Dismissed

M/S.Jai Bhavani Interiors and Furniture, Secunderabad and Anothr v. Arya Prathinidhi Sabha, a.P., Hyderabad and Another

Telangana HC22 Sept 2022CCCA/202/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by tenants challenging an eviction decree. The court upheld the trial court's findings that the landlord representatives were authorized to sue, the tenancy was properly terminated, and the tenants remained liable for arrears of rent and mesne profits.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree dated 05.11.2009 in O.S. No. 46 of 2004 allowing eviction and recovery of arrears were confirmed.

M/S.Jai Bhavani Interiors and Furniture, Secunderabad… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²¹⁸¹

¶2

I : :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTENIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶7

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 202OF 20Og

¶8

Appeal Under Section^g6 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 05. 11.2009 in O.S.No.46 ol 2OO4 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 . tM/s.Jai Bhavani lnteriors & Furniture, Premises No. 2 1/A, Arya Samaj [\ilandiram, Situate at Opp: Keyes Girls High School, St. John Road, Secunderabad, represented by its

¶11

P.Gyaneswar, Sio. P.Balaiah, aged 46 years, Occ: Business No. 21lA, Arya Samaj lt/andiram, Situate at Opp: Keyes Girls High School, St. John Road, Secunderabad.

¶12

...APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS

¶13

AND1. Arya Prathinidhi Sabha, Andhra Pradesh, Premises No. 4-2-15, Maharshi Dayanand Marg, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, rep.by its Secretary Vittal Rao, S/o.Late Govind Rao,aged 53 years, Ocb: Lecturer, Premises No. 4-2-15, Maharshi Dayanand Marg, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad,

¶14

Arya Samaj, Premises No. 144, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad. (Jeera Branch) represented by its Acting President M.Pandari, S/o. Late M.Sathaiah, aged 73 yrs, Occ:Business, Rl/o H.No.'l-5-189, Gollaguda, Klasiguda, Secunderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(CCCAMP. NO: 641 OF 2009)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings pursuant to judgment and decree dated 05-1 1-2009 in O.S.No.46 ot 2OO4 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶18

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI AKA VENKATARAMANA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VENKAT RAGHU RAMULU

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

-Z

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO.2O2 OF 2OO9 JUDGMENT:

¶23

The appellants / defendants filed this^appeal assailing the^judgment and decree dated^{05.11.20O9 in} O.S.No.46 of 2OO4 on the lile of the I Additional^Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶24

Plaintiffs have filed original suit in O.S.No.46^of 2OO4 for eviction of the defendants from^{suit schedule} property, for recovery of arrears of rents of Rs.2,24,OOO l- and for mesne profits of^Rs.99,000 /-^{and also future} mesne proiits at Rs.3O,OOO/- from the^{date of suit till the} date of delivery of vacant^possession of^{the suit schedule} property by the defendants. The tria,l Court, after full length trial, has decreed the suit in^{favourof the plaintiffs} directing the defendants to^{deliver vacantpossessionof the} suit schedule property i.e. commercial^{premises bearing} No.21/A, known as Ashram Building^(ArySamaj Mandiram), opposite to^{Key's High School,St.John's Road,} Secunderabad with^{preciseboundaries, as mentioned in}

¶25

¶26

.--

¶27

AVR,I ( CCA 2ol l()o(.)

¶28

Pagc 2 of^t8

¶29

the schedule^{of propertyu/ithin two months from the date} of^{judgment and decree'The plaintiffs were also advised to} file a^{petition for Rs'2,2 4,OOO I - towards arrears of rents} and for^{ascertainingthe past and future mesne prolits} under^{Order 2O, Rule12 of CivilProcedure Code (for short} 'cPC1.

¶30

Feeling aggrieved^{by the said judgmentand} decree,^{the appellants} /^{defendantsIiled this appeal on the} follou'ing^grounds:

¶31

(a) The^{judgment and decree of the Court belowis} to law,^{evidenceavailable on record' the trial} contrary Courtcommittedarrerrorindisbelievingtheevidenceof DWs.1^{to 3 and the admissionsof PW1'}

¶32

(b) There^{is no resolutionpassed by the Society for} tiling the^suit.

