Dismissed

Smt Kasarla Sudha Rani v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Feb 2016WP/4024/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a petitioner claiming ownership of a house property is disposed of because a civil suit regarding the same title is already pending. The High Court held that the title dispute is triable by a competent civil court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition is disposed of; parties free to agitate issues or initiate proceedings before the Civil Court.

Smt Kasarla Sudha Rani Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.P.No.4024 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 3, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the 4^th respondent and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent.

¶5

The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the house property bearing No.7-7-366/6/18, admeasuring 288 sq. yards, in Sy.No.831 situated near Bhadrakli Tank, Hanumakonda Revenue Village and Mandal, Warangal District and alleging that the respondents are trying to dispossess her from the said property, the present writ petition is filed.

¶6

The averments in the affidavit itself show that the petitioner is making a claim on the basis of the registered gift settlement deed bearing Doc.No.2163/12, wherein she claims to have constructed a room bearing house number as stated above. Prior to filing of this writ petition, the record reveals that the petitioner had given a legal notice to all the respondents on 20-05-2015, which specifically refers to filing of a suit by the petitioner in O.S.No.222/2014 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The legal notice itself sought clarification from the respondents whether Sy.No.817 belongs to Endowments and whether demarcation is made. The petitioner also wants to know whether she holds more than 288 sq. yards.

¶7

The 5^th respondent has since filed counter affidavit, wherein the petitioner’s contention as to ownership is denied and it is stated that the entire property of the petitioner to the tune of 280 sq. yards lies in the Temple property in Sy.No.817. It is stated that the land in question

¶8

belongs to the 5^th respondent and the petitioner has no right to interfere with the said property. It is also stated that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.222 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. It is also stated that the petitioner issued legal notice on 20-05-2015 for which the 5^th respondent issued reply on 04-12-2015 stating that the land admeasuring Ac.1-20 gts., belongs to the 5^th respondent Institution and the petitioner is interfering with the same. The reply given by the 5^th respondent to the legal notice issued by the petitioner is produced along with the counter affidavit.

¶9

In the above circumstances, therefore, the 5^th respondent as well as the petitioner are claiming title relating to the land in question, which can be adjudicated before the Civil Court.

¶10

Hence, in view of pendency of the suit in O.S.No.222 of 2014, the parties are at liberty to agitate the issue, if permissible under law, and also initiate appropriate legal proceedings for establishing title before competent civil court.

¶11

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶12

_______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J

¶13

16.02.2016 Prv

Smt Kasarla Sudha Rani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kasarla Sudha Rani v. The State of Telangana

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

G. Eswaraiah , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ven Swarupa W/o Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Konda Chandrasekhar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Its Principal Secretary

G.Krishna Murthy Naidu Chittoor Dist Vs Prl Secy Dept of Revenue Hyd and 5 Others

Nimishakavi Siva Ramakrishna Vsp and Another Vs Secy Revenue Dept Hyd and 3 Others

Sri Chundi John, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its PrI.Secretary to