Allowed

N.Jayaprada v. Sri K.Jangireddy

Telangana HC7 Apr 2021CCCA/70/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 96 of CPC concerning property disputes, the High Court of Telangana closed the appeal based on the parties' amicable settlement formalized as an Award dated 20.02.2021 passed by a Lok Adalat.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal is closed in terms of the Lok Adalat Award dated 20.02.2021. Miscellaneous applications pending shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

N.Jayaprada Vs Sri K.Jangireddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶6

C.C.C.A. NO: 70 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 3110112011 in OS No.149/2003 on the file of the Court of the Xlll Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

N.Jayaprada, W/o.Janardhan Reddy

¶10

...APPE LLANT/PLAI NTIFF

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri K.Jangireddy, S/o.Gopal Reddy

¶13

Smt. K. La lithamma, W/o.Gopal Reddy

¶14

..RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶15

For the Appellant : SRI P.S.MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI N.MANOHAR, Advocate

¶16

For the Respondents : SRI P.V.SANJEEVA RAO, Advocate

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

/ //

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶20

C.C.C.A. No. 70 of 201I

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

It is represented by leamed counsel lbr appellant that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties and an Au'ard has also been passed by the Lok Aclalat.

¶23

ln the light of rhe afbresaid submission. this Appeal is closed in terms of Award dated 20.02.2021 passed by the Lok Adalat.

¶24

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending. shall stand

¶25

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Sd/.K.SREENIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// eto SECTION OFFICER

¶27

¶28

The Xlll Additional^{chief Judge,Fast Track court, city civil court, Nyderabad} Z. One CC to Sri P.S.Murthy,^{Advocate, Sri N.Manohar, Advocate (OPUC)} 3. One CC to Sri P.V.Sanjeeva^{Rao,Advocate (OPUC)}

¶29

Two CD Copies

{

HIGH COURT

DATED:l7t04t2021

JUDGMENT

CCCA.No.70 of 2011

1tl
o
k %.<br><br>o
2 7 APB 2021
<..::'.,'z

¶37

CLOSING THE APPEAL.

¶38

,
a/Y pnJt
Nl

¶39

BEFORE IHE I.OK ADAI.AT

¶40

HEID AT HYDERABAD

¶41

[Orgonized by High court !egol Services Commifiee High Courl for lhe Stole ol Telongon;^--

¶42

Under Seclion l9 of lhe tegol Services Aulhorilies Act, I 987 (centrot Act)l

¶43

CCCA.No. 70 ot 2Ot1

¶44

(Eefore the Hon'ble High Courl)

¶45

(Agoinsl lhe Order in O.S.No. t49 ot 2OO3 on the tite o, X t Additionol Chief Judge, Fosl Trock Courl, Cily Civil Court, XyaeroboAy

¶46

Appellonl/Plointiff

¶47

ppeonon		o, W/o.JonordhonReddy, Aged42 Yeors,HouseHotd, Rlo.8-3-231/27 6,SriKrishnoNogor, Yousufgudo,Hyderobod. M.Joyoprod
o U R s oa ndonts		SriK.Jongireddy,S/o.copotReddy,Aged 40 Yeors, R/o.B-3-23,
lore COURr DAIAI I!* il	2	Sml.K.Lolilhommo,W/o. GopolReddy. Aged60Yeors, House Hold, R/o.8-3-23I, SriKrishnoNogor, Yousufgudo,Hyderobod.
lNo. ^o ingsoflheHigh ORDERROC.No.l95/HCLSC/2021	Cour ,Do	t LegolServicesCommittee ted30-01-2021l

:: Presenl ::

Nome of Choirmon

Nome of Members

:Hon'ble Sri Juslice P.Noveen Roo, Judge, High Courl for the Stote^{of Telongono.}

¶52

: (1) Sri Metlu Goverdhon^{Reddy,Advocole,} High Court for the Slote^{of Telongono}

¶53

(2) Smt.P.Sujotho, Advocote, High Court for lhe Stote^{of Telongono.}

¶54

AWARD

¶55

iTheoboveCosebetweenlheporlieshovingbeenreferredfor ; deterininolion to lhe^{LOK ADALATond lhe porties hoving compromisedthe} I cose i'motter,^{the following Aword is possedin terms of the settlement:} II

