Allowed

Smt. Tara Bai, v. Smt. Durdana Begum

Telangana HC14 Oct 2022CCCA/126/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a decree granting declaration and injunction. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's decree. It held the suit was barred by limitation and the lower court erred in not finding the plaintiff was a minor when executing the General Power of Attorney underlying the sale deed.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the trial court granting declaration and injunction are set aside. No orders as to costs.

Smt. Tara Bai, Vs Smt. Durdana Begum — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE^{FOURTEENTH DAYOF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶5

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL^NO 12 6 oF 2000

¶6

Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C against the.iudgment and^{Decree dated} 15.1 1.1999 made in OS No. 761 of 1992 of the V Senior^{Civil Judge, City Civil} Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Tara Bai, W/o Sri MaliRam, Aged 51^years, Occ:Household^{Rl/o 21-2-769,} Patel Market, Hyderabad.

¶9

,..APPELLANT/1"t DEFENDANT

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . Smt. Durdana Begum, W/o Sri Khusro^{Pravaz Khan, aged 50 years,Fl/o 10-} 2-347 lB I 49, Asif nagar, Hyderabad.

¶12

RESPONDENT/PIAINTIFF

¶13

Sri Sultan Bin Omer,S/o Sri Shamsher^{Nawaz Jung, aged 79 years,} R/o. 5-9-161/8, Chapel Road.

¶14

(Died & exparty in LowerCourt)

¶15

...RESPONDENT/2"d DEFENDANT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. M PAPA^REDDY

¶17

counsel for the Respondent No.1 :SRl. S MALLA^RAO

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

,.HE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAiMAN CCCA.No.126 OF. 2OOO

¶20

JUDGMDNT:

¶21

The p resent appeal is filed against the ju igment passed in O.S.No.76 I o' 1992, dated 15.11.1999, on the filr:. of the learned V Senior Civi Judge, City Civil Court, Hyclerab r(1, rvhereby, the suit filecl by the first respondent herein for rleclaration and injunction u,ar ; decreed.

¶22

The fir st respondent herein is the ptainri l'. the appellant and the seconl respondent are the defendants it the suit. For the sake of corLvenience, the parties hereinafter ar.r: rel'erred to as they are arraye d in the suit.

¶23

The sum ; ncl substance of the case of the pla:ntiff is that the defendant No.1 is t)re purchaser in the sale deed e >rccuted by the defendant No.l , u'ho is the father of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 hiLs obtained GPA under Ex.A 1 lro l the plaintiff, when she u,as minor. Based on the said^(iPA, s.,r1e deed was executed uncler Ex.A1, dated 06.08. 1980. According to the

¶24

)

¶25

plaintiff, the sale^{deed executed by her father is voidsale deed} and she is the^{absoluteorvner and possessorofthe suit Property'}

¶26

Summons were^{servedto the defendant No'1, who was the} purchaserinthesaledeedexecutedbythedefendantNo.2onthe strength of Ex.A1/GPA^{and the defendant No'l sought timefor} filing written statement.^{Since the said written statementwasnot} filed,hewassetex-parteandbasedontheoralevidenceofPWl and Exs.A1 to A4,^{the suit was decreed'Hence, the present} appeal is at the^{instanceof defendantNo' l '}

¶27

The learned^{counsel for the appellant/defendalt No'1 has} contended that even^{thoughthere is no evidencefrom the} defendants, the^{Court was under obligation to look into the} evidence on record.^{The evidencepioduced by the plaintiff to} decree the suit and^{the finding in the impugned order do not} show whether the^{plaintiff at the time ofexecutionof} Ex.A1/General^{Powerof Attorney, she was minor;except relying} upon Exs.A3 &^{A4, wherein, the date of birth was recorded'which} has no foundation^{to say that the age recordedtherein was} correct date of^{birth. lt is also her submission that GPA was}

¶28

executed by he four persons including the p)zir:til1'and in the GPA her age^'vas given as 21 years. There is no r:Lat€ rial to shour that she l-ras^r itle over the suit property. Thr: Col r-. be'lo'"v without looking into srrch evidence has decreed the suit

¶29

The learned counsel for the plaintifl staled that she has to get instructior s lrom her client and again she su;r:ritled that she has no instruc tions and also made attempts to cor tacr. her clients but a1l such r fforts went in vain and therefot'e, r;ire is not in a position to suLmit the arguments.

¶30

7, As seen from tl-re docket proceedings, thrs ru:'peztl has been listed from 111"t October, 2021, it unden,,t':rt eight (OB) adjournments rnd this is the oldest case on t-hr'fi t: of this Court. In spite of sufli :ient time having been afforded t.o r h e parties, still the plaintiff se,:ks time for getting instructions. T: r s Clourt linds no reasonable :xcuse for further adjournments.^'l'herefore, the appeal is taken up lor ex-parte disposal.

¶31

B. As seen iom the impugned judgment, ther: is eo finding that u,hat was the foundation for making entries unrler Exs.A3 &

¶32

¶33

44 with regard^{to date of birth of plaintiff' Admittedly'under} Ex.Al /GPA,^{the age of plaintiffwas given as 21 years and the trial} Court has not^{taken note of the age given in Ex Al' which shows} thatonthedateofexecutionofthedocument,shewasmajor. When she herself admitted^{the execution ofEx'A1} '^such admission as the^{admissionof true age also' She retracted such} admission with^{regard to age in Ex'Al, by placing relianceon} Exs.A3 & A4.^{Exs.A3 & A4 entrieswith regard to date of birth} must be on^{someother documentsSuch foundationaldocument} was not^{placedon record so as to believethe claim for retraction} of admissions^{madeunderEx.A1'}

