Mohd. Dawood vs Napa. Mallikarjuna And 13 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3609 Tel

     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