Allowed

M. Usha alias K. Usha v. M.V. Hanumantha Rao

Telangana HC17 Mar 2023CRP/2269/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 226 Civil Revision Petition, the High Court of Telangana held that a co-sharer entitled to 1/6th share in joint family property could claim a share of rent despite pending final decree proceedings. The court corrected the trial court's dismissal of the Interlocutory Application, directing the respondent to deposit the petitioner's share of monthly rent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is entitled to 1/6th share of monthly rent totaling Rs. 2,38,234. Respondent No. 8 directed to deposit arrears from December 1, 2014 and continue future payments.

M. Usha alias K. Usha Vs M.V. Hanumantha Rao — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[²⁵⁸⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2269 OF 2022

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, Aggrieved^{by the} order dated 2910812022 in l.A No 354 ol 2021 in l.A No 10 of^{2018(Old l.A No} 676 of 2015) in O.S No 126 of 1993^passed by lll Senior Civil^{Judge, CityCivil} Court, Secunderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ivl. Usha @ K. Usha, D/o. Late M.V. Hanumantha Rao W/o. Kota Subrahmanyam Aged 71 years, Occ Housewife Fl/o. Plot No. 10, Meghana Gardens,^East Maredpally, Secunderabad - 500 026

¶10

...REVISION PETITIONERYPETITIONERYPLAINTIFF

¶11

AND

¶12

tU.V. Hanumantha Rao, (died per LRs)

¶13

Smt. Padma, (since deceased)

¶14

Smt. Renuka, W/o. Madhusudan Rao Rl/o. 76 Upstairs, West Marredpally, Secunderabad

¶15

Cherukuri Asha, Wio. Cherukuri Krishna Babu^{Rl/o.N.1 0} Gunrock^Enclave, Phase-I, Secunderabad. And also at 202, SKV Spandana Apartments,^Near lirlunicipal Park, West Marredpally, Secunderabad.

¶16

P. Prabhakar, S/o. Sri P.Venkaiah, aged 61^years, Occ- Business,^{Fl/o. 7-} 1 8/34, Raghavend ranagar Nacharam, Secunderabad

¶17

P. Ravinder, S/o. Sd P.Venkaiah, Aged 58^years, Occ,^{Business, Rio- 7-} 18/34, Raghavendranagar Nacharam, Secunderabad

¶18

P. Ramesh, S/o. Sri P.Venkaiah Aged 47 years, Occ. Business, No.7-18134, Raghavendranagar Nacharam, Secunderabad

¶19

B. B. Bhavani, Wo. Sri B. Suresh, Aged 47^years,Occ. Housewife,^No.7-18134, Raghavendranagar Nacharam, Hyderabad And also al^{1O-2-1O7and 108,} Ploi No,76 Building Known as Bhavani West lvlarredpally,^{Secunderabad.}

¶20

(Respondent R'l to R7 not necessary party)

¶21

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. SUNIL B GANU}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.8: SRI GURC PRASAD}

¶24

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶25

----------"1.

¶26

¶27

PNRJ cRP 2269 0f 2022

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶29

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2269 0r.2o22

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard Sri Sunil B Ganu, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioncr and Sri G.U.R.C. prasad, learned counsel for respondents. 2' Petirioner is plaintiff in o.s. No. 126 of 1993 on the fire of the court .f III Additio.at Senior civil Judge, city civil court, Secunderabacl pra'ing ro qr'.*t dccrce of partition of properties mentioned in thc plai,t scl'rccirrlcs i.c., Schedule^,A' movables such as gold, silver and gencrai iterns: Schcdulc^,B, premises bearing No. 76, Road No.2, West N'[ared p:Lll-r', Sccunderabad; Schedule .C, proceeds from thc salc of Ir.usc- :r liat. *rr, r,alue of gold worth Rs.5 lakhs and rents fronr another trouse. As .r coparcener, the plaintiff claimed half share in a the above propcrtics. l)ctitioner also filed O.S. No. 225 of 1993 praying to grant decree of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants in o.s No. 126 of 1993 :rncl sorne others from interfering with her possession over a portion o1- tJ No. 76, West Maredpdly, Secunderabad which is plaint ,B, schcdulc pr()pcr(y in o.S. No. 126 of lgg3.

¶32

Bv common judgment dated 22.3.2OO4 the rrial Courr clrsrrrisscrl l;rrir tlr. suits. In the partition suit, the trial court hcr.l that tlrr: plai.rill is r)or crtitred to any rerief. Basing upon that finding, it held lh:r1 the plair-rtilf czrnnot bc granted any injunction in the other suit as

¶33

PNR^I cl^, tl6tr oF t0?2

¶34

¶35

¶36

well. Aggrieved by the dismissal ol O.S. No. 126 of 1993 pctitioner filed

¶37

CCCA No. 226 of 2OO4. This Hon'ble Court partly allorved the appcal.

