Telangana High Court

M. Rajendra Prasad And Another vs Khalid Bin Shaik Mohammed Al Amoodi Died on 29 December, 2023

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.506 and 517 of 2023

COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P.No.506 of 2023 arises out of order dated 15.12.2022

passed in I.A.No.72 of 2020 in O.S.No.1274 of 2014 by the learned

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

Ibrahimpatnam.

2. C.R.P.No.517 of 2023 arises out of order dated 15.12.2022

passed in I.A.No.73 of 2020 in O.S.No.1274 of 2014 by the learned

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

Ibrahimpatnam.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are defendants

No.2 and 3 in the aforesaid suit. It is their case that petitioner No.1

is a medical practitioner and is a resident of Sharjah, United Arab

Emirates and they intermittently travel to India. They purchased

the suit schedule property i.e., agricultural dry land admeasuring

Ac.01-00 gts in Sy.No.1/1, situated at Raviryal Village,

Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from one Mohd.

Azeemudin vide sale deed document No.12153 of 2003 dated

24.09.2003, but they have not utilized the same. Apart from the

said land, the petitioners have also purchased other parcels of

SKS,J CRP.Nos.506 & 517 of 2023

land, which are located near to the suit schedule property and have

been undertaking farming activities in those lands.

4. While so, a theft occurred in one of the parcels of land owned

by the petitioners and one G. Avinash, who is the caretaker of

those lands, visited Pahadi Shareef Police Station during the month

of October, 2017 for lodging a complaint on behalf of the

petitioners. While so, the Police have informed the said Mr. G.

Avinash to furnish some details on the ground that another

complaint was also lodged on behalf of the petitioners by some

third person and the details were required for the purpose of

investigation in the said complaint. On further enquiry, the said

Mr. G. Avinash was informed that a suit was also filed by some

other third parties against the petitioners in respect of the suit

schedule property, which is pending before the Ranga Reddy

District Court.

5. The petitioners were shocked to hear about the alleged police

complaint being lodged by some third party and they immediately

engaged a counsel on whose enquiry, they came to know that the

present suit was filed seeking specific performance of an alleged

agreement of sale and that the plaintiffs filed the suit against the

defendants seeking specific performance of alleged agreement of

SKS,J CRP.Nos.506 & 517 of 2023

sale, which they claim to have been executed by defendant No.1 on

behalf of defendant Nos.2 and 3 for the purpose of selling the suit

schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs and that the suit is

filed against one K. Sharadha Reddy claiming to be the GPA Holder

for the petitioners herein.

6. The petitioners contend that they never executed any GPA in

favour of any person much less in favour of said K. Sharadha

Reddy. The alleged GPA possessed by the said Ms. K. Sharadha

Reddy is a sham, fabricated, fraudulent and concocted document.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also not

executed any agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession in favour

of defendant No.1 i.e., Mohammed Osman authorizing him to enter

into any transactions with any person in respect of suit schedule

property and that the plaintiffs in collusion with defendant No.1,

the said K. Sharadha Reddy and others have conspired to knock

away the suit schedule property belonging to the petitioners. The

petitioners reserve their right to initiate appropriate criminal

proceedings against the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and K.

Sharadha Reddy who are involved in the said conspiracy and

prayed the Court to strike off and discard the written statement,

affidavits, counter affidavits, pleadings, memos, documents, written

SKS,J CRP.Nos.506 & 517 of 2023

submissions etc. on behalf of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and to permit

to file the same afresh and also to permit the petitioners to engage

a new counsel and to strike off the names of their earlier counsels.

Hence, the petitioners filed the above two petitions.

8. Respondents/plaintiffs filed counter affidavit denying the

averments of the petitioners. It is stated that they issued notice to

the petitioners through Registered Post on 05.07.2014, which was

received by them on 07.07.2014. Despite receiving the notice, the

petitioners filed the petitions. It is submitted that when the

petitioners received in the year 2014 itself and were informed of the

case facts by their caretaker in the year 2017, they ought to have

filed documents to support their case, more particularly, the reason

for such a long delay from 2018. Moreover, nowhere in the

petition, the petitioners mentioned that they are in the possession

of the suit schedule property. Whereas these respondents are in

possession in terms of valid agreement of sale and have been

paying the electricity bills till date. It is further submitted that they

are having the legitimate protected rights in the schedule property

and have constructed a compound wall and tin shed rooms along

with main gate with watchman along his family. As such, it is

SKS,J CRP.Nos.506 & 517 of 2023

stated that the petitioners have filed the petitions with false and

concocted grounds just to prolong the litigation.

