The High Court · 2025

...Proposed Respondents 2 to 4 LRs of Sole AppellanUPlaintiff Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are brought on record as LRs of deceased .ot" resotiJenivii , A.S navindranath, ai per court order dated 16.02.2023. vide l A No 1 of 2023 made tn A.S No 3743 of 2003 I I I I I I I I l.A. NO: 1 OF 2006 TASMP. NO: 2703 OF 2006) : Between : A.S. Ravindranath, S/o. M.A.Srinivasulu IDL Employee R/o.H.No. 143, Old Mudfort, Secunderabad. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND I 2 G.Padma sinr;e deceased per L.R. G. Mallesh. S/o.late Shivaiah Milk Vensor R/o.30-78/3, Kanajiguda, Alwal, ...Respondents/Respondents Petition unde,r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expediate the hearirg of the appeal AS No.3743/03 by fixing an early date. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri P.Venugopal, Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri K.Mohan Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Srinivas Kapatia The Court made the following : JUDGMENT I I I I HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI APPEAL SU tT NO.3743 of 2003 J UDGMENT: Heard Mr. P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel argued on behalf of learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr' Srinivas Kapatia for resPondent. 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the decree and judgment daled 29-07.2003 in O'S No'569 of '1994 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District' 3. The appellant is the defendant No 1 (hereinafter' 'defendant No.1') and the respondent No.1 filed the suit O.S.No.569 of 1994 seeking declaration of title over the house bearing No.30-81/1 , plot Nos 398, 399, 400 and 401 in Sy.Nos.418 and 392 admeasuring 400 square yards situated at Kanajiguda, Alwal, Malkajgiri mandal,Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter 'the schedule property') and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No'1 from interfering with his possesslon

4. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that as per the respondent No.1 (died per legal representatives 2 to 4)/ptaintiff (hereinafter, plaintiff No'1) the schedule property was purchased I I I I I 2 NTR,J AS 3743 2003 under regrstered sale deed/Ex.A-1 dated 13.0g.1990 for sale consideration of Rs.35,000/-. Thereafter obtained permission for construction of building on',l5.10.1gg2 as per the sanction plan/Ex.A-:3 Further asserted that the plaintiff No..l was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and paying property tax. To substantiate the same, the tax receipt dated 10.05.19941Ex.A-2 has been placed. lt has been contended that the appellanUdefendant No.1 (died per legal representatives) having no manner of right or interest made an attempt to occupy the suit schedule property on 15. 1 1 ..,l 994 and 1 B. .l 1 .1 994 but the plaintiff No.1 managed to protect his possession. However as threatened apprehending the defendant No.1,s interference with peaceful enjoyment of the schedule prope(y filed the suit. 5. Pending proceedings filed interim application for temporary injunction granted, later vacated. Whereupon the plaintiff No.1 preferred C.M.A.No.21 of 1996 and as it was dismissed, taking advantage the defendant No.i occupied the schedule property and constructed two rooms in February, 199g. Thereupon the plaintiff No'l filed amendment of pleadings seeking recovery of possession and mandatory injunction to remove the construction. 3 NTR,J AS-3743-2003

6. The defendant No 1 in the written statement denied the plaintiffs claim and pleaded that the defendant No.'l is owner of land admeasuring 300 square yards consisting with municipal No.30-78/3 in Sy.No.392, as gifted by her father-in-law/ Gandaiah. Further a house was constructed by obtaining the permission from the municipality and taxes are also being paid' That apart, pleaded that the defendant No'1 filed suit O S'No 678 oflgg4ontheflleofthePrincipalJuniorCivilJudge,Eastand North, Ranga Reddy District and that suit was decreed and attained finality. Therefore, to get away and to grab the schedule property, the plaintiff foisted the false suit' Hence prayed for dismissing the suit. 7. Upon the rival claims, the trial Court settled the following ISSUES, 1) Whether the su,l ls hit by Section 10 of CPC in pursuance of the pending of O S.No.678 of 1gg4 on the file of Principal District Munsiff , Hyderabad East and North' Ranga Reddy District? 2) Whether the plaintiff is the absotute owner and possessor of lhe suit properlY? 3) Whether the ptaintiff is entitted for declaration as prayed for? 4) To what relief? I I 4 NTR.J AS 3743 2003 B. Afte. amendment of the plaint, additional issues were framed as follows: 1) Whether the defendant occupied the suit property in the month of February, 1998 by force and the ptaintiff is entitted for possesslon of suit propefty? 2) Whether the plaintiff is enti ed for mandatory injunction as prayed for?

