Allowed

Kastajeevula Sangatana v. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

Telangana HC19 Jul 2023SA/355/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Second Civil Appeal was admitted to determine if notice under Section 80 CPC was necessary for a suit against HUDA and if an unregistered assignment deed proved possession. The High Court held HUDA is not 'Government' under Section 80 CPC. It rejected the view that the unregistered deed was inadmissible for proving possession. The appeal was allowed, restoring the trial court's decree grantin

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal is allowed; the impugned judgment is set aside; the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting perpetual injunction in favour of the appellant are restored.

Kastajeevula Sangatana Vs Hyderabad Urban Development… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^325a ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶6

EC ND APPEAL NO: 355 OF 201

¶7

Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 22.01.2016 made in A.S. No. 217 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge, for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act 1989-cum-Vll Addl Dist and Sessions Judge, at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District Preferred against the Decree in O.S. No. 151 1 of 2009 Dated^'15.09.2014 On the file of the Court of the Prl Jr Civil Judge Court, R.R District at LB Nagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Rastajeevula Sangatana, Regd.No 9016/99 Ranga Reddy District Committee rep. by its President Sri T. Krishna, S/o. Late T. Pocharah Aged 42 years, Occ Social Worker Rl/o. H.No.2-30, Kottaguda Village Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy DistTict. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶10

AND

¶11

Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Represented by its Vice Chairman Office at Tarnaka, Hyderabad lt is now known as HMDA

¶12

...RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

¶13

o F o17 AMP. NO: 3012OF 2017

¶14

Between:

¶15

Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Represented by its Vice Chairman Office at Tarnaka, Hyderabad lt is now known as HfirlDA

¶16

...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT

¶17

AND

¶18

Kastajeevula SglO.alaB, Regd.No.9016/99 Ranga Reddy District Committee rep. by its President Sri T. Krishna, S/o. Late T. Pochaiah Aged 42 years, Occ Social Worker R:/o. H.No.2-30, Kottaguda Village Saroornagai Mand-al, Ranga Reddy District. ... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶19

Pet ton !- d,rr Sectron 151 CPC craying that in the circr.mstances stated in the affrdav t filec in sllpport r[ the petition, the High Ctur m a;, be pleased vacate the interinr oro r passed n SAMP No.908i2016 in SA Nrr.355/52016 dated 27.08.201t .

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 20 lj-1SAMP. NO: 908 OF 2016)

¶21

Peti:icn L nc er Order 39 Rute 1 & 2 of CPC :rrrying that in the circumstances s rted in the affidavit filed in support of the p€ ti, on, the High Court may be p ea:;e o grant nterim injunction restrai ring tlte rel;pondent, their workmen, ag€n: , 'epresentatives subordinates or ar y othr,r cerl;on or persons claiming throJq them from interiering with the peacief, p,)ssession and enjoyment of lrer petition erlap pella nt over the sched.l e, property in O.S No.15'1 l/20r19 ,) tlre file of the Princ pal Junior Civil .ludge () )urt R.R District at L.B.Nagar r.e. il rrl ol Survey No.'159, admeasunng 1.C.41-;15 EUrrtas situated at Miyapur V lage. ie.ilinganrpally Mandal R.R.District.

¶22

Counsel for the \ppellant :SRl. CH. DHANAMJAYA

¶23

Counsel for the lespondent :THE ADVOCATE GENE:RAL SiC: for HMDA

¶24

The Court made :h-. following

¶25

ffi.F'

¶26

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶27

S.A.N o.35s of 2016

¶28

JUDG MENT:

¶29

This Second Civil Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., assailing the correctness of the judgment and decree in AS.No.217 of 2014 on the fire of speciar sessions Judge for Triar of Cases under SC/ST (pOA) Act 1989 Cum VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy dated Z2-01-2016, where under the first appeilate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Codrt in OS.No.1511 of 2009.

