Allowed

Howjekar Anjana Bai v. Gaikwad Girija Bai

Telangana HC16 Jun 2023CRP/2549/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Principal District Judge's order dismissing the Civil Revision petition. The Court held the trial court erred in discarding revenue documents and ordered expeditious trial of the main suit regarding title and possession, directing maintenance of status quo.

What did the court decide?

The order under revision set aside; main suit directed to be disposed of expeditiously on or before 31.08.2023; parties directed to maintain status quo.

Howjekar Anjana Bai Vs Gaikwad Girija Bai — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2549 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Howjekar Anjana Bai, Wo. Laxman, Aged about.69 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, Dhodapur (V) Mudhole (M) Nirmal District

¶9

2 Howjekar Maruthi, S/0. Laxman, Aged 49 yrs Occ. Agriculture, R/O.Dhodapur (V) Mudhole (M) Nirmal District

¶10

3 Howjejer Niverthi, S/o. Laxman, Aged 46yrs Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Dhodapur (V) Mudhol (M), Nirmal District

¶11

Howjekar Samboo, S/0. Laxman Aged about. 43 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, R/O Dhodapur (V) Mudhole (M) Nirmal District

¶12

5 Howjekar Marothi, S/0. Laxman, Aged 49 yrs Occ Agriculture, R/O Dhodapur (V) Mudhole (M) Nirmal District rmal

¶13

Howjejer Niverthi, S/o. Laxman, Aged 46yrs Occ. Agriculture, R/o Dhodapur (V) Mudhol (M), Nirmal District

¶14

Howjekar Samboo, S/0. Laxman Aged about. 43 yrs, Occ. Agrrculture, R/O.Dhodapur (V) Mudhole (M) Nirmal District

¶15

Howjekar Suresh, S/0. Laxman Aged about. 40 yrs, Occ. Agriculture. R/O Dhodapur (V) Mudhole (M) Nirmal District.

¶16

... Petitioners/Respondents.

¶17

AND

¶18

Gaikwad Girija Bai, WiO. Kishan, Aged . 69^years, Occ. Agriculture,^{R/o. Mudhom} (V) Mudhol (M), Nirmal District

¶19

... RespondenUAppellant.

¶20

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution^of lndia,^{against the Order and} decree DI.O2-09-2O22, in C.M.A No. 20^{of 2018 on the file of the Court of the by the} Principal District Judge,Nirmal,^{preferredagaanst the order dated 11.11.2016} passed in lA No. 149 of 2016, in O.S No.33 of 2016, on the file of the Court^{of the} Junror Civil Judge, Bhainsa.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstanc€s stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Order and decree Dt.O249-2022, in C.M.A No. 20 of 20'18 passed by the Principal District Judge , Nirmal.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: D PADMAVATHI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: K SARALA MAHENDER REDDY

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR CML REVISION PETITION No.2549 OF 2022

¶28

9nDEB:

¶29

This Civil Re vision Pet ition is directed against the ordcr passed in C.N{.A.No.2O of 2018, dated O2.O9.2022, by rhe Principal District Jucige, Nirrnal.

¶30

The said C.[,l.A u,as fited against the order, dated 11. t 1.2016, passed in l.A.No. 149 ot 2016 in O.S.No.33 of 2016, on the file of the (lorrlt of thc .Junior Civil .ludge ar Bhainsa. 3. The petitioncrs herein are the defendants in the said O.S.No.33 of 2016.^'lhc said suit was hled by the respondent herein seeking perperual injunction against the petitioners herein in rcspcct of thc suit schedule property. Along with ttre said suit, the respondent he rcin also filed I.A.No.149 of 2016 under XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 15I of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporarJ in_junction. Thc said [.A was disrnissed by the learned trial Court by atn order, dated 1 I. I 1.2016 and aggrie/ed thereby, the rcsponclent herein cd C.M.A.No.2O of 201E on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Nirmal and the same was allou,ed blr an ordcr, daLcd 02.O9.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the pctrtioncrs hcrein Iilccl rhe present Civil Rcvision Pe tition.

