The High Court · 2025

All the property br:ia'ing premises No. 1-g-364/23, situatecl at sindhi colony, Penderghast Road, 3ecunderabad, admeasuring 220 sq. yards wrich consists of ground floor, first flo,r" and two rooms in the second flooi and bou rded on the North H No. 1.8-264122, South. H.No 1 8-264t24, East. Roac, West. Ope r la rd lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition unrle r Section 15i cpc praying that in the ci-cun stances stated in the affidavit riled ir support of the petition, irre uign court mal be pleased to pass orders permittirg the petitioner/Appellant to raise adrlitioi al grounds as under. 6 (A) "The L rr,r,er court gave erroneous finding on the gror, nd 6f liritrtion holding that the s;u t s barred without considering the funria-mer tat princif at ot joint possession o'' >ne co-owner against the other r;o-lower and thus the rejection of suit on :he: ground of limitation is bad in law ,erroneol s and contrary to Article 110 of trc, I mitation Act 1963 (B) The lower ccurt iailerl to appreciate that in case of a co.owner seeking partition, the joint p,lssession "oniinr".-tltt the division anc ther,:fore it is section 34 (2) Court fee A,:t applie,;, nowerei-the Lower court misdir()ded itself while dealing with the paynint cf court fee by applying sectior 34 (1) the Telangana state court fee anri suit va uation Act and 1!9r9ov commitred,rgrcss irregality and hence the same is; riabre t,) be set aside, (c) To Lower c;olr11 € rroneously came to conclusion that there s no cause of action for seeking partition by reprying on unregistered rr-'rea:;e d--ed dt. 14-02- '1 990 and thus the f rrrdings are erroneous and liable to be set aside.', ln the appeal in the inter-.st of justice under. lA NO: 1 oF 2019 Petition under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in tf''e atfiaa'it filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to pL!'otJ"tt granting interim injunction restrainin-g the Respondents from either ;i;;;"ii"g or"partrng with oossession or creatrng any third party rights in r.".p""ioiiril stnealte pt:q:lv. in favour of anv third parties 2'1otio11 on the file of the XXVII th" ";*iin'-Os-flt nendino disposal "f l"oii""rn,li5;i;.=; ;i.;"Secunderabad in the interest of iustice Counsbl for the Appellant: SRI' K' K' WAGHRAY Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 4' 6 and 7 : SRI KAROOR MOHAN Counsel forthe RespondentNo' 5: SRI ZEESHAN ADNAN MAHMOOO Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 2&3:--- The Court delivered the following Judgment : ) THE IION'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DI,VI ]EADA CIIY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.375 oF :2()1,, JUDGMEN'I': This i ; 1n appeal filed by the appellant, treinl3 ag 3rieved by the ju<lqrn,-'.lr and decree, dated 24.O6.i)O 19, passed in O.S.No.ll I r) tl 2O7l by the learned XXVII AdditiorLa CLr ief Judge, Citl' Civil Oor r t, Secunderabad (for short "the trial Ctour,,)

2. Tht: 21; r,-llant herein is the plaintiff and ttre res pondents are the c:el err(l1nts before the trial Court. The parties l_ r:rein are referred _o ar; I hey were arrayed in the suit befo:e re tr ial Court for the se.l<c :rl ::onvenience and clarity. 3 Thc la ;: or the plaintiff before the trial ()ourt is that his father Drva r:t l. it [)as was the owner and possessor ol r,he suit schedule Ilr or) l rrv and that he had two sons an,r _\\ o drrughters i.e. plain1iI1 .rur:1 defendant No.1 are the sons while dr:fendant Nos.2 anc il r,.t.t, Lhe daughters. That Dwaraka tras purr:hased a vacant pl()t [r:aring plot No.25 in Sindhi Housing Oo_operative Society uncte:- document No.13g2 of 196O ard later. on he constructf d a lL,>use in the said property. Subseclu,:r tly, he clied intestate cn OL I 1.7gTT and that after his death the delirnclants have becornc. llL,: lggal heirs of the said property. lt is I is case I \., \ \ ,l 2 EAD,I CCCA No.375 2019 that due to domestic problems, he ieft the suit schedule property and was residing in a rental premises and that after the death of their father, defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e' their sisters executed a relinquishment deed on 18.11.1997 which was not registered and that this relinquishment deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 when their mother was alive- Subsequently, their mother died in the year 1984' Then another release deed was executed by the plaintiff, defendant Nos 2 and 3 on 14.02.1990 in favour of defendant No. 1 and that evell the said release deecl was not registered. He further averred that the said unregistered relinquishment deed is non-est in the eye o[ law' That the parties never intended to give their shares in favour of defendant No.l and that the plaintiff has equal share in the suit schedule properfy a-long with defendant Nos'2 and 3 It is his case that defendant No. t has created a mortgage of suit schedule property by playing fraud with Bank of India for obtaining the loan by submitting the alleged release deed' lt is further averred that on learning about the alienation of the suit schedule property through an advertisement in paper, he got issued a legal notice to the defendant No. 1 on 25.O1'2OO9 and he learnt that defendalt No.l got the mortgage discharged a-nd also got the property released in his favour from Sindh Housing Cooperative I I l 3 ETD,J :CCA 10.375 2019 Socieg Lt I , If .at the plaintiff has requested the dr:ft:ndz nt No. 1 to divide tht.: p-rper[r and release his share but defrrndcnt No. 1 resisted tlte :i.rne and started avoiding on one pretext or the other, there I'rrc, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

