Dismissed

Jan Shah v. P.Venkata Raoand Ors.

Telangana HC8 Jun 2023TRCCCA/204/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against dismissal of suits for declaration of title and recovery of possession of land. The High Court affirmed the trial court's findings that the plaintiff failed to prove title or possession, and that the defendant's adverse possession was established. Appeals dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals dismissed; judgment and decree of trial court confirmed; no order as to costs.

Jan Shah Vs P.Venkata Raoand Ors. — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

;

|³²¹⁵ |

;

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶5

THURSDAY,^{THE EIGHTH DAYOF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RAOHA^RANI

¶8

CCCA NO: 40 OF 2000 AND TR.CCCA NO.204 0F 2002

¶9

ccc NO.40 0F 2000:

¶10

Appeal Under Section 96 of CPC against the^{Judgmentand Decree dated} 17.12.1999 made in O.S.No.747 of^{1992on the file of the Court of the lV Senior Civil} Judge, City Civil Court,^Hyderabad.

¶11

Between:

¶12

Janshah, S/o late Gulab^{Bais rep. by his GPAHolderM-aiBBEIXi,%LATN,FF}

¶13

ANO

¶14

P Venkat Rao' S/o late P^Hanmanth Rao

¶15

...RE.'.NDENT/DEFENDANT

¶16

counsel forthe Appellant: SRI^{OSMAN SHAHEED (NOT PRESENT)}

¶17

Counsel for Respondent: SRI KISHAN^{PRASAD SRIVASTAVA (NOT PRESENT)}

¶18

TT.CCCA NO.40 0F 2000:

¶19

Appeal Under Section 96 of CPC against^{the Judgmentand Decree dated} 17.12.1999 made in O.S.No.454 of^{1992 on the file of the Court of the lV Senior Civil} Judge, City Civil Court,^Hyderabad.

¶20

Between:

¶21

Janshah, S/o late Gulab Baig rep.^{by his} GPA^{Holder Masood Hasan,Rl/o.19-} 2- 1 7 6, T adb an, Hyderabad

¶22

...APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶23

AND

¶24

P. Venkat Rao, S/o late P. Hanmanth^Rao, R/o.19-2-105/1,^Tadban, Hyderabad.

¶25

lnayath Shareef S/o. Ahmed Shareef

¶26

Hidayath Shareef S/o. Ahmed Shareef

tq $

i iI tI$ i

Nusrath Sha,eef S/o. Ahmecl Sltareef

¶31

Rafath Shareef S/o. Alrmed Slrareef

¶32

6 Wahed Sharced S/o. Ahmec Sl-areef

¶33

(AIl are R/o. cf 19 21A2110i.. Tadban, Hyderabad.)

¶34

...RESPON D ENT/D EFENDANT

¶35

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI OSMAN SHAHEED (NOl- PRESENT)

¶36

Counsel for Resporrdent: SRI KISHAN PRASAD SRIVASTAVA (NOT PRESENT)

¶37

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶38

-^{ir,t ;'} li

¶39

]'l-t[- IIONOLiR.\l]L[.^{Dr' JUSI} lC[^{(;. ItADIL4. IIANI} C.C.C.A Nos.JO Ol- 20t 0^.,\ND l'lt.CCC.No.20-l OF 2002

¶40

C0MMo\ JUD(;T1F-NI'

¶41

CCCA No.-10 o1'100(1 is liled b,r ihc appellant-plairrtillaggLieved by the .ludgrnent and decrcc dated 17.12.t999 in O.S lio.747 ol 1992 on thc flle ol thc l\r Scnior Civil Judge, City Civil ('ourr, [J1'delabad

¶42

1'he appeltant-plaintitTfilcd AS No.5l of 2000 before tho II Additional Chiel'JLrdge, City^{('ivil (-ourt,} [{-vdelabad against^judgmcnt arrd decrce dated 17.12. 1999 in O.S. No..154 o1'l,992^{passedb1 the} lV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil CoLrrt, Hydclabacl,^{which was} transferred to this Court vide l'r.CMP No.90 o1'2000^{and renumbcred} a:;^'l r'.CCCA No.204 of 2002

¶43

O.S. No.747 of 1992 and O.S.^{No.454 of 1992rvere} disposed ol-by a cornrnon^judgment along^{withO.S.No. 1535 of 1993} by the lV Seniol Civil Juc{gc, Citl Civil^{Cotrrt. Ilyderabad on} 17.12.1999. The subiect matter and^{plaintifl in all t[.re thlee suitslvas} one and the same

¶44

O.S. No.,154 of lgql ',vas^{lllcd for decletratiotroi titlc- and} lecovery of possession of 1000^{sc1.ycls.. out of 2500 sq.1'ds., in fS}

¶45

'| { )

¶46

1.:).

¶47

\o.i2 rn S1'.No lll-^{Taclburrti \4irsasar'H1'dcrabad O S No T-17o1-} l()()1 \a\ {llctl^{lor declarltiorlol'tilc arld reco\rcl\ t'I thc lctttalllillg} l5(X) sq.rtls..^{o1'latrdoLrt ol'li00sci'1ds'' covcretlhr tllc sLritlirtrdin} O.S No.15l^{ol- 1992. ().S Nr' 1515 ol l99l sas lllcd 1br pcrlnarlcrlt} in.iunction^{in t cspccl o{' the abot e 2500 sq'yds'' of land in 51' No l 32'} Tadbuncl,^{Mirsaqar. lJYdelabrd}

¶48

l'he i1'crrnents^{ol thc plaintiff in briefl' in all the thtec suits}

¶49

rrirs that his f'ather^{tlaji Gulrb Baig @ Gulanr Baig was thc original} orvneL atrd^{patteclarol' suit land and after his death'thcplaintil'1-} inlierited.^the l)tofert)'^{and $'as in occupation of tire sarneb1" paying} lalrd rer,cnuc.^{fhe entirerc,el]uerecords rvouldshou.his nalle as} pattedar and^{posscssor. He soldawaycettain portionsof the land to} sorre prtrchaset^{s who construcled housesand living therein'Alter} salc of^{the saitl land, about 2500sq'yds} '^{of land in TS No 42 iri} S1'.No.132^{rcmained irr posscssionof the plaintiff and l.ris (iPAfhc} plaintiff tlled^{O S No.5503 of 1989 (old) OS No l5l5 of 1993 (ncw)} aqait.tst otre^{ltarriesh (defendant No 3 in O S No'1535 of 1993) l-he} coult passeci^{status quo order in I'A' No 1485 ol' 1989 Ttrc said} Rar.lesh u,h6 rvrs ).outrger^{hrot[c1of defendantNo 1 irr O.S. No-454}

