The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This Appeal is fi1ed challenging the judgement and decree dated 01.12.2OO8 in O.S.No. 205 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

2. Parties in the Appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. Respondents herein are Plaintiffs who filed the mentioned suit to declare judgement and decree dated l2.ll.lggg in O.S.No. 4862 of 199 1 on the hle of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and sale deed executed by the said Court dated 24.O3.2OO5 pursuant to the

decree passed in favour of defendants in the suit uide doatrrent Number No. 187 of 2OO4 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, and to declare the same as null and void ar-rd not binding on Plaintiffs and together a consequential relief of injunction.

4. The schedule property is a piece of land admeasuring 650 square yards in Survey No.4l situated at Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad with specihc boundaries. It is the case of Plaintiffs that they are legal heirs of Late N. Koteshwara Rao who aiong with Sri A. Ramachandra Rao, and Sri K' Appa I 2 Rao jointll' ptrrchased land admeasuring Ac'4 2o guntas in Survey Nos;. 't 1 and' 42 situated at Yellareddyguda \ri1lage' Khairatabatl L4anda1, Hyderabad, uide registered Sale Deed dated 30.0(-r. 1 164. Thereafter, they orally partitioned th e said land by mel-es and bounds, followed up by exccutiorl of a partition deec dated lO.O7 .lg7a. In the said partitictn, Sri Ramakoteshu.ilra Rao got an extent of 9922 square yards of land. L uring the life time of Sri Ramakotcshwar a Rao, 5. Sri A.Ramachirndra Rao, and Sri K. Appa Rao execr-rted (ieneral Poi.r,er of Alt(lrney in favour of one Mr. Balakotaiah in resipect of the aforesaicl etnd, who, in turn, had entered into an Agreemetlt of Sale datecl 22 ll lg75 with M/s Bhagralakshmi co-oPerative Housing Socit ty Limited. It is the claim of Plaintiffs that the said GPA was canrrr:l1ed which fact was informed to the Soci(ty with an advice nor, to deal with Mr. Balakotaiah and that the aforesaid Ag,r,r(rment of Sale had Iapsed by efflux of time lt is the further c:tse of Plaintiffs that the above three persons fi1ed indepen<le nl- declarations before the Special Officr:r and Competent, Ar-Lthority, U.L C., Hyderabad in respect cf lands held by th(rrn in Survey Nos. 41 arrd 42 under Section 6( l') of the Urban Larrd ,leiling Act in proceedings in C.C.No. Alla538/76 clated. O6. 11 .877 . The Competent Authority under tht: Urban ) ) \, * \ l:) _....*{ ,) 3 Land (Ceiling & Regulationsl Act, 1976, had allowed plaintiffs to retain 938 square meters in Survey Nos. 42 and. 62 square meters in Survey No.41 and balance land of 8254 square meters was declared as surplus land. Plaintiffs contested the said order and final order was passed on O7.O8.2OO4, allowing them to retain 8000 square meters and declared balance 5881 .68 square meters as surplus and applied for regalarization as per G.O.Ms.No.455 and paid Rs.82,68,71 I / - by each plaintiff to Government and sought for exemption of surplus land and the same is pending consideration before the authorities concerned- While matter stood thus, strangers had visited schedule land and made an attempt to measure the boundaries of a portion of schedule property and on enquiries, they revealed that they purchased the said property. It is the further case of purchasers that pursuant to the direction issued in Writ Petition No.788O of 2005, the Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad processed the Sale Deed dated 24.O8.2OO5 and the said saie deed was registered on O7.O3.20O5 in E.P No. 28 of 2OO5 in O.S.No. 4862 of 1991 and the Sub-Registrar had released the sale deed in favour of defendants.

