him and to the defendant (appellant and respondent herein), he also denied the suggestion that he forged the documents and hled false suit. 1 5. Appellant-defendant is examined as DW. 1 . In his cross- examination, he stated that the boundaries shown in the plaint schedule properry- are different as with that of the boundaries in Exs.Bl and 82 and in Exs.B1 and E}3 name of his uncle by name Balayya is shown and he do not know whether the Iand in Sy.No.844/ 13 belongs to the Government or not. So also he do not know in which survey number the suit schedule property is situated and he do not know whether the Government of Andhra Prade sh has executed Ex.A I document in favour of the plaintiff (respondent herein) and [he same is in force and not cancelled'

1.4lZE BRMR,J CCCA.No.3 2016 DW.1 further stated that he do not know whether t_.r : Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O. to reguiarize th Government lands so also he do not know that the plaintiff (respr ndent herein) has paid an amount of Rs.5,76, l g O / - for regula - ,.ation of the schedule property in his favour. As he has not vacat( 1 the portion, plaintiff has got issued Ex.A4 notice. DW. 1 was crosr .examined by putting question and answer which reads as under: a. How you got Exs.B11 and B i4? A. Respondent family gave complaint to tir Collector, Collector gave letter to the Tahsildar and Sr 1 -Registrar. Sub-Registrar gave Exs.Bl l and B14. DW. I denied the suggestion thar with the I ermission of plaintiff (respondent herein) he is residing in the porr rn under his occupation ald also denied the suggestion that hr is in illegal possession of the suit schedule properrv and he is b<i nd to vacate the same and the plaintiff (respondenL herein) has n t forged any documents.

16. Though DW.2 (A.Sai Baba) evidence is eschev..<:r . summoned witness is also examined as DW.2 (Saidulu)_

17.1. The evidence of DW.2 (Saidulu) is that he is ,orking as a Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally, Secundera I ad and he received summons from the Court. Defendant (appr lant herein) arrd his family members filed a complaint before the District 15124 BRMR,J CCCA.No.3-2016 Collector, Hyderabad alleging that the plaintiff (respondent herein) has illegaily mutated the propert5r in his name and forged the documents and requested the District Coilector to stop the illegai transfer of properties bearing Nos. 1O-5-53O and 1O-5-824 lA/2 and House No. 1O-5-391. After receipt of the complaint from the defendant (appellant herein) by the District Collector, who in turn directed the then Tahsildar on 06.09.2011 to enquire into the matter and submit the report, upon which the then Tahsildar has orally instructed the Revenue Inspector to conduct enquiry' Revemre Inspector has conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 2a.O3.2O12. Basing on the report, the then Tahsildar submitted a report to the District Collector on 2O.O4.2OL2' On enquiry, it is revealed that the properties are self acquired by R.Laxmi Bai and all the family members have got equal rights' R.Narsing Rao is one ol the family member obtained a transfer of right certificate from the Government to the extent of 144 Sq'yrds in the premises of 10-5-39 1 situated at Sai Nagar, Tukaramgate in Sy.No.B44l13 P co related to TS No.33, Block-I, Ward No'132 of Malkajgiri viliage ol Marredpally Mandal with forged documents from the Collectorate and got marked Exs.C1 to C3. 17 .2. ln his cross-examination he stated that Collector has directed the then Tahsildar to enquire about the suit schedule property whether fraud was held earlier. The then Tahsildar has BRMR,J CCCA No.3 2016 endorsed the same and directed the Special Reven_ ) Inspector to conduct the enquiry and the general procedure Ibr enquiry is to conduct panchanama and also to collect the docum : Lts il any hled by the parties. He has not liled any panchanama, itatements or documents frled by the parties and he do not I row whether Special Revenue Inspector colluded with defende rt (appellant herein) and gave a false report and the properties Ex.C2 are concerned with Sy.No.g 441 I to 13 zt: rrentioned in d Sy.No.844 belongs to the Government and he did not conduct , properties mentioned in Ex.C2 and Revenue Inr; nquiry of the ector is not competent to decide title of any property, as per Ex . r I plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. He denied r Le suggestion that Revenue Inspector exceeded his limits and con<l in coilusion with the defendant (appellant herein) : was endorsed by the Tahsildar without any prope - rcted enquiry rd the same enquiry and that the plaintiff (respondent herein) has nor playect : got the schedule property regularized bi, representation. He also denied the suggestion enquiry was conducted by the Special Revenue: r1. fraud and raking fair at no such nspector on endorsement of the Tahsildar. i8. 1. Ex.Al is the certified copy of Deed of Conr t v-ance dated 28.01.2O1O bearing document No.15g of 2010 whicI is executed by the Government of Andhra pradesh represented _- . its District 17124 BRMR,J CCCA.No.3_2O16 Collector, Hyderabad in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The House number mentioned therein is 10-5-391, Sai Nagar, Ttrkaramgate, Marredpally falling Sy.No.844l 13p. G.O.M.S.No. 166, dated l6.O2.2OOa is for regularisation of encroachment by way of dweiling houses on Government lands in Urban areas of Hyderabad on payment of market value. Respondent-plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.5,76,18O/- uide Chalan No.157050, dated 06.10.2OO9, No.19O347, dated 26.12.2009 and No. 190556, dated 26.12.2009 in favour of Government of Andhra Pradesh. The sketch annexed to Ex.Al goes to show that plot number is left blank and House number is mentioned therein i.e., 1O-5-39 1, old Sy.No.84a I 13p.

