Dismissed

T. Padma v. T. Nagabhushanam(Died) per Lr Rr 2 to 4

Telangana HC6 Sept 2023AS/2370/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a lower court decree dismissing a suit for declaration and injunction. The High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the donor's title to the property, thereby failing to establish a valid flow of title under the gift deed, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the lower court's judgment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal suit was dismissed without costs; the judgment and decree of the lower court were confirmed.

T. Padma Vs T. Nagabhushanam(Died) per Lr Rr 2 to 4 — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁵ I

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,^{THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN}

¶6

APPEAL SUIT NO:2370^{oF 2001}

¶7

Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against^{the Judgmentand DecreeDated} 07-09-2001 made^{in O.S.No} 25 oi f sgsg oi^{tt e tite of the- Court of the Senior Civil} Judge, SiddiPet.

¶8

Between:

¶9

l.T.Padma,WoVidyasagarHouseholdR/oH.No.8-142131A'Bharatnagar' SiddiPet Town,^{Medak District}

¶10

T. Vidvasaqar, S/o^{NagabhushanamBusiness R/o H No S-1-42l3lA'} Bharatriagarl Siddipet^{Town, Medak District}

¶11

...ApPellants/Plai^ntiffs

¶12

AND

¶13

1 T Naoabhushanam(Died)^{per LR Respondents2 to 4' S/o Balaram Occ} ngilriir'r; Ri;^{rvr riir.rrn Viit"ge,c h ini kodu r Ma nda l, Meda k District'}

¶14

2 Tiooarti Buchawa, Wo^{late Nagabhushanam' Occ:Household' R/o Mularam} - Viilage, Chinakodur Mandal, Medak District'

¶15

Tipparti Yadagiri,s/o^{Late nagabhus$n.ap., Occ: R'T'C Driver'Vemulawada} Bus stop, Vemulawada,^{kanmnagarulslrlcl}

¶16

Tiooarti Bhasker, S/o^{Late nagabhushanam,Occ:Mechanic'R/o Mularam} Viitige, Chinakodur^{Mandal, Medak District'}

¶17

Resoondents 2to 4 arc^{brought on record as LRs of deceased R-1 percourt} orddr dated 16-12'09^{in ASMP-1672/09'}

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2001^{CMP. NO:18712 0F2001)}

¶20

Petition under^{order 39 Rule1 &2andsection 151 CPC praying that in the} circumstinces^{stated in the affidavitfiled in support of the petition,the High Court} ;"ft;;t";;;d io^grant injunction^{restrainingthe respondentfrom interferingwith} the petitioners^{possesslonof the land admeasuring 100Sq Yrds situate to the} south of the^{house bearingNo. B-'1-42l3/A, Bharatnagar, siddipet, pending} dispsoal of the^aPPeal.

¶21

¶22

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY:

¶23

All that open^piece of land^{admeasuring100 sq.Yrds situate to the south of} the House No. 8-1-42l3/A,^{Bharatnagar, Siddipet,the boundarieswhere of are as} follows:

¶24

East: : Grave Yard

¶25

West: 15'Road

¶26

North : Partly house of^{first plaintiff and the house of Chakrapani}

¶27

South : Property of^{T. Srinivasa and Bhasker.}

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRl. P YADAGIRIRAO}

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents^{No.2to 4: SRI S SRINIVASARAO}

¶30

The Court delivered the^{following:JUDGMENT}

¶31

¶32

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUS'TICEM. LAXMAN}

¶33

APPEAL SUI^{T No.2370 of 2OOL}

¶34

JUDGMENT:

¶35

i. The challenge in^{the presentappcai is to the judgrnent and} decreedatedoT.og.2oolino.S.No.2Sofigggonthefileofthe Senior civil Judge^{ret Sicldipet,Medak District(hereinafterreferred} to as 'trial Court'),^{r*rherein ancl whereby the suit filed by the} appellants herein^{for declarationand injunctionin rcspect of} H.No.8-1-42 l3lA, to^{an extent o1 157.36 sq'yards forming part of} Sy.No. 15521 et situatcd^{at Bharathnagar,Siddipet, (hereinafter} referred to as^{,sr-rit schcdulepropert_y') was} Jra.rtly^{a llorved granting} declaration ar.rd^{il-lj r,rnction to art cxtcnL ol 57'36 sq' yardsand for} the r.est ol 100 sq.^{yards, thc suil u'as disrnissed'Aggrieved by} thc said dismissa.l,^{the present appeal is filecl at thc instance of} plaintiffs before the trial^Cour[.

