The High Court · 2025

I Smt. P. Radha Bai, Wo. Late Sri P. Muniswamy Naidu, Occ Housewife 10. P. Suresh Kumar, S/o. Late P. Muniswamy Naidu, Occ: Business 11. P. Ajay Kumar, S/o. Late P. Muniswamy Naidu, Occ: Business 12. P. Satish Kumar, S/o. Late Sri P. Muniswamy Naidu' Occ Business 13.P. Venkatesh, S./o. Late P. Muniswpmy Naidu A-9to13 R/o H No 22-1-105, Kalikabar, Hyderabad. AoDellants No.9 to '13 are brought on record as LRs of Sth Appellant as per tlhE'orders of Registrar (Enquiri-es). DtO4l04l2012 made in CCCA'MP'no'569 ot 20'l.1. ...Appellants AND I I I I I

1. Ganga Ram (l)ied), Per LRs. 2. Smt. Madhumathi, Wo Bikki Lal, R/o 6-3-186/2, Jayanagar Colony' Newboiguda,

3. Jayaram, S/o Gangaram, Occ: Business, R/o 6-3-186/2' Jayanagar Colony' Newboiguda,

4. Bikki Lal, S/o Sangaram, Occ: Business, R/o 6-3-186/2' Jayanagar Colony' Newboiguda,

5. K. Veerabhadra Rao, S/o Satyakoti Naidu, D'NO'2-1-255' Nallakunta' Hyderabad. ...Responderrts/Respondents/Plaintiffs in OS' And Sole Defendant in suit l.A. NO: 1 oF 2003(CMP. NO: 17103 oF2003) PetitionunderSectionl5,lofCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petiiion, the High Cou rt may be pleased to gr"nrrtry of all further proceedings in9-L,dlg !l1"Yiction of the petitioners from to- 5-1-506'situated in Putli itr. ."nJorr" prernises bearing D.No.ss-i499 iio*rigvJ in the guise of the Ep.?o/01 ,in os.387 of 1989 on the file of the court of V Senior Civil Jidge,Citv Civil Court, ,Hyderabad which pertains to n19m1s99 u.r.ing-o r.,to.,5-l-,i98, 5-1-497,5-1-434,5--'.t43411 and 5-1-43412 situated in Putli Bowli Hyd,pending 3CCA. - Counsel for the Appellant Nos.s, 6, & 7 : SRI M V S SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4 : SRI A JEEVAN KUMAR The Court delivered the following: Judgment /r i/ I I I i l I I i l I I I I I I I I THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI C.C.C.A.No.2 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is prcferred by the appeliants - claim petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree datet 25-07.2003 passed in E'A'No'22 of 2003 in E.P.No.T0of200lino.S.No.38Toflg8gpYtheleamedVSeniorCivilJudge, City Civil Coun, HYderabad.

2.o.S.No.387ofl989isfiledbythergspondents_plaintiffsforevictionof the respondent - defendant from the suit qchedule premises, for arrears of rent of Rs.55,100/- and for damages for use and occupation @ Rs'1500/- per month' Thc said suit was decreed with costs directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises and to deliver vacant possession of the sarne on or before

01. t0.1999 and to pay a sum of Rs.54,0001 towards arrears of rent and mesne protrtsriRs.l500/-permonthfrom0l.02.lg8gtillthedateofvacatingthe prcmlses l. For executing the said decree, E.b.No.70 of 2001 was filed by the plaintifis D.[trs. ln the said E.P., E.A.I1{o.22 of 2003 was filed by the third pany claimants under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC contending that thc property belonged to Raja Dhanraj Giri and that pey purchased the same tiom Raja 2 Dr.GR& J ccca 256 2fi13 Dhanraj Giri ard the respondent No.5 - defendant had no title or interest and could not confer title on the D.Hrs. in O.S.No.387 of 19g9. The respondents _ plaintifls - D.Hrs. as well as the respondent No.5 - defendant _ J.Dr. had not I contested the m;ltter in E.A.No.22 of 2003.