6. Plaintiffs came to know that the 2"d defendant and father of the lst defendant claim to have entered into an AgreyzGnt of Sa-le dated 22.06.1981 with M/s Bhagralakshmi 4 Co-operatir,,: Fi c using Society Limited (herein after referrerl to as 'society') tbr- ltrrrchase of suit land and had fi1ed suit lor specific performatrc: in O.S.No.4862 of 7991 on the file of rhe IV Assistant Jurl5,e, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the liociety and the said suil was decreed on 30.08.1995 Though Appeals were prefcrre,l by the Society, the same were disrnissed; consequently, defendants hled tr.P. No. 19 of 1991' and E.P.No.3 L4 ,tl 20OO which were dismissed by orders dated L9.O3.2OO2 arLrl 13.10.2003 and the third E.P. No 28 cf 2O05 was allorved llr the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil (lourts, Hyderabad llrisuant to which, the Sale Deed mentionecl supra was preser,. tcc by the civil Court on behalf of judgment debtor on 24.O3.'2OOli. in favour of defendants, who are decree lrolders and the same \(ras received and kept pending for n'ant ol stamp duty, thereby \Mrit Petition No. 7880 of 2005 was hled r;eeking direction to I,rocess the Sale Deed. It is the further :ase of Piaintiffs thrLt- r hey are in possession of Suit Schedule Property and construcled a room and got a bore-well dug and that they are not the parties to the suit iiled by the defendants aga.nst the Society and l)efendants and Society have colluded with each other and oblained the decree, hence, the same is not binding on the plainr,ilTs I t t s 5 f

7. Society being only an agreement hoider, had never acted upon the agreement of sale and the same was terminated around 1980 itself and the SocietSz was not the owner of property and possession of lald was not delivered to Societ5r or to defendants at any point of time and Society being an agreement of sale holder cannot tralsfer title or ownership to defendants and that there is no registered deed of conveyance in favour of Society pursuant to the agreement of the sale dated:

22.11.1975 and land was declared as surplus way back in 1977 ' itself. Subsequent to service of notices in suit, defendants filed written statement, gist of which is that defendants have put a challenge that Plaintiffs are legal heirs of late M. Ramakoteshwara Rao, while admitting the fact that Sri Ramakoteshwara Rao, Sri K.Appa Rao and Sri A. Janardhan Rao jointly purchased the land admeasuring Acs.4.22 guntas in Surwey Nos. 4 1 and 42, uide Registered Sale Deed dated

30.06.1994, however, denied that there was partition by metes and bounds and subsequently, they entered into partition deed dated 10.07.1987 and it is also denied that Sri A. Ramachandra Rao got an extent of 9922 square yards of the said partition. All the three persons entered into General Power of Attorney in favour of Mr.Balakotaiah who had entered into Agreement of Sale with M/ s Bharyalakshmi Co-operative Housing Society 6 Limited, antl a; pcr the terms of the said agreement, the Siociety was put in yr<,s;session of land for development into pl cts by obtaining ltry o u t. It is denied that Power of Attorney given in favour of Mr. Ilalakotaiah was cancelled and that Agreenrent of Sale had lapst <1 by efflux of time. The declarations filed bcfore the U.L.C. allthorities were disputed by defendants and it is categorically i enied that Plaintiffs paid amounts trlwards regularizatiolr scheme as per G.O.Ms.No 45 and souglht for exemption tl s;trrplus land and it is totally false and illegrrl' lt is specific cerse of defendants, that plaintiffs are never in possessiort of suit property, the father of the 1"t defendant and the 2"d dcferr clant entered into Agreement of Sale w.th the Society for nrrrchase of land consisting of 65O squartr yards u,hich is S,uit Schedule Property and then Agreement of Sale dated 22.0(;- 1981 and paid part of sale considera tion of Rs.25,OOO7 - leaving a balance Rs.14,OOO/- to be paid at the time of re.r1i:; r rration of Sale Deed and the Society hand:d over ph].sica1 po:;session with specihc boundaries and deni:d that plaintiffs trar': right and possession over the properly and in vieu, of non,:ompliance of the obligation by the Society, defendants fibd O.S.No. 4862 of 1991 and after obtaining a decree, hlccl t:xecution petition and got the sale deed e recuted through Cou-t and had obtained necessary order from High \ \ \ \ . , .ir ..r' I 7 , Court in Writ Petition No. 788 of 2OO5 for processing Saie Deed by the Sub-Registrar, who raised objection. Plaintiffs are not owners and they are not in possession of property. Based on the above pleadings, the trail Court framed the following issues:

1. whether partition between Ramachandra Rao and two others dated:10 7-1987 is true? If so whether 9922 Sq.yards fell to the share of said Ramachandra Rao?

2. Whether Ramachardra Rao ald others filed declaration before the U.L.C. in viotation of agreement. Of sale dated 22-11-1975? 3. whether the decree in O.S. No. 4a62/1991is not binding on the plaintiffs?

4. Whether the suit is not in time? 5. Whether the decree dated 12-i 1 1999 in O.S. No. 4862/ 1991 on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge and consequential sale deed executed by the Court on 24-03 2OO5 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?

6. whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration and for permanent injunction as prayed for?