9. The said GPA holder had not filed any counter. The

respondent/plaintiff filed counter denying the averments of the

petition and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

10. The trial Court after hearing on both sides, dismissed the

petitions stating that the said K. Sharadha Reddy sought

permission from the Court vide I.A.No.502 of 2015 to represent the

petitioners and accordingly, she filed written statement on behalf of

the petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 3 on 26.08.2015. The said

suit is coming up for framing of issues. In the written statement

filed by the GPA holder of the petitioners, she has denied the case

of the plaintiffs and also pleaded that, she filed complaint against

the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 before the learned XIV

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar for forging the

documents etc., Hence, the pleadings made on behalf of the

petitioners by the GPA holder are not against the case of the

petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 3 and also observed that they

have not filed any document to show that they had cancelled the

GPA in favour of said K.Sharada Reddy and no criminal

SKS,J CRP.Nos.506 & 517 of 2023

proceedings were initiated against the said K. Sharadha Reddy.

Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed both the petitions.

11. Heard Sri K.V. Rushik Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners as well as Sri M.A. Basith, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

petitioners are the original owners of the suit schedule property

and that they have never executed any GPA in favour of K.

Sharadha Reddy to act on their behalf. The plaintiffs created false

documents of the suit schedule property. Hence, the petitions filed

by them ought to have been allowed by the trial court.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would

submit that the petitioners filed these petitions with ulterior

motive, by colluding with GPA holder, to grab amount from the

respondents as the property value is in hike. That apart, the

petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners failed to file any

documents in support of their case. As such, he prayed to dismiss

the petitions.

14. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the

learned counsel and having gone through the material available on

SKS,J CRP.Nos.506 & 517 of 2023

record, there are no documents filed either on behalf of the

petitioners or on behalf of the respondents. The petitioners have

not filed any documents to prove that they gave complaint against

the said K. Sharadha Reddy and the signatures on the documents

filed on behalf of the respondents were not executed by them. The

respondents have also not filed any documents to prove that they

served notice on the petitioners while entering into the contract

with said K. Sharadha Reddy, although they mentioned that they

sent notice to the petitioners in the year 2004 itself and the same

was received by the petitioners. If any agent is acting on behalf of

the petitioners, it is for them to take action against the said agent

for proceeding against the interest of the petitioners. The

petitioners came to know about the pendency of the suit in the year

2017 but filed the petitions belatedly in the year 2018, which were

dismissed by the trial court by the impugned order. The

petitioners also prayed the Court to cancel the vakalat of their

counsel and permit them to appoint advocates of their choice and

also to permit them to file written statement afresh.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Deb Ratan

SKS,J CRP.Nos.506 & 517 of 2023

Biswas and others vs. Most. Anand Moyi Devi and others 1, para

12 of the judgment held as follows:

"12. The High Court has also held that if Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra was not willing to sign the compromise petition his unwillingness should have been mentioned in the compromise petition. This also is a strange reasoning. It is well-settled that even after execution of a power of attorney the principal can act independently and does not have to take the consent of the attorney. The attorney is after all only an agent of the principal. Even after executing a power of attorney the principal can act on his own."

16. In the present case, the facts are different. Here, the petitioner

denied execution of GPA itself, whereas, no evidence is there to

prove that he had taken action against said agent. Further,

principal can act independently. Therefore, the petitioners can

engage counsels of their choice.

17. As regards striking off written statement and affidavits, which

are filed by the GPA holder, the same cannot be permitted at this

stage. If at all the petitioners want to file any new information,

they can file additional written statement by engaging the counsel

of their choice.

18. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petitions are

dismissed by confirming the orders dated 15.12.2022 passed in