The High Court · 2025

property which is the subrect matter of o.S.No .1122 0f 2001 0n the fire of XV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court. Su"rnOurr;rA,-p1n.,ng disposal of the SA. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Order.V Rule 20 of C.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavir fired in support of th; i;t,iio, the High court mav be pleased to pass orders directing service oi notl* or tnu s"".,"a ;;;"ri #;" respondent by way of substituted service. CounSel for the Appellants: Sri p.V. Vidyasagar Counsel forthe Respohdent: None Appeared Second Appea I No.268 ot 2010 Appear under section '100 r/w order XLI Rure '1 0f c.p.c aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 06_08-2009 passed in A.S No.1g0 of 2003 on the fire of the court of the r Additionar chief Judge, city civir court, Secunderabad preferred against the Judgment and decrle dated 01-12-2003 passed in o s No 84l of 2000 on the fire of the court of the Xr Junior civir Judge, city civir Cou(, Secunderabad. Between: Smt. Hous B.Lalitha Kumari. Wo Sri B.,Ramakoteswar Rao, Age:6.1 ewife R/o No. 3418, East MarredpatV. S""r"Alr"Oli ' years, Occ AND ..AppellanUAppeilanUptaintiff 8fi' ": 8fil?;,yi:.:d: i;Hiil ;f,'s"Xr, IEE Ij o 30i., B u s i n ess R/o H N o 5-2 - ... RespondenURespondenUDefendant IA NO:1O F 2022 Petition under Order VRule 20 9t ! e C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petitron, the High Court mav be pleased to pass orders directing ;;." "i;;ti.""'ot *," Second Appear on the respondent by way of substituted service. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri p.V. Vidyasagar Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGIvIENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL No.215 of 2010 AND SE COND APPEAL No.268 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard Sri P.V.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellants

2. As the issue involved is selfsame, these appeals are heard and being disposed of by this common judgment. 3 S.A.No.268 of 20't0 The appellant as plaintiff has filed suit OS No.841 of 2000 seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant (plaintiff in OS No.1122 of 2001) against blocking the entrance of the suit schedule property i.e., plot No.147lC/B admeasuring 47.5 Sq.yds situated at Hyderbasti, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule premises'). 4 S.A.No.215 of 2O1O: The defendant in OS No.B41 of 2000 as plaintiff field suit OS No.1122 of 2001 seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant (plaintiff in OS No.841 of 2000) from blocking the entrance of the suit schedule premises. 2 NTR.J S\i : Ii&268 2010

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in OS No.84'1 of 2000

6. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the schedule property admeasuring 95.05 Sq.yds belonged to one Bharath Kumar from him one Srinivas Rao brought the property from whom the plaintiff and defendant purchased the east and west portions of the first floor under registered sale deeds on the same day

7. Contending that the defendant blocked the entrance of the suit schedule premises leading common staircase and also threatened with dire consequences, the plaintiff filed the suit

8. With the similar pleadings, the defendant filed OS No.1122 of 2001 claiming that the plaintiff blocked the entrance i.e., staircase and threatened with dire consequences

9. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, decreed the suit filed by the defendant i.e. OS No.1122 ot 2001 injuncting the plaintiff from blocking the entry. Further, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed

10. Whereupon, the plaintiff preferred appeals against the judgment and decree passed in his suit (O.S.No.B41 of 2000) as I I Y J NTR.J Si\s 2i 5&268 2010 well as the suit filed by the defendant (O.S.No.1 122 ot 2001)' vide appeal Nos.208 of 2004 and 180 of 2003 respectively. The appellate Court having considered the pleadings, dismissed both the appeals, thus these second appeals.

11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that the Courts below failed to appreciate the averments in the documents placed by the plaintiff and erred in granting injunction. He pointed to the plaintiffls sale deed/Ex.A-'l and pleaded that as per the schedule, the staircase and passage are for the vendee therein' He further pleaded that in the appeal, the son of the plaintiff as DW.2 got marked certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.725 of 2003 and encumbrance certificate/Exs. B-2 and B-3, but they were not considered by the appellate Court while determining the appeals' He further pleads that in lA No.37B1 of 2008, the defendant had admitted the existence of second staircase for their use' Therefore, the exclusive right of the plaintiff has been disregarded by the appellate Court which affected the substantial rights of the plaintiff. Hence, prayed for intervention in the second appeals' 12 ln spite of due notice, the defendant chose to remain silent I .+ NTR.J SAs 215&268 2010 '13. The appeal in S.A.No 215 of 2O1O was admitted on

26.03.2010 on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether non-consideration of Ex.81 sale deed by both the trial Court and the lower appellate Courl where- under the first appellant-defendant has become exclusively entitled to the stair case, passage leading to the first floor and the bore well has vitiated the result of the suit and appeal respectively?