¶34

g. The trial has not^{given any finding on the aspect of whether} on the date^{of execution of Ex.A1/GPA,plaintiff was minor or not'} The order speaks^{that since there is no contra evidence basingon} Exs.A3 &^{A4, the suit for declaration and injunctionwas granted'} It is most unfortunate^{that even there is no finding rvith regardto} whethei the^{plaintilfwas in possessionof the property' Ex'Al} shows that there^{are four (04) persons, who have executedthe} GPA in favour^{of her father and on the strength of such GPA'} fatherhasexecutedsaledeedinfavourofthedefendantNo.land

¶35

)

¶36

t I

¶37

the judgment impugned is also silent regar-ding )rou, the plaintiff got exclusive possession over the suit proprrtiesi $rhen the declaration w rs sought. The piaintiff must t'stab.isrh Lrer exclusive titie and poss :ssion over the property. Contrany^r o thzrt , trxs.A 1 & A2 clearlv sl ou, that four (04) persons are he ving title to the property. rvht reas plaintiff alone seeking the drr: larrrtion. Then, she has to es1 ablish by cogent evidence tl'r at she r1:.t e:<<:lusive title to the proper .r, but, this title documents h ave r r,r t beer-r filed by her ancl rvith< ut any title documents the Court rle'clared the title of the plaintif :. This finding of the trial Criurt irls;o suffers from illegalitr,.

¶38

In the ;resent case, the alleged sale rleed ,r':rs rnade in the year 1980 tht suit filed in the year 7992. GPA ,r,irs executed in the year 1968 As per Exs.A3 & A4, plaintiff born r;n 12.01.1952. As per Ex.A3 lrer age alone was mentioned :rs 2(> '/,lars and there is no exact da e of birth in the marriage cerlifir:at:. At the time of execution of s rle deed as per Exs.A3 & A4, the p :,r,inliff attained majority. Alter attaining majority, she has not irr:netiiately liled the suit. By rirttte of execution of sale deed. tlrerre is an open denial of title r,f the plaintiff if any she has. That r.ieans from the

¶39

¶40

date of sale deed, the suit for declaration should^{have been filed} within three (03) years, which is not filed,^where as the suit^is filed after nearly 11^years from the^{date of execution.Thisaspect} of limitation was also not considered^{by the tr:ia-l Courteventhere} is no evidence from the defendants.^Hence, this Court^{finds that} the tria,l Court erroneously decreed the suit ald^{therefore, the} judgment of the trial Court is required to be set aside.

¶41

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed and the^judgment passed in O.S.No.76L of 7992, dated 15.11.1999, on the file^of the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,^{Hyderabad, is} set aside. No costs.

¶42

12, As a sequel, connected miscellaneous^{petitions, if any,} shall stand closed.

¶43

¶44

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA JOINT R RAR i/TRUE COPY//

¶45

SECTION OFFICER

¶46

¶47

1 The V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,^Hyderabad {With^Record) 2 One CC to SRl. M PAPA REDDY Advocate IOPUC] 3 One CC to SRl. S MALLA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies

HIGH COTIRT

DATED:12 11012022

JUDGMEI\IT

CCCA.No.126 of 2000

{ I t . ST.)JE o )^
tt
(j
? 4 ',itB il8
f,oo
n 'lr:r:+'t
<br>

¶54

ALLOWING CC( ]A WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

-a,w

¶56

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶57

FRIDAY. THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY IWO

¶58

PRESENT

¶59

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶60

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 126 OF 2000

¶61

Between:

¶62

Smt. Tara Bai, Wo Sri lvlaliRam, Aged 51 years, Occ:Household Rl/o 21-2-769, Patel Market, Hyderabad.

¶63

...APPELLANT/1.t DEFENDANT

¶64

AND

¶65

Smt. Durdana Begum, W/o Sri Khusro Pravaz Khan, aged 50 years, Ryo 102-347 lBl 49, Asif nagar, Hyderabad.

¶66

RESPONDENT/PIAINTIFF

¶67

Sri Sultan Bin Omer,S/o Sri Shamsher Nawaz Jung, aged 79 years, R/o. 5-9-161/8, Chapel Road.

¶68

(Died & exparty in Lowercourt)

¶69

...RESPONDENT/2"d DEFENDANT

¶70

Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C against the^judgment and Decree of the Court of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in OS No. 761 of 1992, dated 15.1'1.1999.

¶71

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the N,laterial papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. N/. PAPA REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri S.tvlalla Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.1

¶72

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶73

That the appeal be and hereby is allowed

¶74

That the Judlment passed in O.S.No. 761 of 1992 datec. 15.1 1 .1999, on the file of the Le, rrned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court llydr-,rabad be and hereby is se1 aside, and

¶75

That there br ' no orders as to costs in this Appeal

¶76

Sd,. ](. SiRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE(;TION O FFIC ER

To,

The V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (\iilh Record) 2. Two CD Cop es {rkPlt

HIGH CI)URT

DATED: 1411012022

DECRE:

CCCA.f\ oj26 of 2000

ALLO! ING CC]CA WITHOT]T COSTS

¶86

GD \ ^.1 -rr)[*"

Smt. Tara Bai, v. Smt. Durdana Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tara Bai, v. Smt. Durdana Begum

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

Abdul Khadar Vs Secretary to Govt. of A.P.

Nannapaneni Rama Rao Vs Smt. Nannapaneni Soubhagyamma

Nagubandi Pullaiah Vs Maduri Srinivasa Rao

M/s. Electrotech Devises Vs Syndicate Bank

R.L. Rama Rao Vs P.L. Narsing Rao

The Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd., Secunderabad Vs a Agarwal, Hyderabad and 5 Others