Dismissed

Mohd. Ahmed, Hyd v. Mohd. Usman, Hyd

Telangana HC12 Apr 2023SA/779/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the High Court for the State of Telangana, Justice G. Radha Rani dismissed the second appeal filed by a defendant against a civil decree. The court held that no substantial question of law arose as the lower courts correctly declined to adjudicate the defendant's contentions in his written statement due to the absence of a counter-claim, finding the distinction between decretal reliefs legally

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed at the stage of admission; all miscellaneous applications closed.

Mohd. Ahmed, Hyd Vs Mohd. Usman, Hyd — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²¹⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

SECOND APPEAL NO: 779 OF 2017

¶7

Appeal under section^'100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.6.2012 made in A.S.NO. 224 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the X Addt. Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad preferred against the Decree in O.S.NO. 321 ol 2OOl dated 29.9.2009 on the file of the court of the lV Additional rent controller cum-XVl Junior civil Judge, city civil cou( Hyderabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

MOHD. AHMED, S/o. Late Mohd. Babu, aged 42 years, Occ: Business F/o H.No. 8-3-799/2 Yellareddyguda Hyderabad

¶10

...APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

¶11

AND

¶12

MOHD. USMAN, HYD, S/o.Mohd. Suleman, aged 52 years, Occ: Business FJo. 8-3-799 I 4 Yellareddyguda Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAlNTIFF

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. V. HARIHARAN

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI MOHD ANSARUDDIN

¶16

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶17

l'llI Il'l)^,iOt]ltAI]LE I)lt..lUST|CE (;. tl,{t)H,\ tiANI

¶18

;[]c oNt) APPIiAL NO.779 ()F 201 7

¶19

.rt D(i\il.\ I:

¶20

I lri: Sr'r()rr(l . i1t'tcal i., llletl hr the appellatrt wh..l u,as thc del-cndlrnt ausricrc.i 1,. iir. d lrcnt unrl decltc passcd by tht X .-lcitit nul ('hief JLr dgc ([I'C'). t. irr⁽ ii il 1. our1. llrc]crabad in A.S.)'1o.22:1 ol ll()l I claicd lj.06.10ll conlirnrirr! [irc^{jLr.:1r,tetrt} ant] cleclcc dated 29.09.2r)09 on the filc of the IV Additi.nal R,-'nr r .rrrrrrrller. curn XVI Junior civil JLrdgc. (' r1 ('ir il ('.urt, f hderai,rrti in O 'i^. o..ll I ol l()07

¶21

l. 'l lrc p;rr lc- l t-' rer tin alie r re1'e rrcd as arlal'ed be,lore tite trilLl coLrrl

¶22

-1. llrc plu rrril'l ll-'d a sLrit rryarnsl thc defendant seekinq n.an(laror\ tnlunctrotl directillu tllr-^(:e l( rl. ,lr t 1o rcnlo,3 tl-rc construolion made Loviards thc rr.cstgt-1l :;ide ol' thc rrt,rr:c lr-.. in3 No.lr--l- i 99/.1 :ituatecl at y:llrLrc<ld;cL da. Khairtabad. I Ivdera bircl br clrr tr set-bacli ltncl to rcrnove thc ve,rtilalors lacrins torvarcls tlrc \estc r sl..lc ol' rc propcrl-\ and irlso perpctual inlun-:tion rcstraining thc delcnciant. lris nrerr n(l scr/iu)ts liorn opr.ning entrance torvarrls \.(.srei!r side ol thc l)ropL-11\

¶23

-1. llrc Pl.iirrtr 1 () )tcndc(i tlurt hc rras the absolute ounc i:nd possr.ssor ollhe housc h.' !rg \ r)^(-l-7()9i+ adnreastrr.ins 198 S,l. 'arcls sitLratecl at

¶24

Dr.GRR,^l sd 779²⁰¹⁷

¶25

)

