Dhanaram Shamala v. 1. Chandrakala @ Devarai Shyamala

Petitic,n under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affida'rit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.103 of 2019 on the file of Vll Junior Civil Judge, City t)ivil Court, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms T.V. LAXMIKANTHAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRt VENKATESWARLU SANTSETTY Civil Revision on No.185O ot 2.022 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order in Tr.t).P.No.40 of 2022 Dated.18.07.2022 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: Dhanaram Shamala, Wo.Shivaiah, aged 48 years, Occ. House wife, R/o.2-3- 51214191N1, Bapu Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner AND

1. Chand'akala @ Devarai Shyamala, Wo.Late Baburao,'aged 50 years, Occ. House,rvife, R/o.H No.2-2-1851241411A, Mallikarjunanagar, Amberpet, Hydererbad.

2. Devarei Shailender, S/o.Late Baburao, aged about 29 years, Occ. Employee, R/o. H. lrlo. 2 -2- 1 851 241 41 /A, Mal I ikarjuna nag ar, Amberpet, H yderabad.

3. Devarai Anitha, D/o.Late Baburao, aged 26 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. H. l,l o. 2 -2- 1 85124 I 41 /A, Mallikarj una N agar, Amberpet, Hydera bad.

4. Devarai Vijay Sai, S/o.late Baburao, aged 24 years, Occ.Employee, Rlo.2-2- 185124;41 I A, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

5. D.Satyanarayana, S/o.Shivaiah, aged 32 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o.2-3-51 214l9lN1, Bapu Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad. ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.3161 of 2019 on the file of the Vll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms T.V.LAXMIKANTHAM counsel for the Respondents: sRl VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY ,-. i TTIE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CwIL, REVISION PE"IITION Nos.1849 and 185O OF 2O22 COMMOIT ORDER: C.R.P.No.1849 of 2o.22

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under.Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.38 of 2022, dated 18.07.2022 by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hlderabad.

2.1 Petitioner is the petitioner and respondents are the respondents in Tr.O.P.No.38 of 2022, which is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer O.S.No.103 of 2Ol9 pending on the lile of learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, HJrderabad to the file of learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Coui't, Hyderabad, to be tried along with O.S.No.288 of 2022.

2.2 Suit Schedule property in O.S.No.288 of 2022 is House bearing lVo.2-3-512 I 4 I 9 I A, Bapu Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad with specific boundaries.

3. It is stated in Tr.O.P.No.38 of 2022 that petitioner-plaintiff has filed OS.No.288 of 2022 to declare her as the absolute owner and poss;essor of the suit schedule property and for perpetual injunction- restraining respondents-defendants from interfering in \^- her peacr:ful possession and enjoyment and also to declare the \ 2 cRP. Nos. r84e md'?,TY*;i document No.801 of 2019, dated L8.O2.2O19 as null and void. It is further stated in Tr.O.P. that respondent No.1 herein has also filed a suit in O.S.No.1O3 of 2Ol9 for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner herein - defendant therein from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the very same schedule property which is shown in O.S.No.288 of 2022.

4.L Respondent No.l herein filed counter to the Transfer O.P- contending that the contentions raised by the parties are different and suit in OS.No.1O3 of 2olg cannot be transferred to the Court of learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

4.2 Suit Schedule Propert5r in O.S.No.103 of 2}lg is the same schedule property of O.S.No.288 of 2022.

5. Learned trial Court uide order dated 18.07.2022 has dismissed Tr.O.P.No.3S of 2022 on the premise that the petitioner has approached the Court with unclean hands by filing connected Tr.OPs. with false averments. C.R.P.No.1850 of 2or22 6. This Civil Revision Petition is fiIed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.4O of 2022, dated 18.07.2022 by the learned chief Judeerfiity civil Court, Hyderabad. i / J BRMR,J

7. The petitioner has liled Tr.OP.No.4O of 2022 against the respondents herein to transfer OS.No.3161 of 2Ol9 pending on the file of lea:ned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to learned \ill Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to be tried alorg with OS No.288 of 2022.

8.1 It is stated in Tr.OP.No.40 of 2022 that petitioner-plaintiff has filed OS.No.288 of 2022 to declare her as the absolute owner and possressor of the suit schedule property and for perpetual injunction restraining respondents-defendants from interfering in her peac,:ful possession and enjoyment and also to declare the document No.801 of 2019, dated 18.02.2019 as null and void. It is further st-ated in the Tr.OP. that respondent No.1 herein has filed suit in OS.No.31.61 of 2}lg against t'he petitioner herein/dr:fendant No.1 therein and her son (D.Satya Narayana)/defendant No.2 for declaration to declare the document No.407 crf 2Ol4 dated 06.02.2014 as null and void and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein not to change ttre nature of suit schedule property.

