Allowed

T.Ramanaiah, Yellareddiguda, Hyderabad and Another v. Mandava Ravi, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Telangana HC7 Mar 2025CCCA/283/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants appealed against a decree declaring their earlier specific-performance decree and consequential court-executed sale deed null and void. The High Court set aside the trial court decree, holding plaintiffs failed to produce documents they relied on under Order VII Rule 14 CPC and did not implead the Society.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and decree dated 01.12.2008 in O.S.No.205 of 2005 set aside; suit dismissed; parties to bear own costs.

T.Ramanaiah, Yellareddiguda, Hyderabad and Another Vs… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[3300 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

l-:'. '

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶7

CITY CIVIL COURT APP EAL NO: 283 OF 2008

¶8

Appeal. under section^g6 and Order XLI Rule 1 of C.p.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 01-12-2008 made in O.S.No.205 of 2005^"on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

1r'^'.i

¶11

T.Ramanaiah, S/o.T.Venkaiah, Occ: Government Employee, R/o. D.No. 8-3-97 61 1 1 5, Shalivahana Nagar Colony,^{yellareddiguda,'Hyleribad.}

¶12

M.Srinilasa Chary, S/o Alwaraiah Pujari, Rl/o. D.No.3-B-S, Moosapet, Ranga Reddy District. Rep by T.Ramanaiah as his G.p.A. Holder.

¶13

...Appellants/Defendants

¶14

AND.

¶15

Mandava- Ravi, S/o. Late M.Ramakoteswara Rao, Occ: Business, Rl/o. plot No.589, Arora Colony, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶16

2 SmL Sarojini, Wo. Late Ramakoteswara Rao, Occ: Housewife, ' Rlio. plot No.5B9, Arora Colony, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶17

9m! Usha Sundari, D/o. Late Ramakoteswara Rao,Occ: Business, R/o. plot No.5B9, Arora Colony, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶18

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 dismissed for default vide court order dated 18-11-2015.

¶19

...Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(CCCA MP. NO: 878 OF 2008)

¶21

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders suspending the operation of the Judgment and decree dt.01-12-2008 in O.S.No.205 of 2005 on the file of the lll Additional Civit Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above appeal.

¶22

CounselfortheAppellants^{:SriM A K Mukheed}
CounselfortheRespondent^{Nos.1& 2 : Ms.K Hemalatha}
TheCourt deliveredthefollowing:^Judgment

¶23

it;

¶24

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶26

CCCA No. 283 OF 2OO8

¶27

JUDGMENT:

¶28

This Appeal is fi1ed challenging^{the judgement and} decree dated 01.12.2OO8 in^{O.S.No.205 of 2005 on the file of} the III Additional Civil Judge,^{City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.} 2. Parties in the Appeal are referred to^{as theyare} arrayed in the suit.

¶29

Respondents herein are^{Plaintiffswho filed the} mentioned suit to declare^{judgement anddecree dated} l2.ll.lggg in O.S.No. 4862 of^{199 1 on the hle of the IV Junior} Civil Judge, City Civil Courts,^{Hyderabadand sale deed} executed by the said Court^{dated 24.O3.2OO5pursuant to the} decree passed in favour of^{defendantsin the suit uide doatrrent} Number No. 187 of 2OO4 on the file of^{Sub-Registrar, Banjara} Hills, Hyderabad, and to declare^{the sameas null and voidar-rd} not binding on Plaintiffs^{and together a consequentialrelief of} injunction.

¶30

The schedule property^{is apiece ofland} admeasuring 650 square^{yards inSurvey No.4l situatedat} Yellareddyguda,^{Hyderabad with specihc boundaries.It is the} case of Plaintiffs^{that theyare legalheirsof Late N. Koteshwara} Rao who aiong with Sri^{A. Ramachandra Rao, and Sri K' Appa}

¶31

¶32

¶33

Rao^{jointll'ptrrchasedland admeasuringAc'4 2o guntas in} Survey Nos;. 't 1^{and' 42 situatedatYellareddyguda\ri1lage'} Khairatabatl^{L4anda1,Hyderabad,uide registered Sale Deed} dated 30.0(-r.^{1 164. Thereafter,they orallypartitionedth e said} land by mel-es and^{bounds,followed up by exccutiorlof a} partition deec dated^{lO.O7 .lg7a. Inthe said partitictn, Sri} Ramakoteshu.ilra^{Rao got an extent of 9922squareyards of} land.

