Dismissed

Kings Way Auto Services, v. Sri Anil Agarwal

Telangana HC18 Oct 2022CCCA/90/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of three Civil Court Appeals arising from eviction and declaration suits. It affirmed the lower court's decree evicting a dealer and an oil corporation from leased premises, rejecting claims of title by adverse possession and finding the claims to be an abuse of process. Exemplary costs were imposed for the frivolous litigation.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed; the lower court's judgment and decree allowing eviction were confirmed; exemplary costs were imposed on the appellants.

Kings Way Auto Services, Vs Sri Anil Agarwal — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶5

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NOS: 89 90 AND 97 0F 2016

¶6

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 89 OF 2016:

¶7

Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 151212016 in O.S.No.72 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kings Way Auto Services, rep. by its Proprietor Brij Gopal Fatepuria S/o Pannalal Fatepuria (Died per LR Appellant-2) Age About 66 years Occ; Business R/o Bunglow No.179 Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

¶10

Mr. Nikheel Kumar Fatepuria, S/o.Late Brij Gopal Fatepuria, Aged 36 years, Occ:Proprietor, R/o Bunglow No.179 Bowenpally, Hyderabad. (Appellant No.2 is brought on record as LR of Appellant No.1 as per Court Order dated 0210912022 vide lA No.3 of 2022 in CCCA 89/2016)

¶11

...APPELLANT/PLAI NTIFF

¶12

AND

¶13

Vani Bai (Died per legal representatives)

¶14

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally Hyderabad.

¶15

The Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶17

Sri Anil Agarwal, S/o. Late Kailashnath Aged about^{51 years} Occ: Business No 3-6-21 ll,Akashnagar, Basheerbaug, Hyderabad.

¶18

Sri Rajesh Agarwal, S/o Late Bajranglal Aged about 52^years Occ^: Business Rl/o 4-3- [ 44,Kondaswamy Lane, Sultan Bazar Hyderabad.

¶19

Smt. Uma Agarwal, Wo Sri. Amarnath Agarwal Aged about 56^years Occ: Household, R/o 5-9-30/1/23, Basheerbaug, Palace Colony, Hyderabad.

¶20

Smt. Usha Agarwal, W/o Harishchand Agarwal Aged about^{50 years} Occ : Household R/o 5-9-30/'1l23, Road No.'l , Basheerbaug, Palace Colony, Hyderabad.

¶21

Smt. Anita Agarwal, W/o Kamal^Kumar Agarwal Aged^about48years Occ: Household R/o 5-9-30/1/23, Road No.1, Basheerbaug,^Palace Colony, Hyderabad.

¶22

M/s The Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd, lmpleaded^(Formerly Caltex(lndia) limited) 9-1-130/1, Sabastian^{Street, Sarojini Devi Road,} Secunderabad. Rep by its Regional Manager.^{Dft.No.10 as per} orders in 1A.No.2405/12 dated 13-3-2014.

¶23

¶24

Smt Pramella Bal kishan, W/o Balkishan Aged about^{5'1 years.} Durga Vihar Colony, Gun Roc Avenue,^{Trimulgherry, Secunderabad.}

¶25

Smt N.Padma Hazara, W I Harazara Aged^{about49 years,} Durga Vihar Colony, Gun Roc Avenue, Trimulgherry,^{Secunderabad.}

¶26

Smt lndira Ram Singh, W/o Ram Singh Aged about^{46 years,} Durga Vihar Colony, Gun Roc Avenr,re, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad.

¶27

Dft. No.1^'l to 13 lmpleaded as per orders in 1A.No.1325 of 2015

¶28

Dated : 0: .08.201 5.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶30

CCCAMP. NO: 261 OF 2016

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleasedto restrain the rer;pondent from interfering into the peaceful^possession of the appellant rr to the Property admeasuring 772 sq,^{yards property} bearing No. 5-l;-338, James Street, R.P. Road, Secunderabad -500003.

