Dismissed

Bandari Tulja Bai, (Died) and 5 others v. Shree Ballabh Vyas and another

Telangana HC3 Apr 2023SA/4/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal under Section 100 of CPC against confirmation of a civil decree remained non-prosecution. The court noted appellants vacated the property rendered the appeal nugatory due to lack of prosecution, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

Bandari Tulja Bai, (Died) and 5 others Vs Shree Ballabh… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁸ I

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,^{THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICESAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU}

¶6

SECOND AP PEAL^{No; 4 0F 2021}

¶7

Appeal under^{Section 100 of CPC againstthe Judgment and decree madein} AS No.123 of^{2014 dated 26IOGI2O2Oon the file of the Court of the Hon ble Xl} Additional Chief^{Judge,City CivilCourt, Hyderabad preferred againstthe decree in} OS No.1210/2008,^{dated 1OlO2l2O14 on the file of the Court of the I Senior Civrl} Judcto,^{City CivilCourt, Hyderabad'}

¶8

I1[-]\/El^l.l: . r ,IIi\llliilLJ/rtlirl,{}I-fD) i",;,'r:It.^{I;a1r .'r1,/rqcdabout:60 yrs,} (DlEl)IAppellanls No:²to^{6 are} I .R's^{of"Appcllant No:1 arealreadyonrecord}
(2)BANDARI ASHOK^KUMAR,(DIED) 5/o:Latc^{B.Balraj,Agedabout:51 Yrs,} Bus!ness,
(])BANDARIVEERENDER, s/ir:LaleB. BALRAI,^{Aged about:38 Years'} Business^(DIED),^{Appellants No:2 to 4are} LlL'sof Appellant^{No:3 are already onrecord} (l)ltirl]D/rRIGOVERDHAN^{NATH@ GOPI'} j.,',-.1r,"I'i.Il,rlraj,Aqcdabotlt:45years, ai.r: ,l'iit,':l:.
Aii.I⁴.;rc^{R/o:ll.No:14-11-85,} l.lanqalhat-14arkct,^HYderabad
(5)BANDARI^{VI]AYALAKSHMI} W/o:B. Baghvan^Reddy, D/o:B-^{Balraj,Agedabout:52Yrs,} -Occ:Houschold,R/o:5-10, Sai^{ViharNagar,Phase-I,Meerpet,} RarrgrReddy^Distric.
({.,)ITANDARI SUGUNA,^{W/O:LAtCSAthAiAh,} i)/u:li.n,rlrii,^{Aqedabout:40Yrs,} O.c:t)vt.Scrvi.e,^{R/o:4-4 215,} Irl,rt,:il.l,iltlar^{T,lnrpleSl.leet,} f'rir1l:r.,rr.,^{'-i,'cundclabad-!i00003}

,,1 ,^{, iarllt,}

AI.ID )_)

I I I !

(T) SHPEE BALLABH^VYAS, '-i/r,:^{LatcVastrclcv V;'as,} A.rl,ct a! "r:t^{-;-, Y' , O'' ' F:tsitt'-":'} i:ll , ,":, ,'^{,,:, ,, :r:i:',i ly,i"rar';rtl''[10012}

¶13

(2) PUr l 5l^{l i.''.ll l,'llliri 'u/it"'} S/o: Lui,:^{i Llll'..1' r'1 r ' 'l' ' l'} Act,.td ll,rrlirl^{. r')} t" 't;",

¶14

Orc: Brrs',r"',s,^{P l't"l t'')r'J'}

¶15

t."o.in"^{uo,',ttuoo,Hyderabad-500006} ( Respondcnt^{trto:2 rs prororriu putty ut no relief is claimed against}

¶16

him ) .Respondent

¶17

For the Appellants^{: SRIL'K'SHARMA' Advocate(not present)}

¶18

Forthe Respondents:^{SRI PRAMOD SINGH'Advocate}

¶19

The Court delivered^{the followinq: JUDGIT'4ENT}

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶22

SECOND APPEAL NO.4 OF 2021

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This Second Appeat has been filed by the appcllants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the Judgmenr and Dccree dated 26.06.2020 passed in A.S.No.l23 ol 2014 by lcarned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, H_vclerabad, by which the Judgment and Decree datccl 10.02.20 14 passed in O.S.No.l2IO of 2OO8 by learnccl I Aclditional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Colrrt, Hydcrabad, was conhrmed.

¶25

). The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No 1210 ol 20OB seeking for declaration of titlc, to rlcclarc thc registered sale deed bearing Document No.4l.5 o[ 1985 dated 27.06.1985 as sham and nominzrl document and not binding on the plaintiffs :tnrl also [or pcrpetual injunction to restrain thc

¶26

respondent No. 1/ciefenctant No. 1 lrom interfering with the schedule propell-'.

¶27

When this Sccond Appeal is listed for

¶28

hearing about the cxistcnce of substantial question of law on 29.03.2023. heard learned counsel for the appellants. At that time, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has ir-rfolmed this Court that the tenants/appellants have already vacated the schedule property, which is evidenl lrom the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (c) No.27679 of 201B). Thereby, this Second Appeal hrts I;ecornc inh-uctuous.

¶29

In vieu' oi tire arguments advanced by

¶30

learned counse I lor the appe ltants about the existence of substantial qr-rcsLion o[ lau,, this matter was ordered to be listecl toclav for hearing the counsel and for consideration. I{ou cver. nonc appeared for the

I ! ! : ;

appellants. Thus, it appears that the appellants are

¶35

not intcrested in prosecuting the matter.

¶36

In the light ol the circumstances narrated

¶37

hereinbefore, this Second Appeal is dismissed for non-

¶38

prosecu tlon

¶39

Pencling miscellaleous applications, if any, shall

¶40

stand closcd. No costs

¶41

¶42

Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR qI)

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

SECTION bTTICCR

¶45

The Xl Additionat Chief Judge. City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri L.K.Sharma, hdvoc-ate 1OeUC1^''

¶46

One CC to Sri Pramod Singh, Advocaie tOpLjCI

¶47

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/04/2023

JUDGMENT

SA.No.4 of 2021

1 $e STATE
(
q
L
? 2 lu\ M
o
+/ n!:s:, i/

¶54

DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION.

¶55

v
V

Bandari Tulja Bai, (Died) and 5 others v. Shree Ballabh Vyas and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandari Tulja Bai, (Died) and 5 others v. Shree Ballabh Vyas and another

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

Smt. Yalanati , Gurram Sravya Vs Yalanati Govardhan

Smt. Deekonda Prasanna , Gangula Prasanna Vs Deekonda Arun Kumar

Aligoju Laxmi Vs Narsimha Thandra

Smt. Gannamaneni Chandrika Vs Sagar Rao Gannamanneni

Smt.Kamsani , Morsu Santhosh Kumari Vs Kamsani Prashanth Reddy

Max Hypermarket (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Renu Kumari Agarwal