Dismissed

K.V. Subba Rao v. Smt. P. Bhagyalaxmi

Telangana HC19 Dec 2023CRP/1394/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana dismissed the civil revision petition challenging the trial court's dismissal of an injunction suit. The trial court held that the property in the current suit (Plot 6A) was distinct from the property in the earlier suit (Plot 6), thus precluding res judicata and necessitating a trial to establish identity of property.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed; no order as to costs.

K.V. Subba Rao Vs Smt. P. Bhagyalaxmi — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ I

¶2

I' ,

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA . ATHYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1394 OF 2021

¶8

Petition filed under Section 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the^order dated O7.05.2021 made in l.A.No. 307 of²⁰¹⁹ in^{O.S.No. 24oof 2018on the file of} the Court of the 1sr Additional Junior Civil Judge -^cum -^{lX AdditionalMetropolitan} Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally.

¶9

Between:

¶10

K.V. Subba Rao, S/o. Late K. Venkateshwar^Rao, Aged^about 62^years,Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.6-12-23D, K.B. Layout, Tirupati^{(Urban), Chittoor District.}

¶11

Aliyan Srinivas, S/o. A. Kalidas, Aged about 48^years, Occ. Business,^Rl/o. H.No.254lA, Doyens Colony, Serilingampally Mandal, Hyderabad.

¶12

Bhatula Shiridi Sagar, S/o. B. Yada Narayana, Aged about^{36 years,Occ.} Business, R./o. H.No.6-2-708, Chintal Basti, Beside TV^Showroom, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

P. Anjanna, S/o. Padamati Nagappa, Aged about 59^{years,Occ. Business,} Rr/o. H.No.15-2-1 .4716411, Anand Nagar. Malakpet,^Hyderabad.

¶14

Rakesh, S/o. M. Babu Rao, Aged about 35^years, Occ.^{Business,R/o.} H.No.6-2-745, Chintal Basti, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

¶15

...PETIT]ONERS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶16

AND

¶17

Smt. P. Bhagyalaxmi, Wo. P. Laxminarayana, Aged about 56^{years, Occ.} Housewife, Rt/o. Plot No.322, HMT Shatavahana Nagar,^Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶19

I.ANO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section 151 of CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may^be pleased to stay all further proceeding in LA.No.307 ol 2019 in O.S.No.240 of 2018 on the file of the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum - lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally,^pending disposal of the^main C.R.P,

¶21

l.A O:2OF 2021

¶22

Between:

¶23

Smt. P. Bhagyalaxmi, Wio.^{p..Laxminarayana,} Aged about 56 years, Occ Housewife, Ryo. PIot No.322, HMT Snatavahairairtigii,-KLfarpaity, '^{- - -} Hyderabad.

¶24

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶25

AND

¶26

1 . K.V. Subba Rao, Sio.. L_q!e^ K Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about 62 years, Occ Business, Rio. H.No.6-12-23D, K.B. Layout, Tirupiti (Uroi"i bnnldJ,:ri!il"i

¶27

2- Aliyan, Srinivas, S/o. A.. Kalir!.s, Aged about 4g years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.254lA, Doyens Cotony, Seritinlampatiy fr4an<ijf , HiAeraOaA^{----' '} "'

¶28

Bhatula Shiridi Saoar, S/o. B. Yada Narayana, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Business, R/o. F. Nb.o-z-zoa,^{-br,ii''ir'i'} E"iii,'"#sid;^- TV,sTiriroiii, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

¶29

P. Anjanna, S/o.^padamati Nagappa, Aged about 59 years, Occ. Business. Rr/o. H. No. 1 5-2- 1 47 I 64 I 1, Rna nO' Ndgdr. tilaratpet, itvOeir;b;;.^{- --}

¶30

Rakesh, S/o. M_ Bab_u R.a9,_ {ged about 35 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o. H.No.6-2-745, Chintal Basti, Khaiiatabad, Hyaera6lA.

¶31

... RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS

¶32

Petition under section 15'r of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited .in support of tne'peiition, the Higli a;;i ;;; ;; pleased to vacate the interim ortirr uaieo or hdiroi\ in r.A.-r.ib.-iti id*"ii C.R.P. No. 1394 of 2021.

¶33

l.A NO: 1OF 2023

¶34

Petition under Section 1S1 of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petiti-on, the High Corrt may -Ue pleased to receive the sare do.e.d documents and Judgment fir-ed arong *iiri t " present petition in the present CRp.

¶35

l.A NO:2 OF 2023

¶36

Petition under Section 151 of CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of tne pltitLn, the High C"r; ;;, b" pleased to receive the documents fired arong with the present petition in the present Civil Revision petition.

¶37

l.A. NO:3 oF 2023

¶38

Petirion under section 151 0f cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fi.led in suppo_rt of the petit-ion, the High C"rrt ;;tt pleased to receive the documents fired arong with the present petition in the present Civil Revision petition.

¶39

Counsel for Petitioners : Sri J. KANAKAIAH

¶40

Counsel forthe Respondent : Sri MIDHUN KUMAR ALLU

¶41

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶42

¶43

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶44

CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1394 OF 2o21

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

This revision pecition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.3O7 of 2Ol9 in O.S.No.240 of 2018 on the hle of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally.

