Dismissed

Kallepalli Dhanunjaya Varma v. Penumatcha Suryanarayana Raju

Telangana HC6 Feb 2015CRP/1719/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order that allowed a decree holder an execution application to remove obstruction and deliver possession. The court held that wrongful citation of procedure does not bar relief and that occupants failing to prove lawful tenancy via a lease deed must vacate.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Kallepalli Dhanunjaya Varma Vs Penumatcha Suryanarayana… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1719 OF 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 25.02.2013, in E.A.No.61 of 2013 in E.P.No.69 of 2012 in O.S.No.16 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, whereunder and whereby, petition filed by respondent No.1 herein/decree holder under Order XXI Rule 97 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”) to direct the Amin to remove the obstruction made by the petitioners and respondent No.2 herein/judgment debtors and their henchmen by taking the aid of police and to deliver possession of the suit schedule property to the decree holder, was allowed.

¶5

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶6

3. Respondent No.1 herein filed O.S.No.16 of 2012 against the petitioners and respondent No.2 herein for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and the same was decreed. In pursuance of the said decree, he filed E.P.No.69 of 2012 seeking delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. When the Court Amin, who was appointed for that purpose, went to the suit schedule premises, he was obstructed by the judgment debtors from delivering possession of it to respondent No.1. Hence, respondent No.1 filed E.A.No.61 of 2013 and the same was allowed. Challenging the same, judgment debtor Nos.1 and 2 filed the present Revision Petition.

¶7

4. The petitioners claim to be the tenants of the suit schedule property. The only ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that the procedure to be followed for removing a person, who caused obstruction, is under Order XXI Rule 36 C.P.C.

¶8

and not under Order XXI Rule 35 C.P.C. and therefore, the Execution Application itself is not maintainable.

¶9

5. It is not in dispute that quoting a wrong provision by itself is not a ground to dismiss a petition. The contents of the petition have to be looked into. When the Amin went to the schedule property, it was locked and therefore, he filed report before the Executing Court about the ground reality. It must be shown by the petitioners that they are the lawful tenants to retain possession. The petitioners have not filed any registered lease deed to show their lawful possession. If a person is not in lawful possession of the property, the decree holder can insist for actual physical possession of the property. The petitioners, who are not being shown to be the lawful tenants, are bound to vacate the premises in question. Therefore, the Court below rightly passed the impugned order and that order needs no interference by this Court.

¶10

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶12

Date: 06.02.2015 AMD

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶14

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1719 OF 2013

¶15

DATE: 06.02.2015

¶16

AMD

Kallepalli Dhanunjaya Varma v. Penumatcha Suryanarayana Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallepalli Dhanunjaya Varma v. Penumatcha Suryanarayana Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Nazima Vs Shaik Lal Bi

Ragala Jaya Rao, Vs Kattamuri Apparao

G.Hanumantha Rao Vs Kolagani Subramanya Vara Prasad

Kancherla Srinivasa Rao Vs Kondeti Vijaya Lakshmi

Nadendla Yesaiah Vs Sk. Basha

Sirigireddy Butchi Reddy Sudarsana Reedy, Vs Golamaru Atchi Reddy