Partly allowed

Smt.Sayeedunnisa Begum v. Smt.Sajida Tasneem

Telangana HC22 Sept 2014SA/796/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal concerning a controversy over house construction encroaching on a common lane, the Hon'ble Court modified the decree. It held that while municipal permission is not needed for small plots, encroachment is not permitted. The appellant was ordered to remove the specific portion of construction encroaching on the lane. No other order passed.

What did the court decide?

The decree was modified to oblige the appellant to remove the portion of her construction encroaching the lane, as per the Commissioner's report (two feet x eight feet).

Smt.Sayeedunnisa Begum Vs Smt.Sajida Tasneem — Partition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

SECOND APPEAL No. 796 OF 2011

¶3

Dated:22-09-2014

¶4

Between: Smt. Sayeedunnisa Begum

¶5

... PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

Smt. Sajida Tasneem and another

¶8

.. RESPONDENTS

¶9

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶10

SECOND APPEAL No. 796 OF 2011

¶11

JUDGMENT:

¶12

The 1^st respondent filed O.S No. 1034 of 2006 in the Court of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the appellant and the 2^nd respondent for the relief of mandatory injunction in the form of a direction to remove the structures raised by the appellant abutting her house and in particular, in the lane, and for perpetual injunction to restrain her from making any further construction. It was pleaded that the appellant who is the immediate neighbour of the 1^st respondent made constructions not only without obtaining any permission from the Municipal Corporation, the 2^nd respondent, but also encroached upon the common lane.

¶13

The appellant filed a written statement opposing the suit. She pleaded that since the plot is less than 100 square yards, it is not necessary to obtain any sanction from the 2^nd respondent. It was also pleaded that the 1^st respondent has no right over any property in the neighbourhood, much less in the lane. The trial Court decreed the suit through its judgment

¶14

dated 30-06-2008. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed A.S No. 113 of 2009 in the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed through judgment dated 03-02-2011. Hence, this second appeal.

¶15

Heard Sri Ali Farooq, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

¶16

Taking into account, the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

¶17

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction?

¶18

3. To what relief?”

¶19

The 1^st respondent examined PWs 1 to 3 and filed Exs.A-1 to A-12. The appellant deposed as DW 1 and she did not file any documents. On the suit being decreed, the appellant filed A.S No. 113 of 2011. The lower appellate Court framed only one point for its consideration, namely, whether the 1^st respondent - plaintiff is entitled for mandatory and perpetual injunction as prayed for. The appeal was dismissed.

¶20

The main grievance of the 1^st respondent was that the appellant constructed house encroaching a part of common lane which is 25 feet in length and 10 feet in width. The appellant denied the allegation. Substantial oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the 1^st respondent in this behalf. Except that she deposed as DW 1, the appellant

¶21

did not adduce any independent evidence.

¶22

Since there was a serious dispute as to the encroachment into the common lane, the trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct spot inspection, through orders in I.A No. 190 of 2006. The report disclosed that the appellant herein not only dug bore well but also constructed a water sump in the approach way of the 1^st respondent by encroaching the area to the extent of two feet width and eight feet in length. The photographs depicting that were also filed into the Court. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 supported the report of the Commissioner. Though the appellant objected to the report of the Commissioner, she was not able to substantiate the same. Several admissions were extracted from none, other than the appellant who deposed as DW 1 and the trial Court referred to them in detail.

¶23

It may be true that if the size of a plot is less than 100 square yards, it is not necessary to obtain permission from the municipal corporation. However, such a facility does not permit the owner of the plot to encroach into the property of others. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have considered every aspect in detail and have arrived at proper conclusions. This

¶24

Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. However, the respondent cannot have any serious objection as regards the so-called deviations within the limits of the plot of the appellant. At the same time, the appellant cannot be permitted to make any construction by encroaching the lane.

¶25

Hence, the second appeal is partly allowed modifying the decree to the extent that the appellant shall be under obligation to remove that portion of her construction, which is shown in the report of the Commissioner i.e., two feet x eight feet in the lane.

¶26

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this second appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶28

22-09-2014 ks

Smt.Sayeedunnisa Begum v. Smt.Sajida Tasneem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Sayeedunnisa Begum v. Smt.Sajida Tasneem

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

K. Naga Rani, Vs Smt. K. Sunitha

Smt. Saloni Devi Jaiswal Vs Smt. B. Rukkamma

M Amarnath Vs M Ravinder

Farhathullah Sohail Vs Mrs.Uzma Raheem

K. Vijaya Kumari Vs Twin Cities Investments and Finances Ltd.

Smt. (K) a. Ashalatha Vs Sri. Abisetti Venkat Rao