18.2. Ex.A2 is the Encumbrance Certiltcate for the period from Ol.Ol.l977 to 05.08.201 | uide application dated 06.08.2011 which shows the execution of Ex-A1 document by Government of Andhra Pradesh in favour of respondent plainliff and the name of Union Bank of India, Station Road branch is also mentioned therein.

18.3. Ex.A3 is the Market Value Assistance, dated L3.t2.20LO respect o[ House bearing No.1O-5-391 admeasuring 144 square yards

18.4. Ex.A4 is the document got issued by Greater Hyderabad Municipai Corporation dated 17.06.2O 1O in favour of respondent- ,.uy' L8/28 BRMR,J CCCA.No.3 20 l6 plaintiff showing the House number as 1G-t3! Sai Nagar Tlrkaramgate in assessment.

18.5. Ex.A5 is the Electricity 8il1 for the month of N,r ember, 2OO6 in the name of the respondent-plaintiff showing Hou, e number as 10-5-391.

18.6. Ex.A6 is the Electricity Bill for the month of , uly, 2011 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff showing the verr same house number.

18.7. Ex.A7 is the ofhce copy of Legal Notice gor i sued by the respondent-plaintiff to the appeliant-defendant o - wherein he stated that old house was dama I respondent-plaintiff has constructed the new house

25.08.2011 :d and the in the year 200O and introduced the appellant-defendant into tl : possession o[ the said house as licensee and he has to pay dama ol Rs.3,0OO/- per month excluding elec[ricirl les to a tune and $,ater consumption charges for the occupation of three rc< rrs from the month of August, 2O11 for not delivering the ph_vsi,., I possession a,nd called upon the appellant-defendant to vacate th( three rooms under his occupation and hand over the vacant poss rssion to the respondent-plaintiff on or before 01.09.201 1 . t9128 BRMR,J CCCA.No-3-2O16

18.8. Ex.Aa is the Reply Notice got issued by the appellant- defendant contending that the respondent-plaintiff is his own brother and the house was constructed in the year 1972 by therr mother Smt.Laxmi Bai who expired on 14.O4.2OO8 and the house is shared by the respective family members which has two portions. Therefore, the respondent-plaintiff purchasing the house is far from belief and the question of aliowing the appellant- defendant as a licensee is false and the respondent-piaintiff has committed theft of all the original documents.

19.1. Ex.Bl is the certified copy of registered Sale Deed bearing document No.68 of L979 dated 12.01.1979 and its fair copy is Ex.B3. Ex.B l-Sale Deed is executed by Hassan Aziz and K.R.Abbaiah in favour of Laxmi Bai, aged 40 years and the schedule property is plot admeasuring 523.32 square yrds in survey No.844/4 and survey No.844/ 13 land bearing No.24 /A and 2slA.

19.2. Ex.B2 is the Rectihcation Deed rectifying the plot of land bearing No.24/A and 25lA shall be read as 25lA and 35/A.