4. The learrred V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed the impugned order on 25.07 2OO3 as follows: "Heard A perusal of Ex.A I shows that the Hon'ble High Court only hetd that there is no relationship of landkxd and rcnant between the petitioner and respondent No.l and the peritioners quesrioning ownership of r€spondent No.l is bonafide as held by Rent Control Courr. but it did not say that the respondents cannot file a suit claiming titlc to rhc suit proprty nor a finding is given that petitioners are the owners Even othern,ise rhe peririoners have not filed any application questioning the authenticit,, olthc decrec in O.S.No_387 of 1989. Hence, I arr not inclined ro allo!,,.rhis petition. Hence, petition is dismissed.',

5. Aggrieved by the disrnissal r.r f rhe said application, the claim petitioners preferred this ap,peal.

6. Notices vvere served r)n the respondents in this appeal. But there is no representation fi rr them.

7. Heard thc leamcd coLrnsel lirt'the.appellants. 3 Dr.GRR. J ccc, 255 2003

8. Leamed counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit was filed in respect of premises Nos'5-1497, 5-1-498' 5-1434' 5-l434tl afi 5-143412 situated at Putli Bowli, Hyderabad against i'espondent No'5' But the respondent - plaintiff sought to execute the same in 4espect of the premises of the claim petitioners bearing Municipal Nos'5-1499 to 5-1-506' Without adverting to the same, the claim application was dismissed by the Executing Cour! which was wholly unsustainable. The observation of the trial court that the appellants have not filed any application questioning the authenticity of the decree in o.S.No.387 of 1989, was not colrect, as the said decree was not passed in respect of the premises belonging to the appellants' The said decree was not binding on the appellants. The executing court ought to have noticed that the D.Hrs. in Rent Control Court were not the landlords and there was no landlord and tenant relationship and there was a bonafide disPute of title and consequently the rent control petitions filed against the appellans were dismissed. The same was also confirmed by the AFpellate Authoriry i'e' by this Court in the CR[)s and the same was also confirmed in the Special Leave Petition. As such. it was the duty of the rdspondents to file an independent suit against the appcllants seeking declaratioh' But the respondents - ptaintiffs obtained a collusive decree against respqndent No'5 - defendant against the premises bearing Nos.5-l 4g7, 5-1498,51434' 5-l-434t1 and 5-l-43412' but sought to cxecute against the appellans and prayed to allow the claim petition Dr.GRR, J cccr 256 2003 by setting asidrr the order dated 25.07.2003 passed in E.A.No.22 of 2003 in 4 E.P.No.70 of 2001 in O.S.No.387 of 1989.

9. Perused the record

10. The clainL applications have to be tried rike a suit under order )o(I Rule 58 ofcPC. But the impugned order passcd by the learned V senior civil Judge would disclose that no trial was conducted, no evidence was let in and no opportllnity was given to the petirioners to adduce evidence. The appendix of evidence was recorded as nil, but the order rnentions about Ex.Al. The order would not disckrse what was rhe Flx.A I rcf'crred by the leamed v Senior civil Judge. I l. Taking into consideration thc submissions made b1 the leamed counsel for the appellanr.s and as the order passed by rhe leamed \/ Senior civil Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad is not in accordance with law, it is considered fit to remand the mafter to the leamed V Scnior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to ptss order in accordance with lau,after giving an opportunity to the parties to adtluce evidence.

12. In the rersult, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated

25.07.2003 pass,:d in E.A.No.22 ol'2003 in t-_.p.No.70 of 2r)01 in O.S.No.287 of 1989 by the learned V Senior Civil J,udge. City Ci'il Courr, Hyderabad and the 5 Dr.GRR, J cccr 256_2OO3 matter is remanded directing to pass the same on merits aftEr giYing an opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence. No order as to costs' As a sequel, miscellaneous applioations pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- R.KARTHIKEYAN JOINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, The V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hydera ad One CC to Sri M V S Suresh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri A Jeevan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 ADK/PSL w HIGH COUFIT DATED:271C)312025 JUDGMENT'+DECREE CCCA.No.2l56 of 2003 ALLOWING THE CCCA WITHOUT GOSTS G*t@ \6. -r(+* .J' o() * t. 2 DRAFTS -:- --::\ : niri'\.. * a;.:\ ':.t''r . , i\ i ?025 i,;;) f.',i ,'\,t.; 25AL Sp.rr f "(''fty'' IN THE HIGII COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENW SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUbTICE G.RADHA RANI CITY CIVIL COURT APP o F Between:

1. Laxman Rao, S/o. Lingarao, R/o.D.No,5-1-500, Putli 8owli, Hyderabad. 2. Hanmanth Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana Rao, Rl/o.D.No.5-'l -504, Putli Bowli, Hyderabad.