¶33

¶34

(d) The trial^{Court has committed error} 1n Ex.B3 rental^{agreementand the evidence} of discarding Dw3.

¶35

(e) The trial^{Court failed to considerthat there was} not even^{a suggestion to DWs'2and 3 that they are not the} members^{of plaintiffsand also failedto consider Ex'A6'}

¶36

( ('CA .:o.: ^VR,Jzoot;

¶37

Pagc -i of Ifl

¶38

(0 The trial Court failed to appreciate that the Secretar5r and President of the Sabha, who filed the^suit have no authority to represent the society as on the^{date of} Iiling of the suit. Accordingly, prayed to set aside^the judgment and decree dated O5. 11.2OO9 in O.S.No.46 of 2004.

¶39

Heard learned counsel on both sides. Perused the record. The submissions made on either^{side have} received due consideration of this Court.

¶40

For the sake of convenience, the^parties hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants,^as arrayed in the original suit.

¶41

Plaint averments :

¶42

The plaintiffs have fi1ed original suit alleging that the suit schedule^property . was let out to^the defendants on a monthly rent of Rs. 14,000/-^{exclusive of} electricity and water charges. It is an oral^{tenancy and the} rent is payable on or before Sth of every succeeding^English calendar month. The defendants paid the rents^up-to October, 2OO2 and thereafter^{committeddefault in paying} the rents without any valid reason,^{intentionallycreated}

!!-

AVR,I CCCA zoz^zoog

Page:1 o{'18

I ii i I i : :

internal^{disputesin the loca1 management of Arya Sabha} administration^{causing monetary loss tothe plaintiffs'} Thus, the^{plaintiffs started ignoring thedefendants} including^{the demandfor paymentof rents, by changing} their stand^{ol leaseholdrights of suit schedulepropertyto} suit their^{convenience.The defendantswithheld the rents} from^O 1.1^{l.2OO2 onwards- The defendantshave also} unauthorizedly^{effectedalterations, additionsarrd attended} other civil^{works and hence, the plaintiffs requested the} defendants to^{stop such works but the defendantsfailed to} stop the same.^{Therefore, the plaintiffshave issuednotice} under Section^{108 of Transfer of iropertyAct and that the} defendants^{are liable for ejectmentfrom the suit schedule} premises immediately,^{the tenancyof the defendantsis} also terminated^{by the end of 2)'O2'2OO4and they were} requested to^{handover the physicalpossession of the suit} schedule^{premises on 01.03.2004 but in vain' Thus' the} defendants are^{liable topay Rs'30,00O/-per month} towards damages^{for unlatful occupationand also liableto}

E a

r\VR,J CCCA:.o.2:oo9

Page 5 of 18

; t l

pay Rs. 1,96,000l- towards rents from O1.11..2OO2 till the end of December, 2003.

¶54

Plea of the defendants :

¶55

7 . The defendants have filed a detailed written statement alleging that the suit is not maintainable, plaintiffs are not the owners and lessors of the suit schedule premises; the defendants have admitted that the rent is Rs. 14,O00/- per month exclusive of water ald electricitSr charges but as the piaintiffs are not the owners and therefore, they are not entitled to claim the rents or eviction of the defendalts. The defendants never tendered rent to the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs are nothing to do with the suit schedule premises. The defendants are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as its tenants having taken the same from its original owners. The plaintiffs have no right to speak about the alleged rents prevalent in that area, the tenarcy is not oral but the original landlords have executed written leasehold deed in favour of the defendants on a monthly rent of Rs. 14,00O/-. The suit schedule premises was not in good condition ald

¶56

¶57

AVR.I CCCA^{zoz. zoo<)}

¶58

I'age 6 of^l8

¶59

¶60

accordingly,^{the defendants obtained permissionfrom the} landlordsandeffectedrequiredrepairs.Theplaintiffsare not^{even aware of amenitiesavailablein the suit schedule} premises.^{There aI.e disputes with regard to management} ofAryaPrathinidhiSabhaandAryaSamaj,pendingbefore the^{Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad'The} plaintiffs^{cannotmaintain the present suit till the dispute} in^{OP Nos.549of20O3 and 849 of 2O03 issettled'} Accordingly,^{the defendants prayedfor dismissal of the} suit.