2.Whether the non-consideration of the additional material evidence, oral evidence of DW.2 and the documentary evidence-Exs.B2 and 83 by the lower appellate Court has a/so vitiated the result of the first appeals?

14. The appeal in S.A.No.268 of 2010 was admitted on

16.04 2010 on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether in spite of the cancellation of Ex.B2 rectification deed by the judgment and decree rn OS No.72S of 2003 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, both the Courts could have dismissed the suit?

2.Whether the non-consideration of Ex.B1 sate deed by the trial Courl and lower appettate Court whereunder the Y 5 NTR.J SAs lli&268 2010 appellanlplaintiff became exclusively entitled to the stair case, passage leading to the first floor and the bore well in the ground floor, has vitiated the resutt of the suit and I the appeal re s7ectivelY? '1 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel and perused the materials on record'

16. The plaintiff and defendant by their pleadings are in agreement that they had purchased the eastern and western portions of the property from their common vendor under registered sale deeds and their possession over the respective properties. The entire dispute is around use of entrance/stair case'

17. ln this regard, the document for consideration would be the saledeedandthescheduleofpropertypurchasedbytheparties. As per the plaintiffs sale deed/Ex'A'l in the schedule property it has been mentioned thal"Atl that 813 Sg'Ft approximately consisting of four rooms in first floor premises in Plot No'147/C/B' 5-2-388 along with Sfalr case and passage with Borewell in the ground floor and first floor including land admeasuring 47 5 Sq.yds . " and the schedule property of the defendant's sale deed/Ex.Bldoesnotreadastothestaircaseorpathway.Further, 6 N'rR,J SAs 215&268 20t0 in the appeal filed against the defendant,s suit, the plaintiff got examined his son as DW-2 and placed the .judgment tEx.B_2 and Encumbrance Certificate/Ex.B-3 to signify that the suit filed by the plaintiff vide o.S.No.72s of 2003 to cancer the rectification deed executed by his vendor dated 06.0g.2000 has been cancelled and that judgment attained finality, hence the plaintiff asserted his exclusive right over the staircase and pathway.

18. lt is pertinent to note that, in the rectification deed, the vendor of the plaintiff made an effort to reduce the area sord under the sale deed of the plaintiff by 5 square yards.

19. lt is pertinent to note here that the properties of plaintiff and the defendant are on either side in the first floor. The sketch of scheduled properties filed by the plaintiff is evidencing that the staircase is in the middle of the plaintiffs and defendant,s property. Therefore, to reach the portions of praintiff and defendant the onry way is the staircase. As per the defendant, it is only the way to ingress and egress to the first floor and to his portion. Although the sale deeds of the plaintiff and the defendant are on the same day the sale deed of the plaintiff alone is referring to the staircase. However, during hearing, learned counsel for the plaintiff pleaded that as per his instructions, the defendant had constructed another I I I 7 NTR.J SAs 215&268 2010 staircase. Additionally, basing on the averment in the affidavit asserted that there is another staircase Yet, in the absence of cogent material on record and in view of the pleadings of the defendantintheaffidavitthatamakeshiftstaircaseisthereto reach store room, it has to be held that, the staircase shown in the site map is only way for both the plaintiff and defendant to their respective proPerties.

20. Further, the rectification deed appears to be an attempt by the vendor to set right the situation by limiting the area purchased by the plaintiff by 5 square yards. Howsoever, the ab.sence of the rectificationdeedwouldnotmakethingsbetterforthedefendantto use his property. That apart' perfecting exclusive rights of the plaintiff over the staircase and granting permanent injunction against the defendant would render the defendant's property useless for want of access. Because of this' permanently injuncting the plaintiff from interfering with the defendant's access to the staircase and pathway is perfectly justified' ln effect' the conclusions of the trial and appellate Courts in A S.No 208 ot 2OO4 in O.S.No.841 of 2000 deserve affirmation and the Second Appeal i.e. S.A.No.215 of 2O1O is liable to be and accordingly' dismissed' I I NTR,J SA\ 2l5&268 2010 21 .' Simultaneously, having regard to the pleading and atteslation of the plaintiff as to defendant,s interference to the extent of use of the staircase shall be taken into account and granting injunction against the defendant from interfering with the usage of staircase by the plaintiff is found proper to deduce effective conclusion.

