The High Court · 2025

Petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of C.p.C., praying that this Hon'ble Court may !e pleased to grant injunction restraining the respondent herein from interfering with Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule plot in o.s.No.152711988 on the file of the court of the I Assistant Judge, city civil court, Secunderabad, during the pendency of the above appeal. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under 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 altow the following Additional substantial questions of law to be framed;(A"whether the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate court holding that the plaintiffs are being in possession of the Plots situated in sy.no. 6'l , 62 of rirumalgherry village that they are encroachers and not entitled for lnjunction, could be sustained, as it is contrary to the finding of the trial court. B. whether the Judgment and Decree is not vitiated as perverse, being contrary to the finding of the trial court that the plaintiffs are in possession of Sy.no. 69 and to some extent in Sy.no.61 and 62. C. Whether the finding of the Appellate court the plaintiffs failed to prove the legitimate possession, being in possession of land in Sy.no. 6i,62 as encroacheri is not perverse being contrary to the finding of the trial court is that they are in possession of Sy.no. 69 and to some extent in Sy.no. 61 62. SECOND APPEAL NO: 109 OF 2003 : Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C., against the JL lgment and decree dated 5i08/2002 made in A.S.No. 18211996 on the file r> the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad. Between: Vegesna Ramesh, S/o. Venkata Suryanarayana Raju, t indu, aged about 45 yrs., R/o Plot No.4 Sundernagar Colony, Hyderabad. ... AppellanURer pondenUDefendant AND Jahangir Pasha, S/o.late Mohd. Sharfuddin, Muslim, agr: 46 yrs., Occ: Business Rlo. 5712 Kanta Basti Trimulgherry Village, Sec rnderabad. Respondent'r .ppellanUDefendant lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir( the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court me1 the following Additional Substantial questions of law to be fra Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court holding that the I possession of the Plots situated in Sy.no. 61, 62 of Tirumalg I are encroachers and not entitled for lnjunction, could be sustil to the finding of the trial court. B. Whether the Judgment and I as perverse, being conkary to the finding of the trial court the possession of Sy.no. 69 and to some extent in Sy_no. 61 anc finding of the Appellate Court the plaintiffs failed to 1r possession, being in possession of land in Sy.no. 61, 62 as perverse being contrary to the finding of the trial court possession of Sy.no. 69 and to some extent in Sy.no. 61 62. J mstances stated in be pleased to allow ned. A"Whether the 'laintiffs are being in :rry village that they red, as it is contrary ,ecree is not vitiated : the plaintiffs are in 62. C. Whether the ove the legitimate encroachers is not s that they are in l.A. NO: 1 OF 2003(CMP. NO: 2138 0F 2003) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir: rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant injunction restraining the respondent herein from interferi rg with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint sch rdule plot in OS No.1526/1988 on the file of the court of the I Asst.J, tge,city civilcourt, Secunderabad, during the pendency of the above appeal. SECOND APPEAL NO: 110 OF 2003 : Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and decree dated 5/08/2002 made in A.S.No. '18711996 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad. Between: K.Sulochana, Wo. K.NarayanaBabu, Hindu, aged about 45 yrs., R/o Flat No. 103 Sri Sairam Apartments, M.C.H. No.3-5-700, New Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. AND AppellanURespondenUDefendant Jahangir Pasha, S/o.late Mohd. Sharfuddin, Muslim, aged 46 yrs., Occ Business Rlo.5712 Kanta Basti Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad. RespondenUAp pellanUDefendant l.A. NO: 1 OF 2003(CMP. NO: 2137 OF 2003) Petition under 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 grant injunction restraining the respondent herein from interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule plot in O.S.No.1525/1988 on the file of the Court of the I Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad during the pendency of the above appedl. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under 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 allow the following Additional Substantial questions of law to be framed. A "Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court holding that the Plaintiffs' are being in possession of the Plots situated in Sy. no. 61, 62 of Tirumalgherry village that they are encroachers and not entitled for lnjunction, could be sustained, es it is contrary to the finding of the trail court. B. Whether the Judgment and Decree is not vitiated as perverse, being contrary to the finding of the trial court that the plaintiffs are in possession of Sy.no. 69 and to some extent in Sy. no. 61 and 62. C. Whether the finding of the Appellate Court the plaintiffs' failed to prove the legitimate possession, being in possession of land in Sy.no. 61, 62 as encroachers is not perverse being contrary to the finding of the trial court is that they are in possession of Sy.no. 69 and to some extent in Sy.no. 61 and 62? ". SECOND APPEAL NO: 112 OF 2003 : Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C., against the,l rdgment and decree dated 5/08/2002 made in A.S.No. 179/1996 on the file < f the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civit court, Secunderabad. Between: Kunaparaju Satyllarayana Raju, Sio. late Bapiraju, t indu, aged about 50 yrs., R/o Plot No.58/2 Sundernagar Colony, Hyderabarl 500 038- AND ... AppellanURe;pondenUDefendant {ahangir P_a.sha, S-/o late Mohd. Sharfuddin, Muslim, age i 46 yrs., Occ: Business Rlo.5712 Kanta Basti Trimulgherry Village, Si:, underabad. Respondent/ \ppellanUDefendant l.A. NO: 1 OF 2003(CMP. NO: 2140 0F 2003) Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court mil be pleased to grant injunction restraining the respondent herein from interfe r ng with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule plot in o.s.No.1530/1988 on the file of the court of the I Asst. JLrr ge, city civil court, Secunderabad during the pendency of the above appeal. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci r the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m:r, the following Additional substantial questions of law to be fra Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court holding that the possession of the plots situated in sy 61,62 of Tirmalgherrl. encroachers and not entitled for injunctions could be sustajn( the finding of the trial court, B. Weather the Judgment and t as preserve being contrary to the finding of the trial court possession of Sy. 69 and to some extent in sy 61 and 62, C. of the Appellate Court the plaintiffs failed to prove the legitini in possession of land in sy 61,62 as encroachers in not pervr: the finding of the trial court is that they are in possession of Sy extent in Sy no 61 and 62". umstances stated in be pleased to allow ned A. Whether the rlaintiffs are being in rillage that they are J as it is contrary to ecree is not vitiated the plaintiffs are in Whether the finding te possession being se being contrary to No. 69 and to some Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. E V V S RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : SRI V VENKATARAMANA The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENI ,.6 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA SECOND APPEAL Nos.1O2, 1O3, 106, 1O9, 110 & 112 of2OO3 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since a common issue arises in these second appeals' they are being taken up for disposal together by way of this common order