19.3. Ex.B4 is the certilied copy ol Memorandum of Understarrding dated 04.l2.2OOa executed between R'Bheem Rao - first party and R.Narsing Rao (respondent- plaintiff)-second party, R.Nandu (appellant herein)-third party and R-Bhagra, wife of late 2O128 tsRMR,J CCCA.No.3 2016 R.Ramesh-fourth party. Memorandum of understa:t ting reads as under: WHERtrnS the mother of all above mentioned parti,: who are the legal heirs of late R.LAXMI BAI wife of late R.BABAIF I , who is the absolute owner o[ below mentioned property bearing No.l{ use No,lO-5- 82a lal2, situated at Indira Lamri Nagar, Tukaramgate, S :cunderabad- AP; admeasuring 136 Sq. Yards; (2) House No. 10-5-814/576, consisting of 5 mulgies witli 1n additional adjacent back oI the mulgi admeasuring 260 Sq-Yards; (3) House No. 10-5-530, Ground Floor with Asbestos Ro()l consisting of two rooms and shed situated at Sai Nagar, 'ukaramgate, Secunderabad -A. P., admeasuring 267 Sq. Yards; (4) House No-i0-5,391, Budha Nagar, Tukaramgate, secrr derabad A p. admeasuring 14i Sq. Yards; WHEREAS the above said mentioned properties belor LAXMI tlAI as R.LAXMI BAI Expired on 1S-5-2O08 leav r above said lagat heirs For the above said properties and r;i piopert!' among themselves equally. The party No.l to pr remarn in their own schedules until sharing the pl( iliemselves and No. 1 to No.4 parties have agreed to shar.r equatll' by this Memorandum of Understanding. The Nc. rrife of late R.Umash as such who has expired ot 29.1O.2C a legal heir of R.Umash as such sha-ll have the right ovcr equalli' all among the four. ls to late R. 3 behind the all divide the ty No-.1 strall )erty among the prope ln Party is the )2 and she is the properly NOW THE MEMORANDUM OF MUTUAL UNT) RSTANDTNC WITNESSESS AS FOLLOWS:

1. No,I to No.4 parties have agreed to share the pr) R L,q.XMI BAI q,ho is the absolute owner of the abc r properties and No.1 to No.3 are the legal heirs of R.La;<r] iio.+ par t) is tlre daughter-in-law of late R. La:rmi arrc R.UMASH q,ho has expired leaving behind the legal R.tsfIAGYA stood as No.4 for which No.l to No.3 par erties of late : mentioned Bai and the egai lreir oi eir his rvife has agreed 2LlA BRMR,J CCCA.No.3-2016 without any conditions or objections to give equal share in the above mentioned properties. 2. All the Parties here under undertakes that they shall not approach any court of law in respect of sharing the above said property and bind to the Memorandum of Mutual Understanding and shall share their rights towards the property equally from party No.1 to Party No.4_ 3. A11 the Parties here today came to Understanding/ Seftlement in the execution of the Memorandum of Mutual Understanding to share amicably between them with the intervention of well wishers. 4. A11 the parties here have corrte not to create any court litigation or dispute if any dispute arises between them, the approaches the court shall bear costs and consequences and shall not claim for the expenses of court.

5. Ali the parties have the right to sell, mortgage, gift, release, to any other third party without the consent of other parties, and shall not claim the property of above others said mentioned parties, as per their divided shares.

6. All the parties shall sign any consent documents related to the above said property without any objection to the said consent, government authorities, or any other organisation and shatl cooperate with each other and at the time of registration all the 1 to 4 parties agree to siBn the paper as per their requirements of the registration process anil dhall cooperate with each other b,! flrnishing the link documents and appropriate document required for the registrarions- IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties to this Memorandum o[ Mutual Understanding, have put their signature, on the da,', month and year first above written, before the following witnesses; WITNESSES (1) sd/- Ch.Bodinarayana (2t sd/- J.Simon (1) sdi - R.Bheem Rao l2l sd / R.Narsing Rao (3) (4) sd/ R. Nandu sd/ - R. Bharya 22128 BRMR,J CCCA.No.3 20l6

19.4. Ex.BS is the Electricity Bill standing in the ri me of Laxmi Bai pertaining to House No. 1O-5-391 for the mont I of October 1997, November 1997 .

19.5. Ex.B6 is also the Electricity Bill standing ir, the name of Laxmi Bai pertaining to the same House for the mct th of August 1998 to September 1998.

19.6. Ex.B7 is the Receipt issued by HMWSSB dat: t O4.10.20O1 for payment ol Rs.5O0/- towards processing fee fir sanction of water supply, sewerage connection. The House numt :r mentioned therein is 10-5-,391 and amount is paid by R.Laxmi Elr i.

19.7. Ex.B8 is the Sanction Order issued by Hlv WSSB dated

30.1O.200 1 in favour of R.Laxmi Bai showing tJle Ho'; ie number as 10539 1.

19.8. Dx.B9 are the Water Consumption Bills fir: in number which shori.s the name of R. Laxmi Bai with Hour;, bearing No. 10-5 39 1 dated 13.O4.2009, 05.05.2009.

