Smt. B. lalitha Kumari Vs Smt. G. Geetha

¶1

132171

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IVONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶6

SECOND APPEAL No: 2'15 oI 2010 AND SECOND APPEAL No.268 of 2010

¶7

Second Apoeal No.215 of 2010

¶8

Appeal under sectionl00 of c.p.c. aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 06-08-2009 passed in A.s.No.20B of 2004 on the file of the court of the I Additional chief Judge, city civil court, secunderabad preferred against the Judgment and decree dared 24-09-2004 passed in o.S.No.1122 of 2001 on the file of the court of the Additional Rent controller cum XVlll Junior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 Smt. B.Lalitha, Wo. Sri B.Ramakoteswar Rao, Age:61 years, Occ: Housewife R/o. No. 34/8. East Marredpally. Secunderabad.^-

¶11

2 B Ramakteshwar Rao, S/o. B.R.K.Murthy, Age:6g years, Occ: Business R/o. No. 34iB, East Marredpally, SecunderabaO 1O'ieU p6r f_n-aa1-

¶12

3 B -^{Radhakritna.Murthy,.S/o B, RamakoteswaraRao, Age:Sg years,Occ:} uovernment Employee, R/o. H.No.3418, East Maredpally, Secund5rabad

¶13

(Appellant No.3 is brought on record as per LR of the deceased Appellant No.2 vide C ourt order dated 15-10-2024 in l.A.No.1 ot 20241

¶14

...Appellants/Appellants/Defenda nts

¶15

AND

¶16

Smt. G.Geetha, Wo. Saseendran, Age:49 years, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.5_2_ 390 on plot No. 147lClC. Hyderbasti.-Secunderabad.

¶17

... RespondenURespondenUplaintiff

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(SAMP NO: 1120 OF 2011)

¶19

Petition under Section^'l5i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ine uign court may be pleased to pass orders directing the respondent not to alter the physical features of the

¶20

property which is the subrect matter of o.S.No .1122 0f 2001 0n the fire of XV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court. Su"rnOurr;rA,-p1n.,ng disposal of the SA.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Order.V Rule 20 of C.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavir fired in support of th; i;t,iio, the High court mav be pleased to pass orders directing service oi notl* or tnu s"".,"a ;;;"ri #;" respondent by way of substituted service.

¶23

CounSel for the Appellants: Sri p.V. Vidyasagar

¶24

Counsel forthe Respohdent: None Appeared

¶25

Second Appea I No.268 ot 2010

¶26

Appear under section '100 r/w order XLI Rure '1 0f c.p.c aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 06_08-2009 passed in A.S No.1g0 of 2003 on the fire of the court of the r Additionar chief Judge, city civir court, Secunderabad preferred against the Judgment and decrle dated 01-12-2003 passed in o s No 84l of 2000 on the fire of the court of the Xr Junior civir Judge, city civir Cou(, Secunderabad.

¶27

Between:

¶28

HousSmt. ewife B.Lalitha Kumari. R/o No. 3418, Wo East MarredpatV. Sri B.,Ramakoteswar S""r"Alr"Oli Rao, Age:6.1' years, Occ

¶29

AND

¶30

..AppellanUAppeilanUptaintiff

¶31

8fi' ": 8fil?;,yi:.:d: i;Hiil ;f,'s"Xr, IEE Ij o 30i., B u s i n ess R/o H N o 5-2 -

¶32

... RespondenURespondenUDefendant

¶33

IA NO:1O F 2022

¶34

Petition under Order VRule 20 9t ! e C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petitron, the High Court mav be pleased to pass orders directing ;;." respondent by way of substituted service. "i;;ti.""'ot^{*," Second Appear on the}

¶35

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri p.V. Vidyasagar

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared

¶37

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGIvIENT

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE^{N. TUKARAMJI}

¶39

SECOND APPEAL No.215^{of 2010} AND SE COND APPEAL No.268^{of 2010}

¶40

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶41

Heard Sri P.V.Vidyasagar, learned^{counsel for the} appellants

¶42

As the issue involved is selfsame,^{these appeals are heard} and being disposed of^{by this commonjudgment.}

¶43

3 S.A.No.268 of 20't0 The appellant as^{plaintiff has filed suit} OS No.841 of 2000^{seeking perpetual injunction againstthe} defendant^(plaintiff in OS^{No.1122 of 2001) against blockingthe} entrance of the suit schedule^{property i.e., plot No.147lC/B} admeasuring 47.5 Sq.yds situated at^{Hyderbasti, Secunderabad} (hereinafter referred to as^'suit schedule^premises').