¶34

L uring the life time of^{Sri Ramakotcshwara Rao,} Sri A.Ramachirndra^{Rao, and Sri K. Appa Rao execr-rted (ieneral} Poi.r,er of Alt(lrney in^{favour of one Mr. Balakotaiahin resipect of} the aforesaicl etnd,^{who, in turn, had enteredinto an Agreemetlt} of Sale datecl 22 ll lg75^{with M/s Bhagralakshmi co-oPerative} Housing Socit ty^{Limited. It is the claim of Plaintiffsthat the said} GPA was canrrr:l1ed^{whichfact was informedto the Soci(tywith} an advice nor, to deal^{with Mr. Balakotaiahand thatthe} aforesaid Ag,r,r(rment^{of Sale had Iapsed by efflux of time ltis} the further c:tse of^{Plaintiffs that the above three personsfi1ed} indepen<le nl- declarations^{before theSpecial Officr:r and} Competent, Ar-Lthority,^{U.L C., Hyderabadinrespect cf lands} held by th(rrn in Survey^{Nos. 41 arrd 42 underSection 6( l') of the} Urban Larrd^,leiling Act in^{proceedingsin C.C.No.Alla538/76} clated. O6. 11 .877 . The Competent Authority^{under tht: Urban}

))

,* \ l:)

_....*{

Land (Ceiling & Regulationsl Act, 1976, had allowed plaintiffs to retain 938 square meters in Survey Nos. 42 and. 62 square meters in Survey No.41 and balance land of 8254 square meters was declared as surplus land. Plaintiffs contested the said order and final order was passed on O7.O8.2OO4, allowing them to retain 8000 square meters and declared balance 5881 .68 square meters as surplus and applied for regalarization as per G.O.Ms.No.455 and paid Rs.82,68,71 I / - by each plaintiff to Government and sought for exemption of surplus land and the same is pending consideration before the authorities concernedWhile matter stood thus, strangers had visited schedule land and made an attempt to measure the boundaries of a portion of schedule property and on enquiries, they revealed that they purchased the said property. It is the further case of purchasers that pursuant to the direction issued in Writ Petition No.788O of 2005, the Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad processed the Sale Deed dated 24.O8.2OO5 and the said saie deed was registered on O7.O3.20O5 in E.P No. 28 of 2OO5 in O.S.No. 4862 of 1991 and the Sub-Registrar had released the sale deed in favour of defendants.

¶41

Plaintiffs came to know that the 2"d defendant and father of the lst defendant claim to have entered into an AgreyzGnt of Sa-le dated 22.06.1981 with M/s Bhagralakshmi

¶42

¶43

Co-operatir,,:^{Fi c} using^{SocietyLimited(herein afterreferrerl to as} 'society')^tbr- ltrrrchase^{of suit land and had fi1ed suit lor specific} performatrc: in O.S.No.4862^{of7991 on the file ofrhe IV} Assistant Jurl5,e,^{City CivilCourt, Hyderabad againstthe liociety} and the said suil^{was decreed on 30.08.1995ThoughAppeals} were prefcrre,l by the^{Society, the same were disrnissed;} consequently, defendants^{hled tr.P.No. 19 of1991'and} E.P.No.3 L4^,tl 20OO which^{were dismissedby ordersdated} L9.O3.2OO2 arLrl 13.10.2003^{and the third E.P. No 28 cf 2O05} was allorved llr the IV Junior^{Civil Judge,City Civil (lourts,} Hyderabad llrisuant to^{which, the Sale Deed mentionecl supra} was preser,. tcc by the civil Court^{on behalfof judgment debtor} on 24.O3.'2OOli. in favour^{of defendants,who are decree lrolders} and the same^(ras received^{and kept pending for n'ant ol stamp} duty, thereby^\Mrit Petition^{No. 7880 of 2005 washled r;eeking} direction to I,rocess the^{Sale Deed. Itis the further:ase of} Piaintiffs thrLt-^r hey are in^{possession of Suit Schedule Property} and construcled a room^{and got a bore-well dug and that they} are not the parties to the suit^{iiledby the defendants aga.nst the} Society and l)efendants and^{Society have colluded with each} other and oblained the decree, hence,^{the same is not binding} on the^plainr,ilTs

