G.Padma (Died) Vs A.S. Ravindranath — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

G.Padma (Died) Vs A.S. Ravindranath — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned decree of declaration of title and consequential possession and mandatory injunction is sustainable in the facts and law?

Court's answer

By the testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 and the sale deed Ex.A-1, the plaintiff placed evidence in support of the suit claim; defendant No.1, though making contrast claims, failed to place any supporting material, so there was no legally acceptable evidence in rebuttal.

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court's conclusion on the plaintiff's title over the schedule property and the defendant's illegal occupation and unauthorised construction is found proper and sustainable.

Key takeaways

Decreeing the suit as prayed for is befitting; the impugned judgment deserves affirmation.ratio¶75
In the absence of any tenable cause, the appeal is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed; there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶76

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (N. Tukaramji, J.), A.S. No. 3743 of 2003, decided 20-02-2025 — Appeal under S.96 CPC against judgment and decree dated 29-07-2003 in O.S.No.569 of 1994 (I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District) decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title to house bearing No.30-81/1, plot Nos.398-401 in Sy.Nos.418 and 392, admeasuring 400 sq.yds at Kanajiguda, Alwal, together with possession and mandatory injunction. Held, dismissing the appeal without costs: the plaintiff proved his title through the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 and the registered sale deed Ex.A-1 (dated 13.08.1990, consideration Rs.35,000/-), supported by sanction plan Ex.A-3 and tax receipt Ex.A-2; the defendant, who claimed a distinct 300 sq.yds in Sy.No.392 (municipal No.30-78/3) under a gift from her father-in-law Gandaiah and relied on her own decreed suit O.S.No.678 of 1994, chose not to lead evidence; there being no legally acceptable rebuttal material, the trial Court's conclusions on the plaintiff's title and the defendant's illegal occupation and unauthorised construction were proper and sustainable, and the impugned judgment deserved affirmation. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 29-07-2003 in O.S.No.569 of 1994 decreeing the plaintiff's suit: declaration of the plaintiff's ownership over the schedule property, entitlement to possession by evicting the defendants, and mandatory injunction to remove the structures erected by the defendant.¶37
I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District · 29-07-2003
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 (plaintiff, since deceased) filed suit O.S.No.569 of 1994 seeking declaration of title over house bearing No.30-81/1, plot Nos.398, 399, 400 and 401 in Sy.Nos.418 and 392, admeasuring 400 square yards at Kanajiguda, Alwal, Malkajgiri mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.1 from interfering with his possession.¶37
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff's case: schedule property purchased under registered sale deed Ex.A-1 dated 13.08.1990 for sale consideration of Rs.35,000/-; building permission obtained 15.10.1992 per sanction plan Ex.A-3; property tax receipt Ex.A-2 dated 10.05.1994 placed on record.¶40
Prior proceeding
Interim temporary injunction granted, later vacated; plaintiff's C.M.A.No.21 of 1996 dismissed; defendant No.1 then occupied the schedule property and constructed two rooms in February 1998; plaintiff amended pleadings to seek recovery of possession and mandatory injunction.¶41
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.1's written statement denied the plaintiff's claim and asserted ownership of 300 square yards with municipal No.30-78/3 in Sy.No.392, gifted by her father-in-law Gandaiah, i.e., property distinct from the schedule property.¶45
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.1 further pleaded that she had filed O.S.No.678 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, East and North, Ranga Reddy District; that suit was decreed and attained finality.¶45
Prior proceeding
Trial: plaintiff examined as PW-1 and his brother as PW-2; Exs.A-1 to A-3 marked; defendants filed written statement but adduced no evidence. Trial Court decided all issues against the defendants and decreed the suit, declaring the plaintiff's ownership, entitlement to possession by evicting the defendants, and granting mandatory injunction to remove the structures.¶59
Prior proceeding
I.A.No.1 of 2006 (T.A.M.P.No.2703 of 2006): petition under Section 151 CPC by A.S. Ravindranath praying that the hearing of A.S.No.3743/03 be expedited by fixing an early date.¶27
Prior proceeding
Respondent Nos.2 to 4 brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole respondent/plaintiff A.S. Ravindranath per court order dated 16.02.2023 vide I.A.No.1 of 2023 in A.S.No.3743 of 2003.¶19
Prior proceeding
Appellants filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 in the appeal praying for reception of additional evidence, submitting that allowing it and relegating the matter to the trial Court would secure substantive justice (submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants).¶63