Allowed

The Tahsildar and Another v. Gutha Kondal Reddy and 4 Others

Telangana HC20 Oct 2022SA/244/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second appeal filed by the defendants against a decree for permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff. The Court reversed the appellate judgment that had awarded injunction, holding it to be perverse as it ignored clear evidence showing the suit property was Government land and failed to reconcile conflicting survey numbers.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and decree dated 20.07.2021 in A.S.No.128 of 2018 are set aside; the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2018 in O.S.No.2886 of 2011 are confirmed. No costs awarded.

The Tahsildar and Another Vs Gutha Kondal Reddy and 4… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[3216 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

SECOND APPEAL NO: 244 oF.2021

¶7

Appeal under Section 100 of Cdde of Civil Procedure aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 2010712O2'1 in AS No.12B of 20'18 on the file of the ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad preferred against the judgment dated 2810312018 in OS No.2BB6 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, CityCivil Court, at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . The Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad. ....AppellanU RespondenU Defendant No.f

¶10

The District Registrar, Hyderabad South, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT NO.6

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . Gutha Kondal Reddy, S/o. Late G. Rama Krishna Reddy, Aged 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.16-1 1-1 14, Saleemnagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ....RespondenU AppellanU Plaintiff

¶13

Mohd. Rasheed, S/o. Mohd. lbrahim, Aged 32 years, Occ. Business,

¶14

Mohd. Lathif, S/o. Mohd. Hussain Sharif, Aged 54 years, Occ. Business, 4. Mohd. Anwar, S/o. lvlohd. Hussain Sharif, Aged 40 years, Occ. Business, (Respondent No.2 to 4 are R/o.H.No.'19-1-4361N40 and 41 Osmanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.)

¶15

Mr. lndra Prakash, S/o. No known to the Appellant, Aged Major, Occ. Real Estate, Fl/o. Flat No.306, Chiayamina Enclave, Beside Pullareddy Sweet Shop, A.S. Raju Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶18

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 of all further proceedings in pursuance to the decree passed in AS. No. 128 of 2018 on the file of Il Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,'Hyderabad.

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶20

Between:

¶21

Gutha Kondal Redd, S/o. Late G. Rama Reddy, Aged 66^ye.u s;, Oc;. Business, R/o. H.No.16-11-1 1z Saleemnagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderr,rira C.

¶22

....Petitic,r el/ Respondent No.1

¶23

And

¶24

The Tahsildar Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabacl.

¶25

The District R 'gistrar, Hyderabad South, Banjara Hill:;, tlTderr bad.

¶26

...RESPOI,ID : hITS' PETITIONERS

¶27

Mohd. Rasher rl, S/o. Mohd. lbrahim, Aged 32 years, Ccl. Bu: iness,

¶28

Mohd. Lathif, l;/o. Mohd. Hussain Sharif, Aged 54 yezrn;,^(lcc. Business,

¶29

Mohd. Anwar, S/o. Mohd. Hussain Sharif, Aged 40 year's, Occ Business, (Respondent I os.3 to 5 are Rl/o.H.No.19-1-436lN40,rnr 41 Csmanbagh, Bahadurpura, lyderabad.)

¶30

Mr. lndra Prak rsh, S/o. No known to the Appellant, Agled 'rajo., Occ. Real Estate, Fyo. Fl rt No.306, Chiayamina Enclave, Beside, l)rr lirrer dy Sweet Shop, A.S. Ra. r Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶31

...RESPONDE^,I I S/ R:SPONDENTS

¶32

Petition under :jection 151 of CPC prayin(l that in the r irr;un stances stated in the affidavit filed tl erewith,.the High Court may be please,l to var;ate the orders passed in l.A. No. 'l <12021 in'S.A No. 244 of 2021 dated 09^'',2.20i1

¶33

For Appellants : GP^:'OR ARBITRATION

¶34

For Respondent No. : SRI J.ASHVINI KUMAR, Advocate

¶35

The Court made the fc lowing: JUDGMENT

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN S.A.No.244 of 2O2L

¶37

JUDGMENT:

¶38

This Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree, dated20.O7.202 1, passed in A.S.No. 128 of 2O18, by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.O3.2018, passed in O.S.No.2886 of 2011, by the learned II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was reversed.

