Partly allowed

SerlaVaikuntam v. Smt. Bantu Laxmi and 2 others

Telangana HC1 Jul 2022CRP/563/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 to review stay orders. It upheld the First Appellate Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's injunction petition and allowed the defendant's cross-appeal, concluding the trial court's status-quo order was ambiguous and required trial on survey number disputes.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No. 568 of 2021 allowed; Civil Revision Petition No. 563 of 2021 dismissed.

SerlaVaikuntam Vs Smt. Bantu Laxmi and 2 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE FIRST^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICEP.SREESUDHA}

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITI^{ONNO: 563 OF 2021}

¶6

AND

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PE TITIO^N NO:^{568 OF 2021}

¶8

IVIL RE N PETI N NO: 56 oF 202

¶9

Petition under Arlicle 227^{of Constitutionof lndia, aggrieved by the orders} dated 1ol3t2o21 in clvlA^{06 of 2021 on the file of the courtof the Familycourt -} cum- Additional^{District Judge,Nizamabadconfirmingthe orderdated.} 06to1t2020 in l.A^{No. 10010f 200 in o.s No. 4280',t 2020 the on the file of the} Court of the Principal^{Junior CivilJudge Nizamabad.}

¶10

Between:

¶11

SerlaVaikuntam,^{S/o Narsimlu, agedabout. 73 yrs, Occ Ret!E[P]gy-e9} I{9.9:11iilza torot,V"iLimaguua,^{ruizimioad...pETITIONERyAPPELLANT/PLAINTIFF} AND

¶12

Smt. Bantu^{Laxmi, W/o late Bantu Bhumaiah, aged about 60.yrs, occ'} As;iiltrd rlo n.rlo 6'25'137^{(New) 6-19-1421old)Dubba, Nizamabad'}

¶13

Sri Bantu Bhupathi,^{S/o late Bantu Bhumaiah, agedLout' 36 yrs, occ.} - Asri*tiiriJ, rii u.tlo. 6'25-137 (New) 6-19-142 (old) Dubba, Nlzamabad

¶14

Smt. Bantu^{Sampath, S/o late Bantu Bhumaiah, agedabout34 yrs, occ'} - As,icuriwe rlo ri.no. o-zs-t37 (New) 6-19-142 (old) Dubba, \12a19!1d ...RESPONbENTS/^{RESPONDENTS/OEFENDANT}

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section XXXIX^{RULE 1 &2 OF CPC prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High} court may be^{pleased to issue temporary injunction restraining the respondents} herein from interfering^{into my possession and enjoyment over the land in Sy No'} 290 admeasuring to an extent^{of Ac 1.00 gts at Kaloor(V) Mandaland Dist'} Nizamabad which is the^{suit schedule property in the court below'}

¶17

IA NO: F 202

¶18

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} allow the^{petition and receive the documentsfiled'}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner^{:SRl. T V KALYAN SINGH}

¶20

Counsel forthe^{RespondentNo.1 to 3: SRI' J KANAKAIAH}

¶21

CIVIL R EVISIO^{N PETITION NO:} 680F2 021

¶22

Petition under Atlicle^{227of constitutionof lndia, aggrieved by the orders} dated 1ot3t2o21^{in cMA04 of 2021 on the file of the court of the Familycourt -} cum- Additional^{District Judge, Nizamabad Confirmingthe Order dated'} o6to1l2o2oinl'ANo,10O1of2ooino'SNo'42Sot2020theonthefileofthe Court of the Principal^{Junior Civil Judge Nizamabad'}

¶23

Between:

¶24

Serla vaikuntam,^{s/o Narsimlu, aged about.73yrs, occ. Retd Employeer/o 5-} 11-23128^(old ) ,Yellamagutta,^Nizamabad

¶25

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶26

AND

¶27

1 . Smt. Bantu^{Laxmi, W/o late BantuBhumaiah} ?S9q Pb-out^{60.yrs' occ} ' X;;i;rluA 7o n rlo o-is-t37 (New) 6-1e-142 (old) Dubba' Nizamabad

¶28

Sri Bantu Bhupathi,^{S/o late Bantu Bhumaiah,} -aged.about-^{36.yrs' occ'} - Xgr.-i"ilril}i i6ri.r.jo. o-zs-te7 (New) 6-19-142 (old) Dubba' Nizamabad'

¶29

Smt. Bantu^{Sampath, S/o late Bantu Bhumaiah} r 999{about^{34 yrs'occ'} -' n"ii"rftrre ilo ri.ruo.'o-zs-tiz (t'lew) 6-19-142 (Old) Dubba, Nizamabad..- ..,NESPbNOCNTS/ RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT

¶30

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶31

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPcprayingthatintheCircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to} St"V oi the Order^{dt. 1d.i.2021passed in CMA No. 4 of 2021 on the file of} Honble Family Court^{- Cum- Addl District Court Nizamabad'}