¶56

hhe eppettont/Plointiff -^{Smt.M'Joyoprodo' hos represented before ihe} ,inuol ""-"1 lot --' Adorot -- by^{ottendingin the office of secretory,High courtLegor} servi*s commiiiee,^{High courtfor the Stote of Telongono ond produced copy} of Aodhor Cord^{in proofof her identificotion'}

¶57

.The Respondenls/Defendonts -^{Sri K Jongireddy& Smt K'Lolithommo hove} represented before^{the virtuolLok Adolot by ottending in lhe officeof Secretory'} High Court^{Legol ServlcesCommillee'High Couri for the Slote of Telongono ond} produced copy^{of AodhorCords in proof of lheir identificotion}

¶58

s'/lk

¶59

<br>

¶60

Ihe Appellonl/Ploinliff hos filed O.S.No. 149 of 2003 on the file^of Xlll Addilionol Chief Judge, Fost Trock Court, City Civil Couri, Hyderobod, ogoinst her brolher ond mother cloiming thot she purchosed two (2) plofs beoring 276 ond 277, Block A odmeosuring 200 Sq.Yords in lolol 400 Sq.yords situoted ot Sri Krishno Nogor, Yousufgudo, Hyderobod. The soid suit wos d smissed on 3 l -0 1 -201 l .

¶61

Aggrieved by the soid Judgmenl the p ointiff in the suit p erred '1' CCCA.No. 70 of 20j 1. During the pendoncy of oppeol bolh lhe porties tered "f inlo conlpromise by woy of seporole Memorondum of Underslonding o d the terms of^'lhe compromise ore os follows:

¶62

¶63

Thot the Respondent/Defendont herein ogreed thot the Appelloni/Plointiff is the obsolule owner of hou ses constructed on plot beoring Nos. 226 & 277 odmeosuring 200 Sq.yor i ds eoch with totolloreq of 400 Sq.yords situoted ot Sri Krishno Nogor, yousufgudo, Hyderobod. ond the Respondent/Defen dont herein delivered the ph ysicol possession of the obove soid houses to the Appellont/plointif f for her obsolute enjoyment

¶64

¶65

Thol lhe Respondent/Defendonl herein ogreed lo co-o perole with the Appellonl/ploiniif f for regulorize lhe obove soid property beforg lhe I Urbon Lond Ceiling oulhorilies or ony compelent oulhority by signing such offidovits. verificotions ond olso ogreed lo execute document confirming lhe right liile over lhe obove soid property f onythe ? Appellon t/ploin Iiff with the costs of the Appeltont/ploiniif f Thol the Respondent/Defendonl herei n lhis doy signed No Objection lelter thot lhey hove no objeclion lo regulorize the soid property in fovour of the Appeltonl/ptoinlif f to be submitted before ULC or ony other outhorily. 4 The Appeilont/ptoinliff is ot liberly to opprooch lhe concerned oulhorities fo obloin the ownership cerlificoies, sole deeds or olher deeds from onY oulhorily or Government in soid buildings by virlue of respecl of obove this understonding ond the co-operote R espon dent/D for efen the somed o n I sholl nol object f or regulorizotion sholl 5 Thot ihe Appellont/ptoiniiff hereby ogrees thot she hos no clo tm or right over the ogriculture londs in Sy.No. 296le, I Sy.No.298/A2, Sy.No,29Zr o2, Sy.No.432loo2, Sy.No.433/0o, Sy.No.442loo. Sy.No.44 i/oo, Sy.No.445loo. Sy.No.446loo, Sy.No.48Zloo, Sy.No.4S l /oo, Sy.No.493loo, Sy.No.494loo, Sy.No.5OO/oo, Sy.No.50l /oo, Sy.No.5O2loo, Sy.No.52 t/oo. Sy.No.522loo, L't [, l,.L^(, )ra&-

¶66

Sy.No.523/oo, Sy.No.524loo, totol odmeosuring Ac27-l 4 Gtss situoled ot Kolvqkolu Villoge, ond Iond in Sy.No. 265loo, Sy.No, 226loo Chennopuroopolli Villoge, Peddo Kothopolly Mondol, Nogor Kurnool districl, Telongono.