I t

t s

Society being only an agreement hoider, had never acted upon the agreement of sale and the same was terminated around 1980 itself and the SocietSz was not the owner of property and possession of lald was not delivered to Societ5r or to defendants at any point of time and Society being an agreement of sale holder cannot tralsfer title or ownership to defendants and that there is no registered deed of conveyance in favour of Society pursuant to the agreement of the sale dated: 22.11.1975 and land was declared as surplus way back in 1977 itself. Subsequent to service of notices in suit, defendants filed written statement, gist of which is that defendants have put a challenge that Plaintiffs are legal heirs of late M. Ramakoteshwara Rao, while admitting the fact that Sri Ramakoteshwara Rao, Sri K.Appa Rao and Sri A. Janardhan Rao^jointly purchased the land admeasuring Acs.4.22 guntas in Surwey Nos. 4 1 and 42, uide Registered Sale Deed dated 30.06.1994, however, denied that there was partition by metes and bounds and subsequently, they entered into partition deed dated 10.07.1987 and it is also denied that Sri A. Ramachandra Rao got an extent of 9922 square yards of the said partition. All the three persons entered into General Power of Attorney in favour of Mr.Balakotaiah who had entered into Agreement of Sale with M/ s Bharyalakshmi Co-operative Housing Society

¶50

¶51

Limited, antl a;^{pcr the terms of the said agreement, the Siociety} was put in yr<,s;session^{of land for developmentinto pl cts by} obtaining^{ltry ou} t.^{It is deniedthat Power of Attorney given in} favour of Mr. Ilalakotaiah^{was cancelledand that Agreenrent of} Sale had lapst^{<1 by efflux of time. The declarationsfiled bcfore} the U.L.C. allthorities^{were disputedby defendantsand itis} categorically i enied^{thatPlaintiffs paid amountstrlwards} regularizatiolr scheme^{as per G.O.Ms.No45 and souglhtfor} exemption tl^{s;trrplusland and it is totally false and illegrrl' lt is} specific cerse of^{defendants, thatplaintiffs are never in} possessiort of suit^{property,the father of the 1"t defendant and} the 2"d dcferr clant^{enteredinto Agreementof Sale w.th the} Society for nrrrchase^{of land consistingof 65O squartryards} u,hich is S,uit Schedule^{Propertyand then Agreement of Sale} dated 22.0(;- 1981 and^{paid part ofsaleconsideration of} Rs.25,OOO7 - leaving a^{balance Rs.14,OOO/-to be paid at the} time of re.r1i:;^r rration of^{SaleDeed and the Societyhand:dover} ph].sica1 po:;session with^{specihc boundaries and deni:d that} plaintiffs trar': right and^{possessionover the properly and in} vieu, of non,:ompliance^{of the obligation by theSociety,} defendants fibd^{O.S.No.4862 of 1991 and after obtaininga} decree, hlccl t:xecution^{petition and got the sale deed e recuted} through Cou-t and had obtained^{necessary order from High}

<br>\ . , .ir ..r' I

\ \

Court in Writ Petition No. 788 of 2OO5 for processing Saie Deed by the Sub-Registrar, who raised objection. Plaintiffs are not owners and they are not in possession of property. Based on the

¶57

above pleadings, the trail Court framed the following issues:

¶58

whether partition between Ramachandra^Rao and^{two others} dated:10 7-1987 is true? If so whether 9922 Sq.yards fell to the share of said Ramachandra Rao?