¶50

E P, r,t

¶51

of Igg2, conspiled^{rr.ith dctenciarrt \tl.2, ltssartltccl thc u atclrtnatr,} plaintilf and^{his GPA -fhc cletcnclantNo'l in O S No'15-{ol l99l ic'} P. Vcnkat^{Rao flled O S. No 1697ol'199 I otr thc lllc- ol lX Assistarrt} Judge against^{uncotlcerned persouD2lbr perpetualinjunctionand} obtained^{interiminiLrrrctionordcrs in I'ANo'88-i oll99l on} 20.09.199^{I and obtairredpoliceaicl on l0 t0 lt)9 I alleginBthat he rvas} the owner^{and possessor of 22 gts , of land equivalcnt to 2662 sq'yds'} in Sy.No. 133/l^{giving location and schedulcof 2500 sq'yds} 'ⁱⁿ Sy.No. 132.^{The land in Sy No ll2 and Sy'No l-13/I could notbe one} and the same'^{The defendant No' t madethe said clairn with a bad} intention to^{appropriate the land of the plaintilL Dl underthe guise of} the said orders^{constructed boundary u'all cncroachingupon} approximately ,l000 sq.yds , without any permission and stealthily employed^{largenumberol persons who.wereworking day and night} and hurriedly^{constructeda houscthcrcin 'l'he plaintitTapproached} Dl and informed^{that plaintiflwasownerandpossessor of tlrese lands} and the suit^{land was part of tandin Sy'No l32' but Dl along with} unsocial elements^{statedthat thc landwas in Sy No l33 but not in} Sy.No.^{132 and threatenedthc plaintill with dire consequetlces and}

¶52

¶53

¶54

arlrisctl illclll^{io lti'r'rrotcll lhc cottlt ltrril to qet tltcir case cs'lblishcd} -l hotrlr.h hc api.rrLrlcilecl lhe policc tl'cr lt-fitscd^{to help}

¶55

j.l. thc lllirirlirlf^{iitrlhctcotllct.tclecl that he was tiri: absolute} owncr^{o1- tlre srrit lar-rtl ancl rvas llay ing land revenue' Therevenue} records^{Kltasra palrarii lbr 54-55 and pahaniesfrorn the year1980-81} onrvards.cerrilledcopvol'towllstlf\oysheet'mutationmadeinhis namc^{atld lo\n stlrvc\registcrrvoulcl supporlhis case'}

¶56

5.1 l-he plrrirrtil'l'^{firrthcr. c'rtrtended that while O S} No.454 of 1992^{rvas pending' L'No 53() i'1' 1992 was filed to restrainthe} delertdarrt^{lronrmal<ine lirr1hercotrstructionand not to alienate thc} said land.^{tl.tc cortrl orcletccltltrtice and posted the lretitionto} 'lhe defclrilant on receipt of thc^{said notice} 23.06.1992^{lor clisPosal} the rcmaitring^{portionof 1500 sq'yds' Orr} started^{tresPassing lrito} 02.06,199]^{tlrc del.crl.]ant br, allllorntirrg large number of lallourersand} unotficial^{elentcnts :tarlcd diuging lburrdation in the said land'He} obiected^{the illegalattcrnpls but the defendantand his associatcs} pr-rshcd^{hinr()trt<l1- the landantl tlrtt'atenedhim to break his headand} to kill^{hinr ifhc rgairr stcppe(tinto the land'fhcdelendants}

¶57

l:.^.y F;t', - t{

¶58

cL)ntr.n(ied that thcir land uas in Sr.No. liii I but tlol il) S.1.-o.1ll As such, hc lllcd O.S. No.747 o1'1992.

¶59

lhe defendant No. I in O.S No.454 of 1992 \'as ihe sole dcll'ndarrt in O.S No.747 ol 1992. I-he conrents ol' rhe rvritrcn statcrrrent tiled by the defendant No.I in O.S. No.454 of 1992 and O.S No.7,17 ol' 1992 are identical. Defundants No.2 to 6 uere added subsecluently, in O.S. No.454 ol 1992 and they adopted thc wrincn statcment filed by the defendant No. l.

¶60

The contentions of delendant No.l in his written slatement in O.S. No.454 of 1992 was that his father Hanumanrh Rao had bcen in continuous and unintemrpted possession of an extent ol. Ac.l.2l gts.. ol' Iand in Sy. No. I32 from 1940 and was paying revenue ro govemment. Haji Gulab Baig was neither real pattedar nor owner of the said land. The name of Gulab Baig was nominally entered as pattedar. Haji Gulab Baig was an Iranian national and died issueless. 'l'he t'ather of the defendant No. I was exercising all rights ol orvnelship in respect of the suit schedule lands. In 1958, the then [)eput1^'l-ahsildar alier enquiry held in his order dared 07.05 1958 thar Gulab Baig was nominal pattedar and was not enjoying an),properries

¶61

¶62

¶63

or^{()wnel.sltiP ri.thtsor cr. thc :rLi11lancls- After tlic tleathol- dctendatrt} \o, I^'s fhLlter in l')7l.^{llrc lriiLrr,' o1'rltc dcletldant No' l rva' allncetittt} in thc reVerrrre^{rrcords ln llr-. cultiYatolcoluml-t. 'arior,rs pahallics} fronr the Icats^{96t)-70 oll\-ililsuotrldcstablislithc said lactl [az-i} GtrlabBaig.durirlgllislitctirllc.lodgedacrirninalcorllplaitltbefot.c Bahadul.aPoliccagainstlrislllt]rcrallegingcrimina]trespassol.tlre suit land.^{u,hcreul-ror.r the} Polic:^{liled charge sheet under Section 447} lI,CinCCNo..L]']o1.195|i()l1t])efileoflVCityMagistrate.The learned Magistrltc^{hcld that I laii GulabBaigwas ner er in possession} of suit land^{atltl otr the othcr' handobservcd that the suit landrvas} continuouslr^it't l.rossession^{ol'hisl'ather and his fathel was cultivating} it and acquitted^{his lather It li'as futtherhetdthat (iulab Baig rvho} gave evidence in^{thc saidcasc \ as not specific thathe lvaspattedal' of} the suit land.^{\ficr tlie clcrrLh of tlaji 'Gulab Baig, the plairrtilf} approached the^{l-ahsildar lbr rntrtation of his name and his fatherfiled} otr.iection petiti()n.^{-l'he .l'ahsildar',after holding enquily' heldon} 30.08.1971^{tliat the plarrrtil'l llilcd to prove his titlc arrd lailcdto} lurnish eviclcncc^{t() thc ellect thathe ivas the legal heil of GulabBaig} and hence. the^{-l ahsildarreicclccl the plaintiflspetitionfor mutation} in revenrrc rccords. Thc I'thsil,lrrl dirccted^{his father to approach the}