¶30

The appellant herern had filed OS.No.1511 of 2009 before the Principal Junior Civil ludge, Ranga Reddy agatnst the respondent/defendant for the rerief of perpetuar injunction in respect of Ac.41-26 gts of land in Sy.No.159, Miyapur. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of appellant/plaintiff vide its ludgment dated 15-09-2014. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondent/defendant preferred appeal vide AS.No.217 of 2Ol4 before the first appellate Court and the same was allowed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions ludge in the judgment and decree impugned in the present second appeal.

¶31

¶32

2 SS RN,] Ll '1. it5 or 2CL5

¶33

Tl is second appeal has been Fi ed c- thr: following

¶34

grou nds:

¶35

Thr: juc grnent and decree of the first appellatr: Court in reversing thc ruerll considered judgment o. the tria Court is erroneous an( contrary to law. The lower apprellart: .lourt failed to see that:ne tppellant herein could establisl^ a prirrta- acie case, ba ance cf c( n/enience and also possessior ovr3- :he procerty, thereby, en:,it i,: to the relief of injunction agirinst th,l rospondent. Thc lower ap )(- llate Court failed to consider the ,,rvicence vide Exs.A1 Io A1[ : nd also the document marked bv the respondent vice Ex,-)l I rl er addl'essed by N4,R.O. to tne l)i;r rc Coliectorinform nc the dellvery of possession in favcur cf lre appellant. Thereby, the r!,pellant could establish its ccnt nu:r s l)ossession and enjovm,:n Of the schedule property. The first. .l,pe late Court failed to s()e tlrat once possession and pr ma-f;rc e ti e were established, t s srfficient to grant an injunct on an l th,rt there is no contra ev lence by the respondent. The appellart further claimed :hat rl-e first appellate Court faile d to ,ee that the Government i: nol party in the suit filed before lhr: tr-ial Court. The responder i rs a statutory body but not G:vcrnrrent, thereby, notice unrJer S rction B0 :f C.P,C. need not be r;ivr:n.

¶36

¶37

-- -----a-i

¶38

3 SSRN,] S.A No 355 of 201b

¶39

4 The appellant while filing the appeal formulated about seven different substantial questions of law However, this second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law

¶40

1 Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in holding that non-issuance oF notrce under Sectron 80 C.P.C. rs fatal to the case of plaintiff or not?

¶41

2 Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in holding that since the Ex.A1 Assignment Deed dated 14-09-2002 is unregistered document and as such the document cannot be taken into consideration as it is under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act without considering the fact that the said document is marked for the collateral purpose to prove the possession of the appellant over the schedule property?

¶42

Before going into the merits of appeal, it is just necessary to refer the brief contentions of the present appellant vide its plaint and contentions of the respondent through the written statement and as to how the trial Court and first appellate Court dealt with the suit. For convenience sake, the^parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the plaint filed before the trial Court.

¶43

The appellant/plaintiff filed the above reFerred original suit for perpetual injunction with a plea that it is the absolute owner of Ac.47-26 gts of land in Sy.No.159 of Miyapur Viltage which was originally allotted to lvl/s. My Place Mutually Aided

¶44

¶45

¶46

SSRI] ] .nt,l i!! oilai.