¶26

Yeltareddyguda,^{Khaiftabad, H1'dclabad ln the r cal I95l 'the tirthcl ol th''} ptaintilf' by natrre^{Mohd.Sulemartpurchased the suit schcdulepropcrlyantl} tr.anslerred^{the samein thc name of plaintilf s mothel late Khar'i ia Bce l'N r irllte ol'} a sale dccd^{documentNo2404 ol 1966dated 3009 1966 1hc nitrthcrof thc} plaintiil.obtainedpelmiSsionlrorlMunicipalAuthoritiesvidcperrrritNo'.18ll0iIl file No.499l4/4^{18166 and constructed a house leaving 3'. opcn landon thc \,estclll} sideofthesuithouseforherpassage.Thercwasaventilatoratrdadoclrexisting on thc^{wcstem side of the suit properly'Aficrthe demise of plaintiff's tltothcr' tltc} plaintifl was^{managing the suit propertyThe defendant's houscu'as situatedotr} the wcstem^{side of the suit property' In June' 2001' the dcfendarltcotnntenccd} construction^{of a new house withoutleaving any set-back torvards thc ri '"stcrtlsidc} of the suit^{properry. The plaintiffprotested the sameand todged a complaiitwith} the Municipal^{Corporationof Hyderabad(for short'MCH")on I l'06'2001 but thc} MunicipalAuthoritiesdidnottakeanyaction..Thedefendantinfu(herarrccof.his unauthorized^{act openedventilators towards western side of the suit property} affecting the^{right of the privacyolthe ptaintiff'The defendant also constructeda} stair case^{and tried to openan entrancetowards the westetn side of the strit} propcrty'butduetotheinterventionofthelocalresidents,thedclendantStoppcd theSame.Thedefendantagainono4.o|.2oo4attemptedtoopenallentrancc towards^{the westem side of the property. Consequently,tlre plainlifllodgeda}

¶27

l It

¶28

¶29

Dt.GRR, J so 779 2017

¶30

cotttPlrrinl',iitit \1r Il Lirr^()-1.() . l()0-l [rLrr thc !lLrnicilta .,,rth rt tic, ditl rrot takc aur actioll. I lrcr,'rirr'. tht' rrluinrrt'l' lllccl \'rit Pclilion Nr,.5099 1 .)0,1 befirrc the Hish Courl ol' \nr lrri, i r:r.lc.lr :ec.i..inq directitrn to thc Nlurlcil,al A,rthorities to takc actton luainsl tlrt: rl^,1,-'rtijupt IrLl->Lplpt to fhc cornplailt rlatctl l)i 0 L200.1 1hc High Court rlispttslrl th,: siricl r.i,rit petition on 09.04.2004 ..//ilh an observation that the plaintill shoLr tl r.I,1 r'cae Ir the cou)pcrerl civil court sc:kirg th,, rt:liet_ Hence, rhe surI

¶31

-). l lre dc e r,,lrr it Ilrccr u riLto, stirtenrcnt stating lhaL h: wtr:; the owner and pOSSCSST)1 (r l llt()l-l. l,e:rlin:.:. \o.li--l-799.,2 situated at ycllar cr.tdv.luda, I lyderabad bv virlLrc o1'rcgislr reil salc dtc.d tlocur.ncnt No.290 I ol l9g , clrrted 07.ll.lgg5 'I'here r.r as a l icth scri,ealli betrveen the houses rrl th: ;laintift' and the dclend.nr. Iht p aint,lr' hacl c.croached and grabberl tic. said serigalli and conslr'r.rclcd a lall ,rt nrereed with his house properly. 1.he sr,rigafli u,as a public llropcrl.^{I'he cle} li^rd tnr lodr:etj a complaint on April, 2001 brrt rhe MCII did nor take any acti.n h,: localitr pooplc u,e.re lacing s,-,vere problems dLre to the c losinq o l'sr'rrllllj hr' plaintil'l'lnrl pr.a-r,cd to dismis.; the s.ri

¶32

6 Ilusinq., rh(r s.id pleadinus. thc trial court rram(d the rb roriins issues:

Dt.CRR,I so 779 2017

i) Ll:hetltar^{the ptainti.['isetltillctl for tfu relic/"t tl' t]eclcrrttlittrt as ltrtr.t'cd lot '} ii)Whethertheplainliffisentitleclflrthereliefrfperpetlnlilljullctiorlctsllt.tt.tctl for?