4. The riet:r dant No.1 has filed written stat.e--,;nent. He admitted thc rclationship but denied all the matr_.rial av< rments in the plzLirrt He further contended that plaintiil hird dire necessif5z cf rnotey and made persistent demands wittr de.endant No. 1 to sell th:r suir schedule property in 1990 an,l l.hus, nstead of selling lhc ,;uit property, defendant No. 1 e>:press:d his willingness tt 1r _rrchase 50yo share of the plainr_ifl. ;n t.ie suit schedule l)ropcrt_y for a sum of Rs. 1 1akh, accordinllly, he accepted thc srrirl offer and that by accepting Rs. 1 .La kh re has executed thc r: lr:ase deed in favour of defenda,r. I,Ic . 1 . Thus, defendant Nr,. . i-ras paid the said amount of Rs. L Lak h vide cheque No 9. )(: !,()0 dated 28.02.1990 drawn on Vyshya Bank plaintiff has also executed a receipt on by virtue of the release deed, th: pr operty was released ir f avour of Defendant No. 1. There,af1er., tL e first floor and lhe' pz, r t of second floor were constructed exclusir ely by the l st dele nrlzrr r out of his funds. He further adrr itter 1 that relinquishmr:r:t _leed dated la iI1.lg77 was exe,:utcC bv Limited ar d 1h,: O1.03.1990. 1'hrrs, 4 ETD,] CCCA No.375-2019 \ defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. By virtue of the same, defendant No' I and plaintiff became theco.ownerstotheextentof50%eachandbythereleasedeed dated14.02'lgg0defendantNo.lgottheentirepropertyaSthe plaintiff relinquished his share' It is his further case that the release deed dated l4.O2.lgg} had been duly authenticated by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps and that the requisite stamp duty has been paid thereon and that the plaintiff after receipt of valuable consideration has delivered thc possession of the suit schedule property' He further stated that he has pursued the matter with the said society to release the indenture of release dated plot from the mortgage vide efforts and PaYment of all 20.07.1991 and with his own outstanding dues to the said society, he got executed a registered indenture of release d'ated' 24'04'201O and that the mortgage of the suit property by defendant No'l with the Bank of India is of no consequence to the plaintiff as he has no title' share or interest in the suit schedule property' He admitted that he has made a puhlication in the Deccan Chronicle on O3'O1'2O09 for alienating the suit property to repay the loan advanced by the Bankoflndiabutthereafterherepaidtheloanbyhimselfand gave up the idea of alienating the suit property' Thus' he ,/ 4 5 ETD,I CCC/, No.375 2019 submittel tl:: i 6n6s the plaintiff has relinquisheC his share in the prop,:rl1'. lre has no right to seek any partitiorr in the suit schedule ltlo l3rty.

5. Bar;ed tr the above pleadings, the trial Ccurt ha; framed the follou, in g Ls;r;ues for trial: plaintiff is entitled for partitr. >n as \4'l-r ether the prived for? \.\'lr,-ther the suit is barred by limitation? V, h,:ther there str I ? rs no cause of actic n to fil : the 'di ir,rther Court fee paid is incorrect? Trr rr,hat relieP" 2 3 4 5

6. At the ti -ne of trial, the plaintiff got examined hir_rself as PW1 ancl go _ marked Exs.Al to A1O. On behalf of the defendanrr;, 1,. Iendant No.1 got examined as DWI an<:l E> s.B1 to 83 were markr:tl

7. Base d cr. the evidence on record, the trial Cor. rt has dismissed tlre srLit. Aggrieved by the said judgmc]nl. rLncl Cecree, t}re presen - a.pJ;:al is hled.