7. To what relieP

8. Evidence was laid by both the parties to the suit. The son of the 1st plaintiff was brought on record as legal heir and was examined as PW-l and documents Exs.Al to ,{4 were marked. On behalf of defendants, the lst defendant was examined as DW-1 and Ex. B1 - certilied copy of sale deed being document No.518 of 2OO8 registered in the ofhce Joint Sub Registrar, Hyderabad executed in favour of the Defendants, was marked. g. All the issues framed in the suit were answered in favour of PlaintiffS and the suit was decreed by judgement and decree dated O1.72.2OO8. Chailenging the said judgement and decree, the present Appeal was filed by defendants ,// / 8 Dcfendants are claiming title over subject Froperly 10. admeasurinl3 based on the Agreement of Sale from the Agreement hr,lder of the document in favour of Bhagya Nagar Co-operative: Society. They filed O.S. No. 4862 of 1991 against the Sociery s;eeking the relief of Specific PerformtLnce of Agreement ol Sale dated 22 06-1981 and obtained decree on 30 06-1995 'lhe Society fi1ed A.S.No.299 of 1997 on the hle of the Vth Aclditional Chief judge, Cily Civil Courts, Hyderabad, challenging t Lre above decree and the same was dismissed' Defendants t rcrefore, filed E.P.No. 19 of 1996 and tr.P. No. 314 of 20O0, v'hich u.ere dismissed by order dated 19 03-2o02 and 13 10.2003 re specl-ive1y. Again in 2OO5, appellants hlecl E.P.28 of 2OO5 scek ng an execution of the decree, which was allowed by the Ccurl belorv, and the sale deed was executed through Court. l'he -q ociety hled E.A.No. 558 of 2005 to set a Jide the order i.n E.l'. Irlo.28 of 2005. The Execution Petition was, hled in 2004 ar-rd tlrc same was ordered in 2OO5 uftle order dated 24 03 2OO5. 1\t the time of marking the boundaries, plaintiffs came to kn,:'v about passing of decree in O.S.No.4862 'tf l99l' hence resprrrrdents / plaintiffs hled O.S.No.205 of 2005 seeking cancellatiorL ,rf the said decree; accordingly, O.S. No.205 of 2005 was filed rvitlun the period of limitation. \ 9 6 1 1. Plaintiffs claim that they filed an Application for regularization of surplus land under G.O.Ms.No. 466, dated 29-07 -2OO2, Government issued regularization of surplus land in favour of plaintiffs/ respondents uide G.O.Ms.No. 1636, dated 09 O9-2OO9 vide Ex.A2.

12. From the pleadings, evidence and impugned judgment and decree, the following point fall for consideration for adjudication of the present Appeal: " Whether the suit is maintainable and can be decreed as prayed for, in the absence of the document viz. judgment and decree in O.S.No. 4862 of 1991 on the hle of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and Partition Deed dated 10.O7.1987 executed after death of Late Sri M. Ramakoteshwara Rao, Sri K. Appa Rao and Sri A. Janardhan Rao and whether the suit is in compliance with Order VII Rule 14 CPC?"

13. It is apparent on the face of the record that plaintiffs are relying on registered Partition Deed dated lO.O7.l9a7 and are claiming rights over suit schedule property. Order VII of the Code mandates that Plaintiff who is coming to the Court shall file all the documents that are being relied. Order VII Rule- I 4 is extract ed hereunder: \ I t0 :E;r":: -.:.' .- 'Order lII Rule 74t Pl ccluction of document on rvhich plaintiff sues ot- relies - (1) where ,l pllintiff sues upon a document or relies upon docuntent in his possesrsiorr or po\{.rer in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents n rr list, and shall produce it in court whcn the plaint is presented b]' trl anrl sha1l, at the same time deliver the documcnt and a copy thereol, to be filed with the plaint , (2) where any such dot ument is not in tlLe rlossession or power of the plaintiff, he shall wlrerever possible, stat( n whose possession or power it is-, (3) A docrrment which is ought 10 bc produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented. .)r 10 be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but rs rrot produced or entered accordingly, shall not, rvithrlut the leave of the c( lrrt, be received rn evidence on his behalf at the heiLring of the suit., (41 l\llthing in this rule shall appty to documenl produced for the cross eria[rination of the plaintiffs $'itnesses, or handed o\er to a witness ucrel,'to refresh his memory"- 14 . lrr the suit, though in the List o[ Documcnts, 1 1 documents \,!- e re shown to have been hled, however, during the trial, the C,lr:t had admittcd Ex.Al - Certihed Copy of Sale Deed executtcl in favour of plaintlffs' predecessors in-t itle and his co-pur,:hasers dated 30.06.1964, Ex.A2 Oopy of G.O.Ms.No.1tr.36, dated.09.09.2OO5, trx.A3 - Copl' of A.P. Gazatee datr:d O 1.1O.2OO4 and trx.A4-Copv of . the order of Competent A -rthority, ULC dated 28.O4.2OO4.