¶31

¶32

'[hc r; ri . schedule property is an agricultur tl ]ar cl onginally bclonging tc and standing patta in thc na*c of th,: lrusband of the respondetrt herein. On the demise ol thc L u ;ltand ol the responCenL rcrein, the respondent hercin stcr:r;elr cl to thc same and hr:r nrt m3 was also mutated in Lhc llcvr:nue i.ccords, as pattadar. Al eliing interlerence u,ith her possessi.r o'er thc suit schedule pr operty, the respondent herci I frlc<l tlrr_. suit in question. Irr s,rpport o[ her conte ntion she alr;r; rCliecL upon the copies tf i-',, tahanie s obtaincd front Mec jc,..zr (]r:nt -r:s for the ),ears^{20 1.1-:t016} i.c., Fasii 1424 1426, r,..[rrrr.c:rn rl c :r:sponclent herein r','as s. town as palradar and posscssrlr.ol ,.1-c s;ub-1r,c:t Iand. 5. On th,: olher hand, thc respondcnts 1; ac,.:rl r.r liancc on the manual paha ri:s issued by thc Dcpub, l.ahsr clar oI lre conci:rncd Mandal fol te years 20 i-5-20 16. F-urther., i,. rs ]- : c:::;e .if the H!LrL,vt,r.o netitinn,... jii Lril l,..airh. ' liiur ,L-^ L,,^r^ --riii(. iiUSO(rnfi u .r;1r 11111.111 NL_r.i during .eis^j:t'e _ime sol(l thc suit schcdulc proprr.LJ, trndcr an Agreement cl'S:Lle on 21 .OS.1996 anci since then t1l rossession ol the suit.,and s ,vith the rcspondents.

¶33

The iea-neci triai Cour.t having consrdlr<.d tlrr: dtcuntcn[s Illed on eitl-er side, refuseci [o grani tcrirporail- rnj]11 ctr(). ori ihe gt'ound t-eat tl e respondr:nt herein failed to e>.plzri:r ,.s to horv the name of thc I ,elitioner No.1 herein was entc:erl Lrr hc Revlrnue ret:or-ds i;t 1.tr: possessor column anci also t>y pl:rci t! .cltan(C on

¶34

¶35

Exs.RS & R6, came to the conclusion that the petitioners herein are in possession of the suit schedule property and that the respondent herein failed to prove her possession over the subject land. The learned trial Court also considered the documents marked on behalf of both the parties, and discarded Exs.RS & R6 i.e., a copy of Panchanama and a copy of the Pahani for the years 2015-2016 on the ground that both the documents were issued subsequent to the date of the fiting of the suit in question.

¶36

This Court has gone through Exs.Pl to Pl0 and Exs.Rl to R6, in detail and from Ex.P10, it is noticed that the respondent herein was shown as pattadar and possessor in respect of the suit schedule property during the year 2O16 i.e., Fasli 1426 and from Ex.R6, it is noticed that respondent No.l herein was shown as possessor over the suit land and the name of the husband of the respondent herein was shown as pattadar for the years 2015-2016. The said pahani was issued on 06.09.2O16. The said Ex.R6 was discarded on the ground that the same was issued subsequent to the date of hling of the suit.

¶37

No doubt, the said document was issued subsequent to the date of the filing o[ the suit, but the said document pertains to the year 2OI5-2O 16. It is not as if the said document has come into the existence lor the {'irst time afrer filing of the suit. It is only a certified copy o[ the said documen t was issued after the date of

¶38

¶39

the filinll rf the suit. Therefcre, the learrcrl tri,rl Court is not justified ir: ctiscarding Ex.R6 only on the groln I rirat thc said docun'rel t ve s issued subscquent to lhe datr. I - rhe 11linq ol lhc suil.^rf tltt l;aid Ex,R6 rs laken into corrsi(l(trrt on along with trx.P1(), l;o h documeltts arc contradictory to i,z clt o-hcr. as thc posse-ssor' .: tl rmn in both the documents s,pcal<r; ,lr[f,-rentlr,. Thc genuinen,:s tf both the documents docs not a1,6s;16 tcr lte in displltc. i - -.ettled la,"v that in a suit for per.petlurl rnjrrnctron, lhe posscssio:-r ( vor the suit schedulc propert, 2 s ()r Illc, ciate ol filing ol thc suit il t're prime consir_lcration thougl- ti-c isr.uc of ti lt: also can ber incid rntally gone into lor deciding lhc prlnrrl.iacr:.trtkr. 9. In tl)( i stant case, both the abovc do :urne rrs i :. tr::. p1O lrnd lix.R€i ir;(3 speaking contrarv to eaCh oth(,r. lO. ThcrL li rr . rhe is5Lt4 that arises for c,:r:.;irlc;-:, i ., ii i\ ],.iirer Flx.Pl0 is I lcruine documcnt or Ex.R6 rs it !jer.u ne riocrrrncnt and such as::t_t has to be decided by the lcarnt:d t:.r rl Court. after Ihe er,idr:nce s tet in at the time ol disposal of tirc r;llit f rrall,,.. The learned tria Court dismissed the ternp,)rer.. r!un(.tion application. I- u:-ing pendency of the C.M.A b,rfor-e o,r.er app,..llate Court, slat,rs- (iuc was directed to bc mairrlainr:ri b. irorir rhe parties and ti r: same ivas operating till the diLtc o[ ;; tssir.rg ol thc order u,dr:r R:vrsion, dated 02 .Og.2O22. on rri rr:h darr, ;r

