Disposed

M/s. K.B.Patel and Company v. Sri VittalRao

Telangana HC4 Nov 2020CCCA/41/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal filed under Section 96 CPC pertaining to a civil dispute over property. The matter was settled amicably before the Hyderabad Lok Adalath on February 8, 2020, where respondents agreed to execute a sale deed in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as settled, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the Lok Adalath award as settled and compromised. Pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed. Court fee paid, if any, is to be refunded.

M/s. K.B.Patel and Company Vs Sri VittalRao — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE^{HIGH COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY,^{THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI} CITY CIVIL COURT^{APPEAL NO: 41 OF2012}

¶5

Appeal filed Under Section^{96 of C.P.C aggrieved by the Judgementand} Decree made in^{passed in O.S .No. 34812008 daled 28.02.201 1 on the file of} the Court of the XIV Additional^{Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad.}

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. K.B.Patel and Company,

¶8

1 5-4-1 1 B, Osmanshai, Hyderabad

¶9

Rep., by its Proprietor Sri Kishore Kumar Patel, s/o Sri Gagan Das Patel @ Ganga Das Bhai Patel, aged 30^years, occ: Business, r/o Flat No. 303, Vidya Residency, Laxmi Nagar Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad.

¶10

(Cause Title implead order in l.A.No.3/2018 is carried out in CCCA.No.41l12 as sole Proprietor of the appellant in the place of deceased Gagan Das Vide Court Order dated 1 5/03/2019)

¶11

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF.

¶12

/rruo

¶13

1 . Sri Vittal Rao, S/o.Late [/anik Rao, aged 44 years, Business Rt/o.

¶14

H.No.20-2-359/1 , Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad.

¶15

Sri Vijaya Rao, S/o. Late ManikRao Business, aged 42 years Rt/o. H.No.20-2-359/1 , Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad.

¶16

Sri Durgesh Rao, S/o.Late Manik Rao Business, aged 32 years R/o. H.No.20-2-359/1 , Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad.

¶17

Sri Jagadish Rao, S/o. Late Manik Rao Business, aged 28 years R/o.

¶18

H.No.20-2-359/1 , Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad.

¶19

,.. RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶20

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2012rcCCA MP. NO: 174 O F 2012\

¶21

Petition under order 39 Rules I & 2 rlw 151 CpC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant interim injunction restraining ihe Respondent-s, their henchmen, persons acting on their behalf from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the above Appeal.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2O1B

¶23

Petition under section 5 Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1731 days in filing petition to set aside the abatement in CCCA No. 4112012.

¶24

lt2t

¶25

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶26

Petition under Order 22 Rule 9 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the abatement in filing the LR petition in CCCA.No. 4112012.

¶27

lA NO: I OF 2019

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the registry to send the notices to the fresh address of the respondents as mentioned in the cause title of this SA No. 41 of 2012.

¶29

Counsel forthe Appellant : SRI B. JAYAKAR

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI^{K. RAJASHEKAR} The Court made the following:^Judgment

¶31

HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶32

C.C.C.A.No.41 of 2012

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the parties, the Lok Adalat, Hyderabad, passed the following award on 08.02.2020 :

¶35

The appellanVplaintiff M/s. K.B.Patel and Company, represented by Mr.Kishore Kumar Patel, is present along with his counsel Mr.Venugopal. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are present along with their counsel Mr.Rajashekhar.

¶36

Both parties have stated that the dispute relating to the subject matter of the appeal is amicably resolved and both parties have entered into a compromise in respect of the subject matter of the suit and that the respondents/defendants have agreed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the appellanUplaintiff. The parties have filed a Memorandum of Compromise setting out the terms of compromise.

¶37

3 The terms of the compromise are read over and explained to both parties in their vernacular language and they admitted them to be true and correct.

¶38

4 The respondentsidefendantshave admitted before the Lok Adalath that they have previously received a sum of Rs.5,52,500i_ on 03.06.1992 during the pendency of O.S.No.114 of 7997 and that they have received a further paymenr of Rs.20 lakhs through cheques last month towards part of the sale consideration and the balance sale consideration of Rs.65 lakhs is now agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed within two months from this date.

¶39

¶40

Accordingly, the compromise is recorded as per the terms set out in the Memorandum of Compromise and the said memorandum shall be annexed to and shall form part of the award.