¶61

I:'sges^:

¶62

Basing^{on the pleadings' the followingissues} were^{framedbY the trial Court:}

¶63

Whether^{the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit} schedule ProPertY? o d;,h;;^{it"'a"renaT tts are the tenants of the} olaintiffs? J. {vt",-f,.. ,fr.^{suit is bad for non-joinder of} necessa4/ Parties? 4. w;;h*.,ri;^{pt.i.rtin"are entitledto deliveryof} ;;;l fo"".."iott^{of the suit schedule} propertjr? 5 ffi:il;. the plaintiffs^{are entitled for the} arrears^{of rent as claimed?} 6 d;;;; the plaintiffs^{are entitledto past and} fulu.e^mesne Profits^{as claimed?} 7 To what^relieL) \ \

¶64

/\VR,J CCCA :cr.u zoog

¶65

I'agc 7 o1'lll

¶66

I t IIt t I r i I a

¶67

Evidence and findinss of the trial Court :

¶68

During trial, on behalf of plaintiffs, Secretar;r of plaintiff No.1 is exarnined as PWI and got marked Exs.Al to A,9 documents. Thereafter, on behalf of the defendants, the second defendant himself examined himself as DWl and aiso examined DWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.Bl to 89 documents.

¶69

The trial Court aiter hearing both sides and on careful appreciation of the oral and documentar;z evidence, answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for qviction of the defendants from the suit schedule premises and the defendants were directed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suits schedule premises within two r:nonths from the date of judgment and plaintiffs are also entitled for recovery of Rs.2,24,OOO /- towards arrears of rents. However, for ascertaining the mesne profits, the plaintiffs were advised to initiate separate proceedings under Order 20, Rule 12 of CPC. The present appeal is directed against this judgment and decree.

AVR,' CCCA zo:. zoog

I'agc 8 ot 18

l '...1

Points :

1 1 . In the light of the^{riva-i contentionsand the} material available on^{record, the following pointsarise for} consideration in this^apPeal.

¶77

(i) Whether PW 1 is authorized to^representthe plaintiff No.1?

¶78

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are^{entitled for eviction of} the defendants and^{recovery of arrears of rents,as prayed} for?

¶79

(iii) Whether the^judgment and^{decreeof the trial} Court is sustained?

¶80

Point Nos.(i) to liiil:

¶81

Since all these point Nos.l^{to 3 are interrelated,to} avoid repetition and for the^{sake of convenience, itis} proposed to answer them together^{as under :}

¶82

Plaintiff No.l - Arya^{Prathinidhi Sabha is} iepresented by its^Secretar5z Sri^{VittalRao, who is} examined as PW1. The^{plaintiff No.2} -^AryaSamaj, Secunderabad is^{representedby its Acting President-} M.Pandari. It appears^{there were certain internaldisputes} in the management of^plaintiffs and^{accordingly,OP}

¶83

I 1

¶84

A / R,J CCCA.zo:.:oo9

¶85

Page 9 of 18

¶86

I I i i I 1 I I I I I I ,ii i )l

¶87

Nos.549 of 2003 and 849 of 2003 were filed under Section 23 of Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act (for short 'the Act) for declaration that the resolution dated 20.Il.2OO2 of the 1"t respondent therein dissolving the first petitioner as illegal and void and also sought for permanent injunction. As per the common judgment dated 04 .02.2006 these two original petitions were allo.,ved declaring the proceedings dated 20.ll.2OO3 by rhe respondent No. 10 therein as void ald the appointment of adhoc committee was also declared as void. The respondents therein were restrained from interfering with the affairs of the first petitioner in both the petitions except under due process of law. Undisputedly the orders under Ex.A9, cited above, have attained finality and thereby in my considered opinion, the disputes as to the internal management of the affairs of the plaintiffs were resolved and appointment of adhoc committee is declared as void.