¶40

¶41

temporary injunction was^{granted for the first time i e-, almost} after lapse of sk^years since^{the date of [rling of the suit.}

¶42

I I. In the considered view o[^{thisCourt, anyfurther} observations made on the^{meritsand demeritsof the casewill} have impact on the {ina[ disposal^{o[ thc suiL. Hence, this Courtis} not inclined to undertake any such^{exercise at this stage.}

¶43

Taking into consideration^{thc fact that the suit is of the year} 2O16 and ripe for trial and^{disposal, this Court is ofthe} considered view that it^{wouldbe appropriate if the main suit itself} is directed to be disposed o[^{at an early date by the learned trial} Court, while directing maintenancc^{oI slatus quo as was operating} since 16. I2.2O16 tilt 02.O9.2022 to bc^{maintainedduring the} pendency of the suit also.

¶44

1 3. ln .the light of the above, and for thc^{rcasonsstated} hereinabove, ttte order under Revision^{is set aside and the learned} trial Court is directed to disposc o[ the^{main suit,as expeditiously} as possible, at any rate, on or before^{31.O8.2O23. Pending} disposal of the main suit, as directed above, both^{thc parties are} directed to maintain status quo in all respects in^{respectof the} suit schedule property. Further, thc lcarned^{trial Courtis directed} to dispose of the suit, on its ou,n mcrits,^{u'ithoutbcing influenced} by any of the observatlons made in the order^{passedin I.A.No.149} ot 2016 in O.S.No,33 o[ 20 16, dated^{I 1. I I.20 i6,} orderⁱⁿ

¶45

¶46

c.M A Nr,.2 I of 20 18, dared o2.o9.20,.'2 irr( thrs o rdc r.

¶47

Accorrlingll . I hc Civil Revision pctition is dis:oscd ,

¶48

As ;t ;r:quc[, miscellaneous petitions, cenCi rp rf any rn tl-r is

¶49

Writ I,-ititi., ;, shall star-rd closed. No costs.

¶50

SJ/ M()HD.^ISMAIL ASSIS] A NT BEGISTRAR _ ,t5tu

//TRUE COPY//

SEI:)TI()N OFFICER

To,

The Prrncrpal Dr^,tr ct Judge.^{Nirmal, Nirmal District}

¶55

2 The iunror Crv i^{iu 1ge, Bhainsa, NirmalDistrict.}

¶56

3 O,-,c. C. i( I) I^a )I\IAVATHI^Advocat-- IOPUC]

¶57

4 One CC tc SFll⁽ IARALA^{MAHENDER REDDY Ad'rocale} i,.)PLlCl

5 Two CD C tprr>s

.lok -\

HIGH COURT

DATED:16/06/2023

ORDER

CRP.No.2549 of 2022

,':i. ' "'1 : rr 14 o
,,P
<br>i (: t. 1'lI ,tlr\ '/[7'J i
i .1,
.<br>,'-./

¶65

CIVIL REVISION PEl'IT ON IS DISPOSED OF

¶66

...^\J _ :-^r2 .----- '1'

Howjekar Anjana Bai v. Gaikwad Girija Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Howjekar Anjana Bai v. Gaikwad Girija Bai

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

Mohammed Sameeruddin Vs The State of Telangana

Shameeza Faiz, Vs Union Of India

Animugh Sports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Palamuru University and 2 others

Y.Ramalakshmi, W/o.Y.S.Brahmam Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary -

Manda Satyanarayana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Miryalakar Chandra Mohan Vs Sri G.Prasad