19.9. Ex.B 10 is the Electricity Bills three in numbe r which shows the name of Laxmi Bai for House bearing No.1O-5-3 )1. The bitls are dated 05.O2.2OO7 . 05.07.2010 and 10.07.2010. BRMR,J CCCA.No.3 2016

19.10. Ex.B 1 1 is the certifred copy of the letter dated O4.L2.2OLO of the District Collector, Hyderabad which is addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Marredpally and t1le tenor of the letter is that R.Narsing Rao (respondent-ptaintiff) has stolen the original documents of the property and one Mrs.Balamani impersonated Laxmi Bai and executed a gift deed in favour of R-Narsing Rao uide document No.176l of 2OO7 before the Sub-Registrar, Marredpally and obtained the transfer of rights in his favour fraudulently.

19.1 1. Ex.B12 is the Complaint lodged by R.Bheem Rao, R.Nandu, R.Bhagra, Kalavathi to the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Lalaguda Division, Secunderabad, dated 27 .O4.2Ol I and rhey sought information regarding Electricity Service Connection No.VZ22S59 for House bearing Nos. 1O-5-824 I A/2, 10-5-39 I (suit schedule propert-v), 1O-5-53O which stands in the name of Laxmi Bai and requested not to change the name and not to cut the current.

19.12. Ex.B13 is tJle Endorsement letter dated O6.t2.2OlO got issued from the oflice of the Collector, Hyderabad District requesting the complainants to approach the Sub-Registrar, Marredpally and Director of Forensic Department and furnish to them the required documentary evidence of their mother's finger prin[s available during her life time. 24128 BRMR,J CCCA.No.3-2O16

20. It is the specihc contention of the respond,: rt-piaintiff in Ex.A7-legal notice dated 25.08.2071 that old house vas darnaged and thereby he has constructed a new house in the 1 :ar 2O0O and introduced the appellant-defendant into the possessi ,n of the said house as licensee. No document is hled by t1e respo: dent-plaintiff to show that he has constructed a new house by de nolishing the old house in the year 20OO. Ex.A1 is dated 2B.Ol.') )10. If really the respondent-plaintiff has demolished his owr house and constructed a new house in the year 2O0O he ough to have filed material documents to substantiate his contention t[ rt he was the owner of House No.10-5-39 1-

21. It is the case of the appellant-defendant tlr rt Laxmi Bai mother of the parties has acquired House No. 10-lj 391 and she herself has constructed two separate houses a< ng with two separate stair cases, entrances, separate electricity t 'lls and water connection and ciistributed each house to the appe.1 rnt-defendant and the resporLdent plaintiff and iate Laxmi Bai use I to reside in the house of r,he appellant-defendant. It is furth: case of the appellant-defen dan t rhat Laxmi Bai has acquired Fi use No. 10-5- 824/A/2, to-a-8141 176, 10-5-530, 10-5-391, afte,r her death a Memorandum of Unders[anding is executed betwe r r the parties under Ex.B4. DW. t has denied the suggestion that the signature of the responde nt-plaintiff on Ex.84 is forged. 2sln BRMR,J CCCA.No.3 2016

22. Survey numbers mentioned in Exs.Bl and 82 are B4Al4 and 844 l13. Survey No.844/ 13 is mentioned in Ex.Al (survey No.844/13 P). Exs.BS to B1O shows tJ.e name of Laxmi Bai in respect of House No. 1O-5-391 and she has paid the electricity bills, tax receipt to HMWSSB and water consumption charges. Respondent-plaintiff has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not filed any document to show tfiat he has constructed a house in the year 2O00.

23. Though the appellant-defendant stated in his cross- examination that he do not know that the suit schedule propert5r is si[uated in survey No.844/ 13 so also he do not know that Ex.A1 document is still in force and not cancelled. The documents i.e., trxs.B 1 and 82 speaks otherwise that Survey No.844/ 13 is also part of the extent of land purchased by the mother of the appellant-defendant which is admeasuring 523.32 Square yards situated at Sairam Nagar, Tukaramgate, Lalaguda, Secunderabad.

24. It is the specilic case of the respondent-plaintiff that the appellant-de[endant is a licensee from the year 2O00 and he has permitted him to stay therein. The process of proving license under the Indian Easements Act mainly revolves around demonstraling the use of an immovable property was permissive and did not create an easement or any interest in the property' BRMR,J CCCA.No.3 2016 License is essentialiy a right granted by the ourrr r to another person to do something on the immovable propertJ. There is no document placed by the respondent-plaintiff to :; ow that the appellalt-defendant is a licensee. So also he has nc,r adduced any independent evidence to prove that the appellant-drl )ndant was a licensee from 2000. Respondent-plaintiff failed to I appellant-defendant was in permissive possessio:.: :ove that the of the suit schedule property.