¶88

Be it stated that in Op No.549 of 2003, filed by Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, represented by its Secretary, pWl is the third petitioner and DW2 is the second respondent and

¶89

AVR,I CCCA:.o-u:'oo9

¶90

Page^{l0 of I 8}

¶91

similarly^{inOP No'849 of 2O03 M'Pandari' who is the} representativ^{e of2nd plaintiff hereinhas represented the} petitioner^{therein and DW3 herein isshown as sth} respondent^{therein' Accordingly' I am of the considered} view that^{DWs'2 and 3 are also aware of the proceedings} under^{Ex.A9 arrd appointmentof adhoc committee was} declared^{as avoidand perpetual injunction was granted} against^{therespondents'Thus' PW1 \ ras properly} authorized^{to represent plaintiffs'}

¶92

14.^{The defendants have deniedthe ownership of} the^{plaintiffsover the suit schedule property stating that} they^{have entered into leasehold agreement with DWs'2} and 3^{ald that they are the rightful owners and that the} plaintiffs^{have nothing to do with the same' Now1et us} examine^{the oral and documentaryevidenceavailableon} record^{in this context'}

¶93

The^{Secretaryof the plaintiff No'l is examined} as^PW1 ,^{filed hisevidenceaffidavit in lieu ofchief-} examination^{reiterating theplaintavermentsinhis}

¶94

t \

¶95

AVR.I CCCA uoz :oo9 I'age ll of18

¶96

I rl I I

¶97

evidence. Exs.A 1 to ,A.9 documents are marked. This r,r,itness has categorically stated that the defendaats are the tenants of the plaintiffs on a monthly rent of Rs.14,O0O/,, it was oral tenancy but to escape the liabilit5r of payment of rents and eviction they started taking false pleas and tailed to pay the rents from November, 2OO2 onwards and also they have made unauthorized alterations to the suit schedule property. Accordingly, a notice was issued on 19.O1.2OO4 terminating the tenancy of the defendants vvith effect from 29 .O2.2OO4 . The defendants having received the said notice, neither replied to it nor vacated the suit schedule premises. Exs.A 1 to A5 are the office copy of legal notice, postal receipts and acknowledgment cards of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Ex.A6 is the letter dated 11.10.2003 said to have been executed by defendant No-1 stating that the suit premises was taken on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 14,000/- and that they are paying rents to DW2 or DW3. This letter is not disputed in the entire cross-examination. Similarly, Ex.A1 is the resolution authorizing PWl to take required steps for eviction of the

¶98

¶99

I- :

¶100

i .t

¶101

¶102

l' I.i 1 I tlll l , I {l. I ll lr I i

¶103

AVR.J CCCA:o:.:oot; l'age l2 of ltl

¶104

defendants including filing of suits, issuing legal notices etc. Ex.AB is the copy of order in I.A.No.4 198 of 2OO6 in O.S.No.46 of 2OO4, dated 05.03.2007 wherein the defendants herein were permitted to deposit Rs.6,35,965/within one month from the date of said order. It is an admitted fact that the defendants have failed to comply with the said order. This oral and documentar5r evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs remained consistent and throughout the cross-examination nothing worth mentioning is elicited to disbelieve the same.

¶105

On behalf of the defendants, the 2"a defendant got examined himself as DW1, filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of chief-examination reiterating the averments of the written statement. Exs.Bl to 89 documents are marked. Ex.Bl is property tax receipts. Ex.B2 is receipt issued by Arya Sama,jam. Ex.B3 is photocopy of agreement. Exs.B4 to 89 are the rent receipts. In the cross-examination DWl has admitted that he did not send monthly rents by way of money orders in favour of the plaintiffs though he admitted that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule premises

¶106

AVR,' CCCA zo.:. zoo<;

¶107

Page 13 ol 18

¶108

and he is also admitted Ex.AB^{orders and explainedthat he} did not comply the said orders.^{DWI also admitted thathe} preferred revision against the orders under^EX.ABwherein he was permitted by the High Court^todeposit Rs.3,O0,0OO/- before the trial Court but he did^{not comply} the orders of the High Court. DWl further^{admitted that} he is liable to pay Rs.2,24,OOOl- towards^{arrears of rents to} the plaintiffs and tried to explain that^{he has already paid} the said amount to DW3-K.Raghumanna.