¶38

4 The decree reads as under:

¶39

"1. That plaintiff shall be entitled to rvorkout lrer claim for hel1/6t]' share in the house property against her sisters, thc sccond deferrdant and the vendees under the sale deed dated 1O.12.2OO4 in final clccree proceedings and the amount of Rs.lotakhs shall bc givcr) (:redjt ,,hiLc determining the value of the plaintifls I /6th share:

¶40

^f}],at the Executing Court shall in accordance rrith la\ pass fina[ orders in execution proceedings;

¶41

That the two sisters of the plaintill i.e., Ihir(l (lclclrdant and fourth respondent herein shall also be entitled to tltc sanlc r-r,lrr:f rrhich is grantcd to plaintiff;

¶42

That the plaintiff and her two sistcrs bei:rq copirrccners t ill be liable for all family debts contractecl b,v hei- aathc. for f:irrrrh ncccssities only to the extent of the shares in the housc properties got bt' thenl:

¶43

That the first defendant h:rvrng alread-r alt<:rrurted lris hall sl.rare under Ex.B 21 settlement deed in favour of the secorrrl ck'fcnclant. his daughters i.e., ptaintiJf and her tu,o sisters cannot clarnr irnv nllhr ro the said half share even ttrough the first defcndant is dead:

¶44

That save as aforesaid thc decree of llrc lrutr court shall stand confirmed in all other aspects'.

¶45

In pursuant to judgment and decrec datecl 5.6.2012 in CCCA No. 226 of 2OO4 of High Court of A.P, thc petitioncr filcd I A No. 10 of2018 in O.S. No. 126 of 1993 for passing hnal decrec.

¶46

Facts disclose that respondent no.5 and⁽⁾ pLlrch.isccl the 'B' schedule property in the year 2004. Respondenl no.8 purchased thc same from re spondents 5 and 6 in the ve:rr 2008. In lltc YC.rr 2O i +. the respondent no.8 leased out the schcdulc 'B' propcrL\ r,iclt. rt:gistered Le ast: deed to M/s Johns Grammar School for a period ol l0 r,car" i.c., till

¶47

4 PNRJ cRP 2169 0F 202:

¶48

2024.^'I'lne lease amount is Rs. 14,30,00O/- per month. Claiming that as per thc decrce dated 5.6.2012 in cccA No.226 of 2oo4 as 1/6rh share in the 'B' Schedule house property belongs to her, she is entitled to l /6rh sharc itr the rent already received by respondent no.g in schedule ,B, propcrrl' rrom 1. r2.20r4 till date and also the rents which would be receivcd, being Rs.2,3g ,334 /_ per month petitioner hled I A No.345 ol 2O2l in I A No. l0 of 2O t g. She has prayed to direct respondent no.g tc pay :rf fcilf s of pe tilio.cr's share of rent from 1.12.2074 and continue to pa]'

¶49

7 ' on co.rsidering the respective submissions, trial court disrnisscd thc Interlocutory Application. The Trial Court helcl thar equitics c:rr-: bc 'ork.cr .ut in the final decree proceedings. Trial co,rt obsened that respondcnt no.g is a subsequent purchaser of ,B,schedulc property after permission accorded by this court and being rawful purchascr [re has leascd out the,B,schedule property to an educational societr'.^'lherefore, rcspondent no.g is not responsible to the petition cr/ plain tiff for payment of arrears of rent or the future rents. Trial Court held thar the petitioner has no right to seek deposit of rcnts in ircr l:rvou r irr rt-spcct of .8, schedule property a,lready alienated u,ith her krrr lcclg. '"'idc .rtlcrs in cccA No. 2226 of 2oo4 and the arie nation was not challct'rgccl. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is filed.

¶50

5 l,\Rr alRP::6! ()t.:01:

¶51

¶52

Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner contencjed that as herd by this court in cccA No. 226 0f 2004 petitioncr is cntitrcd to 1/6th share of schedule ,B,property. In vicw thereof, she is cntitlc(l to 1/6,h share in the rent paid by the tenant to the schedulc ,8, prolrcrrv. Whereas, merely on the ground that final decree proceedings are pcnding she cannot be denied of her entitlement Learned senior counsel rcliecl on Section 2 (12) of Civll procedure Code.

¶53

per contra, according to learncd counsel lor Btr, resl;on<icrlt, Scction 2 (12) of CpC has no application as prol)ert\ is r.ror ir.r u.ror.rgftrl possession. The schedule 'B' property was purchaserl br. Brh rcspondcnt and is holding valid title' As owner of the propcrtr,. l'rc is entitrecl to r..:rs(, out thc property and he alone is entitled to g.t thc re,tar amo.rl. IIc would submit that until final decree proceedines are concluclcd, petitioner cannot set up any ciaim. This is arso crear rrom readirg of judgment of this Court in CCCA No. 226 of 2OO4.

