Allowed

Samala Laxminarayana, Karimnagar and 7 Ors. v. Gundeti Rajeswari, Khammam.

Telangana HC9 Mar 2022AS/2231/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal under Section 96 CPC, setting aside a trial court order that dismissed a suit for recovery of possession without assigning reasons. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh disposal, citing violations of Order 20 Rule 4(2) CPC.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; trial court directed to dispose afresh within 3 months; no costs.

Samala Laxminarayana, Karimnagar and 7 Ors… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY^{OF IVARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^P,SREESUDHA

¶5

AP PEAL SUIT NO: 2231 Ot- 1998

¶6

Appeal under Section 96^{of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated} o2to8t1gg7 in oS No.87 of 1996^{on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge's,} Court, Kothagudem.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Samala Laxminarayana, S/o^{Laxmaiah,Business R/o Eligedu Village'} Peddapally Tq., Joolapally^{(lVl), Karimnagar District.}

¶9

Samala V6nkateswarlu,^{S/o Ramaswamy, Pan Shop}

¶10

Samala Nageswara^{Rao, S/o late. Ramaswamy, CasulaWorker}

¶11

Samala Vimala, W/o late^{Eswaraiah, Household}

¶12

Samala Sudhakar Rao,^{S/o late Ramaswamy, Employee in Doordarshan,} Kothagudem.

¶13

Sama[a Laxman Rao, S/o^{late Ramaswamy, Pan Shop}

¶14

Samala Ramesh Kumar, S/o^{late Ramaswamy, Pan Shop}

¶15

B. Samala Jayanth Kumar,^{S/o late Ramaswamy'Pan Shop} All the App;llants² to 8^{are R/o 5 lncline (PO), Rudrampoor,} -Kothagudem . (The Apilbllants 2 to 8 being rep. by their^{Special Powerof AttorneyHolder} Samala LaxminaraYana)

¶16

...APPELLANTS/ PLAINTIFFS AND

¶17

Gundeti Rajeswari, W/o Chandra^{lr,4ouli,Household R/o H No.5-3-51,Cooli Line'} Kothagudem Town and^{l,4andal,Khammam District.}

¶18

...RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT

¶19

For the Appellants : SRI^{PALIVELA SATYARAJABABU,Advocate}

¶20

For the Respondent : SRI KOWTURU^{PAVAN KUMAR,Advocate}

¶21

The Court delivered the following:^JUDGIVENT

¶22

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶23

APPEAL SUIT No.2231 of^,l998

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heord the orgumenls of bolh the counsel.

¶26

A perusol of the record shows tho't the oppellonts filed O.S.No.BZ of 1996 before lhe Subordinote .Judge, Kolhogudem, seeking recovery of possession of the suil schedule^property from the defendont ond to deliver the some to the oppellonts. The lriol Court dismissed the soid suit on 02-08-1997. The soid judgment reods os f ollows:-

¶27

"The equities given to o lronsferee under porl performonce of o controct envisoged under fhe Tronsfer of Property Act will come in the woy of giving relief to the plointiff . From the record, it is not cleor thot specific performonce is refused. As such. it connot be held tha t the ogreement is lime borred. Hence, the suit for recovery of possession does no'i lie. Hence suil is dismissed wilhoul costs".

¶28

Leorned counsel for the oppellont contended lhot the iriol Court^possed the^judgrrreni withoul ossigning ony reosons ond even without extrocting'lhe citotion relied on by lhe oppellonts

¶29

¶30

i.e., the^judgment of the ,\4odros High Court in C.M.A.No.3700 of

¶31

2010, doted 07.03.201 l. wherein il wos he d os under :-

¶32

We hove heord the respeciive leorned counsel on either slde on the obove question. Section 2(9) of the Code of Civii Procedure defines o "judgment" os meoning, the stolement given by lhe ludge on the grounds of o decree or order. ln ihis conlext, Order XX Rules 4() ) & (2) ore olso referoble, which reod os under:

¶33

(2) Judgmen'ts of other Courls.-Judgmenis of other Courts, sholl contoin o concise stotement of the cose, the poinls for determinolion, the decision^'lhereon, ond the reosons for such decision ".

¶34

"5. Hoving heord lhe leorned counsel f or ihe porties ond hoving perused the^judgment doted 05-01-1994, I om of lhe view thol i't connoi be sustoined, Even on ex^porte .iudgment^{shouldsotisfy ihe descripiionof 'judgment'os} loid down in Order 20, Rule 412). C.?.C., which visuolises thot the^judgmenl of o Court olher thon the Court of Smoll Couses "sholl contoin concise stotemenl of ihe cose,^poinis for delerminolion, decision ond the^reosons f or such decision."

¶35

ln view of the obove^judgment, leorned counsel oppeoring for the oppellonts requesied iho'l lhe moiter moy be remitied bock to the triol court for fresh considerotion

¶36

¶37

Leorned counse for lhe oppellonts furiher coniended lhot the oppellonts exomined PW.l on their beholf , but lhe defendont hos not cross-exomined ond remoined ex-porie. But. loter the defendont filed o petition 1o set-oside the ex-porte order ond il wos ollowed. Even thereofter. the defendont hos not lurned up to odduce ony evidence ond even not crossexomined PW.l .