¶47

Co-operai.,",e: housinq Society Limited vide assig.r^- lnt apprication N o. 14 5!),/ 2 : i_ I cn th,: file of i-ligh Court in r...g 5s.771956, S u bseq tren tl1 . -hr: decree was reassigned in^.avo:t - of p laintiff vide assiEnmenr: c :ri)d dated 11-09,2002 and the :;uir_ :jr:-:,lr le property uras a llo tte d n favour of the plaintiff societ).. Crr the application filed by the p a ntiff vide application No.1097,/2002, ,.he High Court directed I!,1 . R .J Serlingampally t'landal and the Dis -rict Collector, Ranga Fleddt :o mutar:e name of plaintiff in re :te:ct of the surt schedule.prol e^-ty as per the assrgnment de:d date:d l4-Og_2002 and C 're :te i 1,-, District Judge, p.anga Reddy to de li,,er possession of the prop(lrl z .o the plaintiff by lvay of warrtrnt. 7. Tl e'efore, :he plaintiff applied tt the I)istrict Court, Ra nga R.:dcl,7 Ird Filed =? 39120Ct2 and the same \j/.is allowed and the D str ct^(. lrr,-t issurti a dr:l i,ery warrant d r,::ting the Court bailiff to lel^,, lr the property. The Deputy Dirs6gg' .rf S urvey and Settlemert,: [)Jt(]d a^surveycr to demarcate the, larrd and on 16-71-2C))2,, :;ketch plan was filed. The prcpert,/ rva:; delivered in favour of pl rintitf under a panchanama. The plaintilf hls claimed that deft:ncar t without any right and title mace attempts to interfere wil_h tfre possession of the plaintiff and (,n tt-IZ-2002, when there r, r:, such an attempr by the defendant, a cornplaint

¶48

iwE4a

¶49

1 -- i --i: 5$iE$El|j!'-r,?ltEr:iirt-lr:ffiEtrElEEE:E?l!'!'Irarr !-f r E@ :EiEE rLffirElz._,

¶50

¶51

((ptu l S.4.No.355 of 2016

¶52

was Filed before Chief Justice, Andhra pradesh High Court and again there was another attempt by the defendant on 04-02-2003, though the plaintiff approached the police, they did not register any complaint and advised the plaintifl to approach Civil Court. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with its possession over the sult property.

¶53

B. The defendant having appeared before the trial Court, filed a written statement and denied all the plaint averments. According to the statement filed by the defendant, it was , specificaily pleaded that land in Sy.No.159 admeasuring Ac.21_43 gts and another extent of Ac.46-00 gts was handed over to the defendants by M,R.O., Serlingampally on 23_OB_1994 and on 06-07-2000 and defendant devetoped the land, disposed the same by way of plots. The defendant has claimed that no private party had any ownership over the Government property and it is also the case of defendant that the defendant and Government were not added as parties in application No.1097 of 2002. The defendant disputed the derivery of possession in favour or the praintiff and claimed that suit sched!le property is a vacant land and claimed possession over the property since 1994. It is also averred in the

¶54

\ \

¶55

S5RN,] i A No 155 ol1016

¶56

written sl,ai.e 1,:int that the defendant develcpe: a layout in Sy.No.20 and lr:l/1. anC rt was sold, The defendant h:s :;pecifically claimed tia' l r',, plaintiff made an attempt to enl_i r ther southern portion oF 15! ,/[, DUt the plaintil'f had no pos,sessirtrr or title over the prcp,trt'/, rl-ereby sought for dismissal of t.he , uit, On the basis of lhe brtve rrval content ons, the tri,:l Cr: tr: framed the followlng ISSU^(: i

¶57

U/hether the plaintiff is entitled for perp3lu: i injunction as prayec ? ) To what relief? 9. l)L^-ing the trial, one T.Krishna was exa-. neJ as PW,1 and' Exs.lrl t;, A26 were marked on beha f of plaintiff. The

¶58

defendan: has €rxamined DWs.I to 3 and ma.ked :>rs.E 1 lo 831 The trial Cllu-t having appreciated the oral anc do<:umentary evidence anc revirg heard both parties, acc<:pteci tfe (:ontention of plaintiff ar I passed^judgment and decroe in iirvour of the plaintiff. l-i.r(: lcfendant being aggrieved by the :;a o iudgrnent, preferi'eo lpp( al vide AS,No,217 of 2014 on vlrioLts r. rotrnds. The first appellate Court based on grounds raised by t'te defendant herein framerrl^-he iollowing three^points for co rsideration.

¶59

1 !l,tlrer there 3re tenable appeal grounds,? 2 \1; l'^,Ilrer the responcienr-/plaintiff LS entit]e^j for perpetual rnJr n: tion? 3 -'o rlrat relief?