¶59

Whether Ramachardra Rao ald others filed declaration before the U.L.C. in viotation of agreement. Of sale dated 22-11-1975?

¶60

whether the decree in O.S. No. 4a62/1991is not binding on^the plaintiffs?

¶61

Whether the suit is not in time?

¶62

Whether the decree dated 12-i 1 1999 in O.S. No. 4862/ 1991^on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge and consequential sale deed executed^by the Court on 24-03 2OO5 are null and^void and not binding^{on the} plaintiffs?

¶63

whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration and for^permanent injunction as prayed for?

¶64

To what relieP

¶65

Evidence was laid by both the^parties to the^suit.

¶66

The son of the 1st plaintiff was brought on record^{as legal heir} and was examined as PW-l and documents^{Exs.Alto ,{4 were} marked. On behalf of defendants, the lst^{defendant was} examined as DW-1 and Ex. B1 - certilied^{copy of saledeedbeing} document No.518 of 2OO8 registered in the^{ofhce JointSub} Registrar, Hyderabad executed^{in favour of the Defendants, was} marked.

¶67

g. All the issues framed in the suit^{were answeredin} favour of PlaintiffS and the suit^{wasdecreed by judgement and} decree dated O1.72.2OO8. Chailenging^{the said judgementand} decree, the present Appeal^{was filed by defendants}

¶68

/ ,//

¶69

¶70

Dcfendants are claiming title^{over subject} Froperly admeasurinl3 based on^{the AgreementofSale from the} Agreement hr,lder of^{the documentin favour of Bhagya Nagar} Co-operative: Society.^{They filed O.S. No. 4862 of 1991 against} the Sociery s;eeking the^{relief ofSpecificPerformtLnce of} Agreement ol Sale dated^{22 06-1981and obtained decree on} 30 06-1995^'lhe Society^{fi1edA.S.No.299of 1997 on the hle of} the Vth Aclditional Chief^{judge,Cily Civil Courts,Hyderabad,} challenging t Lre above decree and^{the same was dismissed'} Defendants t rcrefore, filed^{E.P.No. 19 of 1996 and tr.P.No. 314} of 20O0, v'hich u.ere dismissed^{by order dated 19 03-2o02and} 13 10.2003 re specl-ive1y. Again in^{2OO5, appellantshlecl E.P.28} of 2OO5 scek ng an execution^{of the decree,whichwas allowed} by the Ccurl belorv, and^{the sale deed was executed through} Court. l'he -q ociety hled^{E.A.No. 558 of 2005 to seta Jidethe} order i.n E.l'. Irlo.28 of 2005.^{The Execution Petitionwas, hled in} 2004 ar-rd tlrc same was ordered in^{2OO5 uftle order dated} 24 03 2OO5. 1\t the time of marking the^{boundaries,plaintiffs} came to kn,:'v about passing of decree in^O.S.No.4862 'tf^l99l' hence resprrrrdents / plaintiffs hled O.S.No.205 of 2005^seeking cancellatiorL ,rf the said decree; accordingly, O.S. No.205 of 2005 was filed rvitlun the period of limitation.

<br>

1 1. Plaintiffs claim that they filed an Application for regularization of surplus land under G.O.Ms.No. 466, dated 29-07 -2OO2, Government issued regularization of surplus land in favour of plaintiffs/ respondents uide G.O.Ms.No. 1636, dated 09 O9-2OO9 vide Ex.A2.

¶75

From the pleadings, evidence and impugned judgment and decree, the following point fall for consideration for adjudication of the present Appeal:

¶76

" Whether the suit is maintainable and can be decreed as prayed for, in the absence of the document viz. judgment and decree in O.S.No. 4862 of 1991 on the hle of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and Partition Deed dated 10.O7.1987 executed after death of Late Sri M. Ramakoteshwara Rao, Sri K. Appa Rao and Sri A. Janardhan Rao and whether the suit is in compliance with Order VII Rule 14 CPC?"