¶37

iii) To x,lnt^relief'.)

¶38

T..IhettialCouflonconsideringthatthcsuitwasnotfilcd[-o'4".1o'ollgrrbtrt lor mandatory^{injunction, re-framedthe lst issue as follows:}

¶39

WhetltertheplaittlifJ.isenlitledforthereliefof.manclatoryin.junctionasllrttvetl .for?

¶40

The plaintiff^{examinedhimselfas PW'land got marked Exs Al to '\7'f hc} defendant^{examined himsetl as DW I and got examined anotherwitness as [)W ]} and got marked^{Exs.B I to 84'}

¶41

On considering^{the oral and documentary evidenceon record'the trialcourt} obsetvingthatthefactsstatedbyPW.tinhischiefexaminationwerenotdisputed in his cross-examination^{by the defendant which would amountto adrtlission ol} thosefactsandDWladmittedinhiscross-exanrinationthathehadnotobtained permissionlromMCHAuthoritiesatthetimeoftheconstructionofhouscandthat hedidnotleaveset.backatthetimeofconstructionandfurtheradmittedthatin

¶42

Ex.Bl, his^{sale deed, the neighbour's house was shown as easternboundary to his} propeffy, observed^{that the conductof the defendant was blamefuland that thc}

¶43

¶44

I i i I I

¶45

Dt.GRR, J sq 779 2017

¶46

p)airlLill \3:.'jL.ii l(l li)1 tllc rcliel'rrl ur,urdattrrr inlunctror rljrectinl-t t5e delendant Lo reilr.rr e Llte -(, sifuction DIrClc' tt,.rrrrds [hc ucst,]n) s,i,l: o1 thc :;Lrit propc.rty riithoLrr ltli ir* c sr't-blrtk. Ii.rrcrcr'. obscrrir.c thar .r:. it *rs .pen to thc def-entlrrnt ro us,: rs l)ropr-r1_\ in the- nlrnner pcrrnitteJ b1. l:rv, dislrisscd the rclief sotrght [I th, Il:rit 1i l'to tcntr'rc thc r cntilato|s lacing torvrrri.ls the rvestern side of his pnrlrc rrr

¶47

l0 Ag-g rie r crl d^gr u c'r.t t t i thc .ju an(l^(lL-crec ltasserl by t tL. I\ Ad<jitional Rent (lontrolle r L-11111 \ , 1 Jrnior ('ir il JLrtlqc. Citv Cir il Cour. Hv lerabad in partly clecree ing rhe suit 1 rirrting rrrrrrrclalorl in.junction directinq tlrc cjelbndant to remove the const^rct o. .r r(lc iori rrrrr:; Lrre * csrer. sidc o1' tr e sLrir pr-opefl) bl, leaving a :iet-back, the lc'll::rL la rI preftrrccl an appcal ll. l'lr,: apPc: I *rs hcr.cl l,r rhc \ \cicJitionar c'l-icr rrtri-,c (F'rc). city civil Court. I Ir clt-r't[rlttl I lrr. sarlc ir.ts nuntbe red as A.S.^,lo ll I rf -1010 and vide its judgmcrrt dated I 0().2012, rhe learnccl X Additional C hie t ludee disrnissed the appeal corrl'inlirru r tc dccrce ancl judgntent ot'lhc trial court

¶48

ll. -\r-rqric'. cLl li rr rcr'. thc ricfenda.r Preferred this appe rl co,tending that the tbllowine suhstar)tr rl ,luestions oilarv uouid arise:

¶49

¶50

¶51

fu,GRR,^J so^779-2077

¶52

a)^{t(hether thc .iuttgnrcnr} .a'!.:'',1:::,1,',':;i0,,,';:'!:";':iiU2''r?:u::;;,1::";[';"i; tlrc srttltc^{lroJ ( u/t/'(l' ''o,',r",',,,,'r';,*''rl,i'r'} i' t ),ri t ,^ll tthcrein^{a 3" sari tttts .s/luttrl ttttdet f ''..'tuttt1J}

¶53

b1^whether ',!:::..!,:.!:t^,',,)i',",J,1',''oiJ',1,!,::,f,:,'',:,:,,i,,!,i',i':':;,';:::;':"i;:';ft" linding^{as to v'ho occttl)teL}

¶54

the^{juclgnent orttl decree of the courts belot' u'ere tlol pcrlcrsett1} Q^Whether nature?