¶64

¶65

civil court to establish his possession and owncrship ol'the suit land in S_r. No.l-ll. l-he plaintilt-did not choosc to tilc any appcal before the RDO against that order and hence, the same bccame tinal. Anl,prool of mutation filed by the plaintilf now rvould have no legal elfect

¶66

l. He further contended that in 1976, he filed declaration under Section 6 (l) of the Urban Land Ceiting Act (for short^,ULC Act') before the Special Officer and Competent Officer. of Urban Land Ceiling, Hlderabad along with other lands owned by hirn along r.vith his brothers in which he claimed Ac.l.2l grs., of land in Sy. No.l32 and the competent authority by its proceedings declared the schedule land as vacant land. Thus, since 1940 and prior to it, the land in Sy. No. 132 had been in continuous and exclusive enjoyment olhis father and after his father's death, he was the.sole owner who maintained actrral and exclusive possession openly, publicly, peacefully and uninterruptedly. His lather asserted his title during his lifetime against Haji Gulab Baig and succeeded. Thus, he perfected his title not only against the plaintifl but also against Haji Culab Baig right tiom 30.08.1972.^'fhe suits having been filed 20 years rhereafrer were barred by lirnitation.

¶67

/.J:

¶68

8.2. I Ic lil llrcl c()rrlcrl( 'rir^{'.lr.ll llc alorrg u ith hishrotl-rers sold} an cxt!-r1t ol,\c.1.i(r r:ls..^{irl Sl t','} lll^{Lrrldcragreelnelltolsaleto onc} Salch Ilin .labri lirl^{l(s.1 .30.()f)(rrtrtl thc said r cndcenradcplots and} sold therl to^{variotrspttrcllltscts \} 'lo^{collstl'uctcdhouses therein ln the} GPA instrr.rment^{allcgeclllcxccutcd b1'tlie ptaintillonI1 0i 1982, the} total extent^{was sho\'ll as \cs I 19 gts., as againstthe extent of} Ac.l.2l gts.. as^{plcaded irr thc r'llirtt. lhe schedule mentioned in the} GpA and thc^{plairrt wcrerlor t3llr ine. Ilc futhercontended that the} suit land ol^{2500 sq.} 1'ds..^{alleredto be vacant,was infact in Sy'} No.133/1. The^{pllintit'l rr itlr a n.alaflde intention was showirrg it as} remaining land in^{S1 . No. l3l.lltc vacantland in Sy' \o'133/1was} in l-ris possessiott^{ancl thrrt ol'lrisbrothers since longAs per the} boundaries given^{irr the plailrt, 1h: southem boundary of suit land in} Sy.No.l32rvasthrttol'Ycllarnnraandneighbour'shouse,whileinthe GPA deed of^{the plairrtil'f filetl llonq rvith the plaint, the southem} boundary rvas^{neighbour'slarld. l-iouse ol Yellamma was located} beyond the^{vacantlar.rd in Sr' \o.133/1, the extent of which was} Ac.0.22 gts.,^{equa:to l(r(,1 sil r tls . rvhichwas alrnost the extentof} the vacant land falsell'^{clrtirrre'cl l-" thc plaintilfas reuainingland in}

¶69

¶70

Sv No I J- I lcncc. thc vacant land o1' Ac.0.22 gts.. cor cred by. Sy, No. Ii3/l situarcd on south sidc. olSi. No. 132 uas beyond thc housc ol.Ycllan.rnra. The plaintilf rvas lalsely identitying that land as suit land in Sy. No. I 32. The plaintillwas not possessor, pattedar or son ol Haji Gulab Ilaig. 1'he def'endant No. I disputed the genuineness ol rhe GPA document and prayed to summon the original plaintifl to the court to prosccute thc case rather than the GPA and to dismiss the suit rvith cxeurplart, costs

¶71

9 Thc trial court framed the issues in O.S. No.474 of 1992 as follows:

¶72

I . Whether plaintiff was entitled lor lhe declararion as prayed for?

¶73

Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession as prayed for?

¶74

Whether the suit land is not in Sy. No.l32 as contended by the defendant?

¶75

Whether the suit land is partofS.No.l33ll belonging to defendant?

¶76

To rvhat relielJ

¶77

and lramed thc additional issues on Zl .O2.l9gg as lollows:

¶78

Whether the plaintiff is entirled for the r.etief of declaration that he is the owner of the suit property?

¶79

¶80

. ..,

¶81

1 Wlrcrhe r thc'^{pllririt't'is errtitled ibr the d:livery ol'} th. suit |ro|.r,.t l'rar^{cd lbr'l}

¶82

\i'hethcr^{the tle lr'iJrrntlras perlectcd his title over} tlrc suit^{propcl L\ ''r adr ersc possessionas pral'ed} firr'l

¶83

4 Whether Ihe^{strit i. l.arrcd by linritation?}

¶84

To^{u'hat rc Iie l']}

¶85

The^{trial courl tianrerlhc issues in O S No'747of 1992}

¶86

u5 fsllo$'s:

¶87

Whether^{thc pllintitT is entitlcdlol the declaration} o I olvnelshiP^{ll |la\Ied^for?}

¶88

Whether^{thc pl.rrrliiiTis entitlcd fbr recoveryof} possession^{o1'srrit ploperty as prayed for?}

¶89

Whether^{thc I.S \o.42 has no relevancyto} S.No.132^{as crrtrtctrdcdby the plaintiffl'}

¶90

\'hether^{suil ptol'crn'is paftand parcel of} S.No.l33/l^{{br u hich the ddfcndantis absolute} owner as^{contetltlcdbY defendant?}

¶91

5.^'l o^{rvhat reliel''}

¶92

The lollowing^{adcliriorralissLrcs\'cre lrauccl on 21 02'1998:}

¶93

I . Whethcl^{thecle li:rrdanthas perfcctedhis title over} tl-re suit proper.l[.''-r' advcrsepossession?

¶94

\rhethcr thc^{s,ri1 is} barred^{by limitation?}

¶95

¶96

,''':|,,

¶97

I - ti at),r) .,^. , ,r :tr t:

¶98

\rhe ther the plaintiff is enritled for rhc relief ol dl-clalation that he is tlrc absolutc ou.ncr of thc propert)'l

¶99

\l'hether the plaintilf is enritled tbr rhe relief ol posscssion ofthe property as prayed for?