¶32

Counsel for the, Respondents: SRI K. VINAY KUMAR

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VIVEK JAIN

¶34

CITY CIVIL COITRT APPEAL NO: 90 OF 2016 :

¶35

Appeal Llrder Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated^'510212016 in O.S.No.'1 10 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the I Additiorral Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

¶36

Between:

¶37

Kings Way Auto Services, rep. by its Proprietor Brrj Gopal Fatepuria S/o Pannalal Fatepuria (Died per LR Appellant-2) Age About 66 years Occ ; Bus rress R/o Bunglow No.'179 Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

¶38

Mr. Nikhe:l Kumar Fatepuria, S/o.Late Brij Gopal Fatepuria. Aged 36 years, Oc,::Proprietor, R/o Bunglow No.'1.79 Bowenpally, Hyderabad. (Appellant No.2 is brought on record as LR of Appellant No.'l as per Court Order dated 0210912022 vide lA No.3 of 202:2 in CCCA 90/2016)

¶39

...APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶40

¶41

Sri Anil Agarwal, S/o. Late Kailashnath Aged about 51 years Occ : Business lTlo 3-6-2111 , Akashnagar, Basheerbaug, Hyderabad.

¶42

Sri Rajesh Agarwal, S/o Late Ba.jranglal Aged about 52 years Occ: Business li/o 4-3- I 44,Kondaswamy Lane, Sultan Bazar Hyderabad.

¶43

Smt. Uma Agarwal, Wo Sri. Amarnath Agarwal Aged about 56 years Occ : Household, R/o 5-9-30/1l23, Basheerbaug, Palace Colony, Hyderabad.

¶44

Smt. Usha Agarwal, W/o Harishchand Agarwal Aged about 50 years Occ . Hou:;ehold R/o 5-9-30/1/23, Road No.1, Basheerbaug, Palace Colony. HvJerabad.

¶45

Smt. Anita Agarwal, W/o Kamal Kumar Aganaral Aged about 48 years Occ: Household R/o 5-9-30/1/23, Road No.1, Basheerbaug, Palace Colony, Hvlerabad.

¶46

...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶47

M/s The Hindustan Pekoleum Corp. Ltd, lmpleaded (Formerly Caltex(lndia) limited) 9-1-130/1 , Sabastian Street, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad. Rep by its Regional Manager. Dft.No.10 as per orders in |A.No.2405/12 dated 13-3-2014.

¶48

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS.l

¶49

CCCAMP. NO: 262 OF 2016

¶50

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 'l 10 of 2007 dated 15.02.2016 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Cou( Secunderabad, including the execution of the appellant from the Property admeasuring 772 sq. yards property bearing No. 5-5-338, James Street, R.P. Road, Secunderabad -500003.

¶51

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI K. VINAY KUMAR

¶52

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VIVEK JAIN

¶53

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 97 OF 2016:

¶54

Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 1510212016 in O.S.No.110 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

¶55

Between:

¶56

M/s The Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd, lmpleaded (Formerly Caltex(lndia) limited) 9-1-130/1, Sabastian Street, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad. Rep by its Chief Regional [t4anager, Sri Ch.Srinivas ...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT NO.1

¶57

¶58

'1 . Sri Anil Agarwal, S/o. Late Kailashnath Aged about 51 years Occ : Business R|/o 3-6-21/1 , Akashnagar, Basheerbaug, Hyderabad.

¶59

Sri Rajesh Agarwal, S/o Late Bajrangtal Aged about 52^years Occ : Business R/o 4-3- l44,Kondaswamy Lane, Sultan Bazar Hyderabad.

¶60

Smt. Uma Agarwal, W/o Sri. Amarnath Agaruual Aged about 56 years Occ: Household, R/o 5-9-30/1/23, Basheerbaug, Palace Colony, Hyderabad.

¶61

Smt. Usha Agaruval, Wo Harishchand Agarwal Aged about 50 years Occ : Household R/o 5-9-30/1/23, Road No.'1 , Basheerbaug, Palace Colony, Hyderabad.

¶62

Smt. Anita Agarwal, W/o^Kamal Kumar Agarwal^{Aged about 48} years Occ: Household R/o 5-9-30/1/23, Road No.1 , Basheerbaug, Palace Colony, Hyderabad.

¶63

...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶64

Kings Way Auto Services,^rep. by its^{ProprietorBri.iGopal} Fatepuria S/o Pannalal Fatepuria^{(Died per} LR^{Appellant-2)Age} About 66 years Occ ; Business R/o Bunglow^{No.179 Bowenpally,} Hyderabad.