¶55

d) Whcthcr^{thc corrt't bclox'havittP' uj",'."'1} 'h,:,^1,::)er^{for pcrpetual inittttc'ttLttt} I ; ;; ;;:^{r'd e c' e' d t h c s ui r'fo r p e r p e t ua t i nj u n ctr o n'} i,:, "';

¶56

e) Whether^{the judgnentantl decreesof the cottrtsbe'low' were vague in nattte?}

¶57

13.^{[Ieard the learnedcounsel lor the appellanton the abovesubstantial} questions^{of law,}

¶58

14.^{The second appealwouldbe entertainedonty if the High Counis satisfied} ,l00 ol that^{the case involvessubstantial questionof law. Sub-Section3 of Section} the Code^{of CivitProccdure' rnakesit obligatoryon the appellantto preciselystatc} in the^{memoof appeal' the substantial questionof law involved in the appeal'Sub-} Section^{4 providesthat wherethe High Courtis satisfied that any substantirl} In other question^{ol lawis involvedin the case'it shalt formulatethat questron} words,^{once the High Court is satisltedafter hearingthe appellant or his counsel'} as the^{casemay be, that the appeal involvesa substantial questionof law' it has to}

¶59

Dr.GRR,l 50 779 2017

¶60

lilrrllLtllttc thltt .ltl.:i iL'rt,rtrd tltcn iiircct i:sLrartcc o1'noticc ti tltr r.,)spol)6cnt on thc nrenro⁽¹¹ al)l.\cJl : lo rr u ith rhc ,lLrestion ol'hu lianrc.d br the I ic] court.

¶61

l-5.^'l-he rrirrd sLL ,: lrntial- qLLlrlilr inr,^,,qrrestion crf'lrrr ' uorrlci rnearr .,l.haring sutlstaltce. cssr'lriial rcai. ol srtutd lvorllr. lnrpottaltl or rronsirlcnrble. Ii is io bc undclsloocl ll5 s(rll(thrrtq in crrnttl clist nelion riirh tr--.'hnicil. ol'no srrbstancc or cotlscqttencc. ,rl- trc: il! rnic ntctclr.^'l [e rprestir.,6 o1'Ia,,", lat. n,1 a ntaterial bearing o. thc decisio,r ()f t )c cirsc. ri,hich was not corcred b. arr_r s!:ci,lc pr.ovisions ol law ur scttictl lcqal Prrnciple enrcrginq lionr [rinding Drcce le t1s. ancl involves a debatable legal i:su,' s consiclt'red as .r srrbstantial qLrcsrior r,l- lni,. 4, ,". ,1.,. judgnrenls .f rlrc llr,n'hlc Apex (i.ur1 irr sc'errl cascs. i.r,irer: lhc lc.gal position is clear. cither ol acco ttrl c,l cxl.rrcss pro\ isiorls ol'luri or- bindir.c pr-L,cedepts, bqt the courl bclo\ hud dec d,:d the nrutler, eitlrcr ignoring clr. lre ti rg -r,ntr.iu-), to sueh legal principle also. rhc sr b:rtantial c}restion .l-larv would arisc nol h:cause thc law was still debatable. but I er ar.rse the dccision rendercd on a mlter.ial qrrestion, violates the settlcd priniil-r e. o^'111,.