¶39

2 The suit in O.S.No.2886 of 2Oi1 was filed by the first respondent herein for injunction and said suit '"vas dismissed by the trial court and the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Hence, the present appeal, at the instance of defendant Nos.1 & 6.

¶40

.) The appellants herein are the defendant Nos.l & 6, respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein are the defendant Nos.2 to 5 in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

¶41

¶42

4 The ;hort case of the plaintiff is that fLr: is the absolute owner and p )ssessor of suit schedule proper5 l t., lrouse bearing No.B-2-269 I i' plot No.1, admeasuring 74'2.C5 scl.yzrds, situated at road No.1 , Banjara Hills, Hyderabad renrl^, te pirrchased the said piot u, rder an unregistered sale dee'i docrLment dated L4.O3.19774 liom his vendor Mohd.Hassan ktz-rr Mohd. Hassan Khan, in turn purchased the r;tLi:l plot from T.T.V.Ramacl andraiah ll.rrough sale deed doc rrrenl No.2994 of 1966. T.T.V.[ amachandraiah purchascd t]re : i rt.. p of from his I vendor Narayi na S/o. Balzrkristaiah Saheb throu5lh tl.e registered sale deed do ument Nos.76 1 of 1964 &' 76:l of 1964, dated 1n 16.04.1964. From the date of purchast:, th,: plzintiff is possession an i enjoyment of the suit propertl'.^"he t.nregistered sale deed was impounded by collecting tht: clef. <:it stamp duty. on Thereafter, th GHMC authorities regularizec t he layout 29.O4.2011, u1 on lvhich, the plaintiff constructeC comoound wall to an extent^. f 442 sq.yards. The Municrpal rrr-rthr,rities also mutated the pl Lintiff's name in the municiprll^-t < r>rds in resPect of the suit sche lrrle property by proceedings rlate 1 15.C9.2011. In

¶43

spite of such evidence, the defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintifL Hence, he Illed the present suit.

¶44

5 The defendant Nos.2 to 5 did not contest the suit. The case of defendant Nos.l & 6 is that they denied the ownership arld possession of suit property in favour of the plaintiff and stated that the suit land is locatecl in town survey No.3/ l, BlockC Ward No.10, co-related to survey No.4O3, part of Shaikpet village and maldal. Previously in respect of same property, one K.Lakshmi w/o K.Narendc'r Reddy, filed land grabbing case in LGC.No.S8 of 2000, against the State of Andhra Pradesh, to declare the Government as land grabber and the Special Court by judgment dated 18.04.2011, dismissed the LGC by concluding that the Government is not the land grabber. Subsequently one Mohd.Ibrahim Shareef filed a suit in O.S.No.1O56 of 2O06, on the file of the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking perpetual injunction against the Government in respect of the land admcasuring 742.85 sq.meters with house No.8-2-269/2, Road No.2, [3anjara Hills, Hyderabad, and the said suit was also dismissed.

¶45

¶46

Furt rer, the case of defendant Nos. 1 8,⁽ⁱ is that the suit property in rhe present suit and the suit in O.i.No.1O56 of 2OO6 are the one i nd the same. Originally, the lands in errtire Shaikpet village was s lrveyed under Survey No.353 a;rd later it was made into Survev^,1o. 129 admeasuring 3288:03 gurlas r:lassifying as Government and. In 1331 Fasli a supplem.er tary sethwar was issued by sui^,-dividing Survey No.129 into 10 d visions as Survey Nos. 129/2 to 129 110 admeasuring acres 190 -⁽¹³ guntas and the same was ar signed to one Sri Moulvi Mohd. I\4oiruddin. The balance land in Survey No.129 was classified as Government land, which^, .'as recorded as survey No. 129,/ L In 1336 Falsi, supplemcntar sethwar was issued by deleting t.he last survey No.353 from ihaikpet Village and made palt :f Ye'llreddyguda Village. Total ltrrvey numbers of Shaikpet villzrge wer,: reduced to 352 only. Subsequently, 1346 Fasli by rv-ay of another supplementan sethwar was issued by deleting S rrvel Nos. 129/ I to 129 liO an i assigned 52 new survey numb,:rs commencing from Survey I os.353 to 4O4. The lald in survey l'{o.403 was classified as C overnment Poramboke. During th: yez,r 1964-7 I , town survcv w^--s conducted under Section 13 of the tlurvey and Boundaries Ac . Afte?fimpletion of surv:Il tlrt' entries in TSLR

¶47

¶48

¶49

have been notified in terms of the Act. The said notilication was issued on 06.08.1979 and the aggrieved party was given an option to institute a civil suit within 3 years from the date of notification. After 3 years, the entries in the town survey land register have become final.

