Allowed

Thumalluri Samuel v. Beesa Galaiah

Telangana HC21 Sept 2022CRP/3883/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a civil revision, set aside an order by the Junior Civil Judge refusing to number a suit for injunction. The Court held that the objection regarding the plaintiff's possession as evidenced by survey papers was unsustainable at the threshold stage of admitting the plaint.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Junior Civil Judge refusing to number the suit was set aside and the petitioner was directed to receive the plaint and number it.

Thumalluri Samuel Vs Beesa Galaiah — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

CIVIL REVISION P ETITI ON NO: 3883 OF 2010

¶7

Petition under Section 115 of Civil procedure Code aggrieved by the order dated 21-10-2008 in o.S.S.R.No.22o3 of 2008 on the fite of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, refused to number the Suit.

¶8

Between

¶9

Th.umallurr Samuel, S/o. Jangaiah Agril_, aged about 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, H.No. 4-132 Chilkur Viltage Mbinabad N/andlat Ranga Red'dy District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Beesa Galaiah, S/o. Venkaialr,. 1S"O about 50 years, Occ:Agril., H.No. 3_82, Chilkur Village Moinabad Mandat, Ranga Reddy District

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

CRPMP. NO: 5184 O F 2010

¶15

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court. may be pleased to pass and interim injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with petitioner's possession over land in sy.No. 307 admeasuring 5 acres 1s guntas situated at Chilkur Village, Moinabad Mandal R.R.District.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. B BAL REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. LAXMAN CIVIL REVISION TION No : 3883 of 2O1O

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Civil Revision petition has been directed against final order of return of plaint dated 2L.LO.2OO| in O.S.S.R.No.2203 of 2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, R.R. District, whereby the plaint was ordered to be returned for non_compliance of objections raised on 30.09.2008.

¶23

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, and respondent is the defendant. The revision petitioner/plaintiff frled the present suit for injunction simplicitor. The pleadings show that he claims to be in posse:;sion of the suit propert5r and defendant without any right or title tried to interfere with his possession. Therefore, he Iiled the suit. Along with.the suit, he also filed pahanies pertaining to the survey number. The initial objection taken by the Court below to number the suit was that how the suit was maintainable when the pahanies filed by the plaintiff do not show his possession, but the possession of the defendant.

¶24

\ ML,J 2 CRP No.3883^{of 2010}

¶25

The plaintilf^{resubmittedthe Plainton 13.10.2008} pleading that^{the objection raised at the threshold is not} sustainable^{and he also pleaded that the pahanies were not} truly reflecting^{the actual possession'Agarnit was ordered} to be returned^{with an endorsement that withoutthere} being^{pleading to the effect how the plaintiff can say that} the^{pahaniesare not correctly reflecting'Again' itwas} resubmitted^{on 13.10'2008 by way of filing third party} affidavit^{to show that plaintiff is in possessron'} Not satisfied with such^{explanation, finalorder was passed} on 21.10.2008.^{Aggrieved by the same' the present Civil} Revision^{Petition has been filed'}

¶26

A glance^{of the pleadings of the plaint show that the} plaintiff filed^{a suit for perpetual injunction' He is claiming} thatheisinpossessionofthepropertyandhealsofiled pahanies.^{Even though pahanies are containingthe} defendant's^{narrle, it is not the stage where Court can decide} truthfulness^{of the claim of the plaintiff and genuinenessof} pahanies.^{Therefore, the very objectiontaken by the Court}

¶27

¶28

ML,J CRP No.3a83 of 2010

¶29

f below is unsustainable. Therefore, the revision is required to be allowed.

¶30

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 21. l0.2OO8 in O.S.S.R.No.2203 of 2008 on the hle of Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, R.R. District. The Court below is directed to receive the plaint and number it, if it is otherwise in order in other respects. There shatt be no order as to costs.

¶31

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶32

SD/.N.RAJ G L ASSISTANT REGIS R //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION ICER '1 The Junior Civil Judge, Chevella 2. One CC to SRt. B BAL REDDY Advocate [OpUCl

¶33

Two CD Copies

¶34

One Spare Copy

SB ,"'--

, ,J ,

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10912022

ORDER

CRP.No.3883 of 2010

E STA I6
.:
a.:
,l).
J
,)
a
[ 7 r't[\l 2[22
\ r-1
"i', .,. ._.,i'.:.
.i. ' '-.,- -.'- : t'').i ^-..1 -;)" 'a' - J- .-)

¶43

(c)

¶44

ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS MA

¶45

t/2

Thumalluri Samuel v. Beesa Galaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thumalluri Samuel v. Beesa Galaiah

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

P. Ramamurthy Vs The land Acquisition Officer/

Mohd Faheemuddin Hyderabad Vs Mahavir Pershad and 5

Dm.,United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Nizam Vs R.Balaiah , Devanna and 3 Ors.

Syed Jamaluddin Ali Khan Vs A.P. State Wakf Board and Another

Apsrtc Hyderabad Vs Ahmedi Begum and Another

M/S. Welset Polypack (P) Ltd., Vs Nerudi Nagabhushanam and Another