¶100

I L Comrron ev idence w,as adduced in all the three suits.^-l-he

¶101

GPA holder ol the plaintiff ,,i,as examined as pW. I and the tenant of PW. I was cxamined as PW.2 and an Advocate Commissioner, appointed in I.A. No. 1060 of 1992 in O.S.No.454 ol 1992 and I.A. No.645 ol 1993 in O.S .No.747 of 1992 ro conduct survey to ascertain whether the suit land formed part of Sy. No. 132 or 133/1, was examined as PW.3. Exs.A I ro 42l were marked on behalf of the plaintiff.^'[he reporl of the Advocate Commissioner in I.A .No.1060 ol 1992 in O.S .No.454 of 1992 was marked as Ex.Cl and the report of the Advocate C-onrmissioncr irr I.A- No. 1045 of I993 in O.S. No.747 ol 1992 was marked as Ex.c2. on behalf of the defendants, the defendant No. I in O.S. No.454 of l99Z was examined as DW. t in both the suits. Exs.B I to Bl6 rvere marked on behalf of the contesting defendants.

¶102

I t

¶103

1 l. On considerrng tl,.'^{,rrel and clocLurcrttar\cvidcltceoll} rccord. by a conllirolt.prdgtrenL^{Llrr' tlial corrrt disttiissedall thc thrce} suits with costs

¶104

Aggricved bl^{thc sl tl disrlissal. the plairrti{}',u'ho was} common in^{all the suits, pref'crr-cd thesc appealsconterldingthat the} court belou'^{effed in larv itl} ;-rre^{stttning that thc plaintilf was not} examiued, ouly^{because he was tlot alivc.arrd hcncc, the GPA was not} subsisting.^{The court belorv I:rilcd to consider the lhct thatthe} plaintiff filed his alfidavit^{under[{rrle 32 of civil Rulcs of Practicein} compliance with^{the statLltor\ provisions'PW' lcategorically} explained in his^{chielexarninarior-, rhat alI the suit schedule plopefties} were pertaining to T.S.^{No.42irr S-v. No.l32of Tadbun,Hyderabad} but the trial court^{erronc()usly h.'lcl that PW.l had not cxplainedthe} atteged discrepancy^{of suit landrr hctherpe(ainirrg to 1 S' No'41, 42} or 25. The court^{below failed to considerthe evidenceof PW'2, his} tenant from 1988^{living inpr.cmisesNo. l9-2-102/8, Tadbun,} Hyderabad^{rvas in T.S. t.\o.25 iil' S1'.No,132r'elyadjacent to House} No. l9-2-102l10/1,^{alleged to hrri.-l)eerl cotlstluctedby DW'l in T'S'} No.42. The said lact^{w'r1s pror e c1 b1' E,x.A8 lvlap and Ex.A9Town}

¶105

W ry

¶106

l.l

¶107

Survey Register issucd b1' the l)cputl Dilector', Survey and Settlement and other documents tilcd b1 thc plaintill.^{'l'hc plaintilt'had provcd} his case that still he rvas in posscssion ol'450 sq. yds., of land in^51, No. l12 of Tadbun, ll-v-derabad. PW.l issued the lease deeds in favour of PW.2, being the GPA of the plaintilf. The plainti[f also proved that he sold the land in TS No.25 of Sy. No. 132 vide Ex.Al0 to one Rasheeda Sultana and got the number assessed as l9-2-102/l0ll bv the Municipal Corporation ol Hyderabad to the house sold to Rasheeda Sultana as early as in the year 1987. Thus, DW.l could not get assessment to his house with the samc number as 19-2-102/l0ll in the year l99l as alleged by hirn.^-fhe court below erred in law in believing the version ol DW. I that his lather Hanumanth Rao was in possession of land in Sy. No.l32 since 1940. DW. I admitted in his cross-examination that his posscssion was that of a tenant and not as a pattedar. No proof's were hled by him except pahanies marked as Exs.B2 to 85. The court below should have seen that the judgment of the criminal couft Ex.88 was rx)t binding on the civil courts. The observations of the courl below that Hanumanth Rao was in possession was not corroborated with the records of the Revenue Department. The court below l'ailed to observe that the lather of the

¶108

, -I

¶109

¶110

dclenclant lrad n,r locLrs stlntli lo file a petition otriccting grant o1 nrutation irr re spcct ol thc lau(l ir Sr .No.l32 in lavor"rr of the ltlaintill. as thc lather ol clel'endant No l did not clain.r any right through FIaji Gulanr Baie.^-l lre patta passl.oi.li l:x.B I and othel pahanics filcd b1* DW.1 provcd that llali^(iulab llaig rvas pattedar ol-lancl in Sy. No.l32 of Tadbun. Hydcrabad. The cor.rrt below erred in concluding that DW.l and his brother ri,erc in l.!)ssession till 1980 thor.rgh there *as no proof to that etfect.^'l'hc mer.' filing of declalation belbre thc land ceiling authoritics could not be taken to consider that the defendant No. I "vas in possession. l-hc ct,r.rrt below erred in concluding that DW.l and his brothers sold thcir possessory rights ovcr the land to Salch Bin Jabri under an agreenrent ofsale dated 01.0(r.1994 though no such document was filed befrrrc the court. The courl belou,should have seen that def e ndant No. I ancl delendant No.3 in O.S .No. 1535 oi 1993 had categorically adrnitted irr the agreement dated 01.06. 1981 that Jan Shah (plaintiff) had sold the land to Saleh Bin Jabri under agl'cernent dated 05. 12. 1980 ancl 12.01 .1982, as admitted in their respective rvritten statemcnts in the said suits. The couft belorv believed the version of the delcndant that tlie southern side ol Ycllatntna's lrouse . there r.r,as a [roLrndary of' Sy.No. I 33i I in tlie To,"r,n

t6F iif

I-i

{ I\ i i I I ! I

Survey Register and^'l'orr,n Sulr c,r nrap. l he court lrelou erred in law in disbelieving all the docurnent: issuccl ll the [{cr cnue Authoritv, the Deputy Director of Survey and Settlernent, such as, 1'orvn Survcy Register, Town Survcl, sheet and Aclr ocate^{('ontrnissioner's} t'eports which would clinchingly pror e that thc suit Iands rr.ere in Sy. No. 132 and T.S. No.42. The Cornmissioner in con.rpliancc ol the olders of the court took the assistance of the Surveyor ol the Revenue Department and got the land surveyed.^'l-he court below should have seen that DW.l constructed house bearing No.l9-2-102l10/l illegally occupying the land in Sy. No. Ii2 undcr the guise ol injunction orders and police protection obtained by DW. I against delendant No.2 in O.S.No.4679 of l99l on the file of thc tX Assisranr Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad. The defendant No.2 alleged [o be a tenant in the above said house was the samc person againsl whorr DW. I hacl obtained injunction and police protection in the above suit. The court below ought to have seen rhar Ilanunranrh Rao, lbther of defendant was admittedly a tenant. The tenant cannot be declared as a owner alleging his adverse possession rvhen thc court adrnits that Haji Gulab Baig was the original owner of thc suit land. The court below erred in law in holding that the revenue recolds were not title deeds.^-l-he court