¶50

The suit schedule property is a vacant iand and there are no structures. Further, the original link documents of the plaintiff shoq,that the land is located on road No.3, whereas unregistered sale deed of the plaintiff shows that the land is located on road No.2. It is also stated that the possession of the suit land was given to District Registrar on Ol.O7 .2O 1 1 for construction ol Office since the land is government lald. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of tlrt' suit.

¶51

On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues nere framed:

¶52

(r) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as pra_ved for?

¶53

(ii ) To u,hat rclieP

¶54

¶55

9 The olaintiff, to support his case, t:x:rnine d PW 1 and relied upon I ,xs.A1 to A12. The defendants,^,r' ir- pprrt their case examined D\ 1 & DW2 and relied upon Exs.Bl ro 84i.

¶56

The I ial Court having appreciatecl trr,: e vid,rnce of both parties founc that the plaintiff failed to lc,catl tire rlot on road No.3, instead he located the plot on roa<l l.lr,..l , r'v-rich lalls in tou,'n survey r umber, which is correlated to neu iiurvev Nos.403 and 404 and dso found that plaintiff failed tr, -';t.rbl sh the case ol his possess cn and consequently, dismisscd th t' su.t. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the first appt';tl ancl the First Appellate Cou t has reversed the Iindings ol the t rial Court and decreed the r uit on the basis of regulariz,,rti rr, proceedings. Hence, the irre rent appeal, at the instance of dc[t'rrclan s

¶57

1 I . Heard he learned Government Plea<ler rrl)l)ear ing for the appellants as well as learned counsel zrpp,:arin 1 for the respondent anc following substantial questiorl of lirs is framecl:

¶58

"Whethet tlre findings of the First Ap1:,: lctte Court in reu :rsing the findings of the tial Corr,'t ur

¶59

¶60

the spite of allotuing documents of plaintiff/respondent No.7, containing tLte location of the plot on road No.3, uhen suit schedule properlA shorus that the plot is located on road No.3 suffer from^{ang peruersitg"?}

¶61

A perusal of the records, the evidence of plaintiff clearly demonstrates that the vendor was shown as o<sup>rner and possessor of plot No.1 in survey No.l29 111, situated at road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Ex.A. 1 is the title document of vendor of plaintiff whereas, Ex.A.2 is the impounded unregistered sale deed of plaintiff and it shows that the plot is located u,itl-r House on road No.2 of Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to show that the present location ol plot in town survey number is corresponding to town survey No.129/ 1 1. It is not in dispute that in the year 1964-197 | tou,n survey was conducted in the Hyderabad city and the old survey numbers were converted into new town survey numbers. House numbers u'ere also given corresponding to town survey numbers and block numbers, etc. These town surveys were notified in A. P. Survey and Boundaries Act 1979 contemplate 3 -years time to challcnge survey notified if any person aggrieved by the same. Admittcdly,

¶62

¶63

neither the p a.intiff nor his vendor has file d z-r 1 s uit to challenge the town surr^,lvs notified by the Govcrnmerrt

¶64

The p aintiff has filed the present surt r;,:,:ki;rg perpetual injunction. lior that, he must estabiish ,r,r r hc came into possession a rd he cannot depend upon the ,2,,r:ak ness of the defendants. . lis claim of possession is o:r the strength of unregistered^r ale deed. He clarrned that l-rr: obt tinec possession from his ver lor Mohd.Hassan Khan zrnd tir,: d rcument of Mohd.Hassan lihan shows that his plot is loc:r,Lteci in survey No.l29 I 1 1 on r:oad No.3 of Banjarahills.

