THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.182, 465 & 468 OF 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.Laxman)
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the respondents. Since the subject property
involved in all the appeals is common and since identical issue is involved, all the appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. C.M.A.No.182 of 2021 is filed against the order dated 23.11.2020 in I.A.No.431 of 2020 in I.A.No.394 of 2020 in O.S.No.175 of 2020 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, V ADJ, Ranga Reddy District), whereby the ex parte ad interim injunction, which was granted in I.A.No.394 of 2020, was modified into status quo on being application made by some of the defendants vide I.A.No.431 of 2020. C.M.A.Nos.465 of 2021 and 468 of 2021 are filed against the orders dated 14.09.2021 in I.A.Nos.638 of 2021 and 637 of 2021 in O.S.No.387 of 2021 respectively on the file of III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short, III ADJ, Ranga Reddy District), whereunder, at the instance of the plaintiffs, an ex parte ad interim injunction orders were granted restraining the respondents therein from interfering over the schedule property and not to alienate the schedule property.
2 PNR,J & ML,J
Cmas_182, 465 & 468_2021
3. The appellant in all these appeals is the plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 2020 and defendant No.5 in O.S.No.387 of 2021. Respondent Nos.1 to 9 in C.M.A.No.182 of 2021 are defendant Nos.7, 8, 11, 16, 21 to 23, 42 and 43 and respondent Nos.10 to 52 are defendant Nos.1 to 6, 9, 10, 12 to 15, 17 to 20, 24 to 41 and 44 to 52 in O.S.No.175 of 2020. Respondent Nos.1 to 8 in C.M.A.Nos.465 and 468 of 2021 are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.9 to 14 are defendant Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 in O.S.No.387 of 2021. For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein is referred to as the plaintiff and the respondents herein are referred to as the defendants.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that he is in absolute possession of property i.e., house bearing No.21-53/1/2 and open dry land in Sy.No.745, admeasuring Ac.2-22 guntas out of Ac.3-02 guntas, situated at Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He came into possession of the said property by virtue of an agreement of sale executed for a total land admeasuring Ac.3-02 guntas in Sy.No.745 by one Khaja Ameenuddin, who is defendant No.52 in O.S.No.175 of 2020. Khaja Ameenuddin was the owner of dry land in Sy.No.745, admeasuring Ac.5-37 guntas out of Ac.11-36 guntas. Defendant No.52 in the said suit, had purchased the said property through the registered sale deed dated 21.03.2003 vide document No.3501/2003 from the legal heirs of late Mahboob Khan.
3 PNR,J & ML,J
Cmas_182, 465 & 468_2021
5. The pleadings further show that originally one Murtuza Khan was the owner and pattedar of the said property. On his demise, the said property was devolved upon Mahboob Khan, and since then, he was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 1973, he died intestate leaving behind his wife, one son and two daughters namely Qamarunnisa Begum, Murtuza Khan @ Zaheed Miya, Mrs.Safia Sultana and Mrs.Atia Sultana. Later, Smt.Qamarunnisa Begum expired, leaving behind the property to succeed by her son and daughters. The said legal heirs of Murtuza Khan have jointly executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.52 to an extent of land admeasuring Ac.5-37 guntas in Sy.No.745 through the registered sale deed bearing document No.3501/2003.
6. Defendant No.52, through his regd. GPA Holder Khaja Issaquddin, offered to sell the said property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.1,75,00,000/- through the agreement of sale dated 17.06.2019. The plaintiff has paid Rs.50,00,000/- towards part consideration and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration within three years. By virtue of the said agreement of sale, the plaintiff was inducted into possession of the said property, and at the instance of the plaintiff, defendant No.52 executed eight sale deeds in respect of land admeasuring 24000 square yards out of Ac.3-02 guntas, which is agreed to sell in the agreement. After selling such extent, balance extent of land admeasuring Ac.2-22 4 PNR,J & ML,J Cmas_182, 465 & 468_2021 guntas is in the possession of the plaintiff. During the subsistence of the said agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs.25,00,000/- on 15.01.2020. The plaintiff has totally paid Rs.75,00,000/- and the balance amount was only Rs.1,00,00,000/-. While so, when some unknown persons having no interest tried to disposes the plaintiff from the said property, he filed O.S.No.175 of 2020.
7. Pending the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.394 of 2020 and the V ADJ, Ranga Reddy District, initially granted interim injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering over the said property. However, on filing of I.A.No.431 of 2020 by defendant Nos.7, 8, 11, 16, 21 to 23, 42 and 43, V ADJ, Ranga Reddy District, modified the said order into status quo by order dated 23.11.2021, which is impugned in CMA.No.182 of 2021.
8. The case of the defendant Nos.7, 8, 11, 16, 21 to 23, 42 and 43, is that originally Mr.Khallel-Ur-Rahaman was the owner of land to an extent of Ac.14-37 guntas in Sy.Nos.707, 743 and 745. Initially, he formed a layout in the year 1971 to an extent of Ac.10-14 guntas which is forming part of above three survey numbers. While development activities were under progress, an extent of land admeasuring Ac.9-00 guntas in the said three survey numbers was agreed to be sold out to one Ram Avatar Singh, who is defendant No.2, through the agreement of sale dated 13.02.1986 and the 5 PNR,J & ML,J Cmas_182, 465 & 468_2021 possession of the land was delivered to him. When Mr.Khallel-Ur-Rahaman did not come forward for execution of regular sale deed, Ram Avatar Singh has filed O.S.No.407 of 1994 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for specific performance and the said suit was decreed on 09.02.1995. Subsequently, he filed E.P.No.8 of 2000 for execution of the said decree and the said Court has executed a sale deed in favour of Ram Avatar Singh on behalf of Khallel-Ur-Rahaman vide document No.515/2000, dated 16.02.2000.