¶44

4 S.A.No.215 of 2O1O: The defendant^{in OS No.B41of 2000} as plaintiff field suit OS No.1122 of 2001^{seeking perpetual} injunction against the defendant^{(plaintiffin OS No.841 of 2000)} from blocking the entrance of the^{suit schedulepremises.}

¶45

2

¶46

NTR.J S\i : Ii&268²⁰¹⁰

¶47

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in OS No.84'1 of 2000

¶48

Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the schedule property admeasuring 95.05 Sq.yds belonged to one Bharath Kumar from him one Srinivas Rao brought the property from whom the plaintiff and defendant purchased the east and west portions of the first floor under registered sale deeds on the same day

¶49

Contending that the defendant blocked the entrance of the suit schedule premises leading common staircase and also threatened with dire consequences, the plaintiff filed the suit

¶50

With the similar pleadings, the defendant filed OS No.1122 of 2001 claiming that the plaintiff blocked the entrance i.e., staircase and threatened with dire consequences

¶51

The trial Court, after considering the evidence, decreed the suit filed by the defendant i.e. OS No.1122 ot 2001 injuncting the plaintiff from blocking the entry. Further, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed

¶52

Whereupon, the plaintiff preferred appeals against the judgment and decree passed in his suit (O.S.No.B41 of 2000) as

¶53

J

¶54

NTR.J Si\s 2i 5&268 2010

¶55

I Y

¶56

well as the suit filed by the defendant^{(O.S.No.1122 ot 2001)' vide} appeal Nos.208 of²⁰⁰⁴ and^{180 of 2003 respectively.The} appellate Court having^{considered the pleadings, dismissedboth} the appeals, thus these^{second appeals.}

¶57

Learned counsel for the^{plaintiff would contend thatthe} Courts below failed to^{appreciatethe averments in the documents} placed by the plaintiff and erred in^{granting injunction.He pointed} to the^plaintiffls sale^{deed/Ex.A-'l and pleadedthat as per the} schedule, the staircase^{and passage are for the vendeetherein'} He further^{pleaded that in the appeal, the son of the plaintiffas} DW.2 got marked certified^{copy of judgmentin O.S.No.725 of 2003} and encumbrance certificate/Exs.^{B-2 and B-3, but they werenot} considered by the appellate^{Court whiledeterminingthe appeals'} He further^pleads that^{in lA No.37B1 of 2008, the defendant had} admitted the existence of^{secondstaircasefor their use'} Therefore, the exclusive^{right of the plaintiff has been disregarded} by the appellate Court^{which affectedthe substantialrights of the} plaintiff. Hence, prayed for intervention^{in the second appeals'}

¶58

12 ln spite of due notice,^{the defendantchoseto remain silent}

¶59

.+

¶60

NTR.J SAs 215&268 2010

¶61

'13. The appeal in S.A.No 215 of 2O1O was admitted on 26.03.2010 on the following substantial questions of law:

¶62

Whether non-consideration of Ex.81 sale deed by both the trial Court and the lower appellate Courl whereunder the first appellant-defendant has become exclusively entitled to the stair case, passage leading to the first floor and the bore well has vitiated the result of the suit and appeal respectively?

¶63

2.Whether the non-consideration of the additional material evidence, oral evidence of DW.2 and the documentary evidence-Exs.B2 and 83 by the lower appellate Court

¶64

has a/so vitiated the result of the first appeals?

¶65

The appeal in S.A.No.268 of 2010 was admitted on 16.04 2010 on the following substantial questions of law:

¶66

Whether in spite of the cancellation of Ex.B2 rectification deed by the judgment and decree rn OS No.72S of 2003 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, both the Courts could have dismissed the suit?