¶67

6
V

¶68

GAL Sts-
7.
,(
s HIGH
* I,ot(A COUR DAI.A r I
.)
B.

¶69

¶70

The Respondeni/Defendonl is ol liberty to deol the obove soid ogricullurol londs in the monner they like os they ore the obsolute ownerS.

¶71

The Appellont/Plointiff ogreed lo sign ond execute oll such regislered deeds offidovits no objection leiler or ony other deed confirming lhot she hos no right, cloim over the obove soid lond ol the cost of the Appellont/Plointiff .

¶72

The Respondent/Defendonl sholl beor lhe registrotion chorges, if ony for obioining ony deed from ihe Appellont/plointiff in respect of obove ogriculiure lond.

¶73

in view of the compromise between the porties, the Judgment in O.S.NO. 149 of 2003 on the file of Xlll Addiiionol Chief Judge, Fost Trock Couri, City Civil Courl, Hyderobod is set-oside ond decloring ihot the Appelloni/ploiniiff is the obsolute owner of house ond the Defendonls hove io deliver the physicol possession of the soid property ond the defendonts sholl co-operoie wiih plointiff for regulorizing the soid properly before the Urbon Lond Ceiling outhorities or ony compeient oulhorily.

¶74

It is olso to be noted ihot the properlies mentioned in Porogroph No.S of Memorondum of Terms of Compromise viz, Sy.No. 296le, Sy.No.297 o2, Sy.No.298/42, Sy.No.432loo2, Sy.No.433/oo, Sy.No.44lloo, Sy.No.442loo, Sy.No.445loo, Sy.No.446loo, Sy.No.451/oo, Sy.No.487loo, Sy.No.493/oo, Sy.No.494loo, Sy.No.500/oo, Sy.No.50l/oo, Sy.No.502/oo, Sy.No.52lloo, Sy.No.5!2/oo, Sy.No.523/oo, Sy.No.524loo, tolol odmeosuring Ac27-14 Gtss situoleQ ot Kolvokolu Villoge, ond lond in Sy.No. 265/oo, Sy.No. 276loo Chennqpuroopolli Villoge, Peddo Kothopolly Mondol, Nogor Kurnool dishici, Telong<lno. ore not port ond porcel of the properties covered under lhe suii os well os..oppeol. Therefore, ony compromise between the porties in respect of the properties mentioned in the Porogroph No.5 of Memorondum of Terms of Compromise is subject to Registrotion ond not binding on 3ro^porties.

¶75

The Memorondum of Terms of Compromise^is onnexed to the^Aword.

¶76

Accordingly, Memorondum of Terms of Compromise^{is recordedbefore} the Lok Adolot ond Aword is^possed. flr\

¶77

¶78

I l.The porties ore informed lhol the courl fee. if ony. poid by ony lhem before lower courl sholl be refunded.

¶79

rn f"-o^ Y-& c
Appellont / Cloimonl
Res ondenl No.l
[,<-c:-J./&
Respondenl No.2
^ .--t/
CI
gw
Choirmon mber MAmber
strrl
Dote:20.02.2021 .rb.,{:)
coLlRl
HiGIi
ior^ta'
t-oK
C millee)

)

u r I L,( '-x"r-. . ,t J\ -{tr.-J*t ,a$ ;}-1/ 6=J d{.':"4'"1' E \t

rt6

^.\l'?'^{i</sup> tlic, DAL^i] i-oⁱ⁽ .}

¶88

K.JA NGI^{REDDYS/o.K.GOPALREDDY' Aged about 51 vears'} R/o. Ventage^{Apartments,Begumpet'Hyderabad'} Agriculture/Business, Telangana State,^{hereinafter called the SECOND PARTY which expresstons} shallmeanandincludealltheirheirs,representatives'executors'successors and assignees^etc