----EimaI

E:**-*-

55RN,I

( (

The first appellate Court allowed the appeat and

¶65

reversed the judgment of the trial Court.

¶66

This Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

¶67

1 Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in holding that non-issuance of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. is fatal fo the case of the plaintifr or not2

¶68

2 Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in holding that since the Ex.A1 Assignment Deed dated 14-09-2002 is unregistered document and as such the document cannot be taken into consideration as it rs under Section 17(1)(b) of the Regrstration Act without considering the fact that the sard document ts marked for the collateral purpose to prove the possession oF the appellant over the schedule property?

¶69

As per the plaint averments and according to the evidence produced by the plaintiff, it was specifically claimed by the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was originally allotted to M/s. My Place Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Society Limited during 2000 in C.S.No.7/1958 but later it was reassigned in favour of the plaintiff in 2003. The plaintiff has claimed that they filed an application before the High Court and High Court directed lvl.R.O., Serlingampally and District Collector, Ranga Reddy to mutate the name of plaintiff and directed the District Judge, Ranga Reddy to see the property is delivered in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly, the District Judge ordered delivery of possession and

¶70

SS^R N,] ,./\ rJo.l: i ot 2014

¶71

warrant^,.ras e^(e cLted a1d thus the^plarntiff ot'taine:^{llssesson of} the propr:rtv.^,Vhile filrng the suit, the^{plaintiffh;ls categorically} clalmed :hal : rr- u!lh the defendant^{had no rig ht, l-rie I t'l interfere} with lts^poris rs iion anC^made attempts,^{LhereLrl ;otght fora} per petua n j: rc,ion.

¶72

I3. As r:ould b: seen from the^jutlqrnerrt of^{the first} appellate alr--t, ii is cuite^{clear that the lrrarrr:rl Ad(ll. District} Judge rvir, -. ; rreptinq^{r-he fil no} of^applicaton ry^{: air-til'f before} the High Co.]r ;nd abot.t^{the execution procet:dings; 1EPNo 39 of} 2O0O viCe :x A,4 held rhat the defendant^{arrd L)ist -i.t Col ector,} Rar'1ga Redcy lre not^parties to the^{exe curiorr petltion and} accepted th,l^, crrtentions of defendant^{that thr: delive-y of property} to the plain:if ir; only a^{paper delivery and plaintiff fi:iledto prove} delivery cf rc;session^{by examiningthe bailir'f, bu: ignoredEx.A1} assignment The^{flrst apoellate Court has :lcc(lptedthe} contentic,ns o defendant^{that the plaintiffhas mls- e:rd the District} Court wl^ile fil rr; EP.No.39^{of 2000.}

¶73

14 Tl ere is no^{disputeabout Ex.A1'- assigrrmt:nt, it may} be tr ue tfr,r the^{plarntifi lhrough PW.1 hac .:drr itted that} C.S.No.7r 1 5 , was^{between the legal heirs ar d firtal decree} proceedi^{^Esi} v :, e pendlrq and thJt the^{defen(lantl- a:; filedappeals}

::=:-EEETEEEEEE

I {!rrtrfi:'a \

SSRN,]

and they are pending before the High Court. The First Appellate Court also observed that the defendant and the Distrlct Collector were not parties in EP.No.39 of 2000. As per the evidence placed before the Court and according to the evidence of DW.2 as per Ex.B11, the Tahsildar, Serlingampally, addressed a letter to the District Collector and admitted the delivery of possession of the suit property in favour oF the plaintiff and also about the delivery under panchanama dated 16.t2.2002. The defendant who has filed the evidence affidavit of DW.1 could not produce him before the Court and later another Officer of the defendant filed his evidence affidavit and he was examined as DW.2. However, DW.2 admitted before the Court that he does not know whether the defendant has initiated any proceedings against the delivery affected in pursuance of E.p.No.39 of 2000.