15. \s discussed supra, the claim of plaintiffs Ls based on partition ri,:ed dated lO.O7 .1987 and the said docurr.ent was not filed ilr,d no reasons were given by them for not f.ling the same along rrith suit and so aiso subsequently. When the very , I 11 ,i basis for suit is not hled by plaintiffs themselves, it is uncomprehensible as to how the trial Court had overlooked the said aspect, more so when it is clearly elicited in the cross- examination of PW 1 that "I am not aware uhether there utas ang partition deed betueen Ramokotesuaro Rao, Ramochandra Rao and Appa Rao in respect of Ac.4.22 guntds but I understood that tLrcre is oral partition".

16. Further, added to the aforesaid aspect, it is shocking to notice that trail Court had adjudicated the suit without there being the principal document viz. judgment and decree in O.S.No.4862 of 1991 and had decided Issue No.5 "Whether decree dated 12.11.1999 in O.S.No.4862 of l99l on the filc of the IV Junior Civil Judge and consequential Sale Deed executed by the Court on 24.O3.2OO5 are null and void and not binding on plaintiffs?"

17. In the impugned judgment, the trail Court had adjudicated Issue No.5 along with Issue Nos. 3 and 6 contending that all the three issues are intei.linked. The contention of plaintiffs is that decree in O.S. No.4862 of l99l on the fi1e of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and consequential sale deed executed by the Court on 24-O3-2OOS are null and void and not binding on plaintiffs. The contention of defendants is that the decree in the said suit and j dh. .-.fl r1 12 the conseque ttial sale deed are binding on plaintiffs F'-om the saicl respeiti\e stands taken by the parties, the burden of proof is on plaiLrti{fs to prove their case specihcally r,-hen they are asking for s(lttlng aside the judgment and decree in O.S.l'1o.4862 ot 1991. WtrcrL the said judgment and Decree is not part of the Court record the exercise done by the trial Court in rleciding Issue No.ir irr favour of plaintiffs is unsustainable in law and findings an<1 conclusion given on Issue No.5 are liable to be set aside, more s c, when PW 1 in cross-examination had sta ted that "The societg' ts not partg to the suit. Nottt I came to krtoru that the society cot'tt,z:;ted in O.5.No.4862/ 91 filed by defenrl an.t.s and that it uent in,fat,vtr of defendants and confinned in the appe al also."

18. 'lhe GPA holder of Sri A. Ramachander llao, Sri Ramakotesl.ttl'ara Rao and Sri Appa Rao had excctlted an agreemen- of sale in favour ol M/s Bhagralakshmi Co t:perative Housing Sioc:ety Limited. The above-named three persol-rs being the Princrpa. si are bound by the acts of their Agent i.e GPA Holder. PW f . in the cross-examination stated t.hat " r do not knou uthether my fatlrcr Romakoteshtuar Rao had exect;.ted GPA in fauour oJ f:ri M.Balakotalah. I do not knou tuhether GI:'A holder executed eqreement of sale on 22-11-1975 in fc'.uour of Bhagganctga' Cooperatiue Societg. I haue not Jiled doatment to shoul that thz GPA is concelled and I om not aloare uh<ztler the \ - I \ IJ ,a GPA in fauour of Balakotaiah is a registered one as No. 100 and 99 of 1975 Sub-Registrar, Vijagautada". This statement of PW1 shows that he is not aware of the defence set up by defendalts so also the actual sequence of events that have taken place with regard to schedule property which led to hling the suit. Defendants, based on the said agreement of sale, hled O.S.No.4862 of 1991 for specific performance of agreement of sale and the same was decreed, pursuant to which, the decree holders - defendants hled Execution Petition and had obtained a registered.sale deed. Plaintiffs, who were seeking declaration of decree mentioned supra, so obtained as null and void, should have hled the said judgment. Having regard to Order VII Ruie-14 CPC, the documents hled along with plaint are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the suit. In exercise of power under the aforesaid provision, the Court would determine as to whether the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law or judicial dicta. It is only when a document is received in evidence, it becomes part of the adjudication of the suit.