¶38

Leorned counsel folthe respondent contended thol os per lhe ploinl, the respondenl issued legol notice ond expressed her reodiness ond willingness^'lo poy the bolonce sole considerolion on 08.12.I 9BZ ond she is in possession of the suit schedule property

¶39

¶40

A perusol of ihe copy of the ploint goes to show thol the lst ploin'tiff is the owner of ihe suit schedule property ond he enlered inlo on ogreemen'f of sole with the defendont on 09-071986 for o totol sole considerotion of Rs.l ,95,000/- ond the defendont poid Rs.l ,70,000/- ond on lhe some doy, ihe defendont wos put in possession of the suit schedule property ond the defendont wos specificolly directed io poy lhe bolonce sole considerotion of Rs.25,000/- on or before 28-02-)987, bul she foiled lo poy lhe soid onrounl.

¶41

¶42

Considering the obove focis^ploced before^this Court^ond the conduct of^'the porlies ond olso the^judgmeni of lhe iriol courl wiihout ossigning ony reosons, lfeel it oppropriote^{lo remit} the mo'tier to the iriol court 1o^poss orders ofresh, ofter^heoring both the porties.

¶43

Therefore, the impugned order of the triol Court^{is se'l} oside ond the triol courl is direcled 1o dispose of lhe^{motler ofresh} within three (3) monihs from the dote of receipl of o copy^{of ihis} order by duly^giving opportunity to boih^{the poriies, os ii is o} motler of 1998. Boih the^porties ore clirected^{1o co-operole} betore lhe lriol court.

¶44

Accordingly, ihe Appeol is ollowed. No costs.

¶45

Pending miscelloneous opplicotions, if ony,^{sholl slond}

¶46

closed.

¶47

Sd/-K.SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// &

¶48

SECTION OFFICER

¶49

¶50

The Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem.^{(with records)} One CC to Sri Palivela Satyaraja^{Babu,Advocate (OPUC)} 3. One CC to Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar,^{Advocate (OPUC)} 4. Two CD Copies 5. One Spare Copy Kj

¶51

HIGH COURT

¶52

DATED:0910312022

¶53

9 51.qTe
z
1 3 [P?' ?01?
oo
*
ar+r - '

¶54

JUDGMENT

¶55

AS.No.2231 of 1998

¶56

Allowing A.S. without costs.

¶57

L
LDz>
t)

¶58

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶59

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶60

PRESENT

¶61

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^P,SREESUDHA

¶62

APPEAL S UIT NO: 2231 OF 1998

¶63

Between:

¶64

Samala Laxminarayana, S/o^{Laxmaiah Business R/o Eligedu Village'} Peddapally Tq., Joolapally^{(lvl), Karimnagar District.}

¶65

Samal) Venkiteswarlu,^{S/o Ramaswamy, Pan Shop}

¶66

Samala Nageswara^{Rao,S/o late. Ramaswamy, CasulaWorker}

¶67

Samala Vimala, W/o late^{Eswaraiah, Household}

¶68

S Simata Sudhakar^{Rao, S/o late Ramaswamy, Employee in Doordarshan,} Kothagudem.

¶69

Samaia Laxman Rao,^{S/o lateRamaswamy, Pan Shop}

¶70

Samala Ramesh Kumar,^{S/o late Ramaswamy, Pan Shop}

¶71

Samala Jayanth Kumar,^{S/o late Ramaswamy, Pan Shop}

¶72

All the App'ellants² to 8 are^{R/o 5 lncline (PO)' Rudrampoor,.Kothagudem} , , (The Apbbllants 2 to 8 being rep. by their^{Special Powerof AttorneyHolder} Samala Laxmin araYana)

¶73

..,APPELLANTS/ PLAINTIFFS AND

¶74

Gundeti Rajeswari, W/o Chandra^{ltrlouli' HouseholdRi o H No.5-3-51, CooliLine,} Kothagudem Town and^{Mandal, Khammam District}

¶75

..RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT

¶76

Appeal under Section 96 of^{CPC against the Judgment and decree of the} Court of the Subordinate^{Judge's, Courl, Kothagudem in OS No,87 of 1996}

¶77

ORDER: This appeal^{comingon for hearing,and. upon perusingthe groundsof} appeal, the Judgment and^{decree of the Lower coud andthe material papers in the} suit and upon hearing the^{argumentsof Sri Palivela Satyaraja Babu, Advocate for} the appellants and of Sri^{KoMuru Pavan Kumar,Advocate for the Respondent.}

¶78

This court while allowing the^{Appeal this courtdoth judgmentand decree as follows}

¶79

That the impugned order of the Trial^{Courl be and hereby is set aside and the} trial Court is directed to dispose^{of the matter afresh within three(3) months} from the date of receipt of this order^{by duly giving opportunityof boththe} parties, as it is a matter of 1 998.

¶80

2 That both the^parties be^{ancl hereby aredirected to co-operatebeforethe Trial} Cou rt.

¶81

That there shall be no Order^{as to costs in this Appeal}

¶82

,TRUE COPY//

¶83

Sd/-K,SRINIVASA RAO JOTNTEEGISTRAR tlD

¶84

SECTION OFFICER

¶85

To 1. The Subordinate Judge,^Kothagudem

¶86

Two CD Copies

¶87

One Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910312022

DECREE

AS.No.2231 of 1998

Allowing the A.S. witlrout costs.

¶94

t{ )ot1--
)

Samala Laxminarayana, Karimnagar and 7 Ors. v. Gundeti Rajeswari, Khammam.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samala Laxminarayana, Karimnagar and 7 Ors. v. Gundeti Rajeswari, Khammam.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Ramavath Balu

Aaldhi Gangaram and Anr. Vs Sri Chinna Ganga Ram and Anr.

M/s.New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Mr.Ramavath Keshya

Karne Linganna Vs G.Ganga Reddy

New India Assurance Company Vs Mr. Chinna Narasimha and Anr.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Jada Muthyali and 4 Ors.