2. S.A.No.102 of 20O3 is hled challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No'178 of 1996 dated 05'O8'2002 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Secunderabad.

3. S.A.No.103 of 20O3 is hled challenging the judgment and decree in A'S.No.183 of 7996 dated 05'08'2002 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Secunderabad.

4. S.A.No.106 of 2003 is filed challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 184 of 1996 dated 05'O8'2002 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Secunderabad. 2 SKS,J S.AXo.1O2 of ,OO3 and batch

5. S.A.No. 1O9 of 2OO3 is filed chalienging th judgment and decree in A.S.No. la2 of 1996 dated O5.08.2 )O2 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City (l sil Court, Secunderabad

6. S.A.No.1l0 of 2003 is filed challenging. tlr judgment and decree in A.S.No. lB7 of 1996 dated O5.08.2 )O2 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City (l "il Court, Secunderabad

7. S.A.No.l12 of 2003 is filed challenging tlr, judgment and decree in A.S.No. 179 of 7996 dated 05.08. 2 )02 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City (l ',il Court, Secunderabad

8. The briel facts of the cases are that in tl e batch of suits O.S. Nos.1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1 t26, 1527, 1528, 1529, 1530, and 1886 of 1988, the pl,r ntiffs filed individual suits seeking perpetual injunction z gainst the sole defendant, Jehalgir Pasha, to restrain I'rim from interfering with their peaceful possession and c r joyment of their respective p1ots. Each plaintiff claimec to be the /i / ,4, 3 SXII,J S-A,No.l02 of 2OO3 aad batch absolute owner and possessor of a specific plot, which they had purchased from the Ravi Co-operative Housing Society (RCHS), and alleged that the said Society had acquired the land from late M.V. Raja Rao, the original assignee of land in Survey Nos.69/ | and 69 12 of Trimulgherry village' They contended that ever since the purchase, they had been in continuous, exclusive, and peaceful possession and had made improvements such as ieveling and constructing boundary walls. They further alleged that the defendant' a local influential individual residing near the suit lands' had attempted to forcibly trespass into their plots on multiple occasions in April 1988, leading to the liling of police complaints. On this basis, they sought a permanent +rdnction against the de fendant's interference' g. The defendant filed a common written statement across the batch of suits, strongly denying the title and possession of the plaintiffs and also challenging the title of RCHS, stating that the sale deeds executed by T' Shivlingam (alleged GPA holder of late Raja Rao) in favour of RCHS were fraudulent, having been executed after the death of Raja Rao. He further stated that the societ5r itself was floated by 4 sI<s,J S.A-lto.102 ( ' 2OO3 aqd batch Shivlingam, benami, in the name of his son. 'It e dcfendant asserted that the suit plots did not form pr r of Survey Nos.69/ | or 69 /2, but rather, were situale( in Survey No.62, which belonged to him and his predec:ssors. He produced a registered sale deed dated 05.O5 .958, under which his father and two others had purchasr_.rl Ac. 16.00 of land in Survey Nos.61 and 62 from Mirza Yakr Lr Baig and others, which was later divided into plots an<l 1,: rtially sold. The remaining land was retained and possc.s;ed by the family of the defendant. He maintainecl t ra t Sun,ey No.69/ 1 lies east of his land and that the land rf Raja Rao had already been alienated and partially ac<1r red by the Government for an electricity substation. He :rrrphasized that the plaintiffs' cl4im of possession was ie se, as the disputed plots were never part of Raja Rao's lar I and were never delivered to the plaintiffs. He further ;tated that based on survey and demarcation conducted b,' the official Survey ald Land Records department, the suit plots were conclusively found to fall within Survey No.(,l , and not within the area claimed by the plaintiffs. 5 sKSr, S.A.No.1o2 of 2(X)3 aEd batch

10. Basing on the above pleadings' the trial Court framed the Plaintiffs i.e', PW'1 was issues and on behalf of examined and Ex'Al to A48 are marked' DW'1 is examined and Exs.B 1 and B 14 were marked on behalf of the defendant. 1 1. After examining the evidence' the trial Court' vide order dated 05.11'1996, decreed all the suits in favour of the plaintiffs through a common judgment' holding that the plaintiffs were enLitled to permanent injunctions against the defendant.ThetrialCourtacceptedtheplaintiffs,pleathat they were in peaceful possession and found their ver:sion of alleged interference by the defendant credible' It opined that even a person in possession' without clear title ' may seek protection through an injunction'. provided possession is established. The trial Court further observed that the disputes relating to title should be decided separately' and thatinthepresentsuitsforbareinjunction'possessionwas the key issue' It found that even if the plaintiffs were encroachers, they could protect their possession against unlawful interference unless removed through due process of law. The trial Court' while acknowledging the survey / 6 sr(s,J S.A.Ito.1O2 ( l2OO3 and batch disputes and the overlapping survey numbers Cid not give weight to the identity issue raised by the def :ndant, ald uitimately decreed all suits in favour of tt-: plaintiffs, granting the injunctions as prayed.

12. Thereafter, the defendant aggrieved by ,1 .e judgment of the trial Court, filed A.S.Nos. 177 to 187 oJ 1996 before the I Additional Chief Judge, City : rvii Court, Secunderabad, challenging the decree in each r f the eleven suits. The appellate Court noted that all the r; Lits were for bare injunction and the plaintiffs had not sough declaration of title, thus making lawful possession as orr the date of filing the suits the central issue. The aplr :llate Court observed that the plaintiffs' claims were basec entirely on alleged purchases from RCHS, and the burd,: r was upon them to prove actual possession of the pl, ts situated specihcally in Survey No.69/ 1, as claimed in th: r pleadings.