¶115

i r')

¶116

bclot l'ailed Lo sco thrt tlre cir: r nirl coull's .judgnrerrt in^('C No.-11 l o1' 1958 o1- thc l ( it1 \1ari. r .rLc. [-.x.[]8. provccl that Ila.ji Gulatr [3aig. lnther ol'-lrrn Shah-plai]rtir'1. llled his title deeds ol the suit land in Sy. No I3l obrained b1' the I :trttc Nau'ab Salar .lung orr thc basis ol which patta r,,as urade in his n:rnre b1' the revenue autholities.^'lhc couIt below should have seen thilt L.x.89^rvas ordered^{ex partc, lbr the} abscncc ol the plaintil'l'. l hc pleintill subsequently^{appLoachedthe} concerned authority and^{proclLrccdprool and} alter^{complyirlgthe} provisions o1' larv. lollowing tlrc duc procedure, hc^{was gratrted} rnutation of thc land aftet hc proved to be the son^{of Haji Gulab Baig} vidc lrx.A,s. fhc court ouglrt to have seen as to how^{the father} ol DW.1 would dispute thc patcrnity of the plaintiff^{and under what} provisions of larr thc dclelrdent could demand^{the address of thc} plaintilf Jan Shah to be lumislretl to him by PW. l.^{The courl belou'} should have seen that O.S No.550i of 1989^{subsequently numbered as} O.S.No.1535 of 1995^rvas lllcJ in^{1989 and the suits in O.S} Nos.454/1992 and717l1992 havt^{bcen filed in the year 1992, rvhereas} the plaintifls possession^{\vas pro\ed} by^{Exs.A3to ,A.4 rrpto1982 and} subseqrrcrrtlr lro lralla r) ics \/CI'C issued by the Revenue authoritics since the area crurc undcr rcsiclcntial alea and the suit lands were

B-,.'---

*FRryP'

declared to bc Abadi in l98i b,r the Re.r e'nrrc rurhorities, I hc suits filed by thc plaintiff u,ere within the linre ol' ll lcars. IIcncc. the sLrits were not barrcd by limitation. Prior to filing thc suits, rhc possession of the plaintifl'was proved. Hcnce, the court bclorr oueht not to havc declared the defendant to be in adverse possession w.l-ren he lailed to prove his continuous possession lor more than I2 1,ears and prayed to allow the appeals by setting aside the common judgment and decree dated 17.12.1999 in the above cascs.

¶121

No representation for the appellants as ivell as the respondents though the matters went on scveral adjourrtrnents since the year 2000. Hence, considering that the matters are 23 years old and no purpose would be served by keeping it pending, it is considered fit to decide the tnatter-s on merits.

¶122

PW.l filed the suit as the GpA holder of thc plaintiff, contending that the plaintifl was the son ol- one Gulab Baig, the original pattedar of the land in Sy. No.ll2.^.I'hc def-cndant contended that the plaintilf was not the son of Gulab Baig, pW.l u,as not given GPA by the son of Gulab Baig and^pW. I could not depose as the plaintiff. The tlial courl observing rhat as per Ex.A l, ir was shown

¶123

\ ) :/,1

¶124

that thc ].llinti '1' r'. ils lrsiilcirl ,, l)rruc ancl the CI)l\ \'as e\ecuted in I'avour ol- l)\ .l tn Janurrrr. 1')li. . Placin!. reliaucc ul)ou thc.iutlgment of ltigh CloLrrl of ..\ntlhrt lrlrclcsh in Kanadapudi llharathv, (]utlivada antl anothcr \ s. .\uthoritt, under A.l'.Shops and Establishments Act-cu rn- I-a [rou r^()fficer, Machilipatnam and

¶125

anotherr. u,hclcin it uas helcl thrrt

¶126

' l arn o1-tlre cLrnsidcr.',i r ilv tha( rvord 'acts'uscd in RLrlc- l. Ordcr I⁽ l'( Jocs uot include the act of I','r'.e,,1 \tt, r'er l ' '.r ro appc.tr as a rtitttc.son bch:lj o['lhc^pctitionrr.. I)orvcr of Attorney [lolder ol .r 1r3;1r^(,ur irlrf( r r)ltlv as a uitncss irr ris pcrsorral capacitv to sp(ak about the facts which arc rrrthin his personal Knr,rrlcdge about the case, but, hc cannol irpl'rear ls a rr itncss on bchalfofa party in thc cal)acil\ ol thlt firt .

¶127

observed that l)W.l. who rvas tlre^(iPA holder could only depose with regard to the lacts riitlrin his knowledge but not as the plaintifl himselL Since the plaintil'f'despitc being questioned as not being son of Gulab Baig did not choosc Lo col-ne into the box nor the GPA fumished t[-re addrcss of thc plarnlrlT though a notice was^given by^the deferrdant's counsel to thc corrrrsci Ibr the plaintiff, held that an advclse inf-erencc had to bc clmii t.t 1o the eflect that there was no subsisting GPA in firr,our of I'','. I. as the GPA undcr Ex.Al was

¶128

'^{r 999(i)ALD} l20

¶129

.,! :;&# - I ia

¶130

¶131

issuetl in l98l rvhercas thc suits rrerc filed in 1989 and 1991, thc best person [o spcak abouL the title and^possessit)n. otllcl'^lactsatrd nonallegations made in thc plaint was the plaintill^{hirnsell- and} exanrination ol-the plaintilf would call for an adversc^{inf-etcnccundcr} Sectior.r I I 4 ol the Evidence Act

¶132

The trial courl on considering the pleadings in all the three suits observed that according to the plaintilf, the corresponding l.o.\ n strrvey numbers in Sy. No.l32 were 25, 4l and 42: the land in O.S No. 1535 of 1993 was in TS No.25, but in the same breadth, PW.l deposed that the land covered in O.S. No.747 of 1992 was in^'l.S No.42 and the land covered in O.S No.454 of 1992 was in^'l S No.4 l ; when it was the specific case of PW.l that the land covered by O.S No.454 of 1992 and O.S. No.747 ol 1992 was the same land in rcspect of which he tlled injunction suit in O.S. No. 1535 of 1993, then thc land covered by O.S. No. 1535 ol I993 and the land covered by O.S. Nos.454 ol 1992and747 of 1992 must be the same land in-l'S No.25. but could not be in diflerent survey^{numbers obscrvedthat P\/.1} failed to explain the said discrepancies in his evidence