¶62

l'hc p..;e ... ,.ri is filc'cl hr thc 'csponde^{,t - piairrtif l. ;ee liing nrandatory} in^junctiorr t() r'! nrC. tl)c Jonst|rrctions n[rtle bY thc clele .rrcllnt lrr; w.:ll as Lo removc the rcntilators lar nr l,rrilrd: tlt. \estcr.n side ol'tlr., pr()pr,,rt\ r.ithout icaving ser_ back tou'ards tlrt: '( s1ern si(l( ol his housc a,cl lls. f,crl)ct,ai injunction

¶63

¶64

¶65

DI.GRR, J so 779 2017

¶66

l.estraining the dcl'endant^{fionr openingelltlaltce torlards the ucstcrn sidc of tltc} propertv.^'Ihc suit was partlr- decrecd^{granting tnandato|y injurrction to relrovethe} constructior] made towards^{the uestcrn side of'hispropefly, but u'asdismissed for} the relief sought fbr^{pcrpctualiniunctiontiorn opening.ventilators towardsthe} western side ol the^properrl .^{'l-he substantialquestionof law contcnded by thc} appellant^- defendant^{was that, thc coults below failed to consider the documents} marked under Exs.A I and^{A3 whichwouldshow that the plaintiffoccupied3" seri} existing between the^{ptaintifl'andthc dclendant.No counterclaimwas filed by thc} defendant seeking any^{reliel lrom thc court.In the absenceof anycounter claim} filed by the defendant,^{the court is bound to answer only whether the plaintiffis} entitled to the reliels^{as clairned by hirn, but not to the questions raised by the} defendant in his^{written statementwithout paying any courtfee.}

¶67

Thus, this court^{does no1 find any illcgaliryin thc judgmentsof the courts} below for not answering^{the defencetaken by the defendanton the aspectthatthe} ptaintiff occupied the 3"^{seri between them.}

¶68

The plaintifl in his^{plaint itsell statedthat his mother obtainedpermission} from the Municipal Authorities^{and constructeda houseleaving 3" open landon} the westem side ol the suit housc^{lbr het passage.No evidence was adducedby} the defendant O,-sOr:' thc sarre.

¶69

¶70

¶71

DT,GRR, J so 779 2017

¶72

I lre rr Liri r IL-'1r.i()t] r'lti:e.1 lr-r titc .r1t;tcllltDt - .iL crl l:i r1 ,.15 tilitl fhc trial cotll.l llllJ rrot ili5,-'ll s! tl lilc c\ tdL-rlcc ()l Llrc \iLirc:se s ancl tlir-L ne IS Incl Lhc lo\ver appcllirlc c!rLllt it ,' tirilccl to dise uss tltc c\ idcncc ol'[)\. L r,,:c1_r1 ihc .\ idencc o[' i)Ws. I arrcl 2 anrl r lnlrecl thc viral .isl)r.cts lrnc] ther ortgltr lt(rr io ita\c sranted the rclicl' rrl nrandu or' inlunctior. \ircn rhe rclie I' ib. l,cr.l,.rLlai iniunction uas dismissr'd. Br-rt on re lusal ol'the judgnrents ol'the confls 111.j1 11,. the trial court as r'r'c Il as the loti,c : Df,cllate coufi discltsscd thc cr idc-nce ol :ire rvitncsses and on obset-r ltlq thc .lclttt.: si.tus tnittic br tlrc ri itncsscs in tlrc r' ! ro: - -..lnrinrLion as ircli as th!- lacts uhiclr r< rc statccl in thc chie f--exarninatic,n ,rl ,\1,.1 rvhich were not disputed itl thc crrr: s-'xamination br lhe clelendiur[. ca.rr(' ]c tlle (r()nclusion about the conduct o. 1lre r.er'endant trci,tg Lrlantr.:lul arrcl clilccrccj Itint lor lcaving the sct_ back eranting rh! r'randatoq,injunctio. to removc the c.ns ri ction nrade by him tou,ards Llle \ csti.ru side of the suit propcrty .