13. The appellate Court carefully analyzed L Le evidence, including oral testimony and documentary recc -ds such as survey reports and sale deeds. It found that t re plaintiffs had failed to establish possession of the suit J,1 rts and had / /^, 7 SKS'J S.A. o.1O2 of 2q)3 .6d batch not taken any steps to identify or demarcate the plots to show they fell within Survey No'6p/ 1' The plaintiffs did not seek appointment of a surveyor or commissioner to prove theidentityoftheland.onthecontrary,theappellate Court relied on survey records and the report of an advocate-commissioner, which showed that the suit plots were actually located in Survey No 62 ' belonging to the defendant.ItnotedthatRajaRaohadalreadyalienated muchofhisland,andtherewasnoproofthatanyresidual land remained with him to convey to RCHS' Furthermore' it observed that even the trial court had acknowledged himself had likelY encroachment, stating that Raja Rao encroachedintothelandsofsurveyNos'61and62'which underminedtheclaimoftheplaintiffsthattheyacquired title or possession through iegitimate means' The appellate Court rejected the trial court's rationale that possession alone, even if in dispute, would entitle the plaintiffs to injunction, especially since they had neither claimed encroachment nor asserted rights in Survey No'62'

14. Further, the appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had miserably failed to prove either possession or the proper 8 -.:, SKS,J S.A.No. tO2 c 2@3 and batch identity of the land they claimed. It concluded t rat the trial Court had erred in granting injunctions in re:; ,cct of land situated in Survey No.62, while the plaintiffs thr: nselves had claimed plots in Survey No.69/ 1. Since the p rintiffs had not proven lau,ful possession of the land in quc:; ion and did not take steps to resolve the identity dispute, J e appellate Court found no basis to grant injunctivc relief. It emphasized that relief cannot be granted for lr r cl that u'as not pleadcd, and that the plaintiffs could rr rt seek an injunction in respect of land which they neirht r identified nor proved possession over. Accordingly, t t : appellate Court allowed all eleven appeals, and set asidc t re common judgment and decrees of the trial court, and d I missed the suits filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the' j rdgrnent of the appellate Court, the appellants/plaintifli filed the present second appeals.

15. Heard Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learr r d counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as wc I as Sri V. Venkataramana, learned counsel appearing on lr hall of the respondents in all the cases. / / .."..,."*a/ ' ,/' 9 sKlt,J s.A.Ho.1O2 of 2OO3 and batch

16. trarned counsel for the' appellants in all the second appeals submitted that the lower appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that the plaintiffs were in settled possession of the suit plots purchased through registered sale deeds from the Ravi Co-operative Housing Society' which in turn had purchased the land from the original owner, late Raja Rao. He further submitted that the trial Court had righ tly granted injunctions based on possession' which were reversed by the appellate Court without proper consideration of evidence and that the appellate Court erroneously held that the suit lands were located in Sy.No.62 and not in Sy.No.69/ l, despite the plaintiffs specihcally pleading and proving possession over their respective plots. He contended that possession alone was sufhcient to seek protection under law, and even a person without title, if in lawful possession, was entitled to injunction against unlau{ul dispossession' He also emphasized that the appellate Court misdirected itself in placing the burden of title and identity elrtlusively on the plaintiffs, and that the report of the Advocate Commissioner and oral evidence were not property appreciated' He further I I 10 sKs,J S.A.Io.1O2 ,): 2(X)3 and batch contended that the hndings of the appellate lourt were perverse and based on misreading of evidence, rvarranting interference rn second appeal

17. On the other hand, learned couns,t I for the respondents submitted that the plaintiffs hrr I failed to establish lawful possession or proper identitl' :f the suit schedule properties as being part of Survey No.f 9/ i, which they claimed and that the plaintiffs had neitf t r sought a declaration of title nor made any effort to provt: the precise location of their plots through cogent evidencc, such as a survey report or expert verification. He furtht:t submitted that the burden lay squarely on the plaintiffs tc prove that the suit plots were located in Sy.No.69/ 1, espe :ia11y when the defendant consistently maintained that the lands actually fell in Survey No.62, which indisputablr' relonged to him and his predecessors in title under a re1; stered sale deed of 1958.