¶133

¶134

I-he lrial court¹¹¹¹ 1lr':31'' irrg thc evidcttcc^{ol P\i/.1 alldthe} docLLntcnls rralk,:r1 ri:^{Lrs.. I^t,r r\ll.^{held that thc;' hadrlot} established thlt thc propcrt\ o''^{:iil sq. y'ds..} "r'as^{cither in TS No.25 in} Sy. No.1 3l or P\'.I^{had arrr atrLirolilvto lcaseout the saidpropefty to} Srinivas Agarrral or^{latet to '''.lirlSamad(PW.2). Ex.Al5would} show that PW.l in his^{persotrelcallacityexecutedthe lease deed in} lavoul ol Sriniias Agartal^{irr 1988 alleging that the propefty} belonged to hinr.^{'fherc vurts ni' rcl'ercnccof thc plaintilf bcingthe} owner of the property. Sirnilarll^{I:r.Al6 lease deed dated 03.01.1995} also was executctl by I)\/. I^{irr his personal capacity.Exs.A15and} A l6 would cleat lv shori^{that tlrc sLrit properlywas not paft ol land in} Sy. No.l32 because^{therc rvaselrsolutely no relerenceto the name of} the plaintilf being the ori'nct^{. ort thc othcr hand PW.l rvas shown to be} the lessor.}

¶135

The trial coufl also^{observedthat in 1958, the original} pattedar Gulam llaig filecl crinr^{rrrl casc for trespassagainst the father} of D\I. I and in thc said casc. th.^{f'ather of DW I was acquittedby} holding that DW. l's lirthcr^{rtr',Lrtranth Rao was} in^possessionas tcnant. Ex.ll8 c;rt illed co1-rr ,.1 tlrc judgment in Clalendar Case

¶136

GF ::,^.:.9

¶137

t^{( (} ..1 'r ),tt)' )i|)t) 1 )t).i ,

¶138

No.42l4 of 1958 w'ourd discrosc that the same was filed under Secrion 447 IPC allcging that one rveek prior to 25.02.195g, I-{anurnanrha Rao entered into land in Sy. No. 132 and fenced with barbed wire, but after considering the docurnertary and orar evidence adduced, the crinrin:rr coum held that the accused was in possession ol the Iand asserting title; the dispute between the parties was of civil nature; there was no authentic record to show that the cornplainant was in possession through one Maqdoom patel. The trial court observed that the judgment in criminar case between the same parties was rerevant under Section 43 of the Evidence Act. Ex.Bg wourd show thar for the year 1958, Hanurnantha Rao was given lease of the land. Hanumantha Rao contended that he was protected tenant and also denied the titre of Gulab Baig. The possession ol [{anumantha Rao was upheld. Subsequently, Gulab Baig did not establish his title nor recovered his possession in any proceedings before any authority in respect of the land in Sy. No. 132. Subsequently, the plaintiff Jan Shah filed an application in I969 before the Tahsildar lor mutation of his name against the land in Sy. No. 132. The father of DW. I Hanumantha Rao filed objection petition. By order dated 30.0g.1972, the Tahsildar held that the objection petitioner Hanumantha Rao also could not establish

¶139

t." !t).1 : t .. :t)) ,,1 : t)

¶140

his ouncrship unJ LiLlc .)..cIi i, )..'ssion. .\s thc pctitioner.lan Shalr rvas also abscnt. rhc nrtit,Liion \ : Lhcreli)rc rc'lccLcd obsclvirrg that the petitioner (plaint'f1') lailed to pr,,'.e his title and also to prove that he ras the legal hcir ol'I Iali CiLrlll, Ileis.^'l he petition lbr t-r-rutation rvas therefore, disnrisscd. Ihe oh cctiort petitioner rvas directed^to approach the civil court regardirg. orvncrship. Therefore, by^{the year} 1972, the Revcnuc autltoritics held that fhther o1- DW. I wasⁱⁿ possession of thc land in Sr'. \o.lll. The possessioll of Hanumantha Rao rvas established in 1958^r,rrrder Ex.B8. so also^{his possessionin} ,/ 1972. ln between 1958 to I97l in the^present case or^{in any} other proceedings, thc posscssiorr ol'⁽ iulab Baig or the plaintiff Jan Shah was not established. IJaji Gularr Baig died in 1968. That^{was the} reason lor which the plaintill lilcd an^{applicationfor mutationin} 1969, which u,as le.iectcd urrclcr. l r.l]9 in 1972^{by holdingthat he did} not prove his paternity to Gulab llaig or his^{possession. On the other} hand, it was founcl that anurranrha Rao^q,as in^possession ol'landⁱⁿ Sy. No. 132. Irrorn the above tl,,cuntents. it^{was quite clearthat the} possession of }lanurnantha l{ao 'r as established fi'om l958 to 1972. Secondly, in l95E itsell- I Ianunr:rrtha Rao asscfted title in the suit properly. DespiLe the sante, n() srcl)s were taken by Gulab Baig lor

¶141

ll t,.t,|tt, t l t .1 ,\o tr,)t :tnr) ,)l): ttt , '

¶142

declaration and recovclv of possession. As such, Ex.A2, copy ol Khasra pahani lbr the,rcar I9-i4-55 shon,ing that Gulab Baig was pattedar was of no use to the ptaintifl-.

¶143

i9. l'he rrial cour-r lirrthcr. noted that Exs.82 to 85 pahanies tbr the years l9l0-7 1,197 l-72, 1916-77 and l97j-78 would show the name of Hanurrantha Rao as cultivator and that he paid land revenue for the land in Sy. No. 132 and therefore, the said documents would clinchingly establish rhc possession of Hanumantha Rao till 1973, when he died and therealter DW. I and his brothers were in possession of the land in Sy. No. 132 up ro 1978. Ex.Ul0 proceedings olthe ULC authorities would further establish that in the year 1976, the brother of DW.l Gangadhar Rao filed declaration under the Land Ceiling Act showing the land in Sy. No. 132 also, which order was issued in April, 1980. Therefore, the above documentary evidence in the absence of any rebuttal oral or documentary evidence by the plaintiff would clearly establish that late Hanumantha Rao till 1973 and thereafter his sons DW. I and Gangadhar. Rao had been in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy. No.l32 till 1980.