¶77

It is apparent on the face of the record that plaintiffs are relying on registered Partition Deed dated lO.O7.l9a7 and are claiming rights over suit schedule property. Order VII of the Code mandates that Plaintiff who is coming to the Court shall file all the documents that are being relied. Order VII Rule- I 4 is extract ed hereunder:

:E;r":: -.:.' .-

'Order lII Rule 74t

Pl ccluction of document on^{rvhichplaintiff sues ot- relies -} (1) where ,l pllintiff sues upon a document^{or reliesupon docuntentin} his possesrsiorr or^po{.rer in support^{of his claim, he shall enter such} documents n rr list, and shall^{produce it in courtwhcn the plaint is} presented b]' trl anrl sha1l, at the^{sametime deliverthe documcnt and} a copy thereol, to be filed with^{the plaint} ,^{(2) whereany suchdot ument} is not in tlLe rlossession or^{power of the plaintiff,he shall wlrerever} possible, stat( n whose possession or^{powerit is-,(3) A docrrmentwhich} is ought 10 bc produced in Court^{by the plaintiff when the plaint is} presented. .)r 10 be entered in the list to be added^{or annexedto the} plaint but rs rrot produced or entered^{accordingly,shall not, rvithrlutthe} leave of the c( lrrt, be received^{rn evidenceon his behalf at the heiLringof} the suit.,⁽⁴¹ l\llthing in this rule shall^{apptyto documenlproduced for} the cross eria[rination of the^{plaintiffs$'itnesses,or handed o\er to a} witness ucrel,'to refresh his^memory"-

¶84

14 . lrr the suit, though in the List o[ Documcnts,^{1 1} documents ,!- e re shown to have been^{hled,however, during the} trial, the C,lr:t had admittcd Ex.Al -^{Certihed Copy of Sale} Deed executtcl in favour of^{plaintlffs'predecessors in-t itle and} his co-pur,:hasers dated 30.06.1964,^Ex.A2 Oopy of G.O.Ms.No.1tr.36, dated.09.09.2OO5, trx.A3^- Copl'^ofA.P. Gazatee datr:d O 1.1O.2OO4 and trx.A4-Copv^{of .} the^orderof Competent A -rthority, ULC dated 28.O4.2OO4. 15. \s discussed supra, the claim of^plaintiffsLs based on partition ri,:ed dated lO.O7 .1987 and the said docurr.ent was not filed ilr,d no reasons were given by them for not f.ling the same along rrith suit and so aiso subsequently. When the very , I

¶85

¶86

,i basis for suit is not hled by plaintiffs themselves, it is uncomprehensible as to how the trial Court had overlooked the said aspect, more so when it is clearly elicited in the crossexamination of PW 1 that "I am not aware uhether there utas ang partition deed betueen Ramokotesuaro Rao, Ramochandra Rao and Appa Rao in respect of Ac.4.22 guntds but I understood that tLrcre is oral partition".

¶87

Further, added to the aforesaid aspect, it is shocking to notice that trail Court had adjudicated the suit without there being the principal document viz.^judgment and decree in O.S.No.4862 of 1991 and had decided Issue^No.5 "Whether decree dated 12.11.1999 in O.S.No.4862 of l99l^on the filc of the IV Junior Civil Judge and consequential Sale^Deed executed by the Court on 24.O3.2OO5 are null and^{voidand not} binding on plaintiffs?"

¶88

In the impugned^judgment, the trail Court had adjudicated Issue No.5 along with Issue Nos. 3 and⁶ contending that all the three issues are^{intei.linked.The} contention of plaintiffs is that decree in O.S.^{No.4862 of l99l on} the fi1e of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City^{Civil Court, Hyderabad} and consequential sale deed^executed by^theCourton 24-O3-2OOS are null and void and^{not binding on plaintiffs. The} contention of defendants is^{that the decree in the said suit and}