18. Learned counsel for the respondents corL ended that the appellate Court had rightly found that tl: plaintiffs failed to establish possession over the spe;ific lands I I 11 SKS'J S.A.No.lO2 of 2OO3 and bstch claimed, and that their vendor' Ravi Co-operative Housing Society, had no valid Litle, since it acquired the land from a benami entity created by one T' Shivlingam' who acted fraudulently on behalf of late Raja Rao even after the latter's death and that mere production of registered sale deeds without proving the identity and physical possession of the land is insuff-rcient to claim injunction' particularly in suits for bare inj unction where the plaintiffs did not assert possession over Sy.No'62 but claimed rights exclusively over Sy.No.69/ 1. He emphasizrd that the trial Court erred in granting relief in respect of a different survey number without a specihc plea, while the lower appellate Court correctly appreciated the legal and factual matrix' and rightly dismissed the suits' Therefore' he prayed the Court to dismiss the second aPPeals' The points that arise for consideraLion in these second 19 appeals are: whether the lower appellate Court was justihed in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting injunction solely on the ground that the 7Z sKs,J S.ANo.1O2 r f 2OO3 aad batch plain tiffs failed to prove the title and identity of lI r sult lands, despite the plaintiffs establishing possessir r ? u Whelher a person in settled possession, though li cking title, is entitled to seek protection by way of inirr ction against unlawful dispossession, and whether thc ower appellate Court erred in ignoring this legal princrpl( ? Whetl'rer the lower appetlate Court misread the e\ i le nce and f:tiled to properly appreciate the findings of tlr, trial Court, especrall,\' in relation to the ptaintiffs' possr ;siorr over thc suit schedule properties? Lv Whetlrer the findings of the lower appellate Cor r arc vitiated by non-consideration of material evidenr t and u,hether such findings amount to perversit5, rc lau warranting interference under Section 100 CpC? Point Nos.i to iv:

20. In light of the submissions made by bc,h ]earned counsel and on a careful perusal of the material a railable on record, the appellants primarily contended thu I the first appellate Court failed to consider Exs.A26 to 43 1 white adjudicating their claim, particularly in relari I r to their the right of appeal exerciss I by the respondents. It was further submitted that thoug 1 a report possession and / / n 13 sKlt'J S.A. o.1O2 of2OO3 and brtch was filed by the advocate commissioner, no proper effort was made to identify the individual plots, which were the subject matter of the respective suits. Moreover, no finding was rendered as to whether the survey conducted by the officials was in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations' methods, and procedures, or as per the principles of survey Manual. The laid down in the Survey and Settlement appellants also challenged the reasoning appellate Court in paragraph No'16 of characterizing it as perverse and not supported by the its judgment, of the first record.

21. Originally, the suits were filed by the respective plaintiffs seeking perpetual injunctions on the ground that the suit schedule they were in lawful possession of properties, having purchased them under registered sale . deeds executed by RCHS, which had allegedly acquired the land from late M.V. Raja Rao, the original assignee of land in Survey No.69/ 1. The plaintiffs claimed that they had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit plots since the date of purchase. On the other hand, the defendalt categorically denied these claims and asserted that late Raja Rao did not 1,4 sKs,J S.A.No.lO2 (,1 2OO3 ald batch _:. " have any remaining land in Sy.No.69/ 1 to sell. : rd that the plots claimed by the plaintiffs were in fact par of Survey No.62, which belonged to the defendant's i mily. He contended that after the death of Raja Fz o, one T. Shivlingam, acting fraudulently as GPA holdc , executed sale deeds in favour of RCHS, using a benami trz osaction in the name of his son, thereby exceeding the e:t rnt of land legitimatell' held by Raja Rao. It was further con ended that the defendant had requested a survey through he ofhcials of the Survey and Land Records Department, cr ring which some members of RCHS and Raja Rao's family v,, re present. Based on this official demarcation, it was founcl t tat the suit lands fell within Survey No.62, and not u,it rin Survey No.69/ 1 as claimed by the piaintiffs.