¶65

Mr. Nikireel Kumar Fatepuria, S/o.Late Brij Gopal Fatepuria, Aged 36 years, Occ:Proprietor, R/o Bunglow No.179 Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

¶66

(Respondent No.7 is brought on record as LR of deceased R-6, as per Court order dated 02/09/2022, vide lA.No. 3 of 2022 in CCCA 9712016)

¶67

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT NO,2

¶68

CCCAMP. NO: :272 OF 2016

¶69

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the :r-fidavit therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2016 passed in O.S.l\lo. 110 of 2OO7 on the file of lAdditional Chief Judge, Secunderabad.

¶70

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS

¶71

Counsel for the. Respondents: SRI VIVEK JAIN

¶72

The Court delivered the following COMMON JUDGMENT

¶73

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL.Nos.89,9O ,97 0F 20L6

¶74

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶75

This order disposes of CCCA.No.B9 of 2016, CCCA.No.9O of 2016 and CCCA.No.97 of 2016.

¶76

CCCA.No.B9 of 2016 is directed against the common judgment and decree dated 15.02.2016 passed in O.S.No.72 ol 2005 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and CCCA.No.90 of 20L6 & CCCA.No.97 of 2076 are directed against the common^judgment and decree dated 15.02.2016 passed in O.S.No.110 of 2007, by the learned I Additional Chief Justice, City Civil Court, Secunderabad

¶77

CCCA.No.B9 of 2076 is filed by plaintiff, CCCA.No.9O of 2016 is filed by defendant No.2 and CCCA.No.97 of^{2076 is filed} by the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.110 of 2007.

¶78

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.110 of^2OO7 are the^landlords; defendant No.l is the original^{lessee (herein after referredto} original lessee) and defendant^{No.2 claiming under originallessee} (herein after referred to as dea-ler^{of defendantNo' 1).}

¶79

O.S.No.?'2 of 2O05 is liled by the dea.ler seeking^declaration of title and pr:rpetual injunction. O.S.No.1 1O of^{2OO7 is filed by} the landlords for eviction. The trial Court dismissed^{the suit of} dealer and decreed the suit ol landlord by a common^judgment dated 15.02.2016. Hence, the present appeals are at the instance of dealer and the original lessee.

¶80

The pl<:adings of the parties in both the suits are combinedly referred. The pleadings of the landlord is that originally the Government is the owner of the property and the Government iras leased out the land to Vani Bai for a period of 30 years to an extent of 772 sq.yards, situated at R.P.Road, Secunderabad, bearing MCH.No.5-3-338. Subsequently, the Government c:onverted the lease hold rights to free hold rights under G.O.Ms.No.B 16, dated 17. 12.1993 and executed sale deed document No.1270 of 20O5, dated 06.08.2O05 in favour of Vani Bai. Vani Bai, in turn, sold out the said land to plaintiffs.

¶81

Origina.ry, Vani Baj gave the said land to lease in favour of Calltex Indi:L Limited through the lease deed document No.238/ 1968 under Ex.Bl and later Calltex India Limited was taken over lr,y HPCL (original lessee) and HpCL, in turn,

¶82

_..-_H

¶83

established petroleum out ret through the dealer. The extent of lease was 8657 sq.yards (hereafter referred to as subject 1arrd) and subsequently, said lease under Ex.A 1 was extended up to 1993, which was expired in the year 1993.

¶84

After purchase made by the landlords, they have issued the quit notice and it was received by the original lessee as well as the dealer and they replied to the notice under Exs.A7 & Ag. Since, the possession was not handed over to the landlords, they filed the present suit in O.S.No.110 of 2007.

¶85

It is also the claim of the landlords that the dealer has no right to claim title on the basis of his long standing possession. He has also denied that there was €rny interference from the landlords over the possession held by the dealer and prayed to dismiss the suit l-rled by the dealer for declaration and injunction.

¶86

The pleadings of original lessee (HPCL) show that they admitted that they got lease hold rights from Vani Bai under Ex.A 1 and prior to that, Ca,lltex India Limited was the lessee under Ex.B 1 and thereafter, HPCL took over the Calltex India Limited. The main grievance of the HPCL is that the notice is defective for the reason that original^Jease deed contains quit /

¶87

¶88

notice to be, issued within three (03) months, rvhich has not been followed. Ttrerefore, they prayed to dismiss the suit for eviction.

