Allowed

Goddeti Saidulu v. Gunda Kalyani

Telangana HC1 Jul 2022CRP/339/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to delimit property boundaries. The Court held that pending the appointment and delimitation, proportionate injunction cannot be granted.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of an Advocate Commissioner/Surveyor for localization of property; Stay on granting injunction pending delimitation of boundaries.

Goddeti Saidulu Vs Gunda Kalyani — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION NO: 339 OF 2022

¶8

Petition under Arlicle 227 of CRP Civil Procedure Code,^ag ainst/agg^rieved by the Order dated 03.01 2022in1A No.857 of^{2021 in OS No.40'lof 2021 fhe} Principal Junior Civil J udg e-cum-J ud icial Magistrate of^{First Class, Suryapet} Between:

¶9

'1 . Goddeti Saidulu, S/o Anjaneyulu, aged 50 years, Occ. Agriculture and Business, R/o Kudakuda Village of Chivemla Mandal,^{Suryapet District}

¶10

Poreddy Vasantha, Wo Sanjeeva Reddy,^{aged 48 years,Occ. HouseWife,} R/o lvlanasa Nagar, Suryapet Town and District.

¶11

...'ET,T.ONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

Gunda Kalyani, W/o Anil Kumar, aged 42^{yearc, Occ. House Wife, Native of} Huzurnagar Town and Mandal,^presentlyR/o 49,^{Lexden Drive,Romford} Essex RM6 4tj. United Kingdom, Represented by^{her GPA holder by name} Vankayala Prasad S/o Narsimha Rao, aged 40^years, Occ.^BUsiness,R/o H.No.^'17-4, Sri Sai Narsimha Nilayam, Sai Prabhath Nagar,^Huzurnagar, Suryapet District^(Cell No. 8939681'172)

¶14

...RES'ONDENT

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all} further proceedings in os No.401 of 2021^{on the file of PrincipalJunior civil} Judge-cum-Judicial lr/lagistrate of^{First Class, Suryapet.}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners^: SRl.^{V ROHITH}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents^{: -} The Court made the following^: ORDER

¶19

¶20

TIll.l Ho\ol t{ \t}t.t.. sNt't'. .lt^is l tCE P. i\t/\txlAVl DEVI

¶21

(_l\ It. Iil \ lsto\ t,t..'rl't'to\ \0.3-19 0t 2022

¶22

()Rt)nt{

¶23

This Ciril [icrision I'etition is llled undcr Article 227 of the Constitution of lnciil chullcnrrinc the orclcr dt.03.01 .2022 in I.A.No.857 of 202 I in C).S.No.-l0l ol'l()ll ciisrnissirrg the application filed by the petitioners/defe n dan t s unrlcr Ortlcr XX/l Rule 9 rcad with Section 151 CPC to apl)oint un .,\tlr ocatc⁽ onrntissioncr to trcasure the suit land with the help o1- a^(ior crnnrcnt Survcyor and to asceftain whether the suit land is situatcrl rr ithin thc boundaries ol the surwey numbers as claimed by .he r.espontlcnt Plaintit'f.

¶24

Briel lacts arc that thc petitioncrs herein are defendants in O.S.No.40l of 202 I on thc lilc ol'thc l)rincipal Junior Civil Judge at Suryapet.^'l'hc suit rvas lllccl lirr a perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedulc propcrtv. i.t-.. r'csirle ntial open house plot No.2 in Survey Nos.95 and 98 adrneasurinq 1500 scluare yards situated at Kudakuda Revenue Shivar Villagc.^(lhir cmla Mandal, Surlapet District. The petitioners herein/clclendanls in the suit llled a written statement

¶25

( R P \o.il9of2022

¶26

¶27

disputing the avcnncnrs madc in rlrc Plxi111. nrorc particularly denying the title of the rcspondent/plaintifl. r'ht-. triar \,as vct to commence and meanwhile, the claim or- thc pctiti.ncrs rrc-rein is that the plaintiff is trying to grab the propeny of the pr'titione'rs hcrein without any right and title over the properry, ancl fllecl the suit by suppressing true facts. In order to determine the bou,claric.s .l'tht suit schedule property, the petitioners have filed I.A.No..S-s7 ol'l0ll in O.S.No.40l of 2021 for appointment of an Adr,ocate (-ontrnissioner.