9. During trial, the plaintiff No..l got examined as pW_.l and the plaintiffs brother as pW-2 and marked Exs:A_.l to A_3. The defendants except filing written statement did not choose to place evidence The trial Court on examining the materials placed by the plaintiff decided all the issues against the defendants and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by declaring the ownership over the schedule property and entiflement for possession by evicting the defendants and also granted mandatory injunction to remove the structures. declain 10. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the plaintiffs evidence, which is clearly falling short in proving the tiile of the plaintiff and his vendor and absence of link document to the plaintiff,s sale deed ought to have been considered to decline the suit. He further pleaded that the Court should have considered the fact that the I I 5 NTR.J AS 3743 2003 defendant claimed property is distinct, however plaintiff without legally acceptable title claimed rights over the defendants property. Furthermore' submitted that for ill advice and lack of knowledge the defendants after the death of the defendant No 1 failed to take a proper recourse in conducting the matter' However, in the appeal they have filed application l A No'2 of 2023 for receiving of additional evidence' as such to secure substantive justice giving an opportunity to the parties to prove their rights over the schedule property would be proper and if that petition for additional is allowed the court may consider relegating the matter to the trial Court for proper adjudication' 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent pleaded that the defendants though in the suit proceedings appeared and filed written statement as their claim is legally unsustainable remained aloof from the trial proceedings' Therefore, the trial Court by considering the materials placed by the plaintiff, decreed the suit. He further pleaded that the petition to receive additional documents cannot be allowed for the reasons of abnormal delay and the documents intended to bring on to record are irrelevant and fabricated and the earlier effort to place the additional documents in appeal has been dismissedr 6 NTR,J AS 3743_2003 Above all, in absence of any evidence in contra and the record allowing the suit claim is justified. Therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeal

12. ln these counter claims, the aspect emerges for determination is: "Whether the impugned decree of dectaration of tiile and consequential possessrbn and mandatory injunction sustainable in the facts and law?,' /s '13. The specific case of the plaintiff No.1 is that under the sale deed/Ex.A-1, the tifle over the schedule property bearing No. 30_ 81/'1 situated in Sy.Nos.41g and 392 of Kanajiguda has been acquired. Per contra, the defendant No.1 in written statement claimed ownership over 300 square yards in Sy.No.3g2 with municipal No.30-78/3 through a gift deed of her father_in_law Thus apparenfly the defendant claimed property is distinct. 14. ln regard to possession the plaintiff No.1,s stand is that for construction of house in the schedule property permission has been obtained as per the sanctioned plan/Ex.A_3 and also paying taxes. The defendant No.1 also made similar statement in the written statement, but did not choose to substantiate his pleading in evidence. ) (-.) n 7 NTR.J AS 37.13 2003

15. ln the given facts, by the testimonies of pWs.1 and 2 and the sale deediEx:A-1 it has to be held that the ptaintiff placed evldence in support of the suit claim. The defendant No.1 though made contrast claims failed to place any supporting material. Therefore there is no legally acceptable evidence for rebuttal to consider otherwise. That being the position, lhe trial Court drawing conclusion in regard to tifle of the plaintiff over the schedule property and illegal occupation and unauthorized construction of the defendant is found proper and sustainable. ln consequence, decreeing the suit as prayed for is befltting, as such, the impugned judgment deserves affirmation. 16. Therefore, in the absence of any tenable cause, the appeal is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed. //TRUE COPY// sd/- K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2. J. 4. Svs/gh The I Additional Senior Civil Judg e, Ranga Red One CC to Sri Sri nivas KaPatia' Advocate [OPUC] enugoPal, Advoc ate [OPUC] One CC to Sri P-V Two CD CoPies \ District I HIGH COURT DATED:20102t12025 JUDGMENT AS.No.3743 r>f 2003 1r1E S 14 ot1 t 2 O ,rul 2y5 (-) ,9 t I -.,/ ,/ DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT ANY COSTS 6 I ?{- k