The High Court · 2025

... Respo ndents/Defendants IA NO :1 oF 2024 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCpraylngthatinthecircumstances 'p.etitio;, rhe Hiqh court may be stated in the affidavit nr"o iJ-.u-pp"ri of the oleased to stav of all further;;;i;di" n s t'to +s oi zozt"o"thefile of the ll'l noat. cti"t Judge, Citv ci"iib;;;'H-v;u1'09^o pendino disposal of the main 2s2q'"on the file of the High ;i ChFti;o c R.P. and pass, Pending fiil 'oi / Court. rhe petition/Appearcomins on for hearing' YqT ffiiTl!:*".L{l'"ttllfl f;'-iht p"tition"t(s)' Advocate for the tne amOaviitifed in support thereof and upon hearrng SHAFEE uR RAHEMAN il;;;;" i".iiJJ."i.l ,nd tn" Court made the followins I i I I t I l I I i i I , i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3140 oF 2024 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 1 1.07.2024 passed in I.A.No. 1043 of 2024 in A.S.No.4S of 2021 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, this Civit Revision Petition is filed.

2. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the application filed under Section 107 rlw l5t CPC seeking to granr perrnission for demarcation of the suit schedule property.

3. Heard Sri Shaik Shafee Ur Raheman, leamed counsel for petitioner, and Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, leamed counsel for respondents.

4. The petitioner is plaintiff and the respondents are defendanrs in the suit before the trial Court. For convenience, the parlies are hereinafter refened to as arrayed in the suit.

5. Briel factual matrix of the matter is that the plaintiff filed the appeal-AS.No.48 of 2021 aggrieved by the judgmenr and decree dated 16.07.2021 passed in OS.No.l307 of 2010 on rhe ftte of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by which the suit which --was originally filed for perpetual injunction and 2 LNA, J CRP.No.3I40 oJ 2021 subsequently, amended to that of suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property was dismissed. While the appeal is pending adjudication, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid application stating that the controversy between him and respondent No.5 is with regard to localization and identity of the suit schedule property

6. The trial Court has considered the contentions advanced on behalf of both the parties and observed that the ptaintiff claimed that he is owner of the suit schedule propefty with specific boundaries to a specific extent having acquired the same under a registered document, therefore, the burden is on him to establish the identity of the said property. If a Commissioner is appointed for demarcation and localization of the suit schedule property, it amounts to collection of evidence. The trial Court further observed that the vendor of the plaintiff got 1,180 square yards along with other shareholders and entered into agreement of sale for an extent of250 square yards with the petitioner, horvever, the sale deed was executed only for an extent of 150 square yards and no boundaries are fumished in respect of the above extents. Therefore, there is no possibility to identifr the land that fell to the share ofthe vendor of : t I ! i I, i l I l I I t / ,/'/ I ! 3 LNA, J CRP.No.3140 oJ 2021 the ptaintiff and the extent claimed by him and other parties who acquired the rights through the vendor of the plaintiff are also not made parties to the suit and as such, localization ofproperties is not possible.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the trial Court has committed eror in dismissing the application on mere conjectures and surmises without considering the grounds ra ised and the submissions made by the petitioner. He further contended that the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, rvhich resulted in injustice to the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondents/ def-endants conrended that the triar Court had rightry dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for demarcation of the suit schedule propefty, as the same amounts to collection of evidence. lle lurther contended that the plaintiff failed to make out any ground to interlere with the well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court and therefore, the Revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. It appears from record that the plaintiff filed the suir O.S.No. 1307 of 2010 for perpetual injunction and declaration of tile in respect of house bearing Municipat No.19-3-1077, -et \ 4 LNA, J CRP.No.3I10 of 2021 admeasuring 150 square yards situated at Sarfaraz Jung Colony, Engine Bowli, Jahanuman, Hyderabad, having the lollowing boundaries:- North : Neighbours property South :3 feetpassage East : Main road West :Plaintiflsvendor'sproperty.

10. From a bare perusal of the boundaries, it is evident that on the west of the suit schedule property, there lies the plaintilPs vendor's property. Admittedly, the vendor of the plaintiff and delendant Nos.l to 3 in the suit entered into compromise decree in respect of total extent of 1,180 square yards. It is the case of the plaintiff that he acquired title in respect of 150 square yards as per the registered sale deed dated 02.12.2006, whereas thc total extent of land covered under agreement of sale is 250 square yards, pursuant to which the aforesaid sale deed was executed. However, he faited to offer explanation for the said discrepancy and further, it is pertinent to note that the first appellate Court has observed that there is no mention of boundaries in the agreement of sale, pursuant to which sale deed was executed. Thus, this Court finds / I I I 5 LNA, J CRP.No.3140 oJ 2021 serious lacuna in the case of the plaintiff which cannot be altowed to be filled up by demarcation of suit schedule property. The appeal filed by the petitioners has to fau or stand on its own merits and material placed on record. 1 l. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. 12. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs Sd/. K. AMMAJI DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1 The ll Addl Chief Judge, City Civil Court at- Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRt. SHATK SHAFEE UR RAHEMAN Advocate IOPUCI 0. One.Oerto\9BA: Nyoedte{Opue} 3. One spare copy \' TL,'o ,:o r: opfeA ASRI/PSI, Yv HIGH COURT DATED:20103t2025 ORDER CRP.No.3140 of 2024 oR TIIE S ..1 t o() f-. 2 5 JUL 2025 11 '_t' 2 )(. + O., ./r ;.' DISMISSING THE CRP 6,coPte+ &n" I , I I a i I i I I I t a i ! t