22. As a consequence, the Courts below ought to have restrained the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs usage of staircase. Accordingly, to that extent, the impugned judgment in A.S.No.108 of 2003 in O.S No.1122of 2OO1 deserves modification. Resultantly, S A.No.268 of 2010 is parfly allowed and the defendant is injuncted from interfering with the usage of common staircase by the plaintiff. Accordingly the impugned decree stands modified. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR )t: TION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. (with records )

2. The Additional Rent Controller cum XVlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court. Secunderabad.

3. The Xl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 4. One CC to Sri P V Vidyasagar Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies $cz- r ,* HIGH COURT DATED:06101t2025 t n:. L1i )iJtl , \A\2 ' /r{if \\d Vo, -(l t\ k COMMON JUDGMENT+2 DEGREES -=/ SA.No.215 of 2010 AND SA.No.268 of 2010 SA.No.215 of 2010 !S DISMISSED SA.No.268 of 2010 IS PARTY ALLOWED t"lti , I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 13217 | [/IONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI becoruo APPEAL No: 21s of 2010 Between:

1. Smt. B.Lalitha, Wo. Sri B.Ramakoteswar Rao, Age:61 years, Occ: Housewife R/o. No. 3418, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.

2. B.Ramakoteshwar Rao, S/o. B.R,K.Murthy, Age:68 years, Occ: Business R/o. No 34/8, East Marredpally, Secunderabad. (Died per LR-A3)

3. B. Radhakrishna Murthy, S/o B. Ramakoteswara Rao, Age:59 years, Occ: Government Employee, Rlo. H.No.3418, East Maredpally, S'ecunderabad (Appellant No.3 is brought on record as per LR of the deceased Appellant No.2 vide Court order dated 15-'10-2024 in kA.No.1 ol 20241 ...Appellants/Appellants/Defendants AND Smt. G.Geetha, Wo. Saseendran, Age:49 years, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.5-2- 390 on plot No 147lCiC, Hyderbasti, Secunderabad. ..RespondenURespondenUPlai ntiff Appeal under sectionl00 of C.P.C. aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 06-08-2009 passed in A.S.No.208 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad preferred against the Judgment and decree daled 24-09-2004 passed in O.S.No.1 122 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Additlonal Rent Controller cum XVlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Award and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.V. Vidyasagar, Advocate for the Appellants and None Appeared for the Respondent. This Court doth order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Second Appeal No.215 of 2010 be and hereby is dismissed, and 2. fhat there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. I To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K, SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SE:C OFFICER

1. The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 2. The Additionar Rent controiler cum XVilr Junior civir Judge, city civir Court, Secunderabad.

3. The Xl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad 4. Two CD Copies i 7- I \, I HIGH COURT DATED:06 t01t2025 DECREE SA.No.215 ot 2010 SA.No.215 of 2010 IS DISMISSED 5 l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 132171 TUONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL No: 268 of 2010 I Between: Smt. B.Lalitha Kumari, Wo. Sri B.Ramakoteswar Rao, Age:61 years, Occ. Housewife R/o. No.34iB, East Marredpally, Secunderabad. ...AppellanUAppellanUplaintiff AND Smt. G.Geetha, Wo. Saseendran, Age:49 years, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.5-2_ 390 on plot No. 147lClC. Hyderbasti, Secunderabad. ...RespondenURespondenUDefendant Appeal under section 100 r/w Order XLll Rule 1 of C.p.C. aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 06-08-2009 passed in A.S.No..180 of 2003 on the file of the court of the I Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Secunderabad preferred against the Judgment and decree daled 01-12-2003 passed in o.S No.841 of 2000 on the file of the court of the Xl Junior civil Judge, city civil Court, Secunderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Award and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri p.V Vidyasagar, Advocate for the Appellants and None Appeared for the Respondent. This Court doth order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Second Appeat No.268 of 2010 be and hereby is parfly allowed; 2- rhal the defendant be and hereby is injuncted from interfering with the usage of common staircase by the plaintiff; f, To,

3. That the impugned decree be and hereby stands modified; and 4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. I;RINIVASA RAO REGISTRAR JOt r\[ N OFFICER

1. The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 2. The Additional Rent Controller cum XVlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

3. The Xl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 4. Two CD Copies k- HIGH COURT { DATED:0610112025 / I DECREE SA.No.268 of 2010 SA.No.268 o12010 IS PARTY ALLOWED t, ))