¶89

1 1. The prleadings of the dealer shor.vs that originally Ca-lltex India Limitr:d was the iessee from Vani Bai under Ex.Bl and Calltex In:[ia Limited handed over the subject land for establishing the petroleum outlet appointing the dealer as its agent and l.e is in possession being the sub-lessee. It is a-lso his case that his possession is of lour decades and he has also made oller to the Government by expressing his readiness to purchase the propertlr on account of the long standing possession over the subject lar:.d. When the Government rejected his offer, he has filed a writ petition and writ appeal. In the writ appeal, a direction has been 11iven to Government to consider the dealer's request and the Gc.rernment rejected his proposal. Subsequently, he has also made offer to Vani Bai expressing his readiness to purchase the propertry. In fact, according to the dealer, there was an oral understan<ling in between him and Vani Bai, whereunder, she agreed to sell the property to the dealer ald he has set up title by adverse possession, apart from seeking injunction on the ground that he hzrd been in long standing possession and there was

¶90

¶91

)

¶92

interference from the landlord. In the said circumstances, he filed a suit for declaration and injunction.

¶93

On the basis of above pleadings, the lollowing issues were framed in both suits:

¶94

in O.S.No.72 of 2005:

¶95

l.Whether there is priuitg of contract between the p I aintiff and d efe n d ant s ?

¶96

2.Whether defendant Nos.2 to 4 are necessary and proper parties to the suit?

¶97

3.W7rcther the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration, as praged for?

¶98

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as praged for ?

¶99

5.To what relieJ?

¶100

in O.S.No.11O of 2OO7:

¶101

7.Whetlrcr the quit notice dated 16.08.2005 issued to the defendant by the plaintiff is ualid in latu?

¶102

2.Whether the defendants are liable for euiction and schedule premises and deliuer the possession of tlrc plaintifp

¶103

3.Whether tte plaintiffs are entitled for tle Mesne profits as claimed?

¶104

4.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the arrears of rent as claimed?

¶105

5.To what relieJ?

¶106

The landlords, in order to establish their case, examined PW1 and relied upon Exs.Al to A11.^{The original} lessee and dealer, to support their case, examined as^DW1

¶107

and DW2 respectively and they relied upon Exs.B1^{to B19.}

¶108

¶109

The^(lourt below has disposed of both^{thc suits by} common jr:dgment, wherein, the suit filed by^{the dealer for} declaratiorr and injunction was dismissed and the^{suit filed} by landlord for eviction was allowed. In the^said circumstarrces the present appeals are filed.

¶110

Hearrl the iearned counsel on either side and^perused the materjrlls placed on record.

¶111

The lbllowing points emerge for consideration:

¶112

i).Wheth.er the landlords are entitled for euiction of subject land?

¶113

ii).V'hether tle dealer is entitled for declaration of title ouer the subject land.

¶114

iii).\lhether the dealer is entitled for injunction as praged -for. iu).'l-o ulnt relief

¶115

Point Nos.. 1 2 &,3:

¶116

17 . The case emerges from undisputed facts and evidence are that, originally Government is the owner ol the subject land anct the Government has leased out the said land to Vani Bai in the year 1965. She entered into lease agreement with CalLtex India Limited under Ex.B1/lease deed, which is called as; original lessee and this Calltex India Limited was

¶117

¶118

;

¶119

taken over by HPCL. Subsequently also, HPCL entered into renewal of lease u,ith the Vani Bai under Ex.A1. It is also not in dispute that in the year 1965 itself, immediately after the lease was entered in betu,een Calltex India Limited and Vani Bai, the dealer was given sub-lease to establish the petroleum out let. It is also not in dispute that subsequently, till date the respondent No.7 continued to be dea-ler of HPCL by running the petroleum out let. It is also not in dispute that Government issued G.O.Ms.No.B16, dated 17.12.1993, with a scheme, offering the long standing lease holders to convert into free hold rights. In pursuance of such scheme, Vani Bai made arr application for conversation for lease hold rights into free hold rights. By accepting such request, the Government executed a sale deed document No.1270 of 2005 dated 06.08.2005, transferring title to the Vani Bai (Ex.A2). Vani Bai also sold the subject land to the plaintiffs/ landlords through the document No.110 of 2OO7 (Ex.A3).