¶73

20.^'l hc lor, cr lir: p..llatc coLrrt also tlisci155g.1 thc e\ idclcJ .r1' .hc u itnesses as q'cll as thc clocrtrr:, nts and rlbscIr,ccl thilt the plaintili' c,bli il.ed t:r.A3 plan fbr construclinp I-is ho rs: in the r,car 1966 u,hereas thr dclc rtlant in violation ol building rulcs. pr',r. erled u,ith construlcrion ot- the lrousc urr,l t., ,ntr ndcc.l ihat as thc housc u'as in r: slrrr, a'ca, he thrlught i1 unnecessar_v to .rbtain r,ian. wor-rld not hold \ater. ln(l the sun, ,\as un-sLrslainirble under lau. llorh rlr. c(.u11s below also

¶74

¶75

Dr.GRR, J so 779 2017

¶76

discussed the documentary evidence nrat'ked undel E,x.B I^plan filed b1 thc delendant which ivas disclosine that thel'e u'as ucighbour's propefty ou all lour (04) sides but no seri as a boundar,v to it on one side as contended by the defendant, partly decreed the suit in f-avour ol the plaintiff. As^the lelief^for mandatory injunction is not dcpendant on the relicl for^perpetual injunction^sought for by the plaintiffl, this Courl does not find anf illegality in rejecting^{the praycrlor} perpetual inj unction though decreeing the suit lot mandatory injunction

¶77

As per the reliefs claimed by the^plaintiff. he sought mandalory^{injunction to} remove the construction made by the delendant towards the^{western sidc} of^his house without leaving set-back and to rcmove the ventilators facing^towardsthe western side and sought perpetual injunction restraining the^{defendant from} opening the entrance towards western side of his^{property. As such, boththe} reliefs claimed are independent and one^{is not connectedto the other.The courl} even though dismissed the relief^{for perpetualinjunction,decreeing the suit for} mandatory injunction is maintainable.^Hencc, this^{Court does not find any} illegality in the^judgments of the courts^{belowand any substantial questionof law} would arise as contended by the delendant in^{this appeal}

¶78

¶79

Dr.GRR, J so 779 2017

¶80

1 )

¶81

ll. .\5 sLrc r. Lir,: Scc,rnd :\1..,pca1 is clisnrisscd at th., s:a.-qi rl'lclmission as Lhis ( orrrl cloes lrrL fir d any' substantial cluestions of llrr. ar-isirr.'q lirrn out o1' the

¶82

iLldgrnclrts^o1-:hc c, Lrrts 5elow.

¶83

:J In thc r,:sLL L. lrr: Scco,d .{ppeal is dis,isscd at t rc st-l:tc oi';rcirni:siorr

¶84

Nil orclci'er; 1, i (osts

¶85

\s a sc--tLrcl. niscellaneous applicarions pending in tn.s tppeai. ii an1., shail

¶86

stand c Losed

¶87

SDI-T.SRINIVAS DEI]LITY REGISTRAR

&. -

//TRUE COPY//

S E,:TION OFFICER

To,

1 The X Addl. Chi;f Judge (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶93

2 The lV Addl. rer t r:ontroller cum-XVl Junior Civil Judge, City t:ivil court, Hyderabad

¶94

3 One CC to SRI V HARIHARAN Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to SRl. MCHD ANSARUDDIN Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD C opi:s

KKS

Pm4.

HIGH COURT

DATED:12104/2A23

-==- ':-:
4i'a; ;ra IF Qt
fY-
(i
o 21 .JN zun
|-/,.i
t/
:.... aj.- r,. -,..,,

JUDGMENT

SA.No.779 of i017

tn^G, r <sup>t\r"l-

DISMISSING OF THE SA AT THE STAGI: OF ADMISSION

Mohd. Ahmed, Hyd v. Mohd. Usman, Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ahmed, Hyd v. Mohd. Usman, Hyd

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

G.B. Sayanna Yadav, Vs K. Shiva Kumar

Podiami Jaga Vs The State of Telangana

Boda Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana

M Narasimha Rao Vs R. Hanumantha Rao

Thorikonda Shankaraiah Vs Panyala Chandra Reddy

Kura Bhaskar Rao Vs a.Suvarna