dh. .-.fl

the conseque ttial sale deed^{are binding on plaintiffsF'-om the} saicl respeiti\e stands^{taken by the parties, the burdenof proof} is on plaiLrti{fs to^prove their^{case specihcallyr,-hen theyare} asking for s(lttlng aside^{the judgment and decree in O.S.l'1o.4862} ot 1991. WtrcrL the said^{judgmentand Decreeis not part of the} Court record the exercise done by^{the trial Court in rleciding} Issue No.ir irr favour of plaintiffs is^{unsustainablein law and} findings an<1 conclusion given on^{Issue No.5 are liable to be set} aside, more^s c, when^PW 1 in cross-examination^{had sta ted that} "The societg' ts not partg to the^{suit. Nottt I came to krtoru that the} society cot'tt,z:;ted in O.5.No.4862/⁹¹ filed^{by defenrl an.t.s and that} it uent in,fat,vtr of defendants and confinned^{in the appe al also."} 18. 'lhe GPA holder of Sri A. Ramachander llao, Sri Ramakotesl.ttl'ara Rao and Sri Appa^{Rao had excctlted an} agreemen- of sale in favour ol M/s^{BhagralakshmiCo t:perative} Housing Sioc:ety Limited. The above-named^{three persol-rsbeing} the Princrpa. si are bound by the acts of their^{Agent i.e GPA} Holder. PW f . in the cross-examination stated^{t.hat" r} do^not knou uthether my fatlrcr Romakoteshtuar^{Rao had exect;.ted GPA} in fauour oJ f:ri M.Balakotalah. I do not knou tuhether GI:'A holder executed eqreement of sale on 22-11-1975 in fc'.uour of Bhagganctga' Cooperatiue Societg. I haue not Jiled doatment to shoul that thz GPA is concelled and I om not aloare uh<ztler the \ -

I \

GPA in fauour of Balakotaiah is a registered one as No. 100 and 99 of 1975 Sub-Registrar, Vijagautada". This statement of PW1 shows that he is not aware of the defence set up by defendalts so also the actual sequence of events that have taken place with regard to schedule property which led to hling the suit. Defendants, based on the said agreement of sale, hled O.S.No.4862 of 1991 for specific performance of agreement of sale and the same was decreed, pursuant to which, the decree holders - defendants hled Execution Petition and had obtained a registered.sale deed. Plaintiffs, who were seeking declaration of decree mentioned supra, so obtained as null and void, should have hled the said^judgment. Having regard to Order VII Ruie-14 CPC, the documents hled along with plaint are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the suit. In exercise of power under the aforesaid provision, the Court would determine as to whether the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law or judicial dicta. It is only when a document is received in evidence, it becomes part of the adjudication of the suit.

¶99

Reliance of plaintiffs on ULC proceedings and getting the same marked as Exs.A2 to A4 are of not much help. Suit scheduie property is having dehnite boundaries and the claim of defendants is fortihed by the Judgment and Decree,

¶100

¶101

.ti -
:,

¶102

u'hereas frctn Exs.A2 to A4,^{it cannot be ascertained tl Lat suit} schedule prolrt:rff is^{forming part and parcelof trxs A2 to ,A'4'} Thereby, it is rrot safe^{to rely upon the said exhibits anddecree} the suit of 1:laintiffs. Thus,^{this Court is deferringu iththe} hnding of the trial Court^{on Issue No.1 in vien' of the finding} with regard tc Issue No.5.^{Further, in view of the holrlingon} Issue Nos.S i:rLd 1, Issue^{No.6is decidedagainstplaintiffsand} holds that b'rt for the^{proceduralorders, plaintiffs hitve not} produccd a single document^{evidencing proof ofphysical} possessiol, or err the suit property^{as against the regisleledsale} cleed of deft:r <lants and^{judgment and decree granted in the ir} favour.