¶120

The contention of the leaned counsel for the appellant is that the Court below has not properly appreciated^the evidence let in by the lessee as well as the^{dealer, which} clinchingly establishing that offers were^{mrd'e to Government}

¶121

¶122

as \,ell as Var-,i Bai by tl're dealer to^purchase the^{subject land} and in fact tl-rere was an oral agreement entered iu^betrieen Vani Bai and dealer, vvhere under Vani Bai agreed to scll^the property to ttre deaier, but ignoring said oral agreement, the propertv was sold to the landlords.

¶123

It is a1,,ro the contention of the learned counscl for the appellant that his client was in long standing possession for more than 4() years and he is entitled for declaration ol title by adverse 1:,ossession. It is also the case of the appellant that the Court below would have granted irrjunction on account of hrs long standing possession, but, both tl-re Courts beloq' l-rave r:ot considered these aspects

¶124

The learned counsel appearing for HPCL (lessee) contended that the Court below has not considered the terms and conditions in the lease agreement with regard to presumptio n of time for issuing the quit notice. According to him, as per terms and conditions contemplated, three months time has been prescribed for issuing quit notice. But in the present case, such a period was not granted. The

¶125

notice issued by the landlord is a defective notice and that was not properly appreciated by the Court below

¶126

21 . The contention of the learned counsel for the landiords is that the Court below has rightly considered al1 the contentions raised by the original lessee as u,ell as the dealer and rightly rejected suit by holding that the dealer is not entitled for any declaration of tile a-rrd injunction, and also rightly repelled the contention of the HPCL stating that the terms of lease '*,ould be applicable when the lease was in enforce. By afflux of time, the original lease was expired. Subsequentiy, continuation of the lessee and dealer is in monthly tenancy and provisions of Section 106 of Transfer of property Act, is rightly invoked for issuing notice. Therefore, no interference required.

¶127

The evidence on record shows that the dealer failed to establish the time and consideration agreed in the oral agreement between Vani Bai and dealer.^{This wasconsidered} by the Court below in denying the relief based on oral agreement. In fact, the suit is not filed for^specific performance. It is the suit for declaration of title.^Even

¶128

¶129

assuming that tllere \ras an original agreement,^{he cannotbe} declarcd as title holder basing on the oral agrccment Furthermore, h(r cannot also set plea of adverse^possessiolr basecl on the .our decades long standing possession.^Tl-re reason is tl'rat his possession is permissive possession :rnd the plezrding c,, the dealer clearly established that he is in long standing possession as a sub-lessee from the original lessee. Therefore, he cannot set of plea of adverse possesslon.

¶130

The Court below has rightly considered this aspect and dismissed th e suit filed by the appellant herein for declaration. The Court below also considered the facts relating to grant of injunction. The injunction suit was filed subsequent io eviction notice. On issuance of eviction notice, landlords' d emonstrated that he wanted to evict by due process of lzrw and this conduct of the landlords demonstrate that he nevr:r resorted to illegal interference, so as to create cause of ac':ion ior the dealer, to institute suit for injunction. That was rightly considered by the Court below in denying relief for iniunction also.

¶131

¶132

I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned^judgment denying the relief for declaration and injunction in favour of the dealer. Such findings of the trial Court is hereby confirmed.

¶133

Adverting to the plea set up by the HPCL and dealer, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff has purchased the subject land. By virtue of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property act, transferee or original lessor wili have all rights and obligations of original lessor. Exercising his rights only, notice was issued. The contention of HPCL was that the quit notice is a defective notices on account non-giving of three months notice as contemplated under the originai lease. It is the fact that the lease terms contemplated issuance of three months advance notice for eviction. These terms can only be exercised when the lease was in enforce. Original lease^period was completed and later, it was monthly tenancy only.

¶134

In the present case, after determination of^lease in^the year 1993, there is oral evidence to the effect that rent^was admittedly received by the landlords. Therefore, the^monthly tenancy is created.