22. According to the documentary evidence, ,J e father of the defendant and two others had purchased rc.16.0O of land in Survey Nos.61 and 62 under a register: I sale deed dated O5.05.1958 from one M.Y. Baig and otl ers. After purchase, the land was divided among the threr. turchasers through oral partition, and some portions werr: sold, while others were retained. The suit lands are part of I te retained + '--a:i: 15 sxs,J S.A.No.lO2 of 2(xB and batch portion falling within Sy.No.62. Thus, the defendant asserted that the plaintiffs' vendor (RCHS) had no title, and consequently, the plaintiffs had no lawful possession over the suit schedule properties.

23. It is evident from the record that Survey Nos.69/ 1 and 62 are adjacent, and both parties are relying on registered documents to claim possession. However, the plaintiffs never pleaded that the defendants were trespassers. Their entire case was based on the assumption that the suit lands fell within Survey No.69/ 1. The burden thus squarely lay l on them to prove not only possession, but also the identity and location of the plots, and that they were situated within Sy.No.69/ 1. No material was placed on record to demonstrate that any property remained in Sy.No.69/ 1 with Raja Rao after prior alienations ald acquisition by the Government. More importantly, there is no evidence that the suit lands were part of the land acquired by RCHS' either by demarcation or revenue record.

24. Further, the trial Court itself noted that late Raja Rao had encroached upon lands in Survey Nos.61 and 62, which I u 'J,6 sKri,J S-A.No.lO2 of ,OO3 and batch supports the defendant's contention that the pl,r ntiffs were attempting to take possession under the mista< rn or false belief that their lands fell in Survey No.69/ t. In such circumstances, when both parties possess registered documents, a suit for bare injunction is ins r fficient to determine the actual ownership and lawful poss,: ;sion. The plaintiffs were required to file a compr.ehens r e suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of in-ju rction.

25. The first appellate Court rightly appreci, ted these aspects and reversed the judgment of the trial i)ourt. The findings recorded by the appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentarr 6yidsn6s, including the report of the survey official:; and the admissions in the pleadings. There is no pc: versit5r or illegality in the reasoning of the appellate Court , rarranting interference under Section 1O0 CpC.

26. In view of the above discussion, all the s tbstantial questions of law are answered against the appeliar ts. There afe no grounds warranting interference with the well_ reasoned judgment and decree passed by thr: appellate ._,.o.7 - 17 SKS,J S.A.IIo-1O2 of 2OO3 aad batch Court. Accordingly, the second appeals are liable to be dismissed. However, it is open to the appellants to work out their remedy, if any, by filing a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs in accordance with law.