¶36

The appellants trerein^{are plair'tiffs and respondent No' 1} hereinwasthedefendantbeforethctrjalCourt.IlespondentNo.l die<l during the^{pendencyof the present appeal and respondent} -Nos'2to4hereinrverebroughtonrecrrrdashislegalheirs.I|or the sake of^{convenience the partiesar.e hereinafter rcferred to as} thcv were^{arl'aYedirr suit.}

¶37

¶38

The sum and substance of trre case of the praintiffs is that defendant is father of plaintiff No.2 and plaintiff No.l is wife of plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff No. i paid an arnount of Rs.4,600/_ towards sale consideration for purchase of property to an extent of 57.36 sq. yards in Sy.No.lSS2/s situated at Bharathnagar, Siddipet. Plaintiff No.1 entrusted the task of purchase to defendant and plaintiff No.2. In the proccss of sale, defendant with mala fi.de intention obtained registered sa_le deed document bearing No.47O6 /1992 on 04.1 l. 1992 under Ex.A- I in his name. After knowing thc same, the plaintiffs insisted to transfer the said land to an extent of 57.36 sq. yards in their name and the defendant transferred the same by way of gift deed document bearing No.4755/1992 on 12.11.1992 undcr Ex.A-2 ih favour of plair-rtiff No.2. Subsequently, defendant also gifted the remaining extent of 1OO sq. yards in the said survey number in the name of plaintiff No.1 under registered gift deed document bearing No.219Ol1996 dated 18.06.1996 under Ex.A-17. Basing on said two gift deeds, the plaintiffs have become owners ald possessors of the suit schedule property and when the defendant was trying to dispossess them and disturb their peaceful possession, the present suit is filed by them seeking declaration and injunction.

¶39

¶40

4.Itisthecaseofthedefendarrttlratthesaleconsiderationfor purchase of 57.36 sq.^{yards was not paid by plaintiff No'1' He} admits execution^{of gift deed document bearing No'47O611992} under Ex.A-2 covering^{57.36 sq' yards, which forms part of} Sy.No. l552ls. It^{is his case that the gift deed bearing document} No.2190/1996 is^{relatingto 100 sq' yards and it was obtained by} playing fraud. According^{to him, the said tand of 100 sq' yards} was covered under^{joint assignmentpatta granted by the Mandal} Revenue Officer^{throughproceedings dated 2l} '09'^{1993 in favour} of defendant and^{his wife. In the said proceedings,thereis} prohibition of alienation^{of said property ofIOO sq' yards'} Therefore, the^{gift deed documentbear-ingNo'2190/1996even if} believed to be true is^{hit by prohibition clause and plaintiffs} cannot claim title^{over said lOO sq.yardsbasing on the said gift} deed. Hence,^{prayed to dismissthe suit.}

¶41

On the basis of the^{above pleadings, the follor'r'ing issues} were framed bY the trial^Court:

¶42

'1 Whether plaintiffs^{are entitledto declaration and} permanent injunction?

¶43

2 Whether defendant^{playedfraud in getting registration} of sale deed No.47O6l^{1992dated 05.11.1992?}

¶44

3 Whether defendant^{and his wifeare joint owners as} assignees for^{1OO sq.' yards in Sy. No I 55 I} /^1?

¶45

¶46

4 What is effect of prohibition of alienation^{of assigned} lands?

¶47

5 Whether defer-idant is in possession^{of 122 sq. yards?}

¶48

6 To what reliel?"

¶49

The plaintiffs in support of their^{case got examined P'Ws.1} to 7 and got marked Exs.A-l to^{A-2 1.The defendantgot} examined himself^{as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-4'}

¶50

The trial Court on appreciating^{the evidence on record found} that the plaintiffs are^{entitled for declarationand injunctionin} respect of property^{coveredunder gift dced bearingdocument} No.4706 I 1992 and rejected the^{relief ofdeclarationand} injunction in respect of^{property covered under giftdeed} document bearing^{No.2190/1996 holding that the said property is} covered under assignment^{patta and sincc there is prohibitionon} alienation by way of^{sale deed and gift deed, no title is passed} thereunder and dismissed^{the suit in respect of 100 sq' yards} which is part of suit^{scheduleproperty.}

¶51

Heard both sides.