9. Subsequently, Khallel-Ur-Rahaman has filed O.S.No.121 of 1998 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for declaration and other reliefs, suppressing the execution of sale deed dated 16.02.2000 through the Court in favour of Ram Avatar Singh. The said suit was filed against Murtuza Khan @ Zaheed Miya and others, who are the legal heirs of late Mahboob Khan and the extent involved in the said suit was Ac.9-00 guntas forming part of above three survey numbers. While the matter was pending, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered in between Khallel-Ur-Rahaman and the defendants therein, whereby they confirmed handing over of the possession in favour of Khallel-Ur-Rahaman.
10. Mr. Ram Avatar Singh, who had a sale deed in his favour, executed a GPA in favour of his son Satish Singh to 6 PNR,J & ML,J Cmas_182, 465 & 468_2021 an extent of land admeasuring Ac.9-00 guntas. The balance extent of land admeasuring was Ac.5-37 guntas which Khallel-Ur-Rahaman was holding in the said three survey numbers and he entered into a development agreement with M/s.Bharadwaj Estates Private Limited. Later, the GPA Holder of Ram Avatar Singh and M/s.Bharadwaj Estates Private Limited undertook development of the layout which was initially approved at the instance of Khallel-Ur-Rahaman in the year 1971 and they have sold out their respective plots in favour of defendant Nos.7, 8, 11, 16, 21 to 23, 42 and 43 in O.S.No.175 of 2020 and others through individual sale deeds in terms of the layout which was initially approved and renewed in the years 1995 and 2002. The purchasers have also obtained building permissions from the concerned Gram Panchayat in the year 2008 and they have been in possession of the plots purchased by them.
11. The legal heirs of late Mahboob Khan viz., Murtuza Khan @ Zaheed Miya, Mrs.Safia Sultana and Mrs.Atia Sultana, who are children of stepbrother of Khallel-Ur- Rahaman, have executed different sale deeds i.e., dated 13.03.2003 vide document No.3166/2003 to an extent of land admeasuring Ac.9-00 guntas in favour of one Mohd.Saleemuddin vide document Nos.3166/2003, 3502/2003 and 3501/2003 to an extent of land admeasuring Ac.5-37 guntas in favour of one Mohd.Ameenuddin. Such execution of sale deeds were done by suppressing the real 7 PNR,J & ML,J Cmas_182, 465 & 468_2021 owner of the property and in violation of their own confirmation in favour of Khallel-Ur-Rahaman under the said MoU which was entered in pursuance of suit filed by Khallel- Ur-Rahaman in O.S.No.121 of 1998 and the said suit was withdrawn basing on the MoU.
12. The legal heirs of late Mahboob Khan, who are the children of stepbrother of Khallel-Ur-Rahaman, suppressing the said facts have fraudulently executed the supra stated sale deeds and M.Ameenuddin, who was holding sale deeds has allegedly executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of land in Sy.No.745 through GPA Holder Khaja Issaquddin.
13. On the basis of the said case, the defendants filed I.A.No.637 of 2021 seeking injunction restraining the plaintiff and others from alienating the suit property and I.A.No.638 of 2021 seeking injunction restraining the plaintiff and others from interfering with the suit property. The Court of III ADJ, Ranga Reddy District, granted ex parte injunctions which are challenged at the instance of the plaintiff in CMA.Nos.465 & 468 of 2021.
14. All the appeals were heard together since the suit schedule properties forming part of above suits are falling under the larger extent of land admeasuring Ac.14-37 guntas in part of Sy.Nos.707, 740 and 745.
8 PNR,J & ML,J
Cmas_182, 465 & 468_2021
15. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that the Court of V ADJ, Ranga Reddy District, in the subsequent suits, has passed the ad interim injunction restraining the plaintiff and others from interfering with the possession and alienating the suit properties ignoring the order passed by this Court in CMA.No.182 of 2021, which was filed by the plaintiff.
16. The learned counsel representing the defendants has contended that except one defendant, other defendants who are the purchasers of individual plots, are not parties to the said suit and they are asserting their independent rights in respect of the plots purchased by them from the original owner in the larger extent which are forming part of survey numbers indicated above.
17. Both the learned counsel have agreed that on account of conflicting decisions from two different Courts in the orders impugned, and in the light of the various disputes raised by both the parties, adjudication of the interlocutory applications by a single Court is required to avoid conflicting decisions. Therefore, they are agreed to remand all the cases to the single Court by setting aside the orders impugned and they have also agreed that pending consideration of the said applications in the trial Court, the parties to the suits shall not alter the physical features of the suit schedule properties till disposal of the applications filed by the respective parties.
9 PNR,J & ML,J
Cmas_182, 465 & 468_2021
18. In the light of the above, these C.M.As are allowed; order dated 23.11.2020 in I.A.No.431 of 2020 in I.A.No.394 of 2020 in O.S.No.175 of 2020 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District as well as the orders dated 14.09.2021 in I.A.Nos.638 of 2021 and 637 of 2021 in O.S.No.387 of 2021 respectively on the file of III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, are set aside; and the said I.As., are remanded to the said Courts. The Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, is directed to place the said suits before a single Court, which in turn, shall dispose of the said I.As., afresh as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on its own merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court. The parties shall cooperate for early disposal of the said I.As. Till the I.As., are disposed of by the trial Court, the parties are directed not to alter the physical features of the suit schedule properties. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J _______________ M.LAXMAN, J Date: 19.11.2021 TJMR