¶144

¶145

| \ ttj t)l^ltr | 'i )ttt oi .'t)t:

¶146

¶147

Both the p.irtics -!,,Lrnclcd that they sold an extcnt ol Ac. I .l(r^qts.. o^' land in Sr \o. l12 tt-r Salch tlirr Jabri^fbL

¶148

Rs. 1,80.000/- and that Srrlelr Llir .lrhli rnade^plots ol-the^{Iand and sold} thern to various llcrsolls^r,r lrrr cor :tr-uctcd hottses. Salcit^{Bin Jabriwas} not examined bv both the partics^to l)rove^{as to rvho so d the said land} to him. The agreerneltt cll- s.lle^rrr the^{sale deed e>lecutedby the} plaintill in lavour of Saleh Birr .lahri^{was rlot filedbefore the court} The trial coun. on considcrilru tllc^evidcnce ol^{P\/.I and cross-} examination of DW. I obsclvecl^{that DW.} I^{and his brothers sold the} land in Sy. No.[.,]2 to Salch Ilin Jabri^{and therefore the land in Sy.} No.l32 was no longer^{vacant irrr'.1available, the suits filcd alleging it} to be vacant land^giving botrnclal'ies^as il it^{was vacant landwas} apparently mischicvous

¶149

The trial cou( lultire^{r obscrvcd that in Ex.A l GPA,the} southem boundarv^rvas shorvn^{as ncighbours land lor the entire land} of Ac.l.19 gts. ln O.S. No.l535^{ot' 1993 for the land of 2500 sq. yds.,} the southem boundary^{\'ttssl'1,11'11} as^{house of Yellarnrnaand} neighbouring housc. According^{t,r the defendants, the southem side of} land in Sy. No. l.l2 was thc llntl in Sy. No.l33/l and the land ol

¶150

.w ,{ It

¶151

i t.⁽ ti,r .I 1, !)t,! t) ),,\ lt)j ,,/ )rr:

¶152

Yellarnnra shown as southent boundary in 0.S No. I 535 ol 1991, r,r,as infact in Sy. No. li3/ t and so also rhe enrire suir land

¶153

The trial court also sLrspectcd the entrics in pahanies in Exs.A3 and A.l showin_q rhe narnc ol'the plaintifT as cult.ivator, as the plaintilf was nor residing in l-lyderabad ar any point of time except occasionally coming ovcr to Hyderabad now and then. The trial court observed thar as per PW. l, the plaintilf carne to Hyderabad in l9g2 and executed Ex.A I GpA in his favour and obtained mutation certificate under Ex.A5. Thereflore, the entry in Ex.A3 showing the plaintifl as in possession without showing any other person as in possession on his behart, held that the ent.ies in Exs.A3 and 44 were highly suspicious.

¶154

The trial court had not accepted the Advocate Commissioner's report as thc Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed to conduct survey with the assistance of Surveyor and to ascertain whether the suit land rbrmed part of Sy. No. r32 or r33rr, stated in his evidence that he had not verified the extent of land in both the suits in O.S. Nos.454 of 1992 and 747 of 1992 and the surveyor was not having Town Survey Register with him, observecl

¶155

¶156

() i), tt ,t. ,:t1'.:,1 t | :t)! 1t )r):

i li

It I i I

I i l I

that the^(lon.inr issioncr' :rn<1 Su r cr or \ cfe ltot equippcd rvith nccessar\ docurrentarr r-'r icicn.-' such as Tot rr Sttrr e) Registcr r.illage map or t()nchau or lhe nr.asurernents of fbur' :.idcs o1- the suit plopcllics in both thc suits II the absence of any.' such plan or' rnaterial, it coulci not be expectctl ll onr them to condrrct strrvey^u'ith certaintv and it could not bc said that the conclusion of^the Comrnissioner had any basis.^{Ihe trial court also placcd reliance ona} judgrnent of the High^(lour1 of .Judicature at Ilyderabad in Kanchi Subbamma v. Mannepalli^Pcnchalaiah 11971^{(l) ALT 534 (S.8.)} and 1984 NOC 300^{(A.D) on thc aspect that the Comnrissionercould} never provc possession or titlc^{or deterlninethat a particulat'land was} in a particular survey number ot not?^{TheCornmissioner's repoft} would not have atty evidentiarl'^{r altte exceptto showit'hathc saw on} the site at the tilne of inspection.^{F.xcept that fact, no} 'lther^{fact with} reference to the report could^{bc proved.His reportcould be used only} lbr a liurited purpose for apprccieting^{the evidence u'hichthe parties} led with regard to^{what he personally sar.v. lt could neverprovethe} title or possession. Basing^{on th('above citations and the evidence of} PW.3, thc trial corrrt held that thc Commissioner's repotl could not^be acccpted to hold that thc suiL larrrl rr as in Sy. No. I 32.

¶161

1' i :t,

¶162

:-E

¶163

On considcring Ex.,49, the trial couft held that thc extract of tlre Town Sulr,ey Rcgister obtaincd bl rlre plaintill'marked under. the said docurnenr would clearly shorv that rhe land in Sy. No. ll2 and I 33 was in posscssion ol I Ianumanrlia Rao, l-ather ol DW. I .

¶164

The trial court on considering the evidence of DW. I and the documents marked under Exs.BIr to Bl4 copies of pahanies for the years 1979-80, 1980-8 l, I985-86 and t986_87 and Ex.Bl5 assessment noticc dated 28.09.1991 and Ex.B l6 Municipal Tax receipt dated 29.10.r99r observed rhar the evidence of DW. I coupled with the above documents ivould show that the land in Sy. No. 133/l had been in possession of the father or DW.l and arter his death in possession of DW. I and in 19g6_g7, a compound wall was constructed around the said property. The assessment notice under Ex.Bl5 and the receipt lor payrxent of tax covered under Ex.Bl6 would establish that DW. I was in possession of the suit land in Sy. No. 133/1. The trial court also observed that the other documents under Exs.Bl to Bl0 also would establish that the land in Sy. No. 132 originally belonged to Gulab Baig and rhar since 1957 onwards DW. I 's father Hanumantha Rao was in possession, till his dcath in

¶165

¶166

197-l and tl'rclca titr' [)\ . I u a:. rn possession alor.rg^,r,ith his brothcr rnd thc piaintifl- ras not in p()ss.ssron of the land in S1 , No.l33/l

¶167

16^-l-he tr ral coLrrl rlst, obscrvcd that on thc lhcc o1' F.x.B9 re^je'ction oldcr I.r thc^'[ahsilda l 1912, il '!as not :rplainc<l as to rvhat was the basis fol rssuiue lrr.A5 mutation in the narne of thc plaintill^'l'he Rcvenue Inspecto, nrade an endorsemcnt that mutation nright be sanctioned, accordinelr. rnutation rvas granted by^'Iahsildar, bLrt Ex.A5 would not show any material on the basis ol which mutation was granted in lavour ol the plaintiff. In the light of thc conduct ol PW. I in not producirrg the plaintilf befole court, it could not be said that Ex.A5 rvas p|oved. It rvas also not^provedthat plaintilf rvas the son of Gulab Ilaig, the original owner. The trial court also observcd that [)W.l appearecl to be litigating in the narnc of^thc were plaintifl because Exs.Al5 and Al6 lease deeds allegedly executcd by PW.1 in his individr.nl capacity but not as the GPA olthe ptaintiff in l98ti lnd 1995. [:xs.A3 and A.4 pahanies for the^years 1980-81 and lgti l-82 appear.eri to $g.. the basis of E,x..A5 in^which plaintil'fs narne \ as shot,n in cc,lumn No.l6. Therefore. Exs.A2 to A6 could not bc relied on by' tlrc plaintifl to establish title as the