3. Dayananda Rao, S/o.K.Jahangirji, Rl/o,D.No.5-1-499, Putli Bowli, Hyderabad. 4. Md. Yousuf Khan, S/o.Md.Hussain Khan, R/o.D.No.5-1-502, Putli 8owli, Hyderabad.

5. P. Munna Swami Naidu (Died) per LRs A- 9 to 13, S/o late P. Ramaswamy Naidu R/o.D.No.5- 1-502, Putli Bowli, l,lyderabad. 6 Deepak Rai, S/o Moti Ram, R/o. D.No.5-1-503, Putli Bowli, Hyderabad. 7. Syed Mubashir Mehdi, S/o late Syed Moosa, D.No.5-1-506, Putli Bowli, Hyderabad. 8- M/s Shanthi and Company, Hyderabad. ..,Appellants/claim Petitioners rep. by Ramesh D.No.5-1-505, Putli Bowli, ..,Appellants/claim Applicants

9. Smt. P. Radha Bai, Wo. Late Sri P. I$uniswamy Naidu, Occ: Housewife '10. P. Suresh Kumar, S/o. Late P. Munispamy Naidu, Occ: Business 11. P. Ajay Kumar, S/o. Late P. Muniswarny Naidu, Occ: Business 12. P. Satish Kumar, Sio. Late Sri P. Muniswamy Naidu, Occ: Business 13 P. Venkatesh, S./o Late P MuniswAmy Naidu A-9to13 R/o. H.No.22-1-105, Kalikabar, Hyderabad. Appellants No.g to 13 are brought on record as LRs of Sth Appellant as per the orders of Registrar (Enquiries). 01.0410412012 made in CCCA.MP.no.569 ot 2011. ...Appellants AND 1 Ganga Ram (Died), per LRs / 2. Smt.. Madhumathi, Wo Bikki Lal, R/o 6-3-186t2, Jayanagar Cotony, Newboiguda,

3. Jgyqof , {i/o Gangaram, Occ: Business, R/o 6-3-186/2, Jayanagar Cotony, Newboiguda, /

4. Bikki Lal. S/o Ganoaram, Occ: Business, R/o 6-3-186/2, Jayanagar Colony, Newboiguc a,

5. K. Veerabhadra Rao, S/o Satyakoti Naidu, D.NO.2-.,|-255, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. ...Respon(lents/Respondents/praintiffs in os. And sole Defendant in suit Appeal under Order 21 Rute 58(4) R/w section 96 of C.p.C against the Judgment and Decree Dared 25ro7 t2o03 made in E.A.No 22 of 2003 i-n g.p.No. 70 ot 2o01 in o.ri.No.387 of 1989 on the fite of the court of the V senior civit Judge, City Civil C)ourt, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, _ the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and ihe material pipers in the case .and upon hearing the arguments of SRI M v s SURESH KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellant Nos.S, 6 & 7 and of SRt A JEEVAN KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 {i 4. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1. That the cccA be and hereby is a[owed setting aside the order dated 25.07.2003 passed in E A.No.22 of 2003 in E.p.No.70 of 2001 in O.S.No.2B7 of 1989 by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad and the matter is rernanded directing to pass the same on merits after giving an opportunity k) the parties to adduce their evidence , 2. That there shall be no order as to costs rn this appeal SD/- R.KARTHIKEYAN INT REGISTRAR \' \ \ \ sEcTtoN oFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1.7 2.7 he V Senior Oivil Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad wo CD Copie; ADK w HIGH COU]TT DATED:27110312025 DECREE CCCA.No.256 of 2003 ALLOWING THE CCCA WITHOUT COSTS ,(tuQkl" \