¶41

The award is passed accordingiy in view of the above compromise. Consequently, CCCA.No.41 of 2012 stands disposed of as settled and compromised before the Lok Adalath.

¶42

The matter may be placed before the High Court for passing the final orders regarding the disposal.

¶43

B. The parties are informed that the court fee, if any, paid by any of them shall be refunded.

¶44

No order as to costs of appeal.

¶45

In view of the award dated 08.02.2020,^passed by^{the Lok Adalat,}

¶46

Hyderabad, this appeal is disposed of in terms^{of the award.}

¶47

Consequently,^pending miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, shallstand}

¶48

closed.

¶49

SD/. K. SRINIVASA^RAO DEPU TY REGIST R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The XIV Additional^{Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad}

¶54

One CC to^{SRI B. JAYAKAR, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶55

One CC^{to SRI K. RAJASHEKAR, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶56

Two CD CoPies

¶57

Encl:-

¶58

Copy of Lok^{Adalath Award dated 0810212020} in CCCA.No.41^{of 2012 and Memorandum'}

HIGH COURT

DATED:0411112020

JUDGMENT

CCCA.No.41 of 2O'12

DISPOSING OF THE C.C.C.A.

¶65

1z:
,<br>1 He s T4
3 12 No', 2020 c'
* {
* o tl

¶66

IN TERMS OF THE LOK ADALATH AWARDI

¶67

a
lt

¶68

BEFORE TI.IE LOK ADALAT

¶69

HEID AT HYDERABA,D

¶70

[Orgonized^{by High Court Legol Services Commitlee}

¶71

High Court for the Slole ol Telongono

¶72

Under Seclion I 9 of lhe Legol Services Aulhorilies Act, 1987 (Centrol Act)l

¶73

C.C.C.A. No.41 ot 2012

¶74

(Before lhe Hon'ble High Court)

¶75

(ogoinsl the order possed in O.5, No,348 ol 2008 on lhe lile ot XIV Additionol Chlet Judge, City Civil Court. Hyderobod)

¶76

A p pe llo nll Ploinliff I^{u/s r.B.Poretond Compony} I^{Situotedot 15-4-l18, Osmonshoi.Hyderobod,} I^{nep. by its ProprietorSri Gongo Dos (Died)} I^oerLn

¶77

I I^{S'i Kishore KumorPolel, s/o Gongo Dos Potel@} Gongo Dos Bhoi Rotel, oged 30 yeors, Vidyo Residency, Loxminogor Colony, Kothopet, iHyderobod. Res po nd e nls/d efe ndo nts L Sri Villol Roo, s/o Lote Monik Roo, I'1 I 2. Sri Aged Vijoyo 44 yeors, Roo, s/o Occ: Lote Business,Monik Roo, 1,t-^{Ai .tI/.,} Aged 42 yeors, Occ: Business, 3. Sri Durgesh Roo, s/o Lole Monik Roo, Aged 32 yeors, Occ: Business,

¶78

J-* 4. Sri Jogodish Roo, s/o Lote Monik Roo, llle",iy:{ Aged 28 yeors, Occ: Business, All ore residenls of H.No.20-2-359/ I . Hussoini Alom, H derobod

¶79

INo.^{of proceedingsof the High Courl LegolServicesCommittee:} O R D E R R O C. N o. 232 / H C LS C / 2020, D ol e d 0 6-02-20201

:: Presenl ::

Nome of Choirmon

Nome of Members

: Hon'ble Sri Juslice G.V.Seethopothy, Judge, High Court of Andhro Prodesh (Retired)

¶84

: (1) Dr. K.Sotyonoroyono Roo, Advocote, High Court lor lhe Slote of Telongono .

¶85

(2) Sri K.Venkoto Simhodri, Advocote High Courl for lhe Slole of Telongono/ Sociol Worker.