¶168

I rl I

¶169

7,,4 :--:,...f

¶170

plaintifT had not proved hirrself to be the son of Gu/ub Baig, or.iginal

¶171

owner

¶172

The trial court aiso lurtlrcl obscr-r'ed that the disposse ssion pleaded by the plaintilf in 1992 was not established. There was no other evidence, except the oral testirnony ol'PW. I to prove the same The plaintiff failed to establish his possession at any point of time from 1957 till date. No tax receipts or any land rcvenue receipts till 1983 were filed and held that the plaintif{' was nol entitled for declaration of title or for recovery of possession and that he failed to establish that he was the legal heir ol the original patredar Gulab Baig The trial court funher observed that the plaintiff, in view of Ex.B9 in 1972, did not take any steps to get his title declarcd and recover possession within l2 years as such, the suit was barred by limitation and hit by Article 64 and 65 olthe Limitation Act. No scrap of paper or any act of possession was excrcised by plaintifT lrom 1957 onwards. Conversely, DW.l established that he and his father were in possession since 1957 atleast since 1970 onwards unchallenged, uninterruptedly and openly and perl'ected title ro thc land in Sy.

¶173

No. 132 by adverse possession.

¶174

I-

¶175

lS. .\s thc ol..crr.rrio't: oi' thc triaI coL]it ul e bascd on considerinLt, 1he ;r idcncc ol' lrll tlre rvitnesses and rhc doculrents nrarked as crhibi.s br hoth tl'Lc lrarlics, this Court docs no[ find any pen'ersitr to sct usidc [hc sanrc. \s the trial court passc(l a rcasolrcd oLdcr b1, discussing the eviclenc,: oi- all the rvitnesscs and by giving rcasons tbr discarLling thc er ide nce of the Advocate Conrrnissioner or cach and cverv docunlcnt llled br' the appellant - plaintifl and the appcllant - plaintitl, though liled rho appeals, failed to argue the same, this Coult does nr)t find anv rcasons to set aside the observations of thc trial courl ir.r tlre abovc cases

¶176

In th!' r'esult. both thc appeals are dismissed confirming tlre corrirron^judgrnent and clecree dated 17. 12.1999 passed in O.S. No.747 of 1992 and O.S. No.45,l ol 1992 by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Cir''il⁽ ourt, I Iyderabad. No order as to costs

¶177

Miscellaneous Applications. if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶178

To,

¶179

SD/. C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER

¶180

//TRUE COPY//

¶181

1 The lV.Senior Civit Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad (With Records)l 2. The il Additionat Chief Judge,-City Civit C6ur[, fvOuiiO!0. 3. une UU to Sri Osman Shaheed Advocate IOPUCI 4. 5. one CC to Sri Kishan pra.rd Srivisiava A'd;;# [OPUC] Two CD Copies IUBC

ct(

H!GH COURT

DATED: 0810612023

s rA).t
f'1
..'
:)
U
[g [lJE?$8 i
t-
:.J
.-:_--.. _ -:- _ _ jr.

¶187

COMMON JUDGMENT CCCA NO: 40 OF 2000 AND TR.CCGA NO.204 0F 2002

¶188

DISMISSING BOTH THE APPEALS

WITHOUT COSTS

@cu(4.t\rr

[321s1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶193

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENIY^THREE

¶194

PRESENT

¶195

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶196

CCCA NO: 40 OF 2000

¶197

Between:

¶198

Janshah, S/o late Gulab Baig rep. by his GPA Holder Masood Hasan

¶199

..APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶200

AND

¶201

P. Venkat Rao, S/o late P. Hanmanth Rao

¶202

...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

¶203

Appeal Under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 17 .12.1999 made in O.S.No.747 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the lV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶204

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit,

¶205

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶206

'l . That the City Civil Court Appeal be and hereby is dismissed;

¶207

That the Judgment and Decree dated 17.12.1999^passed in O.S.No.747 of 1992 by the lV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad be and hereby is confirmed; and

¶208

That there shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal.

¶209

SD/. C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR ED

¶210

//TRUE COPY//

¶211

SECTION OFFICER

¶212

To, '1. The lV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. The ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶213

Two CD Copies

MBC

,\o

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810612023

DECREE

CCCA NO: 40 OF 2000

DISMISSING THE CCGA

WITHOUT COSTS

[³²¹⁵ ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶224

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶225

PRESENT

¶226

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶227

TR.CCCA NO.204 0F 2002

¶228

Between:

¶229

Janshah, S/o late Gulab Baig rep. by his GPA^{Holder Masood Hasan, Rl/o. 19-2-} '1 76, Tadban, Hyderabad.

¶230

..APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶231

AND

¶232

1 P. Venkat Rao, S/o late P. Hanmanth Rao,^{Rl/o.19-2-10511,Tadban,Hyderabad.} lnayath Shareef S/o. Ahmed Shareef

¶233

3 Hidayath Shareef S/o. Ahmed Shareef 4 Nusrath Shareef S/o. Ahmed Shareef 5 Rafath Shareef S/o. Ahmed Shareef b Wahed Shareed S/o. Ahmed Shareef

¶234

(All are Rl/o. ot 19-2-1O2l1Ol1, Tadban, Hyderabad.)

¶235

RESpoNDENT/DEFENDANT

¶236

Appeal Under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and^{Decree dated} 17.12.1999 made in O.S.No.454 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the^{lV Senior Civil} Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶237

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon^{perusing the groundsof appeal,} the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and^{the material papersin the Suit} This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶238

That the Transfer City Civil Court Appeal be and^{hereby is dismissed;}

¶239

That the Judgment and Decree daled'17.12.1999^{passed in O.S.No.454of 1992} by the lV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,^{Hyderabadbe and herebyis} confirmed; and

¶240

That there shall be no order as to costsⁱⁿ this Appeal.

¶241

SD/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I @ SECTION OFFICER

¶242

To, 1. The lV Senior Civil Judse, City Civil Court, Hyderabad^(With Records)l 2. The ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 3. Two CD Copies

¶243