Dismissed

Shaik Noorjahan v. Shaik Ramaza Bee (died)

Telangana HC4 Dec 2012SA/296/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The second appellant, who lost in both the trial and appellate courts, appeals against the dismissal of her suit for declaration of title and injunction over a dry land plot. The court upheld the lower courts' decision that the schedule land did not match the_documengts in the plaint and no additional evidence was legally admissible.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.

Shaik Noorjahan Vs Shaik Ramaza Bee (died) — Partition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA

¶2

GOVINDARAJULU

¶3

Dated: Tuesday, the 4^th day of December, 2012

¶4

SECOND APPEAL No. 296 OF 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

Shaik Noorjahan. … Appellant/Appellant

¶7

Plaintiff

¶8

And

¶9

1. Shaik Ramaza Bee (died)

¶10

2. Shaik Rahamathulla and

¶11

others.

¶12

…Respondents/Respondents

¶13

Defendants

¶14

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶15

SECOND APPEAL No. 296 OF 2008

¶16

JUDGMENT:

¶17

The plaintiff who lost her case in both the Courts below filed this Second Appeal. She filed the suit in the trial Court

¶18

for declaration of her title to the plaint schedule land and for permanent injunction. The plaint schedule dry land is Ac.2.20 cents out of Ac.24.44 cents in S.No.617 of Thimmasamudram Village, TSundupally Mandal, Kadapa

¶19

District. The basis on which the plaintiff filed the suit is on Exs.A1 to A.3 and A.8. Ex.A8 is Sale Certificate issued by Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoti in E.P.No.24 of 1976 in O.S.No.291 of 1974 in favour of Venganna for an extent of Ac.8.16 cents in this S.No. According to the plaintiff, Venganna purchased the said land under Ex.A8 including the suit land o f Ac.2.20 cents. Venganna sold away the suit property, according to the plaintiff, to her mother Rahamat Bee under Ex.A1 sale deed dated 07.12.1984. Rahamat Bee executed Ex.A2 Gift Deed in favour of P.W.2 by name Dr.Nowshad. P.W.2 executed Ex.A3 Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff. By virtue of Ex.A3 Gift Deed, the plaintiff claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the deceased/original defendant, the suit property is not covered by Exs.A1 to A.3 and that the property covered by Exs.A.1 to A.3 is to the immediate North of the suit property and that the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that neither the plaintiff nor Venganna had anything to do with the suit property. Both the trial Court as well as appellate Court did not accept the contentions of the plaintiff and dismissed the Suit as well

¶20

as Appeal filed by the plaintiff.

¶21

2. From the plaint schedule, it can be seen that Southern boundary for the suit land of Ac.2.20 cents is Bagar land of the defendants. So, even as per the plaintiff’s case, the defendant is immediate owner of property on South. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has changed the boundaries and is trying to encroach into the defendants’ land. The Courts below found that boundaries in Exs.A.1 to A.3 do not tally with the boundaries in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff was non suited by the Courts below not on the basis of the plaintiff and her predecessors not entitled for land of Ac.2.20 cents in S.No.617, but on the ground that the suit schedule land does not tally with the land covered by Exs.A.1 to A.3. In the absence of proof of identity of the schedule land, the plaintiff cannot get relief of declaration of title for the plaint schedule land.

¶22

3. In cross-examination, the plaintiff as P.W.1 made somersault as if the suit property was purchased from legal heirs of Gadwala Rachaiah under registered sale deed dated 07.03.1956 and also from father of the first defendant under another registered sale deed dated 30.08.1969. When the plaintiff filed the said documents along with a

¶23

petition in the trial Court, the said petition was dismissed without receiving those documents. When the plaintiff/appellant repeated the said exercise even before the lower appellate Court by filing another petition for receiving additional evidence, the lower Appellate Court after considering the plaintiff’s case with reference to those documents, refused to receive those documents as additional evidence and dismissed the said petition. In the absence of any basis in the plaint that suit property was purchased from legal heirs of Gadwala Rachaiah and from father of the first defendant under the registered sale deeds dated 07.03.1956 and 30.08.1969 respectively, the question of considering the plaintiff’s title for the suit property with reference to those sale deeds may not arise. In the light of the plaintiff failing to prove her case for the suit property on both fronts, the Courts below rightly negatived claim of the plaintiff for the suit property. I find no error much less legal error in the decisions of the Courts below and I find no substantial question of law for decision in this Appeal.

¶24

In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.

¶25

____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶26

Dt:04-12-2012. KVS

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶28

SECOND APPEAL No. 296 OF 2008

¶29

Date:04.12.2012

¶30

KVS

Shaik Noorjahan v. Shaik Ramaza Bee (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Noorjahan v. Shaik Ramaza Bee (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bojjala Raja Reddy (died) Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

S.Srinivasulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Koneru Purna Prabhavathi Vs Nandamuri Gopala Rao

G.Swarnalatha Vs G.Anjaneyulu

Patil Veerabhadra Gowd, Vs Awazi Jetlingappa

Mrs. Phoola Rani Guptha, Vs G. Raj Kumar