¶103

"l-re trial Court, while deciding Issue No.l "\Vhether partition beluveen Ramachander^Rao and^{[u'o otherr;dated} 10.07.1987 i:; true? If so, u,hether^{9922 square} 1'ards^{fcll to the} share of thr: said Ramachander^{Rao" had discussed alroutthe} agreemenl of s;ale entered by the GPA^{Holder of the lar-rclo\'ners} u.rth the Soc e ty, but had overlooked the^{fact that no partition} deed dated 1 ).O7 .7987 was filed by^{plaintiffs. Discussion about} defendants' r'cndor not obtaining the sale^{deed fron'r the land} owners sern s the document viz. partition deed. In th{l^cross- examination cf P.W. 1; it is stated that "I admit the copg of order of competertt authoitg ULC dated 28-8-2OO4 for referer tce. It is

1 \

\ \

marked os Ex.A4.ln Ex. A4 there is a reference to the agreement of sale exeanted bg GPA in fauour of societg and about deliuery of possession on 22-11-1975. I am not aLuare of the aboue proceedings personallg and olso tuhether any notice u.ta-s issued bg mg fatLrcr to the societg and the GPA for cancellotion of agreement. I am not anDore on tuhat dag tte declaration was frled by mg father. I am not au)are ds to uhat tuas the extent lrcld^bg the authoitg to be possessed as my familg holding. Ex.A2 GO^as tuell as Ex. A3 Gazette are afier^th,e filing of suit'.^{The non-filing} of the said partition deed is fatal to the suit of^plaintiffs. Furthermore, plaintiffs being in^possession of the^said document had not given reasons for non-hling^{of partitiondeed.} Trial Court committed a serious error in iinding that^{there exists} a partition^just by believing the oral evidence^{of PWI and had} presumed that there was partition of land among all those^three persons and 9922 square yards feli to the share of^{the said} Ramachander Rao. This finding of the^{trial Court is brought} from thin air and is nothing short of^{hction.For non-ftlingof the} documents relied on by^{plaintiffs,adversepresumption has to} be drawn against them. However,^{the trail Court, as against the} settled principles of law,^{had relied more on the weakness of the} case of defendants rather^{the strengthof plaintiffs'caseand had}

¶109

¶110

¶111

decreed the^{s,uit. In Union of India o' Vasaui CooPerative}

¶112

Housing Societg^Limitedl ,^{it rvas heldas under:}

¶113

' 1:,. It is trite law that,^{in a suit for declarationoltirle'the} burden al\v€<sup>r iies on the plaintiff to make out and cstablish r clear case for granling^{such a declarationand the weakncss'if an]' of the} case set u p t) the^{defendants\a'ould not be a groundto grant1 31ief to} the plaintlff^"

¶114

The trial Court,^{while deciding Issue No 2 " \Vhether} RamachandrrL^{Rao and others filed declarationbeforethe ULC} in violaticrn cf agreement^{of sale d'ated 22 11'1975?"'had} committed^{I 1.r} c same^{error of believing the oral vcrslon of PW 1} though disprr ted^{by defendants and had relieduponEris'A2to} A4 as to th.e^{existence of suit scheduleproperq'form ng part} and parcel ol the^{said documents. This approachof triill Court} is vitiated b1' )aw and^{procedure. Even otherwise, this is;sue will} not come trr the^{rescue of plaintiffs in view of the finrlingson} lssue No.5i, s u pra.

¶115

I-rrther, it is to^{be notedthat O.S No 2O5 of 2OO5} was filed b1' respondents^{hereinto declarethe judgment and} clecree date<l l2.ll.lggg^{in O.S.No. 4862 of 1991 on tl-re filc of} the learrred IV Junior^{Civil Judge, City Civil Courtsat} Hyclerabad arLd sale deed^{executedby the Court on 24 03'2O05} pursuant to the decree in favour of^{appellantshcrein as null}

t(2014)^{2 sc(l 269}

( I

/l:

I I

and void. Though a copy of the said judgment and decree dated 12.11.1999 in O.S.No. 4862 of 1991 was not placed on record, it appears, the said suit was Iiled by the appeliants against M/s Bharyalakshmi Cooperative Housing Societ5r Limited. However, respondents while seeking to declare the judgment and decree passed between the appellants and the said Society as null and void, did not make the Society as party to the suit. Therefore, it has to be declared that suit is also bad for nonjoinder ol necessary parl ies.