25. The learned trial Court came to a conclusion ttLr t the enquiry conducted by the Inspector is not proper and there is no proof that tJre property enquired by [he Revenue Oflicer is one .nd the same property claimed by the respondent-plaintiff anc also further observed that respondenr-ptaintiff has proved that ii belongs to the Governmen t. Except Ex.A 1 therr: lrvey No.844 is no other document filed b,v the re spo ndent-plaintiff to sho I that House bearing No. i0-5-39 1 is a Government land. The learned trial Court has wrongly placed burden on the appellant<l fendant that he failed to prove thar the property claimed by him r nder Exs.B 1 and 82 is in plots bearing Nos.24lA and 25lA in su- ey No.844lA and 844/13 and rherc is no identity of the propert ' claimed by him. The case of the appellant-defendant in the wrilt is that Laxmi Bai has purchased the property u I rectilication deed is executed under E}2, thereaf )n statement der Exs.B 1, zrr,/she has I \ Dla BRMR,J CCaA.No.3 2016 constructed two separate porLions with separate arnenities and one portion is given to him and another portion is given to the respondent-plaintiff and apart from the above, the properties covered under Ex.B4 a-[so are that of Laxmi Bai. Exs.A4 to A6 do not help the case of the respondent-pLaintiff in view of the fact that Exs.BS to 89 are much prior to them and that of Ex.Al. Though Ex.A1 is not cancelled the report given by Special Revenue Inspector, Marredpally under Ex.C2 on 28.O3.2OL2 goes to show that the respo,ndent-plaintiff fabricated the documents to obtain the lransfcr right certificate in his name in respect of House No. 10-5-39 I to an extent of 144 Square yards which falls in survey No.B44l 13.

26. The learned trial Court has rnisread the evidence adduced by the parties and the admission made by the respondent-plainriff that he has not filed any document to show that he made construction over t-he schedule property by dismantling the old housc in the year 2OO0 and Exs.BS to El9 supports the contention oI the appellant-defendant that the electricity connection, consumption of water bills stands in the name of Laxmi Bai' ln vieu, o[ the reasons above, the Judgment and decree passed by the lcerrned trial Court in OS.No.383 of 2O13, dated 07'10 2015 suffers from perversity and requires interference of this Court and the same is set aside 24128 BRMR,J CCCA-No.3 2016

27. Appeal is ailowed and the judgment and decr re passed by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad, in )S.No.383 of 2Ol2 daled 07. iO.2O15 is set aside, consequently ttLr suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is dismissed wiLhout costs. lnterim orders if any stands vacated, r riscellaneous petition/petitions stands closed. Sd/. A.V.S S.C.S.M. SARMA ., )INT REGISTRAR \ I ) :CTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The lll Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad. 2. One CC to SRl. G RAVI CHANDRAN, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA, Advocate [OPLI( 4. Two CD Copies ASR,iDL HIGH COURT DATED:0511212025 JUDGMENT CCCA.No.3 of 2016 S ..(. ( o C) 1 1;t$ T\?$ i I s) J:. t,"-- -;- ALLOWINGTHE APPEAL a 10\ v\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 3 OF 2016 Between: Rathod Nandu, S/o. Late Rathod Babaiah aged 52 years, Occ Employee, R/o. 10-5-391 , Street No.1 5, Sai Nagar, Near lndira Gandhi Statue, Tukaramgate, Secunderabad. APPELLANT/DEFENDANT AND Rathod Narsing Rao, S/o. Late Rathod Babaiah aged 54 years, Occ Employee, Ryo. 10-5-391, Street No.'15, Sainagar, Near lndira Gandhi Stalue. Tukardmgate, Secunderabad RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF Appeal filed under Section 96 R/W Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 7.10.2015 in O.S. No.383 of 2012 on the file of the lll Senior Civil Judge, 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 ln the caseand upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. Ravi Chandran, Advocate for the appellant and of Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, Advocate for lhe respondent. That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed; 2. That the judgment and decree passed by the learned lll Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad in O.S.No. 383 ot 2012, dt.07.10.2015 is set aside.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/. A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGIS //TRUE COPY/i ECTION OFFICER To $- 1 - The lll Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad 2. Two CD Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:0511212025 DECREE CCCA.No.3 of 2016 ALLOWING THE APPEAL .c\