¶28

By order d1.0j.0 t .2011. thc l)rincipal Junior Civil Judge, suryapet, dismissed the I.A. by hording rhar the petitioners/defendants failed to produce any docuntcnls to shou, that they are owners and possessors of the suit land as arlainst the copv olthe registered sale deed bearing Documenr No.607l or'20 r0 dr.12.07.2010 filed by the plaintiff in support of purchase of the suit schedule property. It is further held that the boundaries are rnenlioned in the registercd sale deed and from the said boundaries, ir is clear thar the land of the wife of defendant No.1 is not situated as boundary to the suit land and that the petitioners/defendants ha'e made allegations against the respondent/ plaintiff by disputing her title over rhe suir schcdule land without having

¶29

(-.t{ I, \r, I r') L,l^.1,11

¶30

-l

¶31

any docum,lntary evidence. Thc trial C'otrrt ltcld that^jn a suit lbr pcrrnancnt rnjunction, the Cotrrt printu /ittit' has to scc thc titlc and possession of the parties by thc datc o1' liling ol'thc sLrit ancl the clctcndants rave to file necessary clocut.ncrtls rtttl^procluct- cvidcttcc to plove their l)ossession and title by thc clatc ol'liling ol-the sr-rit, Since the cletendants lailed to do so, thc issue carrnot bc trcatcd as a boundary dispute anti there is no ncccssity tcl apllointnrcnt an Advocate C'ornmissioner as prayed for

¶32

Challenging the in.rpugned order in thc I.A.. the pr-esent CRP is flle d.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioncrs, Sri V. Rohit. subrnittcd that since the suit is filed by the plaintill', the onr.rs is on lrt-r to^prove the title and possession over the suit schedule propefty. He drew the attention of this Court to the location map filed by the petitioners at page 54 of the CRP papersr and submitted that the location n.rap and indexation and blackening of certain portion showing it as the suit property are not correct and in order to determinc thc actual boundaries of the plot, appointment of an Advocate Conrrnissioncr is necessary. Fle submitted )- )

¶34

C R P.No ll9 ol'-l0tl

¶35

¶36

that the trial court has erroneously shilicd thc burden of proor to the petitioners/defendants to establish rheir ri,shr ovcr rhc properly.

¶37

6' The Iearned counser for the pctitiorcrs ars. placecl reriancc upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Snrt. 1,. Srecdevi Vs. IVLN Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha prasadr, r,r'hereir ir was helcl that when there is a dispute of localization or demarcarion of properly, the best course of action is to appoint an Advocate Clorlntissioncr / Survel,or for localisation.

¶38

In spite of service of noticc, none appeared for the respondent/pl ainti ff.

¶39

I{aving regard to the contentions raised b-v the petitioners in I.A.No.857 of 2021 in o.S.No.40r of 2021 and also thc judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. p. Sreedevi Vs. IVLN Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Prasad ( I supra), this Cou. is of' rhe opinion that since there is a dispute with regarcl to the. bounda.ics or rhc suit schedule property and the plaintiff is secking permancnr injunction against the petitioners herein/defendanl s, there is cvcr-v r.eason as to why an

¶40

'^zozo 1l; ar-l a:: (DB) 0-s)

¶41

C R^p.N,, tt9,)l t(|tl

¶42

¶43

¶44

Advocate^t..Orr Iissior-rcr/Surveyor^{is to be appointcdlirr loclllisatiotl ol} rhc proper-t). wirhotrr^{dctermining the actual boundaricsot' the suit} scheclulc f,ropcrt).^{irtjunctioncannotbe granted.}

¶45

ln thc rcsult, the^{Civil Revision Petition is allon ccl and} conscquentl'.^{LA.No.S57of 2O2l in O.S.No.401of 2021 on tlrc tlle o1'} thc Princioal .ltrnior^{Civil Judge, Suryapet is also allowedNo ordcras to} costs.

¶46

t 0, Pcncling tnisccllaneous^{petitions, if any, in this CRP shallstanci}

¶47

ciosed.

¶48

Sd/- G.SIREES A ASSISTANT^REGIS R //TRUE COPY// ; SECTION FFICER

¶49

To, l.ThePrincipalJuniorCivilJudge.cum-JudicialMagistrateofFirstClassat Suryapet. 2. One CC to SRl.^{V ROHITH, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶50

Two CD^CoPies.

¶51

AU {

¶52

¶53

HIGH COURT DATED:01 10712022

¶54

ORDER GRP.No.339 of 2022

¶55

ffi
:.'
,-) O4 AUff 2M
&
k

¶56

ALLOWIING THE CRP

Goddeti Saidulu v. Gunda Kalyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goddeti Saidulu v. Gunda Kalyani

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

M/s. The Golconda (Bc) Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited Vs Sri Dana Kishore

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nimmala Murali and 4 Others

Smt. J Dhanalakshmi, Hyd and Another Vs K. Satyanarayana, Karimnagar Dist and Another

D.Laxman Rao Vs Ch.Srinivasaraju

National Ins. Com. Ltd., Nizamabad Dist Vs S Chalam Babu, Adilabad Dist and 1 Other

Tsrtc and Another Vs Ch. Neeraja and 2 Others