¶47

The petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S.No.24O of 2O18. They filed LA.No.3O7 of 2Ol9 under Order VII Rule 1l (d) of CPC r/w.Section l1 of CPC praying the Court to reject the plaint in O.S.No.24O of 2018. O.S.No.24O of 20l8 is filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction and claiming damages. According to the petitioners the suit property was the subject matter of earlier suit in O.S.No.244 of 2O08 hted by the defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff and her husband seeking injunction in respect of plot No.6 admeasting 247 sq yards. O.S.No.244 of 200g was contested by the plaintilf stating that the suit propert5r in O.S.No.244 of 2008 forms part o[ Plot No.6A and the same was decreed against the plaintiff in O.S.No.24O of 2018 and her husband, by judgment dated 29.06.2O10 rejecting the rival claims set up by them to the suit property who claimed it as part of plot No.6A. Against the said judgment A.S.No.99 of 2Ol2 was filed by

the plaintiff in O.S.No.24O oI 2018 and the same was dismissed on 2O.O2.2O15. S.A.No.802 of 2Ol7 was also filed but the same was withdrawn. Hence the judgment in O.S.No.244 of 20Og has become final and the suit property is one and same in O.S.No.244 of 2OO8 and in O.S.No.24O of 2018. Therefore, it comes under resjudicata and the suit is liable to be rejected.

¶52

The respondent filed counter admitting filing of O.S.No.24O of 2018, filing of A.S.No.99 of 2072 and S.A.No.8O2 ot 2OtT. However, her contention is that the property in O.S.No.240 201g is completely different from the property which belongs to the respondent and her husband and there is no need to contest the same, merely because they are made party defendants in the suit. There is a basic difference in the suit schedule property. As such prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

¶53

After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.307 of 2OI9 observing that the plot in O.S.No.24O of 2078 is 6-4' whereas the plot in O.S.No.244 of 2OOg is 6,. As the properties are different, it does not come under res_judicata.

Heard Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Midhun Kumar Alli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in O.S.No.244 of 2O08 the plaintiff contested the case contending that the suit schedule property is not plot No.6, but it is plot No.6A whereas the trial Court decreed the sui[. Though they hled appeal, they have not succeeded and the appellate Court also observed the same and now hling the suit is the second round of litigation. Though their contention was not accepted by both the Courts as the property in O.S.No .244 of 200g and propert5r in O.S.No.24O of 2018 are one and the same, res_judicata applies and it is liable to be rejected.

¶59

On the other hand, the respondent would submit that her property is distinct from the property in O.S.No.244 of 2O0g. In O.S.No.244 of 2008 the plot Number is 6 and her plot Number is 6A. Therefore, she withdrew the S.A., and Iited a fresh suit as both the properties are distinct. As such, O.S.No.24O of 201g is maintainable. She also contended that res_judicata is not a ground to reject the plaint. In support of his contention learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of the Hon,ble

¶60

¶61

Supreme Court in Vaish Aggarwat panchayat Vs Inder Kumar and Othersr.

¶62

Having regard to the rival submissions, the petitioners herein have filed petition under Order VII Rule 11 to reject the plaint in O.S.No.240 ot 2Ol8 contending that the property involved in this suit and the property in o-s.No.244 of 2oog is one and the same, whereas on going through the contentions and the materiar on record the respondent has filed suit claiming plot No.6A in O.S.No.24O of 2O1g, whereas the defendant No. I in O.S.No.244 of 2oo8 claimed property in plot No.6. Therefore, initiany it cannot be said that both the properties are same. It is a materiar fact which needs.to be proved during the course of trial, whether both the properties are one and the same or not. The contention of the petitioner is that suit is barred by law as principles of res_judicata applies, whereas, in the present suit, the issue invorved is distinct from the issue in AS.No.244 of 2OOg. ihe contention of the petitioner is that suit is barred by law as principles of resjudicata applies, whereas, in the present suit, the issue involved is distinct from the issue in AS.No.244 of 2OOg. The contention of respondent is that under the guise of decree in o.s.No.244 of 2o0g which is

¶63

' 120201 tU Sup.eme Court Cases 809

¶64

..7

¶65

¶66

given for plot No.6, he is entering into this plot which is 6A, therefore, the issue involved in both suits and property is distinct and it needs adjudication. At this stage, it cannot be decided that both properties are one and the same. As such, the suit cannot be rejected on that ground. On going through the plaint averments, the suit cannot be rejected as both the plots in the suits are different. Therefore, there are no infirmities in the order of the trial Court and needs no interference.

¶67

Accordingly, the Civit Revision petition is dismissed. There

¶68

shall be no order as to costs.

¶69

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

¶70

closed

¶71

SdI C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The 1st Additional Junior^{Civil Judge-cum} -^{lX Additional Metropolitan} Magistrate, Cyberabad^{at Kukatpally. (with records,if any)}

¶76

One CC to Sri^{J. KANAKAIAH,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶77

One CC to Sri^{MIDHUN KUMAR ALLU,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶78

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:19t12t2023

i 'l i.. !i 1r t' t !l

¶83

ORDER

¶84

CRP.No.1394 of 2021

¶85

l--
1rt E STAT
(
D.
(J 2 B oEt 20?3 fi
*
t
DESPATC

¶86

DISMISSNTG THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS"

¶87

b,
lv<br>J"+

K.V. Subba Rao v. Smt. P. Bhagyalaxmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.V. Subba Rao v. Smt. P. Bhagyalaxmi

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

Sri.S.E.Srinivas Vs K.S.Ravi Kumar

Smt. Madireddy Srinidya Vs Venkatapuram Diwakar Reddy

M.Kamal Nayan Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Pulgari Yadamma , Nirmala Vs Ittaboina Vijaya Kumar

Mohammed Azeemuddin Vs Jaame Majeede Mohammadiya Sardar Committee,/

Mohd Asif Haneef Vs Anudeep Malavathu