8.2 Respondent No.1 herein field counter in the Tr.OP., contendirrg that the contentions raised by the parties are different and suit in O.S.No.3161 of 2019 cannot be transferred. \ 4 BRMR,J CRP.Nos.1849 ud l85O of 2022

9. Learned trial Court has dismissed Tr.OP.No.40 of 2022 on the premise that petitioner herein has approached the Court with unclean hands by filing connected Tr.OP.s., with false averments

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Tr.OPs. contended that the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.1O3 of 2Ol9 and in O.S.No.3161 of 2OI9 are one and the same with that of suit schedule property in O.S.No.288 of 2022. Learned counsel also contended that the petitioner herein has also filed a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.164 of 2Ol9 restraining the respondent No.1 herein from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same suit schedule propert5r.

11. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has hled an undertaking signed by the deponent (petitioner) stating that the petitioner is taking steps to withdraw O.S.No.164 of 2019, pending before the learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad without claiming any equities. The said undertaking is taken on record.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that suit in O.S.No.164 of 2Ol9 is coming up for arguments. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner which is signed by the counsel, the said point does not require any further discussionT a' J 5 BRMR,J CRP.Nos.1849 ild 1850 of 2022

13. Insrofar as suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.288 of 2022 is concerned, she has liled the suit to declare as the owner of the plaint schedule property and also for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering in her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the prgperty and also to declare the document No.8o1 of 2o19 dated 18.02.2019 as null and void executed by defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) in favourof defendant Nos.2 to 4 (respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein). L4. It ir; apt to mention here that respondent No.1 has also filed suit for perpetual injunction in o.S.No.1o3 of 2o|g against the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, for perpetual injunction in respect of the same schedule propert5r shown in O.S.No.2tt8 of 2022.

15. wh:ile things stood thus, respondent No.1 has filed another suit in o.S.No.3161 of 2oL9 against the petitioner herein and her son by name D.satya Narayana for declaration to declare the document No.407 of 2014 dated 06.02.2014 executed by defendant No.l (petitioner herein) in favour of defendant No.2 therein (D.satya ltlarayana) as null and void and for perpetual injunction not to change the physical features of the suit schedule property. \ \ 6 BRMR,J CRP.Nos.1849 and l85O oI 2022 (-i

16. The suit in O.S.No.288 of 2022 is coming up for cross examination of PW-1 and suit in O.S.No.103 of 2(.lg is coming up for final arguments. L7. As the schedule property in O.S.No.288 of 2022 is the same with that of O.S.No.103 of 2OL9. The comprehensive suit filed by the petitioner is O.S.No.288 of 2022 and O.S.No.103 of 2019 filed by respondent No.l is a simple suit for perpetual injunction, therefore, it is to be clubbed and tried along with O.S.No.288 of 2022 to avoid conflicting judgments. Hence, O.S.No.1O3 of 2Ol9 pending on the file of learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is transferred to learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to be tried along with O.S.No.288 of

18. Insofar as O.S.No.3161 of 2019 is concerned, it is the suit Iiled by respondent No.1 for declaration to declare the document as null and void and for perpetual injunction not to change the nature of the suit schedule property. As the suit in O.S.No.288 of 2022 is also for declaration and suit in O.S.No.3161 of 2Ol9 is also for declaration, this Court feels that if suit in O.S.No.3l61 of 2Ol9 pending on the file of learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is transferred to learned VII Senior Civil Judge, .., e City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to be tried separately/simultaneously 7 BRMR,J CRP.Nos.1849 md IASO of2022 which vlill meet the ends of justice and to avoid conflicting judgments.

19. In view of the reasons stated above, cRp No. lg4g of 2022 is allowed rrnd the suit in o.S.No.l03 of 2o\g pending on the file of learned vll Junior civil Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad is transferred to learned vll Senior civil Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad to be tried along with o.S.No.2gg of 2022 without costs. 2o. cRP No. 1850 of 2022 is allowed and the suit in o.s.No.316 t of 2019 pending on the file of learned VII Junior civil Judge, city civil cou.rt, Hyderabad is transferred to learned vII senior civil Judge, oity civil court, Hyderabad, to be tried separately/ simultant:ously with o.S.No.288 of 2022 without codts. 2L. Accordingly, both the civil Revision petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Inte,rim orders if any stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s shall stand closed. SD/- A.H.S.GOWRI SHAN KAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ To, N/ I //TRUE COPY// ICER

1. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The Vll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 3. One CO to Ms. T V LAXMIKANTHAM Advocate IOPUC] 4. One C(l to sRIVENKATESWARLU SANISETTY Advocate IoPUC] 5. Two CD Copies n HIGH COURT DATED i2411112025 ( a O c) 2t Jtil lm * ) COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos;.1849 and 1850 of 2O22 ALLOWING THE BOTH CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS f,/