¶135

¶136

In the entire pleadings^{of the HPCLas well as the dealer} - the1, did not claim that the lease was for manufacturing purpose. lf that is not the case, issuance of quit notice contemplating 15 days time is va.lid notice. Such a^notice cannot bc termed as invalid. That was rightly considered by the Court bel,rrv and rightly decreed the suit for eviction. I do not find any irregularity in the findings of the Court below and therefor.', the findings of the trial Court in the eviction suit is confirmed.

¶137

2a. Nou,, tl-.e question is '*'hether the litigation carried by the HPCL as; lr,eil as dealer is bonafide or it is an abuse ol process?

¶138

29 . The far:ts demonstrate that absolutely there was no case for tht: dealer as well as the HPCL to continue in possession ,:n the strength of lease on account of valid determination of lease. Eviction suit is of the year 2005. The rent that has been paid was a meager amount of Rs.700/- for six months. HPCL is a Fublic Limited Company and it is expected thzrt it should not indulge in unfair litigation. The dealer also indulged in unfair litigation by setting up adverse l-

title in spite of best available evidence establishing the title of tl.re landlords. The HPCL and dealer took advantage ol inability ol Courts to dispose of cases forthwith for various reasons and took undue advantage. Therefore, this Court is inclined to impose exemplary costs in this regard. In this regard, decision rendered by Apex Court in dealing with the imposition of exemplary cost, is required to be referred and thev are reserved-

¶143

In the light of the ratio laid down by the Honble Apex Court, this case demonstrates clearly abuse of remedies by the dealer as well as HPCL, taking advantage of meager rent. This Court feels that it is a fit case to impose exemplary costs on both of them in order to meet both ends of^justice. Therefore, HPCL is directed to pay cost of Rs.5,O0,000/- and the dealer is also directed to pay cost of Rs.3,00,O00/towards exemplary costs to the landlords/respondent Nos.¹ to 5 herein. The costs shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If costs are not paid, the landlords/respondent^Nos. 1 to 5 herein^are entitled to have appropriate remedies^for recover.

¶144

t.l

¶145

3 1. ln the rr:sult, all the appeals are dismissed confirming the judgrncnr. and decree, dated 15.O2.2016 passed rn O.S.Nos.72 o'2005 &11O of 2OO7 by the learned I Additional Chief .Judge,^,ility Civil Court, Secunderabad. No costs. As a

¶146

sequel, mrsce llaneous petitions il any shall stand closed.

¶147

Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .i

¶148

To,

¶149

SECTION OFFICER

¶150

'1. The I AdJitional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad (with records,

¶151

One CC to Sri Vivek Jain Advocate tOpUCI

¶152

One CC to Sri Thoom Srinivas, Advocate tOpUCl

¶153

1 9r" 9!^{to Sri K. Vinay Kumar, Advocate} iOpUCi

¶154

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 311012022

COMMOI\I ORDER

CCCA.NIr.89, 90 & 97 o12016

¶160

A ST4Ie
1
q I
!) tg $tt Nl
.\ ,,'..1\ '''

¶161

CITY CI\IIL COURT APPEALS ARE DISMISSED

¶162

\)!

¶163

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶164

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶165

PRESENT

¶166

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶167

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 89 OF 2016:

¶168

Between:

¶169

'1 . Kings Way Auto Services, rep. by its Proprietor Brij Gopal Fatepuria S/o Pannalal Fatepuria (Died per LR Appellant-2) Age About 66 years Occ;Business Ri/o Bunglow No.179 Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

¶170

Mr. Nikheel Kumar Fatepuria, S/o.Late Brij Gopal Fatepuna, Aged 36 years, Occ:Proprietor, R/o Bunglow No.179 Bowenpally, Hyderabad. (Appellant No.2 is brought on record as LR of Appellant No.1 as per Court Order dated 0210912022 vide lA No,3 of 2022 in CCCA 89/2016)

¶171

...APPELLANT/P LAI NTIFF

¶172

AND

¶173

Smt Vani Bai (Died per legal representatives)

¶174

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally Hyderabad.

¶175

The Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶176

The Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶177

Sri Anil Agarwal, S/o. Late Kailashnath Aged about 5-l years Occ: Business Rlo 3-6-21 11, Akashnagar, Basheerbaug, Hyderabad.

¶178

Sri Rajesh Agarwal, S/o Late Bajranglal Aged about 52 years Occ: Business Ryo 4-3- I 44,Kondaswamy Lane, Sultan Bazar Hyderabad.