¶109

The said Raghumanna is^{examinedas DW3 on} behalf of the defendants to show-that the^{defendants have} paid rents under Exs.B2 to 89. In the cross-examination DW3 has admitted that he is not^{concernedabout the} collection of rents and he is^also not^{concerned with the} verification of the rent account.^{He doesnot know whether} the person who collected the^{rents under Exs.B2to 89 has} deposited the rents or not.^{DW2 D.M.Bala Sunder Raohas} also testi{ied that he is a member^{of plaintiff No.2 and the} plaintiff No.2 has not authorized^{him to collect the rents} from the defendants and^{he has notrendered any}

.-... ,-". ,l

Page I^.1 o1' I 8

A\rR,'J CCCA zo::oog

statement ol account with regard to collection of rents to the plaintiffs. He has fairly admitted that he has no documentar5r proof of remittance of rents, if any paid to him under Exs.B4 to 89, and that he is not having counter-foils of Exs.B4 to 89 and explained that they may be with the defendants only. Thus, such evidence of DWs.2 and 3 and the contents of Exs.B2 to 89 are not at all helpful to the defendants to show that the defendants have paid the rents either to DW2 or DW3 and that the said rent amount was remitted into the account of the plaintiffs.

¶115

It may be stated that as per Ex.Al notice, the tenancy was terminated and the plaintiffs have to pay rents with effect from 01.1I.2OO2 onwards. Though notice was served on both the defendants, they did not choose to respond to the same nor gave a suitable reply to it. Thus, the contents of Ex.A1 notice were not denied by defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Undisputedly the defendants have not complied with the orders under Ex.A8 or orders of High Court and failed to deposit the amounts either as directed

¶116

I I

¶117

AVR,J CCCA-zo::. zoog

I)agc l5 o1' 18

-1

I i i I I I

under Ex.AB or an amount of Rs.3,0O,000/- as directed in the Civil Revision Petition. Thus, on overa-ll consideration of entire evidence, it is crystal clear that the defendants are liabie to pay the arrears of rents of Rs.2,24,00O/- to the plaintiffs.

¶122

Similarly, though the defendants have denied the titie and ownership of plaintili Nos. 1 and 2 over suit schedule property, as DWI and DW2 have fairly admitted that the plaintiffs are the owners and lessors of suit schedule property and DWl has not paid rents. Though it is averred by him in the written statement as well as in his chief-examination that he has paid the rents through DWs.2 and 3, their evidence is not sufficient to hold that either they have received the rents or. they were authorized to collect the rents or that thev have remitted the rents said to have been received from the defendants to the account of plaintiffs. In such circumstances, I do not find any irregularity or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court holding that the^plaintiffs are entitled for - . eviction of the defendants and also entitled for recovery of | "-'' I

¶123

=t-

¶124

A,'R'J CCCA :oz zooc-;

¶125

I']age 16 of 18

¶126

arrears of rents. The trial Court while answering issue No.6 has rightly held that the defendants are liable to pay the past and future mesne profits as prayed by the piaintiffs and they have to Iile a separate application under Order 20, Rule 12 of CPC for ascertaining the mesne profits and accordingly, the issue was answered in favour of the plaintifls.

¶127

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusions, I hold that PWI is authorized to represent plaintiff No.l under Ex.A7 resolution, the defendants are the tenalts of the suit schedule.property, failed to pay the arrears of rents and inspite of receipt of termination notice under Ex.A 1 , failed to vacate the suit schedule premises and also failed to pay the arrears of rents.

¶128

Though the defendants have pleaded that DWs.2 and 3 are the rightful persons to let out them from suit schedule premises alrd to collect the rents, failed to establish the same. On the other hand, the evidence of DW1 itself is sufficient to hold that the plaintiffs are the

¶129

\ \

¶130

AVR,I CCCA zoz. 2()og

l'age 17 ol l 8

t -Ii

\ \

original owners of the suit schedule premises and there is no evidence of remittance of rents from 01 .l l.2OO2 onwards. Both the defendants remained silent on receipt of Ex.A1 notice, neither they paid the rents nor vacated the suit schedule property nor got issued reply to the said notice. The silence of the defendants goes in long way Ieading to adverse inference against them holding that since they are liable to pay arrears of rents to the plaintiffs, they did not chose to respond to Ex.A1 eviction notice. Consequently, the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of arrears of rents of Rs.2,24,OO0/- and a,lso entifled for mesne profits, as prayed lor.