¶89

whereas the First Party herein^{filed a suit in os No.141/2003 before the} Hon'ble Xlll Addl. Chief Judge, Fast Track^{Court, City Civil Court,Hyderabad} against her brother and mother i.e., Second Party herein claiming^{that she} purchased two Plots bearing Nos.276 & 277 admeasuring 200 Sq.yards each with total area of 400 Sq.yards situated at Sri Krishna Nagar, Yousufgua, Hyderabad, the said suit was dismissed vide decree and^judgment dt.31.0'l .2011 and thereafter the First Pa(y herein filed an Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in CCCA No.70/2011 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt.31 .01 .2011 . The said appeal iq pending and during the pendency of the said appeal upon the intervention of elders and well wishers the partres herein have compromised and settled the rssues Lrpon the following terms of compromise.

¶90

NOW THIS MEIVORANDUIV OF TERMS OF COMPROMISE WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS

¶91

¶92

1- That the second Party herein agrees that the First party is tre aosotule owner of houses constructed on prot bearing Nos.276 a zz7 admeasurirfo 200 Sq.yards each with totar area of 400 sq.yards situated at Sri Krishrla Nagar, Yousufgua, Hyderabad and the Second party herein derivered tile physical possession of the above said houses to the First party for r]er I absolute enjoyment.

¶93

i^ta p\ft'

¶94

That the seiond Party herein agreed to co-operate with the First Farty for regularize the above said property before the Urban Land ceiring authorities or any competent authority by signing such affidavits, verifications and also agreed to execute any document confirming the right title over the above said property of the First party vrith the costs of the First party.

oqr

I i t

That the Second Party herein this day signed No Objection^{leer that} they have no objection to regularize the said^{property in favourof} e Fist Party to be submitted before the ULC or any other^authority.

¶99

The First party is at liberty to approach the^{concerned autholitiesto} I obtain the ownership certifrcates, sale deeds or other^{deeds frpm any} I authority or Government in respect of above said buildings by^virtu understanding and the Second Party shall not object for^regularizat co-operate for the same.. i r;:ff 5. That the First^party hereby agrees that she has^{no claim or right} pver^the agriculture lands in Sy.No.296/e, Sy.No297 a2 Sy.No.29842^{Sy.l.lo432laa2,} Sy.No433/aa, Sy.No441/aa, Sy.l'1o442/aa, Sy.No445/aa,^Sy.No446/aa' Sy.No451/aa, Sy.No4B7/aa, Sy.l'1o493/aa, Sy.No494/aa,^Sy.No500/aa, Sy.No.50'1/aa, Sy.No502/aa, Sy.No521/aa,^{Sy.No522/aa, Sy.No523/aa,} Sy.No524/aa total admeasuring Ac27-14 Gtss situated^{at Kalvako} lu Village, and land in Sy.no 265/aa Sy.No .276laa Chnnapuraopalli^villag eI Pedda Kothapally A/landal, Nagar Kurnool District, Telangana 6. The second^party is at liberly to deal^{the above} said^agricultura lands in the manner they like as they are the absolute owners. 7 The First party agreed to sing and execute all^{such registereddeeds,} affidavits no objection letter or any other deed^{confirming that she has no} right, claim over the above said land at the cost of the^{First party.}

¶100

The Second^party shall bear thi:^{registration charges,if any for obtaining} any deed from the First Party in respect^{of above agriculture land}

¶101

lN WITNESS WHEREOF the above^{named Parties have signed this} Memorandum of Understanding^{on the day, month and year aforementioned} with their own consent and^{free vrili in the presence of the witnessesbelow:}

¶102

WITNESSES:

¶103

r;*

¶104

SECOND PARTY

N.Jayaprada v. Sri K.Jangireddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Jayaprada v. Sri K.Jangireddy

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.Satyanarayana Vs Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S.

P.Santhamma Vs Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S. and Another

V.Radha, Vs Sri Lokesh Kumar D.S

D. Susheela Vs S.K.M Yousufuddin

Gudise Ratnaiah Vs Gudise Devaiah

Kashetti Chandraiah, And 2 Others Vs Kashetti Raji Reddy