¶179

Smt. Uma Agarwal, W/o Sri. Amarnath Aganrual Aged about 56 years Occ: Household, Rl/o 5-9-30/1/23, Basheerbaug, Palace Colony, Hyderabad.

¶180

Smt. Usha Agarwal, W/o Harishchand Agarwal Aged about 50^years Occ : Household F/o 5-9-30/1/23, Road No.1, Basheerbaug, Palace Colony, Hyderabad.

¶181

Smt. Anita Agarwal, W/o Kamal Kumar Agarwal Aged about 48^years Occ: Household R/o 5-9-30/1/23, Road No.1, Basheerbaug, Palace Colony, Hyderabad.

¶182

'10. M/s The Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd, lmpleaded^(Formedy Caltex(lndia) limited) 9-1-130/1 , Sabastian Street, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad. Rep by its Regional Manager. Dft.No.10 as^per orders in |A.No.2405/12 dated 13-3-2014.

¶183

Smt. Pramella Bal kishan, W/o Balkishan Aged about 51^years, Durga Vihar Colony, Gun Roc Avenue, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad. 12. Smt.N.Padma Hazara,Wl Harazara Aged about 49^years, Durga Vihar Colony, Gun Roc Avenue, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad. 13. Smt. lndira Ram Singh, W/o Ram^Singh Aged about^{46 years,} Durga Vihar Colony, Gun Roc Avenue, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad.

¶184

Dft. No."l to l3lmpleaded as per orders in IA.No.1325 of 2015 Dated : Ci1.08.2015.

¶185

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶186

Appeal -lnder Section^g6 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree of the court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderaba<i daled 151212016 in O.S.No.72 of 2005.

¶187

This Appeal co ring on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed irr the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Vinay Kumar, Advoc:te for the Appellant and of Sri Vivek Jain, Advocate for the Respondent.No.'1

¶188

This Court dotl-r Order and Decree as follows

¶189

1 . That the ,Appeal be and hereby is Dismissed

¶190

That the Judgment and Decree dated 1510212016 passed in

¶191

O.S.No. /2 of 2005 and 100 of 2007 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad be and hereby is Dismissed confirm€,d, and;

¶192

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶193

Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qD

¶194

SECTION OFFICER

¶195

To,

¶196

The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad (with records)

¶197

Two CD Copies

\ .--

HIGH COUI]T

DATED:18t1012022

DECREE

CCCA.No.tl9 of 2016

DISMISSING THE CCA WITHOUT COSTS

¶204

@#*

¶205

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶206

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶207

PRESENT

¶208

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN clTY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NOS: 90 & 97 OF 2016

¶209

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 90 OF 2016 Between:

¶210

'l . Kings Way Auto Services, rep. by its Proprietor Brij Gopal Fatepuria S/o Pannalal Fatepuria (Died per LR Appellant-2)Age About 66 years Occ; Busrness R/o Bunglow No.179 Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

¶211

Mr. Nikheel Kumar Fatepuria, S/o.Late Brij Gopal Fatepuria, Aged 36 years, Occ:Proprietor, R/o Bunglow No.179 Bowenpally, Hyderabad. (Appellant No.2 is brought on record as LR of Appellant No.1 as per Court Order dated 0210912022 vide lA No.3 of 2022 in CCCA 90/2016)

¶212

...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT NO.2 AND

¶213

Sri Anil Agarwal, S/o. Late Kailashnath Aged about 51 years Occ : Business R/o 3-6-21i1 , Akashnagar, Basheerbaug, Hyderabad.

¶214

Sri Rajesh Agarwal, S/o Late Bajranglal Aged about 52 years Occ: Business R/o 4-3- I 44,Kondaswamy Lane, Sultan Bazar Hyderabad.

¶215

Smt. Uma Agarwal, W/o Sri. Amarnath Aganltral Aged about 56 years Occ: Household, R/o 5-9-30/1/23, Basheerbaug, Palace Colony, Hyderabad.

¶216

Smt. Usha Agarwal, W/o Harishchand Agarwal Aged about 50 years Occ : Household Rlo 5-9-3011123, Road No.1, Basheerbaug, Palace Colony, Hyderabad.