¶65

The sz le deed of plaintiff, r,r,hich is un'r:qistr red, shows that there is n , reflection of survev numbcr as rv:ll as road No.3, but the sale dr ed shows that the house is srtua.< rl at Road No.2. The plaintiff L.cd to connect to the title and p,rssession under Ex.Al. It is n t in dispute that thc old s,-rrlcy tiurrbers have become extincr by virtue of town surve-\I.^'l'he ti,"s town survey numbers are gi 'e n corresponding to old surv('-y n -rrnbet s.

ry/

The evidence of the deiendants shows that the plot located in town survey No.3/1, Block C Ward No.10 is co-related to survey No.403, part of Shaikpet. The First Appellate Court has taken note of admission of PWI in his evidence to the effect that survey Nos.4O3 &, 4O4, which are part of original survey No.129, are classilied as Government land. When the Government shows that the plot is located in town survey No.3/ 1, which is corresponding old surve_r, Nos.4O3 & 4O4, the plaintiff has to establish that his plot is located in the corresponding town survey No.1291 1 1.

¶70

The plaintiff while shilting the location of the plot from road No.3 to road No.2, has not given any reason how he could shift the plot location from road No.3 to road No.2 of Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. This fact was rightly taken note by the Trial Court. However, the First Appellate Court reversed such linding without looking into sale deed and tl're link documents of the sale deed, which clearly shou, that plot is located at survey No.129/ 11 on road No.3. The First Appellate Court has given more weightage to the regularizertion made by the GHMC. Indisputably, no structure was raised in the^plot except the compound wall and

¶71

l()

¶72

how the hc .rse numbe rs have been given :r, t re Municipal Authoritics r.r'hen no original accommorlr.t ion is built is unexplained. The regularization if any mac{e b.. tlLe^(}HMC is only in respe ct of he structures if aly made by the n,1iv, dual without any permissi ,n. When there is no structtLre iLl eJl, there cannot be al5'regula^'ization and only compound u,all trJone.vas there.

¶73

17 . Whcn the document is very clear t r?1. tlre plaintiff's vendor has k ;ated his plot on road No.3 in su l''ey No.121 and when thc plo 1>resentiy located on road No.1l, wl-ric-r is not the sarne to$,n survev number corresponding t c old survey No. 129/I1, t e First Appellate Court shoukl not have been reversed the I nding. The town survey is not r:lrallerrged by the plaintifl or h; ; vendor and it has attained^j iralitr,. The suit schedule prop rt y- located in the town surve) tt o.3/ 1, which is corresponding survey Nos.4O3 &, 4O4, w-hict iS admittedly Governrnent lz rrl. This aspect was not consi(l(:r e(l by the First Appel[ate Cour in reversing the finding. Thereicr:, th.: judgment of the First Ap1 ellate Court suffers from perversiq, ,nrra impugned judgmcrrt and clecrce in first appeal is liable to set aside. Accordinglv, thr substantial questigrs of law is itrl;q'ert:d.

In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed and thc impugned judgment and decree, dated 20.07.2021, in A.S.No.128 of 2OlB, on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2018, in O.S.No.2886 of 2011, on the lile of the learned II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, IS confirmed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if anv shall stand closed.

¶78

Sd/-B.S.CHIRANJ JOINT REGIS R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The ll Additional Chief Judge,^{City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records)}

¶83

The ll Junior Civil Judge,^{City Civil Court, Hyderabad.}

¶84

Two CCs to GP for^{Arbitration,High Court for: the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad (OUT)

¶85

One CC to Sri J.Ashvini^{Kumar, Advocate} [OPUCI

¶86

Two CD Copies

^v--

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011012022

JUDGMENT

SA.No.244 of 2021

ALLOWING THE SA W THOUT COSTS.

¶94

7 !ul
*
))
tor:_
'j,'1r^-

The Tahsildar and Another v. Gutha Kondal Reddy and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar and Another v. Gutha Kondal Reddy and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Yadav Vs Sundermal

Tuljaram Yadav Vs Sundermal

A Srilatha Vs K Chandra Prakash Rao and 6 Others

M/s. Abc India Ltd. and Another Vs Mumtaz Moizuddin and 2 Others

Secretary Irrigation and Command Area Development Department Vs Mumtaz Moizuddin and 3 others

The Reg.Mang,Oriental Insurance Comp.Ltd Vs Mumtaz.Moizuddin,and 7 Ors.