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner^{:SRl'T V KALYANSINGH}

¶33

Counsel forthe Respondent^{No.1to 3: SRl. J KANAKAIAH}

¶34

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶35

¶36

PSSJ ..r.9 no5 551& 55aot2021

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶38

CML REVISION PETITION No.563 OF 2O2L

¶39

AND

¶40

CMI REVISION PETITION No.568 of 2O2L

¶41

COMMON ORDER:-

¶42

1 . Civil Revision Petition No.563 of 2027 is {iled against the orders of the trial Court in C.M.A.No.6 of 2021, on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad and C.R.P.No.568 ol 2O2l is filed against the orders of the trial Court in C.M.A.No.4 of 2021, on the hle of the Family Courtcum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. In fact, a common order was passed by the trial Court in both the CMA's on to.o3.2021.

¶43

O.S.No.428 of 2O2O is fiied for injunction. During the pendency of the proceedings, I.A.1001 ol 2O2O is Iiled for ad-interim injunction. The trial Court, after considering the arguments on both sides, directed both the parties to maintain status-quo of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the main suit.

¶44

Aggrieved by the said order, C.M.A.No.4 of 2021 is preferred by the defendants in the suit and C.M.A.No.6 of 2O2l is preferred by the plaintiff in the suit and the First Appellate

¶45

¶46

P55,r c.r.r.o! 963 & 5€S.12a21

¶47

Court, after considering the arguments on both sides, stated that the status-quo order passed by the trial Court is ambiguous without specifying what it meant by such order and in whose possession is to be maintained and such blanket order is capable of causing greater harm and as such, the order of status-quo is set-aside and C.M.A.No.4 ol 2O2l is allowed and dismissed C.M.A.No.6 of 2021. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision P€titions are preferred.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he purchased land in Sy.No.290 to an extent of Ac. 1.0O guntas at Kaloor Village from the husband of the 1"t respondent and the father of 2"d and 3.d respondents under a registered sale deed vide Document No.l 1 130 of 2OO2 and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same since 2002. In the said document, the survey number was wrongly mentioned as 387 /AA instead of Survey No.29O but the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed are pertaining to the land in Survey No.29O and the petitioner is cultivating the said land from last 19 years. Both the survey nos.290 and 387/AA fall in the same village which is situated within some distance. They also stated that 1"t respondent sold the land in Survey No.3B7/AA vide unregistered sale deed dated 0i.07.199S, but it was already sold to the petitioner. He also executed sale deed in favour of

¶49

¶50

Pss.l

¶51

c...p.ior 563 & 963oJ2021

¶52

the petitioner. The husband of the lst respondent and the father of the 2"d and 3.d respondents was the owner of the suit schedule property one in Survey No.29O and another in Survey No.387/AA at Kaloor Village, Nizamabad,but in the sale deed, it was wrongly mentioned as Survey No.387/AA.

¶53

The l"t respondent purchased the property from Nirmadi Bhoomaiah vide Document No.1201/ 1995 in Survey No.290 surrounded by land of Oddenna on three sides i.e. towards North, South and West and presently, his legal heirs occupied the said land. They also filed affidavit stating that the^petitioner is in possession of the property since 2002, but the trial Court failed to consider the same. As there is dispute regarding survey number mentioned in the sale deed, the boundaries have been taken into consideration and they are tallied with the land in Survey No.290.

¶54

The respondents are not disputing the execution of sale deed and sale of land to the petitioner. They disputed only the survey number and identity of the property. But the trial Court failed to consider the same and therefore requested this Court to set-aside the order of the trial Court.

¶55

C.R.P.No.568 oi 2021 is also i11eci with the same averments stating that there was typographical mistake of the

¶56

¶57

P5S,l .,^p nos 561& 5$ 6l 1021

¶58

survey number and it is treated as^{mis-descriptionof the survey} number and it will not affect the identity^{of tlre property.} Petitioner in I.A.No.1001 of 2O2O stated that he is^{the absolute} owner and possessor ofAc. 1.0O^guntas olland^{in Survey No.290} at Kaloor Village and it is bounded by^{the land of Oddennaon} North, South and West and on East, the land of^Sima Nageshwar was located and he was in^possession of^{the said} land after the death of his father.^{Takingadvantage} of^the wrorlg entry of survey number in sale deed, the^{LRs of vendors} are trying to dispossess him and as such, he filed suit^for declaration and also an application for temporary^injunction.