¶217

Smt. Anita Agarwal, W/o Kamal Kumar Agarural Aged about 48 years Occ: Household R/o 5-9-30/1/23, Road No.1, Basheerbaug, Palace Colony, Hyderabad.

¶218

...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶219

M/s The Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd, lmpleaded (Formerly Caltex(lndia) limited) 9-1-130/'1 , Sabastian Street, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad. Rep by its Regional Manager. Dft.No.10 as^per orders in 1A.No.2405/'12 dated 13-3-2014.

¶220

..,RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS.l

¶221

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 97 OF 2016:

¶222

Between:

¶223

M/s The Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd, lmpleaded (Formerly Caltex(lndia) limited) 9-1-130/1 , Sabastian Street, Sarojini Devi^Road, Secunderabad. Rep by its Chief Regional Manager, Sri Ch.Srinivas .,.APPELLANT/DEFENDANT NO.1 AND

¶224

Sri Anil Agarwal, S/o. Late Kailashnath Aged about 51^years Occ^: Business Rl/o 3-6-2111 , Akashnagar, Basheerbaug, Hyderabad.

¶225

Sri Rajesh Agarwal, S/o Late Bajranglal Aged about 52^{years Occ} : Business R/o 4-3- I 44,Kondaswamy Lane, Sultan Bazar Hyderabad.

¶226

¶227

Smt. l,ma Agarwal, W/o Sri. Amarnath^{Agarwal Aged about 56} years^(lcc : Household, Rlo 5-9-3011123,^{Basheerbaug, Palace} Colony, Hyderabad.

¶228

Smt. l- sha Agarwal, W/o Harishchand Agarwal^Aged about 50 years^(lcc : Household R/o 5-9-30/1/23, Road No.1, Basheerbaug, Palace Colony, Hyderabad.

¶229

Smt. ,\nita Agarwal, W/o Kamal Kumar Agarwal Aged about 48 years Occ: Household R/o 5-9-30/1/23, Road No.'l , Basheerbaug, Palacer Colony, Hyderabad.

¶230

...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶231

Kings Way Auto Services, rep. by its Proprietor Brij Gopal Fatepuria S/o Pannalal Fatepuria (Died^per LR Appellant-2) Age Abou:66 years Occ ; Business R/o Bunglow No.'179 Bowenpally, Hyde'abad.

¶232

IVr. Nikheel Kumar Fatepuria, S/o.Late Brij Gopal Fatepuria, Aged 36 yr:ars, Occ:Proprietor, R/o Bunglow No.179 Bowenpally, Hyderabad.

¶233

(Respondent No.7 is brought on record as LR of deceased R-6, as per Court order dated 02/09/2022, vide lA.No. 3 of 2022 in CCCA9712016)

¶234

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT NO.2

¶235

Appeal Jnder Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree of tho court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabacl daled 151212016 in O.S.No.110 of 2OO7.

¶236

This Appeal ccming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed n the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree ofthe Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Vinay Kumar, Advo<;ate for the Appellant in CCCA No. 90 of 2016 and Sri Thoom Srinivas, Advocate in CCCA No.97 of 20'16 and of Sri Vivek Jain, Advocate for the Respondent.No.2 in CCCA 90 of 2016 and Respondents in CCCA No.97/2007.

¶237

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

¶238

1 . That the Appeal be and hereby is Dismissed

¶239

That lhe Judgment and Decree daled 1510212016 passed in O.S,.1o. 110 of 2007 bythe learned lAdditional Chief Judge, City Civil^()ourt at Secunderabad be and hereby is Dismissed confirmed, and;

¶240

That .here be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶241

Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (l)

¶242

SECTION OFFICER

¶243

To,

¶244

The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad (with records)

¶245

Two CD Copies

\ ---

HIGH COUR]-

DATED:1811012022

DECREE

CCCA.Nos.{)0 AND 97 of 2016

¶251

BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSING WITHOUT COSTS

¶252

Kings Way Auto Services, v. Sri Anil Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kings Way Auto Services, v. Sri Anil Agarwal

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

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

Smt. Tara Bai, Vs Smt. Durdana Begum

M/s. Electrotech Devises Vs Syndicate Bank

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

Kings Way Auto Services, Hya Vs Vani Bai (Died) and 12 Others

R. Kasinath Vs D. Subash