¶78

The Original Suit that was filed by the appellant h e rein was for a perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property based on title by way of allotment and possession in pursuance of the directions of the High Court as well as the delivery affected by the Court bailiff proceedings. The suit was filed for perpetuat injunction, the plaintiff is supposed to prove possession on the suit property as on the date of firing the suit. The defendant in the suit

¶79

¶80

sSRi,1 5^: ric t55 0f 2016

¶81

also ala.recl i:le ancl 1)osscsslon over the p-oper 7 Arcoroing to the urritt.en s alement and as per the evider ce cf {.)\V.2, (though evidenc€r af'f i( a'i it of DW, 1 was filed, it was esche\ 3d because of the non-prod rc:icn of r,vitness). It was the cirse ot^,:leferndant that they obtainer :wo difFerent extents oF^prot)erti,3 i Fro x the suit survev and :le1' have been in possessi()n of :he^property. According to h: ':vidence of DW.2, it was clainre(l lha1. an extent ol Acs.21-:.1^,lls ln SLr'',,cy No,159 was allotterl t,r he defendant on 09-C5-19r4 and ano[her extent of morc thal .s.40-00 gts rnras als.r al r- .l:d on^(.1 I 0.1-2000. However', vil-{rl tre plaintiFf hereir closs- rxanined t)/.2, he has admit ed :tr:- C.O,, trhich rras rra-keri s Er<.81 f lr the exlent of Acs.21.3.1-^(lis, -here ls no order of any :nation of the property and a:-:^{pe- p.rra(lraph} No.3 of Ex.81 thel l-ave applied and there is no rnater a to show that paragraprh hlc 3 o{' Ex.81, there is no such prcof. I. r; elicited from DW.2 th,rt ev In as^per Ex.B1, there is no mertion i)b,fut Acs.40-00 gts or A,rs.,16 0C ats, ailotment oi Acs.40-oo gts cr Acs.46-00 gts from Surv':y \0.159, therefore, though DW.2 claimed that Governnrent anded over Acs.46-00^gts of land tc^l.1e defendant, no prool' h,as been filed before the Court. It w,rs el cited from DW.2 that ex elt Exs.82 to 86, there are no^{proc€(::lin1;s} to^prove

¶82

¶83

the mutation of property in favour of the defendant and these documents were not filed along with the written statement.

¶84

Even though the defendant claimed to have obtained the property to an extent of Acs.40-00 gts and odd from Survey No.159 and the same is included in the suit schedule property, there is no proof in support oF the said contention. On the other hand, it was elicited from DW.2 that the Tahsildar, Serlingampally, addressed a letter to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide Ex.811, statinq that possession of Acs.41-00 gts of land from Survey No.159 of Miyapur, was delivered to the plaintiff as per ) panchanama dated 16.12.2002. It is also elicited from DW.2 that they have got knowledge about the orders in injunction petition and preferred appeal vide C.M.A.No.2 of 20t4 vide Ex.87 and against the orders in the said C.lvl.A., they filed Civil Revision Petition and the defendant herein is appellant in Ex.B12 but subsequently, defendant withdrawn the appeal and no other proceedings are pending. It was also elicited from DW.2 that he found apartments and buildlngs in suit schedule property apart from 30 to 35 temporary structures. The mutation of property in favour of plaintiff vide Ex.A23 was admitted by DW.2 and he has

¶85

\ {.

¶86

¶87

5SRN,] l.t. S ;1 No 155 ol 2016

¶88

a lso a d nr itt€rc trat the title in the suit schedule l^-a lerly was not transi'erred lc defr:ndant.