¶86

AWARD

¶87

The dispute belween the porties hoving been referred for delerminotion 1o the LOK ADALAT ond the,porties hoving compromised the cose / mqtler, the following Aword is possed in terms of the settlement:

¶88

The oppellont/ploiniiff M/s K.B.Potel qnd Compony, represented by Mr'.Kishore Kumqr Potel, is present olong with his counsel Mr.Venugopol. The respondent Nos.l to 4 ore present olong with their counsel Mr.Rojoshekhor

Chairman/Member U

,R-4.+-

Both porties hove stoted thot the dispute reloting to^.the subject mqtter of the oppecrl is omicobly resolved ond both porties hove entered into o compromise in respect of the subiect motter of the suit ond thot the respondents/defendonts hove ogreed to execute o registered sole deed in fovour of the oppellont/plointiff. The porties hove filed o Memorondum of Compromise setting out the terms of compromise.

¶94

Ihe terms of the compromise ore reod over ond expioined to both porties in their vernqculqr longuoge ond they odmitted them to be irue ond correcl.

¶95

The respondents/defendonts hove odmitted before ihe Lok Adokloth thot they hove^previously received o sum of Rs.5,52,500/- on 03.06.1992 during the pendency of O.S.No.114 ol 1997^qnd thot they hove received o further poymenl of Rs.2O lokhs through cheques lost month towords^port of the sole considerotion ond the bqlqnce sole considerotion of Rs.65 lokhs is now ogreed to be poid ot the time of registrotion of lhe sole deed within two months from this do1e.

¶96

Accordingly, the compromise is recorded os^per the terms set out in the Memorondum of Compromise ond the soid memorondum shqll be onnexed to ond sholl form^port of ihe oword.

¶97

The oword is^pqssed occordingly in view of the^qbove of 2012 stonds

¶98

compromise. Consequently, CCCA No.41 disposed of os settled ond compromised before the Lok Adqloth.

¶99

The motter moy be^ploced before the^High Court^{for possirtg the finol} orders regording the disposol.

¶100

The^poriies ore informed thqt^{the court fee, if ony, poid by ony of} them sholl be refunded.

¶101

No order os to cosis of oPpeol

¶102

I yt'( 6;a7/ [n o
y
Appe llo ntl Plointiff Respondent No.1
wr/2
!
Respondent No.2
i r.'r.
\ ,:;.
I
Respondent No.3
KW
Chairman/Member
q

¶103

3
I
AP
Respondenl No.4
Counsel Ap pe llo nll Plo intitf Coun Respondenl Nos.l lo 4
.rll
-(-_,
.L
Choirmon k#u* Memb er
Dote: 08.02.2020 \ l.E (l ,il
(s the C ttee

¶104

Chairman/Member

¶105

vw. ol,-t o.!/v

¶106

. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE^{AT }IYDERABADFOR THE} STATE OF TBLANGANA

¶107

CCCA NO 4:I OF 2OI2

¶108

Be{ween :

¶109

K.B Patel & Co Rep by Gangadas patel^(died).

¶110

L',, AL SEA
,t_'' n
URT
LAI *

¶111

2.MISKBPatel&Co

¶112

Rep by proprietor Kishore Kumar Patel

¶113

...APPELLANTS.^(J il'^./

¶114

AND

¶115

Mr. Vittal Rao S/o Late Manik Rao, aged about 58 years.

¶116

Mr. Vijay Rao S/o Late Manik Rao, aged about 55 years.

¶117

¶118

3" Mr. Durgesh Kumar S/o Late Manik Rao, aged about 41 years.

¶119

Mr. Jagdish Kumar S/o Late Manik Rao, aged about 40 years, All are businessmen by occupation and R/o H.No,3-5-854/A, Old MLA Quarters, Hyderguda, Hyderabad.

¶120

...RESPONDENTS.

¶121

MEMORANDUM OF CON4PROMISE

¶122

'l'he above named appellarrts ald Respondents submit as follows:

¶123

One Gunnaji, the ancestor of as the owner and possessor of 5 Bhigas land and the b ding located therein. He died leaving behind his son Manik Rao to succeed to him. I{adk Rao died in 1988 leaving behind the plaintiffs. There is a "VITTOBHA TEMPLE" in pa:"t of land of 5 Bhigas that was ciaimed by endowment department. After long legal battle between the plaintiffs eind endowment department which commenced in 197 | and ended in 2OO4, the plaintiffs were declarecl as the owners of the land and the endowment department had no right. over the said land vide^judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no 6246 of 1998 Dt 25ll-2OO4 (reported in AIR 2005 SC 454).