¶54

1O. While considering this issue, tri:rl Courr erred in ol,,scrving that respondent no.g is not responsible to petrtroner/plrrirrrill [,rr Ila]'ment of arrears of rent or future rents ancl tl_rat petitiont,t. is rtol entitled to claim rent on the ground that thc propert_v $,as alr.r,irrlr alier-rated with her knowledge and the orders passed b_r, the Cou r_1 i. CCCA No. 226 of 2OO4 were not challengcd b]. thc petiti11r1cr. T5is obscn ation of the trial Court based on rvhicl.t I he pl .,e r is rcjcclc(i. IS

¶55

6 PNRJ cItP 2269 0F 2022

¶56

contrary to the Iindings recorded by the Division Bench rn paragraph 51 in CCCA No. 226 of 2OO4.

¶57

It is not in dispute that pursuant to the interim orders of this Court in CMp Nos. 11933 and 17734 of ZOO+ second defendant sold the house property bv way of registered sale deed dated 10.12.2004 in favour of three persons. The order of this Court dated 9.11.20O4 made it vcry clear that any such sale would be subject to the result of the appeal. The order ."r,as also subiect to the condition that the second defendant should deposit Rs.30,00,000/_ to the credit of the suit. gth respondent purchascd the property rrom respondents 5 a,,d 6. The Division Bench held that thc ordcr dated 9. 1 I.2OO4 mad,e in two interlocutory applications u'as clear rhat any sare has to be subject to the result of the appeal. Thus, as held b1, the Division Bench of this Court in the final judgment the sale deed is clearly hit by rule of lis pend.ens and second defendant vcndor and third party venclees cannot defeat the rights of the plaintiff ancl hcr 1wo sisters with regard to other half share. The Division Bench holds that petitioner is entitled to 1/6th share in the schedule hou se propertl..

¶58

The clainr lor mesne prohts ald damages was considered in paragraphs 52 ro 54 q.herein Division Bench observed that as on the date of dccision in the appcal, no evidence was brought on record to shon that subject house u,as leased out. As per evidence on record, the Court noticed thar plaintiff, her two sistcrs and mother were living in the

¶59

¶60

'' \

¶61

7 PNR^I crtP tt69 oF :01:

¶62

house and no other material was shown on any portion of the house being leased. Holding so, the claim was rejected. Thus, the Di'isio.i Bench refuscd to grant mesne profits or damages on the ground that b], lhen the property was not leased out.

¶63

Purchase of the suit schedule property b), gth respondent was pending appeal and was subject to the out come of tht: appcal. Admittedly, the schedule property in which 1/6th share of the pctiti.r-rer is crystallized is leased out by 8th respondent. Therefore, thc petitiont:r is entilicd to share in the rent arnount secured by thc Urh respondcnl. N,{erel,r., because final decree proceedings are pending, is no ground to der.' the share of the petitioner in the rentar amount o. suit sr:rredulc property. The trial Court erred in not appreciating these aspects.

¶64

The petitioner is entitled to I l6th share of the monrhlr. ren I 8t1' respondent is securing from 1,12.2014. What exactly thc 1/6trr sh.re r.vould come to is a matter, which requires consideration in llnal clecrce proceedings. Suffice to note that as respondent no. g is getting rcnt at the rate of Rs. 14,30,OOO/- per month, 1/6rh share of r,vhich comes to Rs.2,38,234/-. Therefore, the 8th respondent is <lirectecl to dcposit arrears of rent from I.l2.2Ol4 in the ratio of I/6 fill Februan,, 2023 *'ithi'r eight *,eeks lrom the date of receipt of cop_r, of this order a r-rcr continuc to deposit 1/6th share of the monthly re nt bl,. .l Orh of cr,.er.r. srr cccr.ding month.

t I

'i.

PNRI cru, 2269^()F 2022

¶69

Accorclingly, the revision is allowed. No Costs. pending

¶70

misccllancous pctitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶71

Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASStSTANT REGtTtRAR

¶72

To,

¶73

//TRUE COPY// r/ .Y SECTION OFFICER

¶74

The lll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad

¶75

One CC to SRt. SUNTL B GANU, Advocate [OpUC]

¶76

One CC to SRI. GURU PRASAD, Advocate tOpUCl

¶77

Two CD Copies

PR vt{

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1710312023

o 1 iog sTA i€- c,
k
+
O 11 APfl 2U?3

ORDER

CRP.No.2269 of 2022

ALLOWING THE CRP

WITHOUT COSTS

<br>a

M. Usha alias K. Usha v. M.V. Hanumantha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Usha alias K. Usha v. M.V. Hanumantha Rao

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

M/s. Archana Exclusive Vs Anil Kumar Sanghi And 2 Others

The Regional Provident Fund Courter Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs K Rama Krishna

T.Shantha Kumar Singh Vs Sri P.Venkateswarlu

K.V.L Jaya Simha Vs B. Padmaja

Major Pankaj Rai Vs Krisnavani Rai

Mohammed Bilal Vs Mohammed Abdul Rahman