While consideration of this revision, the High Court directed the trial Court to frame additional issues sought by the applicant, after taking an undertaking from them regarding recall of witnesses to prevent delay.
Direction to the Court below to frame the additional issues along with an undertaking by the petitioners not to recall any witness.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITIN No. 4064 OF 2017
ORDER:
This revision is preferred against order dated 20-07-2017 in I.A.No. 638 of 2017 in O.S.No. 46 of 2009 on the file of the Court of XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short, 'the Court below').
2. Whether the suit schedule property is a joint family property or not?
3. Whether the defendants are in unauthorized possession of the suit schedule property?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of recovery of possession after evicting the defendants from the suit schedule property?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages from August, 1998 to February 2009 and future mesne profits and costs?
6. For any other relief?"
The additional issues that are sought to be framed are as follows:
Smt. Yellamma in favour of Makkala Gandaiah is an out and out genuine sale deed or, whether the same constitutes a transaction of a loan
TR, J. crp_4064_2017
2
secured by an anomalous mortgage of the suit schedule property, camouflaged as a sale transaction?
2. Whether the registered sale deed dated 26-04-1973 executed by Makkala Gandiah in favour of Smt. Rakonda Ramalingamma is an out and out genuine sale deed or, whether the same is factually the assignment of a mortgagor's unpaid debt by the mortgagee in favour of a subsequent mortgagee (Smt. Rakonda Ramalingamma)?
3. Whether Smt. Yellamma and her children including the Late Shankar and the Late Vishwanatham (1st Defendant) retained possession and continued to retain possession of the entire suit schedule premises notwithstanding execution of the registered sale deeds dated 02-06-1969 and 26-04-1973?
4. Whether the transaction embodied in the registered sale deed dated 1008-1982 is factually a redemption of the anomalous mortgage of the suit schedule property by Late Shankar which is camouflaged as a sale deed?
5. Whether the aforesaid redemption of the mortgage of the suit schedule house by the Late Shankar ennures to the benefit of his brothers namely Late Vishwanadham (1st Defendant) and Late Vithal, as their benamidar?
6. Whether Vishwanadham continued to reside in the suit schedule house along with his family members notwithstanding the registered sale deed dated 10-08-1982?
7. Whether Late Shankar acquired exclusive ownership rights over the entire suit schedule premises by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 10-08-1982 to the exclusion of his elder brother Late Vishwanadham (1st Defendant)?
8. Whether there is a Jural relationship of Landlord and Tenant inter-se the Late Sjhankar and his family members (Plaintiffs) and Late Vishwanadham and his family members (Defendants)?
TR, J. crp_4064_2017
3
9. Whether the Judgment & Decree of dismissal of O.S.No. 264 of 2002 dated 26-07-2005 constitutes Res-Judicata or, constructive Res-Judicata in the subject suit?
___________ T.RAJANI, J.
Date: 04-10-2017 JSK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Court framed the correct issues without going through the contents of the written statement.
Whether the learned Court should frame the additional issues which are crucial to the case despite the delay.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Respondents
T. RAJANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