19. Reliance of plaintiffs on ULC proceedings and getting the same marked as Exs.A2 to A4 are of not much help. Suit scheduie property is having dehnite boundaries and the claim of defendants is fortihed by the Judgment and Decree, t4 .ti - \:, u'hereas frctn Exs.A2 to A4, it cannot be ascertained tl Lat suit schedule prolrt:rff is forming part and parcel of trxs A2 to ,A'4' Thereby, it is rrot safe to rely upon the said exhibits and decree the suit of 1:laintiffs. Thus, this Court is deferring u ith the hnding of the trial Court on Issue No.1 in vien' of the finding with regard tc Issue No.5. Further, in view of the holrling on Issue Nos.S i:rLd 1, Issue No.6 is decided against plaintiffs and holds that b'rt for the procedural orders, plaintiffs hitve not produccd a single document evidencing proof of physical possessiol, or err the suit property as against the regisleled sale cleed of deft:r <lants and judgment and decree granted in the ir favour.

20. "l-re trial Court, while deciding Issue No.l "\Vhether partition beluveen Ramachander Rao and [u'o otherr; dated

10.07.1987 i:; true? If so, u,hether 9922 square 1'ards fcll to the share of thr: said Ramachander Rao" had discussed alrout the agreemenl of s;ale entered by the GPA Holder of the lar-rcl o\\'ners u.rth the Soc e ty, but had overlooked the fact that no partition deed dated 1 ).O7 .7987 was filed by plaintiffs. Discussion about defendants' r'cndor not obtaining the sale deed fron'r the land owners sern s the document viz. partition deed. In th{l cross- examination cf P.W. 1; it is stated that "I admit the copg of order of competertt authoitg ULC dated 28-8-2OO4 for referer tce. It is 1 \ \ \ l5 D marked os Ex.A4.ln Ex. A4 there is a reference to the agreement of sale exeanted bg GPA in fauour of societg and about deliuery of possession on 22-11-1975. I am not aLuare of the aboue proceedings personallg and olso tuhether any notice u.ta-s issued bg mg fatLrcr to the societg and the GPA for cancellotion of agreement. I am not anDore on tuhat dag tte declaration was frled by mg father. I am not au)are ds to uhat tuas the extent lrcld bg the authoitg to be possessed as my familg holding. Ex.A2 GO as tuell as Ex. A3 Gazette are afier th,e filing of suit'. The non-filing of the said partition deed is fatal to the suit of plaintiffs. Furthermore, plaintiffs being in possession of the said document had not given reasons for non-hling of partition deed. Trial Court committed a serious error in iinding that there exists a partition just by believing the oral evidence of PWI and had presumed that there was partition of land among all those three persons and 9922 square yards feli to the share of the said Ramachander Rao. This finding of the trial Court is brought from thin air and is nothing short of hction. For non-ftling of the documents relied on by plaintiffs, adverse presumption has to be drawn against them. However, the trail Court, as against the settled principles of law, had relied more on the weakness of the case of defendants rather the strength of plaintiffs'case and had 16 (j decreed the s,uit. In Union of India o' Vasaui CooPerative Housing Societg Limitedl , it rvas held as under: ' 1:,. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration oltirle' the burden al\v€\ r iies on the plaintiff to make out and cstablish r clear case for granling such a declaration and the weakncss' if an]' of the case set u p t) the defendants \a'ould not be a ground to grant 1 31ief to the plaintlff " The trial Court, while deciding Issue No 2 " \Vhether

21. RamachandrrL Rao and others filed declaration before the ULC in violaticrn cf agreement of sale d'ated 22 11'1975?"' had committed I 1.r c same error of believing the oral vcrslon of PW 1 though disprr ted by defendants and had relied upon Eris'A2 to A4 as to th.e existence of suit schedule properq' form ng part and parcel ol the said documents. This approach of triill Court is vitiated b1' )aw and procedure. Even otherwise, this is;sue will not come trr the rescue of plaintiffs in view of the finrlings on lssue No.5i, s u pra. I\-rrther, it is to be noted that O.S No 2O5 of 2OO5

22. was filed b1' respondents herein to declare the judgment and clecree date<l l2.ll.lggg in O.S.No. 4862 of 1991 on tl-re filc of the learrred IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyclerabad arLd sale deed executed by the Court on 24 03'2O05 pursuant to the decree in favour of appellants hcrein as null t(2014) 2 sc(l 269 17 and void. Though a copy of the said judgment and decree dated

12.11.1999 in O.S.No. 4862 of 1991 was not placed on record, it I I appears, the said suit was Iiled by the appeliants against M/s Bharyalakshmi Cooperative Housing Societ5r Limited. However, respondents while seeking to declare the judgment and decree passed between the appellants and the said Society as null and void, did not make the Society as party to the suit. Therefore, it has to be declared that suit is also bad for non- joinder ol necessary parl ies. ( I /l:

23. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasoning, this Court is not venturing to discuss other issues.