8. Heard 1_t_-t submissions of Sri K.K.Waghra.,,, l_-arned counsel for t.he rppellant, sri Karoor Mohan, learrLecr ooul sel for ) t 6 ETD,J CCCA No.375 2019 \ respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7 and Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood' learned counsel for respondent No.5 g. The learned appellant counscl has submitted that the trial Court has misdirected itself while dealing with the question with regard to the passing of title on the basis of oral admissions He argued that the trial Court ought to have seen that the relinquishment deed is not a registered document and thus' it has no probative value and thus, thc said document should not be relied upon by the trial Court for deciding any issue He further argued that once the document itseif is non est in the eye of iaw, the defendant No.1 becorring the absolute owner of the property is absolutely false and that the plaintiff and aiso their sisters defendant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to a share in the property. He further argued that the trial Court has simply relied upon the oral admissions and has dismissed the suit' which is not proper in the eye of law, he therefore, prayed to set aside the judgmcnt and decree dated 24'06'2019 by allowing this appeal.

10. Sri Karoor Mohan, learned counsel for respondent Nos'4' 6 andT,ontheotherhand,hassubmittedthatoncetheplaintiff has relinquished his share, he is estopped from seeking a share' I ,/ I 7 ETD,] CCt,, No 375 2019 He further a rEue d that though the relinquishment de,:d is not registererl, tlt,l same can be considered for collateral rurposes and it cu Lrr l; e considered by the trial Court wl,rile clec ding the issues invc,lr':3 in the case. He further argued tl-ra t tl e suit is barred blz lin ration and that the relinquishmer-rt deed is dated l9.ll.19'77 err rl the suit is filed in 2011, so it is filerl be zond the period of limitrtion and he further argued that onr:e the plaintiff admitted tlre r,-linquishment deed in his evidenr:e nr: further proof is requrred under Section 5g of the EviderLce. r\ct ,ind that further hr: ts estopped from going against his ovrn e,ride rce.. He further algueJ that the documents bearing Nos.3975/ 1 )91 and 730 of 2O 1Cr irrt not challenged for canceilation. T,h -rs. _hey are still in f()r,:re irnd the said relinquishment dt:erl lg.Ll.lgTZ creates estopp,i,J against the plaintiff herein.

11. Sri 2let:r;,ran Adnan Mahmood, learnerl counsel for responder I Nc. 5 has argued that the Court fee F,aid by the plaintifl is ir Ls : f -rcient and that once he has deliv,:red por session in favour ,tf dr:.t ndant No. 1, he ceases to be the .ioinr ov,ner but he has paid ,tr lr Rs.2OO/- towards the Court fee cla:rrLing that he is a joint c,\(,t1r r and possessor, which is wrong and that r he suit has to be <tismissed even on that ground. He further lrrgr: ed that the trial C tltr, ,,,as right in relying upon the docLrrrLe _rts iled bv 8 ETD,J CCCA No.375 2019 the defendan t i.e. Ex.B2lthe receipt issued for Rs' 1 lakh by the plaintiff, in lieu of his haif share in the suit schedule property' Thus, there is no strength in the suit and the trial Court was right in dismissing the suit.

12. Based on [he above rival submissions, this Court frames the follorving points for consideration: 1 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the suit schedule ProPerties? Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is sustainable in law and under the facts?