¶89

Tt e-el'ore/ the oral evidence of DW.z coJpled with their cwrr dcc rrlents and evidence placed by the plt nti^.f including the docu ment ;:;hows that the suit schedule proper:y was assigned in favour of p aintiff, subsequently, in view of the ri rections of the H igh Cc urt, tirere were proceedings issued by the IV.R.O., Serlingam pa li ', and property was delivered in tn:ir- f;Lvor under Ex,A5 procee Jlrgs, which is also evident frorn :x. i11-letter. Th e re fo rr:, thr rrlaintlff ,vas able to prove the poss.,:,s o1 cver the property als or 1-he date of filinq of suit apart f -om e s:ablishinc title by rva y tf a ;s gnment, Hou/ever, the Lo,,ver l\E,3el ate Court without r:cnsi, e^- ng the oral evidence of materieil ,,itnesses and other doc,-.trn,: rts onlv on the basis of Sec.ion tIa, of the Civil Proced u r,: (lo ic (for short 'C.P.C.') notice allo,rve:, 1 t1e appeal preferred by t re defendant. The Court below rnadr: a 't o lservation that since tl-e ,ult is filed in respect of the act allege d to rave been done by a Pu l c OFficer, the plaintiff ought to ha', e i:dded the Government^- j a party to the suit and in view ,l' i:he failure of plaintiff in aCc n3 the Government as a party and in view of their failure to Se,ct on B0 C.P.C., the Court below held that there was

¶90

¶91

,-4;!-d--B-

¶92

-r-i-.-r.eEr.li:==--5-

¶93

¶94

¶95

failure on the pa rt of plaintiff to add necessary parties to the suit and as such, this suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary pa rties. In fact, it was the specific case of plaintiff that they got the possession ot the property rn pursuance of the proceedings and delivery warrant issued by the principal District Judge, Rangareddy, but there was an attempt of interference into their possession by the defendant. It was not the case of plaintiFf that Government Officials made any such attempt and no relief has been claimed against the Revenue Officials and other Government Officers.

¶96

)

¶97

The lower appellate Court while altowing the appeal was of the opinion that the failure on the part of the appellant herein in issuing notice under Section B0 of C.p.c. disentiile the appellant to obtain perpetuar injunction over the schedure property. The rearned Addr. District Judge opined that since the praintiff did not obtain the leave of the court to fire the suit without notice required under Section B0 of C.p.C. against the Government body, The trial Court ought to have framed an issue with regard to the notice under Section B0 of C.p.C. and as there was no discussion by the trial Court in spite of clear pleading by the defendant, the suit would have been dismissed tor non-joinder of

¶98

\ \

¶99

!5RN,] ! A i,c l!l^of2015

¶100

necessaT,/^par y and as such,^{allowed the appet-The other} gror-rnds^(,ilnsir e-ed by lhe lotver appellate^{Cour: f'rr allrwingthe} appea is^{'.,.'r:- r:lgard tc the documentunder whi':ll-he appellant} obtainard ihrr )rlperty^{.e., Ex,A1-assignmen'. cie€d, fhe lower} appellate Cor t^{held that Ex.A1-assignmentdeed :latt:d14-09-} 2OO2 oeinq a r t- nregistered^{documentnot adrrriss t i(: n evioence,} thereby, th€' t-i:rl Court^{ought not to have c')nsido'(ld!he same'} He was^,lf :a r lpinion that^{since the docunrent<:rl rveyed some} prope;-ty in fa,cur of the^plalntiff, it^{requires registr,lticn and the} proceedings r rder Ex.A2 are not final.

¶101

' 19. Tl' : earned counsel for the appellant tre^-eirr rel ed on Judgnrent tre ween^{'V.Padmanabhan Nair vs'fier'ala State} Electricity, Btard'1, and^{submitted that'a sta:(ltr)ry booylike} Electr cit / C trc, Food Corooration,^L rban^Development Corpc ral iln ri: only^{nstrunrentalityof ti eSta'1-e} '!ith^nthe meaning ol i^rt rcle 12^{oF the Constitution, but th':v cannotbe} treated .ls^{(lc.,{ rnmentSince lhe suit wasf iled aQ'}instll '1 D'A'} thc sarIi, .l rot be^{crrnside'ecas Governrre'nt;: rdnc notice} undelSecllosCofC,P.C.isrequired.lrrtre;rbot'ereferred Judgmerl, th ) Hlgh^{Court made an observetionr'h lt} 'l^statutory body li <e E e:tricity^{Board orFood Cc rporati:ln oT Urban} - A R 1989 {,r'a l,r 5

¶102

¶103

Development Corporation or any of that category may be an instrumentality of the state within the meaning of Articre 12 of the constitution' It nevertheress wourd not answer the description of Government as understood in law and as it is understood in the context of Section B0 of C.p.C.