¶122

In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasoning, this Court is not venturing to discuss other issues.

¶123

In the result, the Appeai is allowed. The Judgment and Decree dated 07.12.2OO8 in O.S.No.2OS of 2OO5 on the hle of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad declaring the judgment and decree dated 12.lI.I999 in O.S.No. 4862 of 1991 on the h1e of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and sale deed executed by the said Court on 24.O3.2OO5 pursuant to the said decree in favour bf defendants uide P.No. 187 of 2OO4 of Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs and consequently, granted permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs, is set aside. Consequently, O.S.No. 2O5 of 2005 is dismissed. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.

J r}d

T,]

i I i 1

25 C) cnsequently,^{MisceilaneousApplications, ifany}

¶130

shall stancl^{r: ,1sed}

¶131

sd/K. SRINIVASARAO \jqIN-I'REGTSTRAR

¶132

//TRUE^COPY// Jr"rto*^oFFtcER \i

¶133

To,

¶134

1 The lll Additir>rral^{Civil Judge' Citv Civil Court' at Hyderabad} 2 d=., d,;d;;^{,lKMukhLe'd'AdvocatetoP^u-cl} J E.#i6^{i; M. k Hemalatha' AdvocatetoPUCl} 4 Two CD^CoPies

¶135

ADK

¶136

tr"'

¶137

Gi * ',5:-l i-'_^ra '..':.

¶138

.^..:- I r".?ra:,r,&{n €.:.

.'.-* d(

.t':

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710312025

.:. Ait OF
Y\v
.>* Z
il
- \r\s rNh
i
tt
t)
.,,,1 .cj
' t 'li-..t)l: ' ;2'
-\j:i.a=..-

¶145

JUDGMENT+DECREE

¶146

2 DRAFTS

¶147

r J^{CCGA.No.283of 2008}

¶148

ALLOWING THE CCCA WITHOUT COSTS

¶149

¶150

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶151

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶152

PRESENT

¶153

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶154

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 283 OF 2008

¶155

Between:

¶156

T.Ramanaiah, Sio.T.Venkaiah, Occ: Government Emplovee, Rl/o. D.No. 8-3-976/1 1 5, Shalivahana Nagar Colony, Yellareddiguda,'tty6erabad.

¶157

M.Srinivasa.Chary, S/o. {lwaraiah Pujari, Rl/o. D.No.3-B-5, Moosapet, Ranga Reddy District. Rep by T.Ramanaiah a-s his G.P.A. Holder.

¶158

...Appel lants/Defendants

¶159

AND

¶160

1 Mandava Ravi, S/o. Late M.Ramakoteswara Rao, Occ: Business, Fi/o. Plot No.5B9, Arora Colony, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶161

2 Smt. Sarojini, Wo. Late Ramakoteswara Rao, Occ: Housewife, Rl/o. Plot No.589, Arora Colony, Road No.'13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶162

Smt. Usha Sundari, D/o. Late Ramakoteswara Rao,Occ: Business, FVo. Plot No.589, Arora Colony, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶163

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 dismissed for default vide court order dated 18-11-2015.

¶164

...Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶165

Appeal under section 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Daled 01-12-2008 made in O.S.No.205 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

¶166

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 Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M A K Mukheed, Advocate for the Appellants and of Ms. K Hemalatha, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 & 2 and none appeared for the respondent No.3.

¶167

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶168

That the Appeal be and hereby is Allowed;

¶169

That the Judgment and Decree daled 01 .12.2008 in O.S.No.2OS of 2005 on the file of the lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad declaring the^judgment and decree daled 12.11 .1999 in O.S.No.4B62 of 1991 on the file of the lV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and sale deed executed by the said Court on 24.03.2005 pursuant to the said decree in favour of defendants vide P.No.187 of 2004 of Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs and consequenfly, granted permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs, is set aside. Consequently, O.S.No.205 of 2005 is dismissed;

¶170