¶59

Whereas, the learned counsel for respondents stated^that the petitioner was never in^possession of the^properly in^Survey No.290. The husband of the lst respondent sold the^landin Survey No.387/AA. Taking the advantage of^{the death} of^the original owner and non-mutation of his^name in the^revenue records, he filed this application. They filed Ex.P3- Original Sale Deed executed by Bantu Bhoomaiah. Petitioner stated^{that he} purchased the property about 18 years back and he is in possession of the same without any interruption, but after the death of Bantu Bhoomaiah, his wife and children tried^to interfere with his possession and enjoyment stating that he is not in possession of Survey No.290 as the survey^{numberin the}

¶60

¶61

¶62

PSS,I c r^p .os 563 & 56aoi 2021

¶63

sale deed is shown as 387/AA.^{Then only, he noticed the wrong} survey number in the sale deed.^{He stated that as the survey} number is u,rongly mentioned,^{the boundarieswill prevail over} the survey number and^{filed Ex.P19to P22- Dharani extract} pahanies ol present neighbours^{and stated that the identityof} the property is clear and^{he is having pima} facie^{case and} balance of convenience^{in his favour.}

¶64

Whereas, the wife of the^{1"t respondent statedthat survey} number-290 is self-acquired^{property of her husbandand he} purchased it under Ex.R1-^{Original sale deed dated 18'02'1995} and the property in Survey^{No.387/AAis the ancestral property} and a pattadar^pass book^{was aiso issued in favour of her} husband and it is^{mentionedas Ex.R3 and they gave an} application to the^{Tahsildar,Nizamabad (Rural)for mutationof} property in their favour under^{Ex.R2.Thereis no disputethat} one of the^{propertieswas sold to the petitioner as per Ex'P3'} The property in Sy.No.3S7/AA^{in an extentof Ac.1.OO was sold} to him by virtue of^{pattadarpass book No 155 x 344447and} title deed No.155 x 364954.^{He also stated that the extent of} land of Ac.1.0O^{guntas is only in Survey No.387/AA and thus, it} is clear that the^{petitioner'svendors sold the property in Survey} No.387/AA but not in Survey^{No.290.The trial Courtobserved} that in Ex.Rl, the^{boundariesare not shownand simply}

¶65

¶66

P55,1 ..r^p nor.563 & S63o12021

¶67

mentioned as 'full survey number'and thus, it was held that the allegations raised by the respondents about recitals of the petitioner's sa-le deed and the contention of the petitioner about the boundaries and boundary owners is to be decided only by full-fledged trial. As such, it is not safe to decide the possession of any of the parties and accordingly, granted status-quo.

¶68

When the appeals were preferred against the said order, the Appellate Court held that in C.M.A.6 of 2021, the petitioner filed- Dharani extract of pahani ol the boundaries which are marked as Exs.P19 to P'12 and as such, the boundaries in the suit schedule property will prevail over and in view of the documentary evidence, the petitioner is in pima facie possession and enjoyment of land in Survey No.290 and as such he is entitled for the relief of temporary injunction. It was also observed that the petitioner purchased Ac.1.O0 land in Survey No.290 out of the total extent of Ac.1.02 guntas from Bantu Bhoomaiah. Therefore, the said 0.02 guntas would be certainly mentioned as one of the boundary of the property. But it was not mentioned so in Ex.B3- Sale deed. As such, there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and accordingly dismissed C.M.A.No.6 of. 2021. The trial Court rightly observed that in a suit for injunction, the petitioner has to prove the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

¶69

¶70

rssJ ..r.D.rcs,563& 56a ot 2o21

¶71

Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the First Appellate Court.

¶72

With the above discussion, C.R.P.No.568 of 2O2l is aliowed and C.R.P.No.563 of 2027 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶73

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶74

¶75

//TRUE COPY//

¶76

SdIT. JAYASREE ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR Go

¶77

SECTION OFFICER

¶78

To,

¶79

The Family court^-cum- Additional^{District Judge,Nizamabad.}

¶80

The Principal Junior Civil Judge^Nizamabad.

¶81

One CC to SRl. T V KALYAN^{SINGHAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶82

One CC to SRl. J KANAKAIAH Advocate [OPUC]

¶83

Two CD Copies

L.F

HIGH^COURT

DATED:01^10712022

COMMON^ORDER

CRP.No.563^{& 568 of 2021}

¶89

1 $'', s T4 €
+
I + (v
I E J U L ?w
t)
,
o
PAT

¶90

DISMISSING^THECRP

¶91

AS WITHDRAWN.^{NO COSTS}

¶92

<br>

SerlaVaikuntam v. Smt. Bantu Laxmi and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

SerlaVaikuntam v. Smt. Bantu Laxmi and 2 others

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

S Srinivasa Rao Vs Ateeq Asima

Kurremula Siddaiah Vs Kontham Sathaiah, And 2 Others

L.Gopal Swamy Vs Cholleti Prabhakar Reddy and 2 Others

Edigi Dastaiah Vs Edigi Buggaiah And 7 Others

Edigi Dastaiah Vs Edigi Buggaiah, And 7 Others

Serla Vaikuntam Vs Smt. Bantu Laxmi