Dismissed

Smt. Rehana Begum v. Shaik Samad

Telangana HC14 Dec 2021CMA/141/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by an appellant challenging an order dismissing her application for temporary injunction and the underlying suit for title. The Court held the impugned order sustainable after finding no prima facie case and lack of lawful possession.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed without costs; impugned order dated 02.12.2019 confirmed.

Smt. Rehana Begum Vs Shaik Samad — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECE[/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

C.M.A. NO: 141 OF 2020

¶6

Appeal under Order 43 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC against the Judgment / decree in lA No.2277 of 2019 in AS No.50/2019 dated 0211212019 on the file of the Court of the XV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge -cum-^{ll AdditionalFamilyJudge, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally.}

Between:

Smt Rehana Bequm'

...APPELLANT

AND

Shaik Samad,

...RESPONDENT

For the Appellant : SRI N.BHASKARA RAO, Advocate

¶14

For the Respondent : SRI R.RANGANATHAN, Advocate

¶15

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶17

C.NI.A.No.14l of 2020

¶18

JUDGMENT:

¶19

l. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2019 passed in lA No.2227 of 2019 in AS No.50 of 2019 on the file of XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter refered to as in the original suit No.2l9 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy ar Kukatpally.

¶21

The plaintiff has filed the original suit No.2l9 of 2014 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the schedule of property i.e., house bearing No.1-110/l/2/1, Gopalreddy Nagar, Kondapur, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. That suit was dismissed by the Court below alter f'ull length trial, as per the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2019, with an observation that the plaintiff is blowing hot and cold according to her conveniences and that at one bleath, she is contending that she is the tenant of the defendant and at another breath, she is denying the ownership of the defendant and even tried to sell away the suit property. Admittedly, the plaintiffhas not filed any documentary evidence ro show that she is the owner of the suit property, PW.2, who is none other than the husband of plaintiff, deposed before the Court below that he does not know who is DW.2, whereas he has admitted that he used to pay rent

¶22

¶23

¶24

to DW.2. It^was also^{observedby the Courtbelow that even though} DW.2 was cross-examined at^{length,nothingis elicited and} accordingly on appreciating^{the evidenceon record, the Court below} has dismissed the suit of the^plaintiff'.

¶25

Aggrieved by the said^{judgmentanddecree, the plaintiffhas} preferred an appeal, vide AS No.50 of^{2019 on the file of the learned} XV Additional District Judge,^{RangaReddy at Kukatpallyalong with} 1A No.2227 of 2019 for temporary^{injunction.The leamedXV} Additional District Judge, as^per orders^{dated02.12.2019, dismissed} the said application, filed under Order-39,^{Rulesl & 2 of CPC.}

¶26

Aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2019 in IA^No.2227of 2019 in AS No.50 of 2019, the^{presentCMAis preferredallegingthat} the Court below failed to appreciate Exs.A.2^{to A.7 and also failed to} appreciate the evidence on record.^{In fact, the plaintiffhasspent more} than Rs.7 lakhs in respect of the suit schedule^{property, accordingly,} requested to set aside the order impugned dated 02.12.2019.

¶27

The plaintiff has frled Original Suit No.219 of 2014^for perpetual injunction, whereunder the plaintiff herself^got examined^as PW. I and her husband was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A.l to^A.7 were marked. None of these documents relate to the suit schedule property. On the other hand, she has denied the^jural relationship with the defendant as tenant and landlord. Though it is alleged by^{her that} she has engaged more than l0 members and she^{has been running a}

¶28

¶29

(

¶30

car shed, she used to^{pay Rs.2,000/- per month towards rent. There is} no such evidence available^{on record' Further,it appears that a} criminal case is also^{pending betweenthe parties for the offences} punishable under Sections 420,468 and^{471 IPC'}

¶31

In view of the concurrent^{tindingsofthe Court below in respect} of the relief sought for^{through this application,I do not find any} reason to interfere^{with the order impugned, the plaintiffhas failed to} establish prima facie case.^{The materialdoesnot disclose her lawful} possession as on the date of suit. On^{the other hand, it appears that} she has entered into an agreement^{of sale with third parties and tried} to sell away the suit schedule^{property.At that time, a criminal case} was filed against the plaintiff. In^{that view of the matter,I find no} merit in the request of the appeilant/plaintiff.^{The order impugnedis} sustainable and does not^{warrant in any interferenceby this Court.}

¶32

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous^{Appeal is dismissed} without costs, confirming^{the crder impugneddated 02.12.2019 in IA} No.2227 of 2019 in AS^No.50 of^{2019. MiscellaneousPetitions, if}

¶33

any pending in this appeal,^{shallstand dismissed.}

¶34

Sd/-K,SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Ctt SECTION OFFICER

¶35

To 1. The XV Additional^{Districtand Sessions Judge-cum- XV Additional lvletropolitan} Sessions Judge -cum-^{ll AdditionalFamily Judge' Ranga Reddy District'at} Kukatpally.

¶36

One iC to^{Sri N.Bhaskara Rao' Advocate (OPUC)}

¶37

?. One CC to Sri^{R.Ranganathan' Advocate (OPUC)}

¶38

Two CD CoPies t One Spare^CoPY

il'

HIGH COURT

DATED 1411212021

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.141 of 2020

5';,ATIi ir
-.,(: <br>I
I
.t,t
,f'i)').
li oJ t.a 4(
i
<br>-T DIBF

¶45

DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS.

¶46

,i"'@

Smt. Rehana Begum v. Shaik Samad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rehana Begum v. Shaik Samad

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

Mrs. Ann Catherine Helen Decruz Vs Mr. T.Manipal Reddy

Kunja Bhaskar Vs Korsa Mallaiah

Nalladi Manasa , Danda Manasa Vs Nalladi Vijay Kumar

The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl) Vs Edamakari Laxma Reddy

Jeedipally Laxmi [Died] Medak Dist and 2 Others Vs Chelmeda Narayana, Medak Dist and 2 Others

The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl) Vs Edamakanti Laxma Reddy