3. To what relieP

13. POINT NO.1 a) The plaintif{'s case is that the suit schedule property belongs to his father and on his death it devolved upon his 1egal heirs i.e. the plaintiff, his brother/ Defendant No' 1 and his sisters' defendant Nos.2 and 3. He states that he has executed a relinquishment deed along with his sisters on 14'02'199O but it was not registered and hence, it has no value in the eye of law' Therefore, he claims 1/4trr share in the suit schedule property' During his cross examination, he has admitted the execution of release deed dated 14.O2.lg9} and also that his sisters - i 9 ETD,J CC(,, No.375 2019 defendarrt N I s .2 and 3 also signed on the sairl re .inq tishment deed. It is lu rther elicited from him that he li<l not seek for cancellation c I the said relinquishment deed in r_he sr tit. It is also elicilerl iet he has not issued any notice tc -_he cle fendants till 2010 i.e. tlI the hling of suit. He admitted thai :;ub: equently the mortgagt: tn the property was redeemed l:ut he loes not know whethtr rhe property was sold or still sta.lds in the name of defendlrn t No. I . He aiso admitted th a relinquishme nt deed was impounded and he pleadr:d i;;norance r. re said about tho cle e rrdant No.1 getting the propert5z transferrr:d in his name b1. r.irt,l t, of release deed. But again he szrys tl-at he is aware abor.tt I lre said transfer. He admitted t hett he has not issued any [e,3,tI notice to defendant No. 1 stating tlLat t]-rc re lease deed is a c reated document. He has taken a plea lor the hrst time in his ericence affrdavit that the said amorrnt ,>f R s.l lakh was given t. rl,:tndant No.1 in connection with the busiriess. In his cross er:arr ination he admitted that he has not nrent oned in the plaint o r tr his evidence that in connection .,vith a t usiness Iirm he F,a\,'e a mount to the defendant and ttral. ther 3 is no mention in E.< J32/receipt that in connection with ti-re L usiness f,rrm the siricl ,:rrrLount was paid. He also admitted tha_ he has not given anlr rcp.1.or rejoinder denying Ex.B2 in purstuanc,) to the ) ) ETD,J CCCA No.375-2019 10 He denied that the eiectricity bills and water written statement' schedule Property are in the name of l"t bills of the suit defendant and he stated that he would try to file the documents to show that the said bills are in the name of their father but he failed to do so He filed Exs Al to A10 to prove his case' Ex'Al is certified copy of the agreement between the Sindhi Cooperative Society and the Government wherein the tand was allotted to the cooperative society for allotting the same to the house sites as house sites to its members and Ex A2 is the mor[gage deed and the mortgagor is defendant No'1' These two documents do not aid the plaintiff in showing that he still has right in the suit schedule property to claim a share in it' He filed the copy of legai notice under Ex'A3 dated 25'Ol '2OOg ' Exs'A4 to A7 are the postal receipts and Ex AS is the market value certifrcate' Ex'A9 is the re-conveyance deed executed by bank of India in favour of defendant' No'1 and Ex'A10 is the indenture of release executed in favour of by the Sindhi Housing Cooperatrve SocietY Ltd', In fact these documen ts do not aid the Plaintiff defendant No' 1' in proving his case to claim a share in the propert5r' On the other hand, they would establish the facts that initially the Sindhi Housing Cooperative Society Ltd' ' had entered into agreement with the Government of Andhra Pradesh and that thereafter the t /l 71 ETD,J CCC, \ No.375 2019 house pl:ts ,r r.re sold and the said documents ,lo estat,lish that the propr:r'y \vas mortgaged by Defendant No.1 to ttanl of India and latet c,n tlre mortgage was discharged in his ou,n f rvour by repaying tl'Le (,an. In order to prove that he has a slrare, the plaintiff rsh,r.rJc disprove his relinquishment. .lhe sair release deed is not. ;narked by the trial Court be,:au s;e i I is an unregistererl lccument. However, the defendant heLs fircc r Exs.B 1 to 83 i.e. In lenture of release deed dated 24.04.r,,O1\ by the Sinclhi Hou,si re Cooperative Societ5r Ltd., in favc ur of dr:fendant No. I anc E::.112 forms crucial that is the tf riginal rebeipt executed b1, th,r pl3in11p. A perusal of Ex.B2 reverlls .hat the plaintiff lrars r::<ecuted the said receipt statin,g tirat he has received Rs. 1 Lakh from defendant No. 1 by a cherlue bearing No.936900 Cet:d 28.O2.1990 drawn on Vys.ra tsan < Ltd., Secundere bi rcl r r consideration and surrender