¶67

2.Whether the non-consideration of Ex.B1 sate deed by the trial Courl and lower appettate Court whereunder the

¶68

5

¶69

NTR.J SAs lli&268²⁰¹⁰

¶70

Y

¶71

I

¶72

appellanlplaintiff^{became exclusively entitled to the stair} case,^{passageleading to the first floor and the bore well} in the^{groundfloor,has vitiated the resutt of the suit and} the appeal^{re s7ectivelY?}

¶73

'1 5. I have carefully considered the^{submissions of learned} counsel and^{perused the materials on record'}

¶74

The^{plaintiff and defendant by their pleadings are in} agreement that^{they hadpurchasedthe easternand western} portions of the^{propertyfrom their commonvendor under} registered sale^{deeds and their possession over the respective} properties. The entire^{dispute is around use of entrance/stair case'}

¶75

ln this^{regard,the documentfor considerationwould be the} saledeedandthescheduleofpropertypurchasedbytheparties. As per the^{plaintiffs sale deed/Ex'A'l in the schedule property it} has been mentioned^{thal"Atl that 813 Sg'Ft approximately} consisting^{of four rooms in first floor premisesin Plot No'147/C/B'} 5-2-388 along^{with Sfalr case andpassagewith Borewell in the} ground floor and first^{floor including land admeasuring47 5} Sq.yds .^" and^{the schedule propertyof the defendant'ssale} deed/Ex.Bldoesnotreadastothestaircaseorpathway.Further,

¶76

6

¶77

N'rR,J SAs 215&268 20t0

¶78

in the appeal filed against the defendant,s suit, the plaintiff got examined his son as DW-2 and placed the .judgment tEx.B_2 and Encumbrance Certificate/Ex.B-3 to signify that the suit filed by the plaintiff vide o.S.No.72s of 2003 to cancer the rectification deed executed by his vendor dated 06.0g.2000 has been cancelled and that^judgment attained finality, hence the plaintiff asserted his exclusive right over the staircase and pathway.

¶79

lt is pertinent to note that, in the rectification deed, the vendor of the plaintiff made an effort to reduce the area sord under the sale deed of the plaintiff by 5 square yards.

¶80

lt is pertinent to note here that the properties of plaintiff and the defendant are on either side in the first floor. The sketch of scheduled properties filed by the plaintiff is evidencing that the staircase is in the middle of the plaintiffs and defendant,s property. Therefore, to reach the portions of praintiff and defendant the onry way is the staircase. As per the defendant, it is only the way to ingress and egress to the first floor and to his portion. Although the sale deeds of the plaintiff and the defendant are on the same day the sale deed of the plaintiff alone is referring to the staircase. However, during hearing, learned counsel for the plaintiff pleaded that as per his instructions, the defendant had constructed another

¶81

I

¶82

7

¶83

NTR.J SAs 215&268²⁰¹⁰

¶84

I I

¶85

I I

¶86

staircase. Additionally,^{basingon the avermentin the affidavit} asserted that^{there is another staircase Yet, in the absence of} cogent material^{on record and in view of the pleadingsof the} defendantintheaffidavitthatamakeshiftstaircaseisthereto reach store room,^{it has to be heldthat, the staircase shown in the} site map^{is only way for both the plaintiff and defendant to their} respective^proPerties.

¶87

Further,^{the rectificationdeed appears to be an attemptby} the vendor to^{set right the situationby limiting the area purchased} by the^{plaintiff by 5 squareyards.Howsoever,the ab.senceof the} rectificationdeedwouldnotmakethingsbetterforthedefendantto use his^{property.That apart' perfecting exclusive rightsof the} plaintiff over the staircase^{and granting permanentinjunction} against the^{defendantwould render the defendant'sproperty} useless for want^{of access.Because of this' permanently} injuncting the^{plaintifffrominterferingwith the defendant's access} to the staircase^{and pathwayis perfectly justified'ln effect'the} conclusions^{of the trial and appellate Courtsin A S.No 208 ot 2OO4} in O.S.No.841^{of 2000 deserve affirmation and the Second Appeal} i.e. S.A.No.215^{of 2O1O is liable to be and accordingly' dismissed'}

¶88

ll

¶89

NTR,J SA\ 2l5&268 2010

¶90

21 .' Simultaneously, having regard to the pleading and atteslation of the plaintiff as to defendant,s interference to the extent of use of the staircase shall be taken into account and granting injunction against the defendant from interfering with the usage of staircase by the plaintiff is found proper to deduce effective conclusion.