¶104

The learned counsel relied on another Judgment between 'U.P.Seb and Another vs. Sant Kabir Sahakari Katai Mills Ltd.'2, for the proposition that State Electricity Board which is a Public Sector undertaking is not State.

¶105

,^{21, The learned counsel has relied on a Judgmentbetween} 'City Municipat Councit Bhatki vs. Gurappa (ctied) by Legat Representatives and Another,3, and submitted that .no notice is required when the suit was filed against H.N,l.D.A. which is a statutory body'. In the above referred Judgment, the Hon,ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in para No.26 as follows :

¶106

"In our opinion, this issue does not arise at all, as a munlcipal council is not a public officer, and no notice is necessary when a suit is filed against a municipality. Thus, the question of sufficiency of notice under Section 80 of C.p.C. does not arise at all,,.

¶107

He has also placed reliance on another Judgment between 'tJ.p. State Handloom Corporation Limited and Ors,

¶108

'1zoos1^z scc sze

¶109

'^{(:oro) z scc} zoo

¶110

¶111

6 SSRN,] S^{I^} \o l;5 of 2016

¶112

vs. Prem Sa trar JaiswalA, rvherein it was obser,ed that^'U.P. State Handli rn-r Corporation Limited nol lein.l -he State Governmenl.^,,,il,hin the meaning of Section Bl of^(-.1).C notice as such tvas Trc t :rlurred'.

¶113

23 l'f r plaintif' has f!led the suit statr::^-_v body i.e., H.l'1.D.A. ,r.,h r r s not a Governrrr:nt within thl r.r.tr:ir. ng of Section 80 of C.^r.C., :lcreby, :he plaint ff can file and rnejr-rta n the suit witrout lssL in I any notice as reouired under Sec:i:r' B0 of C.P,C. There is no r'r{ clrs1;ity tc frame a separate issre uritir reg ard io the maintain.bi lt of the suit on thrs ground an(l th€r l6rn,s- sppellate Court could r )i have allorved the appeal filr:i 5y .he defendant herein on tl-at^qround.

¶114

24 l-i e suit was based on assignm€,nt un.:r Ex.A1 and

¶115

also under lhr^,:rther record Iike^proceedings c,i thr: - igh Court and District C-ourt .ry rich directed the bailiff to deiirer tl- e^por;session of the prcp,:rly ir I'a'./our cf the piaintiff. As per the l€,l.ter addressed by the It'.R,0 '.ide Ex,B11, it is very clear that ther^po:;session of lhe property v,rs de ivered by^r., rtue of Ex.P 1. I^{^} fact, A. I was producecr by tlre plaint ff for collateral purpose tt :;how their possessi(,.r- l ereforc the pla ntifF is able [o Jlto^,g poss,-'ssion

¶116

'' zoos 1r1 A,ri c ls l

¶117

th:----.

¶118

¶119

over the^property as on the date of filing the suit and the findings of the lower appellate Court are^liable to be set aside.

¶120

Therefore, the said Finding is incorrect and in view of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the^plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction, as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and^judgment and decree of the trial Court restored.

¶121

In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court is set aside, restoring the judgment and decree of the trial Court, whereunder, the trial Court granted perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

¶122

Consequently, Miscellaneous applications iF any, are closed. No costs.

¶123

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGIST

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

I The Soecial Sessions^{Judge, for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act} is'8-g:Jriri-VriAJiitionar^{oistiictand SessionsJudse, at LB Nasar'Ranga} Reddy District.

¶128