27. Accordingly, these second appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/- P CH NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad 2. The lAssistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad 3. One CC to SRl. E V V S RAVI KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to- SRI. V VENKATARAMANA Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies ASR/ABK HIGH COURT DATED:1 311012025 SlA I s.f- o d tl \Nr 'tt1t 6) * * ESD Pi COMMON JUDGMENT SA.No.102, 103, 1 06, 109, 110 & 1120F 2003 DISMISSING THE APPEALS AT lr \xt" IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA SECOND APPEAL Nos.: 102 103 106 109 110 & 112 0F 2003 Between: Eleti Manjula, Wo. Prakash Reddy, Hindu, aged about 45 yrs., R/o H.No.3-4- 1 005/4 Barkatpura, Hyderabad-27 AND Appel lanURespondenUPlai ntiff Jahangir Pasha, S/o late Mohd. Sharfuddin, lrluslim aged 46 yrs., Occ: Business Rlo. 5712 Kanta Basti Trimulgherry (V), Secunderabad RespondenUAppellanUDefendant Appeal under..section 100 of C P C, against the Judgment and decree dated 5/08/2002 made in A.S.No. 178/1 996 on the file of the Court of the lst Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad. SECOND APPEAL NO: 103 OF 2003 : Between: K.Ramakrishna Raju, S/o.late Bapiraju, Hindu, aged about 55 yrs., R/o.Plot No.77 Siddhartha Nagar, Near Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad-38 AppellanURespondenUDefendant AND Jahangir Pasha, S/o.late Mohd. Sharfuddin, Muslim, aged 46 yrs., Occ: Business Rlo. 5712 Kanta Basti Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad. RespondenUAppellanUDefendant Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and decree dated 5/08/2002 made in A.S.No. '183/1996 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad. 1 sEcoND APPEAL No: 106 oF 2oo3 : Between: Kanumuri Ramaraju, Sio. Gopalakrishna Raju, Hindu, a,; :d about 48 yrs., R/o H.No.1'10l8, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad-38 AND AppellanURe: pondenUDefendant Jahangir Pasha, Sio.late Mohd. Sharfuddin, Muslim, ag€,( 46 yrs., Occ Business Rlo. 5712 Kanta Basti Trimulgherry Village, Se: rnderabad. RespondenUl ppellanUDefendant Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C., against the Ju lgment and decree dated 5/08/2002 made in A.S.No. 1841199G on the file cf the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad. SECOND APPEAL NO: 109 OF 2003 : Between: Vegesna Ramesh, S/o. Venkata Suryanarayana Raju yrs., R/o Plot No.4 Sundernagar Colony, Hyderabad. - ndu, aged about 45 AND ... AppellanURes pondenUDefendant Jahangir Pasha, Sio.late Mohd. Sharfuddin, Muslim, ager Business FJo. 5712 Kanta Basti Trimulgherry Village, Se: 46 yrs., Occ: rnderabad. RespondenUl ppellanUDefendant Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C., against the Jtr dated 5/08/2002 made in A.S.No. 18211996 on the file cf Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad. gment and decree the Court of the I SECOND APPEAL NO: 110 OF 2003 : Between: K Sulo_chana, Wo. K.NarayanaBabu, Hindu, aged about 15 yrs., R/o Flat No. .103 S1i Sairam Apartments, M.C.H. No.3-5-700, t ew' Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. AND ... AppellanURes :ondenUDefendant Jahangir P_asha, S-/o.late M-ohd Sharfuddin, Mustim, aged 46 yrs., Occ: Business PJo.5712 Kanta Basti Trimulgherry Village, S-ecunOeirabbO. RespondenUAppeltanUDefendant Appeal under section 100 of C.p.C., against the Judgment and decree dated 5/08/2002 made in A.s.No. IB7li996 on the file of the court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad. SECOND APPEAL NO: 112 OF 2003 : Between: Kunaparaj_tl Satyqlarayana Raju, S/o. late Bapiraju, Hindu, aged about S0 yrs., R/o Plot No.5B/2 SundernSgar Colony, Hydera'bad-S00 03d ... AppellanURespondenUDefendant AND Jahangir Pasha, S/o.late Mohd. Sharfuddin, Muslim. aqed 46 vrs.. Occ. - Business trUo.5712 Kanta Basti Trimulgherry Village, S"ecunOdraUaa.- RespondenUAppel lanUDefendant Apgeal under section 100 of C.p:C., against the Judgmeht and decree dated 5/08/2002 made in A.s.No. 17911996 on the file of t-he court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad. oRDER: All these appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of , appeal, the Judgment and Decree ofthe Lower court and the materiil pup".. in the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E.V.v.S. Ravi Kumar, Advocate ior the appellants and of Sri V. Venkataramana, Advocate for the Respondent. That this Court doth Order and Decree as l.ollows: I . That all these Second Appeals are be and hereby dismissed.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs. l/rRue cory// SD/. P CH NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUW REG To . The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civit cou . The I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secu . Two CD Copies 1 2 J 5ECT,ON OFHCER nderabad. e ASR/ABK HlGH COURT DATED:1 311012025 t COMMON DECREE SA.No.102, 103, 1 06, 109, 110 & 112oF 2003 DISMISSING THE APPEALS a, I tlat