¶91

As a consequence, the Courts below ought to have restrained the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs usage of staircase. Accordingly, to that extent, the impugned judgment in A.S.No.108 of 2003 in O.S No.1122of 2OO1 deserves modification. Resultantly, S A.No.268 of 2010 is parfly allowed and the defendant is injuncted from interfering with the usage of common staircase by the plaintiff. Accordingly the impugned decree stands modified. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶92

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed.

¶93

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶94

t:) TION OFFICER

¶95

To,

¶96

The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. (with records )

¶97

,* r

¶98

The Additional Rent Controller cum XVlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court. Secunderabad.

¶99

The Xl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶100

One CC to Sri P V Vidyasagar Advocate tOpUCl

¶101

Two CD Copies

$cz-

HIGH COURT

DATED:06101t2025

, \A\2 ' t
n:.
L1i
/r{ -(l tl)iJ
ioif t\ k
\d
Vo,
-=/

¶106

COMMON JUDGMENT+2 DEGREES

¶107

SA.No.215 of 2010 AND

¶108

SA.No.268 of 2010

¶109

SA.No.215 of 2010 !S DISMISSED SA.No.268 of 2010 IS PARTY ALLOWED

t"lti

I tf

13217 |

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶114

[/IONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶115

PRESENT

¶116

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶117

becoruo APPEAL No: 21s of 2010

¶118

Between:

¶119

Smt. B.Lalitha, Wo. Sri B.Ramakoteswar Rao, Age:61 years, Occ: Housewife R/o. No. 3418, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.

¶120

B.Ramakoteshwar Rao, S/o. B.R,K.Murthy, Age:68 years, Occ: Business R/o. No 34/8, East Marredpally, Secunderabad. (Died per LR-A3)

¶121

B. Radhakrishna Murthy, S/o B. Ramakoteswara Rao, Age:59 years, Occ: Government Employee, Rlo. H.No.3418, East Maredpally, S'ecunderabad

¶122

(Appellant No.3 is brought on record as per LR of the deceased Appellant No.2 vide Court order dated 15-'10-2024 in kA.No.1 ol 20241

¶123

...Appellants/Appellants/Defendants

¶124

AND

¶125

Smt. G.Geetha, Wo. Saseendran, Age:49 years, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.5-2390 on plot No 147lCiC, Hyderbasti, Secunderabad.

¶126

..RespondenURespondenUPlai ntiff

¶127

Appeal under sectionl00 of C.P.C. aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 06-08-2009 passed in A.S.No.208 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad preferred against the Judgment and decree daled 24-09-2004 passed in O.S.No.1 122 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Additlonal Rent Controller cum XVlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶128

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Award and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.V. Vidyasagar, Advocate for the Appellants and None Appeared for the Respondent.

¶129

This Court doth order and Decree as follows:

¶130

That the Second Appeal No.215 of 2010 be and hereby is dismissed, and

¶131

fhat there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶132

Sd/. K, SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE:C OFFICER

To,

The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶137

The Additionar Rent controiler cum XVilr Junior civir Judge, city civir Court, Secunderabad.

¶138

The Xl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad

¶139

Two CD Copies

krnr

i

7-

I

I

,

HIGH COURT

DATED:06 t01t2025

DECREE

SA.No.215 ot 2010

SA.No.215 of 2010 IS DISMISSED

¶151

5

¶152

132171

¶153

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶154

TUONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶155

PRESENT

¶156

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI I

¶157

SECOND APPEAL No: 268 of 2010

¶158

Between:

¶159

Smt. B.Lalitha Kumari, Wo. Sri B.Ramakoteswar Rao, Age:61 years, Occ. Housewife R/o. No.34iB, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.

¶160

...AppellanUAppellanUplaintiff

¶161

AND

¶162

Smt. G.Geetha, Wo. Saseendran, Age:49 years, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.5-2_ 390 on plot No. 147lClC. Hyderbasti, Secunderabad.

¶163

...RespondenURespondenUDefendant

¶164

Appeal under section 100 r/w Order XLll Rule 1 of C.p.C. aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 06-08-2009 passed in A.S.No..180 of 2003 on the file of the court of the I Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Secunderabad preferred against the Judgment and decree daled 01-12-2003 passed in o.S No.841 of 2000 on the file of the court of the Xl Junior civil Judge, city civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶165

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Award and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri p.V Vidyasagar, Advocate for the Appellants and None Appeared for the Respondent.

¶166

This Court doth order and Decree as follows:

¶167