¶52

g. In view of the above, the^{following arepoints for} consideration in^{the present appeal:}

¶53

"1. Whether the^{ptaintiffsestablished title to the property} covered under^gift dee{haring^{No.2l9Ol1996?}

¶54

¶55

2 Whether plaintiffs are^{entitledfor injunction and} declaration for^{the propertycoveredunder gift deed} bearing No.2 190/^1996?"

¶56

Point Nos.1 and.2z

¶57

The pleadings of the^{plaintiffs are silent with regard to how} the donor of land in gift^{deed document bearing No.2190/1996} acquired title to the land^so that^{the donor couldconvey the title} under Ex.A-17. The^{plaintiffs simply relied uponEx.A-17.} According to plaintiffs,^{propertyunder Ex'A-17 and property} under Ex.B-1 assignment^{proceedingsare not one and same and} they are different.

¶58

The case of the defendant is that the^{property covered under} Ex.A-17 is same property which he^{got by way. of assignment} along with his wife. The defendant^{reliecl upon Ex.B-lto show} that the land which was covered^{underBx.A-17was assignedto} him. It is the further case of defendant^{that patta certificate} issued to him and his wife under^{Ex.B-1 has conditionprohibiting} the alienation of said property by way of^{sale or gift. Hence, the} gift deed under Ex.A- 17 is prohibited by the clause in^assignment and no title has been passed to the plaintiffs.

¶59

The trial Court went on holding that both the^properties covered under Ex.A-17 and B-1 are one and the same ald held

¶60

I I

¶61

¶62

that since there is prohibition clause^{on alienation,no title is} passed there under to plaintiffs.

¶63

In order to render hndings on^{this aspect,this Court feels} that it is apt to refer to boundaries^{as containedunderEx.A-17} and Ex.B-1 which are as^follows:

¶64

"Boundaries under Ex.A-^17:

¶65

East	Graveyard.
West	Road15'.
North	house ofdonor andoPen Place^ofone
	Chakrapani.
South	open place of donor.

¶66

Boundaries under^Dx. B-^{I :}

¶67

North	Road24'.
South	opcn landofSy.No.155^1.
East	openlar,dofSy.No.1551.
West	Sy.No.1552."

¶68

On comparison of^{boundariesof both lands, on the west} side of land under Ex.A-17^{shows road, whereas road under} Ex.B-1 is shown on north^side.

¶69

It is the contention^{of the defendantthat in the land for} which patta is granted under^{Ex.B-1 there is part of suit land and} it is extended upto road and other^{part is covered by land which is} purchased by defendant and gifted to^{plaintiffs underEx'A-2' If} this contention is accepted the^{patta should containland on} north side as well as road, but^{that is not reflected in Ex.B-1 '} Thercforc, such conteution^{has not merit.}

I t

{ t

16.Acomparisonofboundariesitrevealsthattheproperty under Ex.A-17^{is not the same property covered under Ex'B-l'} Therefore, the trial^{Court in this regard has committed error'}

¶74

Be that^{as it may. The plaintiffs have come to the Court and} they must establish^{flow of title, but the plaintiffs simply relied} upon Ex.A-17 to^{ascertain that the donor has got title' Until' the} plaintiffs establish^{the title of donor, they cannot set up their case} of title. Such^{evidenceis lacking in the present case' Hence' this} court feels that^{there is no flow of titlc to the beneliciary under} Ex.A- 17 and the trial^{Court has rightly held ttrat title is not} proved though on different^{ground. Therelbre, this Courtholds} thattheplaintiffslravefailedtoestablishtlreirlitleforproperty covercd under^{Ex.A- 17.}

¶75

Learned counsel^{for plaintiffs has contendedthat even if the} plaintiffs failed to^{prove title by virtue of Ex'A-17, they are still in} possession and entitled^{for injunction'The retief soughtin the} present suit is declaration^{and the consequent relief of injunction'} When the main^{relief is denied, Lhe consequcnt relief cannot be} granted. Therefore,^{I c1o not find any merit in the contention that} withoutdeclarationoftitletheplaintiffsareentitledforinjunction

for the property covered under Ex.A- I 7. Hence the same is rejected.