¶136

Therefore, on overall consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence discussed- above, I do not find any infirmity or irregularitSz in appreciation of the sarne by the trial Court and the findings recorded by the trial Court are sustained and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Thus, point Nos. 1 to 3 are accordingly, answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and the judgment and decree dated 05.1 I.2OO9

l .i]

AVR,J CCCA:oz zoog

Page l8 ol-113

'.1 -!!

l :i i I i

; i I II t

in O.S.No.46 of 2OO4 on^{the file of the I AdditionalChief}

¶145

Judge, City Civil^{Court,Secunderabadis sustained}

¶146

In the result, this^{appeal is dismissed with} costs confirming the^{judgment anddecree dated} 05.i1.2009 in O.S.No.46 of^{2OO4 on the file ofthe} I Additional Chief Judge,^{City Civii Court, Secunderabad'} Miscellaneous^petitions, if^{any, pending,shall stand closed'}

¶147

SD/.K.SRIN'VASA o JOINT REGIS RAR //TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION FFICER

The I Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶152

One CC to Sri Aka Venkataramana, Adriocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies gbr \x'-

I ,

, :

HIGH COURT

DATED: 221A912022

JUDGMENT

1 I
t
) a
i) I 1 AP R 2U23
. ,1,
I
:,,

¶159

CCCA.No.202 ot 2009

¶160

DISMISSING THE CGCA WITHOUT COSTS

¶161

o&6

¶162

[³²¹⁸ ]

¶163

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶164

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶165

PRESENT

¶166

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶167

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 202 OF 2009

¶168

Betweenl

¶169

M/s.Jai Bhavani lnteriors & Furniture, Premises No. 21lA, Arya Samaj Mandiram, Situate at Opp: Keyes Girls High School, St. John Road, Secunderabad, represented by its

¶170

P.Gya,neswa_r, Sio._P.Balaiah, aged 46 years, Occ: Business No. 21iA, Arya Samaj ltrlandiram, Situate at Opp: Keyes Girls High School, St. John Road, Secunderabad.

¶171

...APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS

¶172

AND

¶173

4ryu Prathinidhi Sabha, Andhra Pradesh, Premises No. 4-2-15, Maharshi payanand lVlarg, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, rep.by its Secretary Vlttal Rao, S/o..Late G_ovind Rao,aged 53 years, Occ: Lecturer, Premises No. 4-2-15,Maharshi Dayanand Marg, Sulian Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶174

\tya Samaj, Premises No. 144, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad. (Jeera Brarp!) repre_sented by its Acting President M.Pandari, S/o. Late M.Sathaiah, qSed 73^yrs, Occ:Business, Rl/o H.No.1-5-189, Gollaguda, Klasiguda, Secunderabad.

¶175

...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶176

Appeal Under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,. Secunderabad dated 05.1 1.2009 in O.S.No.46 of 2OO4.

¶177

The Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed in the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. Venkataramana, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Venkata Raghu Ramulu, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶178

This Court doth order and decree as follows :

¶179

That the Appeal be and hereby is dismissed.

¶180

That the Judgment and Decree dated 05.11.2009 in O.S.No.46 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad be and hereby is confirmed and

¶181

That there shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal.

¶182

SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGI RAR

¶183

//TRUE COPY// FFTCER sEcilorg

¶184

To,

¶185

The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶186

Two CD Copies gbr ..-.\z>X

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2210912022

DECREE

CCCA.No.202 ot 2009

DISMISSING THE CGCA WITHOUT COSTS

¶192

\o^q)3

M/S.Jai Bhavani Interiors and Furniture, Secunderabad and Anothr v. Arya Prathinidhi Sabha, a.P., Hyderabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Jai Bhavani Interiors and Furniture, Secunderabad and Anothr v. Arya Prathinidhi Sabha, a.P., Hyderabad and Another

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

M/s. Grove Limited, Vs M/s. Shrinath Roto Pack (P) Ltd.

Nakka Posetty Vs N Jagannatham

Dasari Sruthi Vs Dasari Srinivasa Rao

Sarikonda Sushma Vs Sarikonda Nagendra Bhat

Panasa Srikanth Vs T. Ram Mohan Rao

Sarikonda Sushma Vs Saronda Nagendra Bhat