of his h alf I ,hare in the house No.t-3-264/23 (plot No.23) situated at S;nChi 3olony, Sardar Pa -el l:l,r .rd, Secunderabad for which he is nr>r"v t he sole owner. It bear s the signature of the plaintiff and ._he r;aic receipt was admit,erl 1r.,, him during his cross examination. Thus Ex.B2 demolishe r; rhr: ,-ase of plaintiff, even keep g aside the release deed which hr: s ays that it cannot be reli regisfFatiorL. Il <.82 is enough to dispro upon cl ue tl non- thr: c:rse of the I t2 ETD,J CCCA No.375 2019 plaintiff. It is mentioned in clear terms that the plaintiff having received Rs.1 lakh vide cheque from the defendant No'1 and has relinquished his share, now he cannot turn around and say that he has not relinquished his share in the property' Further' the indenture of release deed/Ex'A10 proves that the property belongs to defendant No.1 and the municipal tax receipts filed by the defendant under Ex.B3 also reveals the said fact' b) The appellant's counsel has argued that the unregistered documentcannotbeconsideredintheeyeoflawandtherefore' the plaintiff still continues to be the owner of his 5O% share in the suit schedule property. But having executed the receipt under Ex.B2 and having admitted that execution of relinquishment deed he is estopped from denying the same' He has also not issued any notice to defendant No l subsequently and he has not sought for cancellation of said relinquishment deed. Thus, Ex.B2 proves that the plaintiff relinquished his c) Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a decision oftheDivisionBenchofthisHighCourtinStateofTelangana, rep. bg its Principal Secretary, Reaenue Departmeflt' 13 ETD,J CC lA No.375 2019 Hgderabad v. P.Bala.bha.skar Reddgr, wherein it nas held that " ualidati.ort tg payment of deficit stamp dutg and p, enaltg though cures tL.r: de,ltct of doanment being insufftcientlg stam1ed., it toilt not cure tlte ctefect of it being unregistered'. d) Le arn,:,1 counsel for the appellant further r elie I upon a decision of .i-re Apex Court in Shga,rr. Naragan Frcrsord. a. Krishna Pra.sa&, wherein it was held that deea of exchange is ,ct ,-ttgistered cannot be taken into ,,cc)unt to he extent '..thich. of translbr r-'l immouabre propertg and" that the best et. id.ence of contents oj'c.t.<x:ument is the document itself and unaer i ection 91 of euider, ce / rt , the doatment itsetf has to be produce,cl tc proue its contents anc; t4at bg uirtue of Section 49 of the Rectistt,ttion Act, ang doatnt"e'tt tuhich is not registered. os reqtLirect. ur d.er latu, would be ir, admissible in euid.ence and cannct, iter :fore, be producea an':l ytroued under section 91 of tLe Euicrence,Ar r. In the present ca.s,: , admittedly the relinquishment deed L; not a registererl rl.crrment and thus, it was not admittr:d in evidence and it r.,r,a s nr> marked. Even, keeping aside the. relinqr, ishment deed, trx.B1,l is rdmitted by the plaintiff himself and :n E<.82 the execution r:f -,-' inq11i5[6ent deed is mentioned. T.hus. the said case law is r>I rL,r aid to the appellant. ' zozt 1o; au zz,; { r r ) ' atnbol8 scr r rs' \ 14 ETD,J CCCA No.375-2019 e) Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Mts'thnadeut No,mbiar a ThamarorsseriRonranCatholtcDiocesf,whereinitwasheld that "it i-s not ahaags necassciry for tle plaintiff in a suit for partition to seek cancelation of alienations' There are seueral reasons behind this pnnciple anti one is that the alienees as utell as the co sharer are still entitled to sustoin the alienation to the extent of the share of the co-sharer and thot it ma14 also be open to the alienee, in tle final decree proceedings' to seek the allotment of tte transfeffed propertA, to th-e share of ttrc transferor' so tlnt equities are utorked out in a fair manner" ' In the present suit' there is no question of alienation The plaintiff himself has relinquished his share by accepting amount and executed a receipt in lieu of the same' Once' he has relinquished the property, the question of partition does not arise and there is no aspect of alienation in the present suit and hence' the case iaw is not aPPlicable to the case on hand' Learned counsel for the appellant also relied f) decision of this Court in Akula SangaPPa u' Siddappd to support his point that any document specifying relinquishment of a right in immovable property and creating a Bandam upon a 'AtR 2qz scc to+o " zoro (r) nlr soa I I 15 ETD,J C( CA No.375 2019 correspo.d ,11 right in another under it requires regrs _ration. It is agairr re lrrated in this context that in the p,r5.5s11i case the relinquist:n':<..tt deed ls not registered and LLcnc:, 1 \vas not markerl ir L r:r';6[sn6s but there is Ex.B2 which tras lteer admitted by plair ti tf I r d the contents of Ex.B2 reveal th;rt it was executed in lieu c>f rr.l rquishing the share of the plaintiff br. rer:eiving an amounr: oi lQs.I lakh. Thus, the said case la.,v also (:annot be applied -o tl t l-acts and circumstances of the prrtsen t ca se. I The Ie ,rrued counsel for respondent No.S has relird upon a decision ol-rlr,r Apex Court in Ahmedsaheb (Dead) b1,r Lrs., a. Saged Ismaif , wherein it was held tlrlat " tlnu@l on unt egistered rent deej cr':t:Lot be regafig accepted in euidence, claitz aising therefront t.,it rc granted on the basis of uncontt.oL,etled euidence auailable ri. ,-:corcl. supporting the claim,,. Tfre said decision squarely alrpl rs to the present case. In the present,:ase also relinquislrn.re tt deed is not registered but the claim arisirrg out of the saicl t.r:linc rrishment deed i.e. the share of dr:f.en,lanr No.1 is proved tl'rroulJ: the evidence available on record i.t:. vidc Exs.B 1 to 83 and alsc lurther fortified with the admissions r rade by PW1 t (zora) e scc. ;rr. l/ 16 ETD,J CCCA No.375 2019 h) The learned counsel for respondent No'S has further relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Nagindo's Ranndds a' Daltr dtrdm lchharam alias Briirant{, wherein it was held that "ttrc crdmissions, if true and clear, are bg far the best proof of the focts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial odmissions' admissible und-er Section 58 of the Euidence Act' made bg the parties or their agents at or before the heaing of the cose' stand on o higher footing than euidentiary odmissions' The former class of ad-missions are futlg binding on the partA that makes them and constitute a utaiuer of proof. TlEg bg tlemselues can be made the found-ation of the ights of tlrc parties' On t'he otler hond' euidentiary admissions tlthich are receiuable at the tial o's euidence, ore by themselues, not conclusiue" Theg can be shoun to be u.trong. In the case on hand, the plaintiff admitted the execution of relinquishment deed in his plaint and thus' the said admission is binding on him, in the light of the above cited decision. The learned counsel for respondent No'5 has further relied i) upon a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh tn Venlctt Bai a. Raiu Bai (atias) RaiesuaramrnaT, wherein it was held that\.the relinquishment of tle share of a coparcener in the joint \- " ltst t1 t scc ztz ' tgau (r) lrr:eo -7 77 ETD,, i::CA No.375 2019 family propz,lg need not be euidenced bg a otocttntenl in u,titing and tltzt it r un be inferred euen from the ciranmstzn ces as such an act do<zs rtct amount to a conuegance of property. A;>plying the said plir:crpl: to the case on hand, relinquistrrr er-rt o. his share by the prlai rrilf can be inferred from the other circumstances such as rrc::pting the amount in lieu of his share an,: executing a receipt lor r he 52ma. j) Thc, le z rned respondent counsel relied uporr a lecision of the Apelic urt in Kusheshuar prasad Singh u. State of Bihans r,, l-L:r:in it was held that "it is settled prin.ct ple tf IauL that a man caru..l): be pennitted to take undue and_ unJ'air aauantage of his otur u)ro 1q to gain fouourable interpretation of lc:tl). It is sound- pincipl,= thlt he utho preuents a thing from bein17 Con,: shall not auail him.:,;e,tl cf the non-perforrnance he has occas;icned To put it differenthl, t7 u'rongdoer ought not to be permitt,zd t<> mc ke a profit out of lt's )1.'.)r, u)rong". k) Ir t hr. present case, the plaintiff himself has adrnitted the executic,n of .hc relinquishment deed in his ple.a,iing s but his contenrj.r'L rs that since it is an unregistered d.c.nrent it cannot be reliecl uprr. I \ " 1ZOOZ1 ff t;Lrpr€ ne Court Cases 447 18 CCCA No.375 2019 .-\ -- 1 \l Thus, in view of the discussion held above and in the light l) of the decisions cited by the respondents counsef it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to a share in the suit schedule property as he has already relinquished his share' Point N'l is answered accordinglY. l4 POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned hndings arrived at point No'f it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are found to be well reasoned and hence' they are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the CASC

15. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree, dated' 24 '06'2019 passed in O'S'No'2 10 of 2011 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge' City Qivil Court, Secunderabad' No costs' Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed Sd/- N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, N/ The XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad' ( with records)

2. One CC to SRl. K. K. WAGHRAY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. ZEESHAN ADNAN MAHMOOD' Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies ;i HIGH COURT DATED:1010612025 ,, |, l.' ,t i.4 ;. ii ll'r ,li L f,6 ,, z o (1.-' J o \,.. 1 t" JUDGMENT CCCA.No.37li of 2019 DISMISSING THH {1'PE-A.L WITHOUT COSI'S Iv T. \ x I l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEALNO : 375 0F 2019 Between: Asliok Lulla, S/o.Late Dwaraka Das, aged 69 years Rl/o.402, Legend Le Chalet, Plot i'i;2i r;;1-i0:oa7oA ana i -l o-oa7o,vt, chikoti Garden' Secunderabad ... Plaintiff AND '1 . Ramesh Lulla, ( died per LRs Respondent.Nos.' 4 to 7 Sio Late Dwaraka Das, aged 62 years,'iloFe"zaids, Sindhi Colony' Penderghast Road' Secunderabad

2. Mrs.Veena, W/o.Laxmandas Hinduja. Aged.6! Years' Fl/o'Flat No'32' 3d Floor - v'"itini,l ct_operatire SoiGlv, cio',"tt R-oad odp. Katriya colony, Mumbai - 400016 063

3. Usha Hemdev, Wo.Nandlal HEMDEV, Ageg 99 " i;;;,i s;istiiuam iirrtii""i.,-st'eet ru"o't ' Hiriravatnasar' Hvderabad 500 4. Smt Rani Ramesh Lulla, W/o Laste Ramesh Lulla Fl/o 2618 Block -B' Samudhra n.ropori.l'rttin;it;';ilJ; Gacnioowti' Hvderabad' Telangana 500 032. years' Rl/o Flat No'1o2'. -^.

5. Sri Amith Lulia Sio. Late Ramesh Lul]a F/9 26.18 Block -B' Samudhra - " A;tirp"ii; r'linar<ramg;;a,'Giirtioo*ti' Hvderabad' Telangana 500 032' 6. Navin Lulla, s/o. Late Ramesh Lulla,f,/o'.Flat No'612' Block - Rose Quartz' Mv Home .tewet, HaanieeiiFipef ne'noaO' Near Central Park' Hafeezpet' iiiA;;;;;sii;; Hvoerauao, rbransana 500 04e'

7. Smt. Vidhi Santosh Samat, D/o Late Rame-sh Lulla' W/o' Santosh Samat' ' il;. fi; S;ii"i, n-z-oi" Iii"dh B;;' Link Road' Aundh' Pune' Maharastra 411007 ...RESPONDENTS/ Proposed Respondent Nos' 4 to 7 Resoondent Nos. 4 to 7 are brought on record as-LRs of deceased Res-p-ondent ffi:#$* cJrlt ciralrii-"ili67_ir-o-ibza ,iae l.A.No. 1 ot 2021in cccA No. 375 oI 2019 Appeal Uncler Section 96 of Civil procedure Code, 1908 ,,rqqrieved bv the ri[-* in" Judgment and Decree dated 24-06-2019 in o.s.No. 210 or 2011 ,iiit court of the XXVrr ,Additionar chief Judge, city civir court at s.,"rna"i"[J.' OROER : This; zrpl;,-.al coming on fo_r hearing and upon perusing the grounds of - appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court an,J th. rirteriai pip"i, in the case and.trprn hr:aring the arguments of sri K.K. WAGHRAY nouocaGTorln" Appellant and,)f s'i Karoor lVrohan, Advocate for the Respond net i,]os, +, o a 7 ,nJ' Sd Zeeshan Atlnan lVahmood, Advocate for Respondent No. 5 " This Co trt drr-h Order and Decree as follows :

1. That the apgreal be and hereby is dismissed and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeat. //TRUE COPYII I;d/- N. SRIHARI EPU ry REGISTRAR se(]TION OFFICER l,? t.,t To '1. The XXV|r A(rditionar chief Judge, city civir court at secu,rderabad. 2. fwo C.D.Cogries HIGH COURT DATED:10106t2025 DECREE CCCA.No.3,z5 of 2019 DISMISSINIG'l t{t: A.pt EAL WITHOTJT COS i.S 7