¶80

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and consequently, the judgment and decree dated 07.09.200 1 in O.S.No.25 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet, Medak District, is conlirmed. No order as to costs. Miscellaleous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶81

SD/- I NAGALAKSHMI, DEPUTY REGISTRAR.

//TRUE COPYII

To,

SECTION OFFICER

'l . The Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet. (With records, if any) 2. One CC to SRt P YADAGTRI RAO, Advocate IOpUil 3. One CC to SRI S SRtN|VASA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

ADK

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610912023

JUDGMENT

AS.No.2370 ot²⁰⁰¹

1 H€ s
',
J.
) !
) 0 4 ilAH 2021
C'
* *
.OeSpatcHeg

¶93

DISMISSING THE APPEAL^SUIT WITHOUT COSTS

¶94

G)'*t4

¶95

¶96

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

¶97

WEDNESDAY,^{THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYTHREE}

¶98

PRESENT

¶99

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE M.LAXMAN}

¶100

APPEAL SUIT NO :2370^{0F 2001}

¶101

Between:

¶102

l.T.Padma,WoVidyasagarHouseholdR/oH.No.B-1.42l3lA,Bharatnagar, Siddipet Town,^{Medak District}

¶103

T. Vidvasaqar,^{S/o NagabhushanamBusiness R/o H No' 8-1421314'}

¶104

Bharatriagar, Siddipet^{Town, Medak District}

¶105

...Appellants/Plaintiffs

¶106

AND

¶107

1 T Naoabhushanam(Died)^per LR^{Respondents2 to 4, S/o BalaramOcc:} ngricuiiure R/o Mula'ram^{Vittage, CninakodurMandal, Medak District}

¶108

2 Tipparti Buchavva,^{Wo late Nagabhushanam,Occ: Household, R/o Mularam} Viilige, Chinakodur^{Mandal, MedakDistrict.}

¶109

J Tipparti Yadagiri,s/o^{Late nagabhushanam, Occ: R.T.C Driver,Vemulawada} Bud stop, Vemulawada,^{karimnagar District}

¶110

4 Tipparti Bhasker, S/o^{Late nagabhushanam,Occ:Mechanic, R/o Mularam} Viilage, Chinakodur^{Mandal, MedakDistrict.}

¶111

Respondents 2 lo^{4 ate brought on record as LRs of deceased R-1 percourt} orddr dated 16-12-09^{in ASMP-1672/09.}

¶112

...Respondents

¶113

Appeal under^{section 96 of C.P.Cagainst-the .ludgqent and..DecreeDated} O7-09-i60r made^{in O.S.No.25of 19999 o-n the file of the Court of the Senior Civil} Judge, SiddiPet.

¶114

oRDER:^{This appeal comingon for hearingand upon perusing the grounds of} appeal, the Judgment^{and Deireeof the Lower Courtand the material papers in the} Siit ,nO upon^{iearingthe arguments of SRl. P YADAGIRI RAO, Advocatefor the} Appellant and of sRl. s^{-sRtNtvnsn RAO, Advocatefor the Respondent} No.2 to 4.

¶115

s-B

¶116

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows^:

¶117

That the Appeal suit be and hereby is dismissed;

¶118

That the Judgment and decree dated^{07-09-200'lin O S.No.25of 19999 on} the file of thdcourt of the Senior Civil^{Judge, Siddipet' Medak District be and} hereby is confirmed; and

¶119

That there shall be no order as to costs^{in this appeal}

¶120

SD/. I NAGALAKSHMI, DEPUW REGISTRAR.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Senior Civil Judge,^{Siddipet. (Withrecords'if any)}

¶126

Two CD Copies

ADK

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610912023

DECREE

AS.No.2370 of 2001

DISMISSING THE APPEAL^SUIT WITHOUT COSTS

¶134

0{""} @ lVA'

T. Padma v. T. Nagabhushanam(Died) per Lr Rr 2 to 4

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Padma v. T. Nagabhushanam(Died) per Lr Rr 2 to 4

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

Mr.R.Mallesh Vs a.Sanjeeva Reddy and Anr.

Vankidi Sujatha and Another Vs a. Samaiah and 3 Others

Syed Muqtadeer Ahmed Vs N.Siddappa and Another

K.Venkata Narayana Vs Smt.N.Saroja

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Chennaram and 2 Ors.

Kadam Gangu Bai Vs Hazi Khan and Another