24. In the result, the Appeai is allowed. The Judgment and Decree dated 07.12.2OO8 in O.S.No.2OS of 2OO5 on the hle of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad declaring the judgment and decree dated 12.lI.I999 in O.S.No. 4862 of 1991 on the h1e of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and sale deed executed by the said Court on

24.O3.2OO5 pursuant to the said decree in favour bf defendants uide P.No. 187 of 2OO4 of Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs and consequently, granted permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs, is set aside. Consequently, O.S.No. 2O5 of 2005 is dismissed. Both the parties shall bear their own costs. J r}d T,] l 18 25 C) cnsequently, Misceilaneous Applications, if any f, shall stancl r: ,1sed //TRUE COPY// sd/- K. SRINIVASARAO IN-I'REGTSTRAR \jq Jr"rto* oFFtcER \i To, The lll Additir>rral Civil Judge' Citv Civil Court' at Hyderabad d=., d,;d;; ,lK MukhLe'd' Advocate toP^u-cl E.#i6 i; M. k Hemalatha' Advocate toPUCl Two CD CoPies 1 2 J 4 ADK tr"' i I i 1 .'\.-* d( . ..:- I r".?ra:,r,&{n €.:. Gi * ',5:-l i-'_ ra '..':. .t': a1 HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 JUDGMENT+DECREE r J CCGA.No.283 of 2008 .:. Ait O F Y\v .>* - t) tt \r\\s rNh .,,,1 ' t -\j:i.a=..- 'li-..t)l: ' .cj ;2' Z i 2 DRAFTS ALLOWING THE CCCA WITHOUT COSTS e( IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 283 OF 2008 Between:

1. T.Ramanaiah, Sio.T.Venkaiah, Occ: Government Emplovee, Rl/o. D.No. 8-3-976/1 1 5, Shalivahana Nagar Colony, Yellareddiguda,'tty6erabad.

2. M.Srinivasa.Chary, S/o. {lwaraiah Pujari, Rl/o. D.No.3-B-5, Moosapet, Ranga Reddy District. Rep by T.Ramanaiah a-s his G.P.A. Holder. ...Appel lants/Defendants AND 1 Mandava Ravi, S/o. Late M.Ramakoteswara Rao, Occ: Business, Fi/o. Plot No.5B9, Arora Colony, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. Sarojini, Wo. Late Ramakoteswara Rao, Occ: Housewife, Rl/o. Plot No.589, Arora Colony, Road No.'13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

3. Smt. Usha Sundari, D/o. Late Ramakoteswara Rao,Occ: Business, FVo. Plot No.589, Arora Colony, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 dismissed for default vide court order dated 18-11-2015. ...Respondents/Plaintiffs Appeal under section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Daled 01-12-2008 made in O.S.No.205 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M A K Mukheed, Advocate for the Appellants and of Ms. K Hemalatha, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 & 2 and none appeared for the respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal be and hereby is Allowed; 2. That the Judgment and Decree daled 01 .12.2008 in O.S.No.2OS of 2005 on the file of the lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad declaring the judgment and decree daled 12.11 .1999 in O.S.No.4B62 of 1991 on the file of the lV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and sale deed executed by the said Court on 24.03.2005 pursuant to the said decree in favour of defendants vide P.No.187 of 2004 of Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs and consequenfly, granted permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs, is set aside. Consequently, O.S.No.205 of 2005 is dismissed; 3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K SRINIVASA RAO, JOINT REGISTRAR, ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Additional Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. 2. Two CD Copies ADK w HIGH COURT DATED:0710312'025 DECREE CCCA.No.283 ol 2008 ;14 i €' ,J O <s( z o,\ 2 6 I'lA l 2025 /l 'c rar;H EO * ALLOWING TI.flE CCCA WITHOUT COSiTS 1tV {tld,,