¶124

Thc appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properry from 1973. The appellant claimed adverse possession as against the Respondents. Endowment Department forcibl! collected rent from the Appellant till 1989.Thereafter the Appellant did no pay rent to Endowment Department.

¶125

Department.
r ,1 1(dt Lt -//L
3,
d-,yD"),f- - *, w

.....2

//2//

,i, )'

The appellant dicl not accept the respondents as owners ancl filed the suit o.S no rr4/1997 (Old O.S.No lftq/1991) II Addl. Chief Judge C C C Hyderabad. on the file of IV Addl Chief Judge C C C Hyderabad. During the pendency of said suit, the appellant and Respondents compromised and spondents received Rs, 5, 25,500/- from the appellant under

¶130

i}URI agreement dt 3-6-1992 tor.,rards total sale considerertion. In

¶131

A,JAi....1T

¶132

^ he agreement it was agreed that if the suit is decreed, the

¶133

Responclents need not register the schedule property and if the suit is dismissed the respondents shall register the schedule property on the name of Appellants. Later the said Suit was dismissed for default on 26-3-7999. Petition for restoration and condone delay petition in said suit were also dismissed on merits. Thereafter the respondents did not come forward for Registration.

¶134

The appellant was advised to hle the suit O.S NO: 348/2008 on the file of XIV Addl Chief Judge (FTC) C.C.C Hyderabad claiming adverse possession. After dismissal of the suit, filed the above appeal.

¶135

On the advice of common friends and well wishers the -..Appellant and Respondents arrived at a Compromise.

¶136

The litigation is not going to be settled within reasonable time. Prolonging the case is of no use to either of the parties. In view of the long standing possession of 6l&@'t ,from V

¶137

1973 and receipt of Rs,5,52,500/- by the Respondents from

¶138

the Appellant on 3-6-1992 towards tota-l sale consideration. Afresh the sa-le consideration is now arrived at Rs:85,00,000/-.

¶139

The other terms are as follows:

¶140

A) Rs.2O,00 ,OOO I - (twenty lacs) is^paid through cheques.

¶141

B) The Appellants and Respondents shall file Memorandum of Compromise in the above Suit and after^recording compromise, the Appellant shall^pay the balance^saG Consideration of Rs. 6{i,OO,OOO/- at the time^of Registration of Sale Deed.l,r,dCfi. >*,-*tQ, q^.-.,.--.W--A,^,

¶142

¶143

C) The Respondents shall also withdraw their^{claim against} the Appellants in LGOP no. 110 12017 on the File of vr't cal t(1o ,, vla lfu 3 t*/ 3 /'yllfidL"lilrn-l;.,

¶144

¶145

//31^/

¶146

II Addl Chief Judge C C C H1'derabad^{and exclude the} relevant Schedule property in said^LGOP.

¶147

D)The Respondent assured and made the^{Appellantbelieve} that they have not entered in to any^{agreement with any} third party and not encumbered the same. It^{is also} assumed that no transacl.ion is entered into with Third party either by Respondents or through their registered or unregistered General po.,'er of Attorney.

¶148

E) The Respondents also assured and made the appellant believe that there are no other claimants for the schedule property.

¶149

F) The Respondents agreed to indemnifii the appellant in the event of defect in Title or claim by any Third party.

¶150

G) The Appellant and Respondent agreed to bear this respective cost.

¶151

Hence the appellant and respondents pray to decree CCCA as ; prayed for.

Hyderabad

O8-OL-2O2O.

APPELLANT

Advocate for Appellant

¶156

¶157

AV rdrrB.titrlaco': "a-eilo.lgtil RESPONDENT

¶158

vr'&64/ lzd0

¶159

o vwFfi'-
J
I 4 M
fi*
Advocat 1' S orrdent

M/s. K.B.Patel and Company v. Sri VittalRao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. K.B.Patel and Company v. Sri VittalRao

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

Orsu Velangi Raju Vs T. ChittiBabu

P Laxma Reddy (Died) Vs G. Bhujendar Reddy

Hyderabad Grammar School Vs Sri. Shareefuddin Afzal

Botturi Ravi Vs Syed Javid and Another

M/S. Dhariwal Bros Vs Smt. Sariojini Devi Dhariwal

M.A. Razak Vs Syed Javid and Another