Telangana High Court
S. Mohan vs M/S. Lahari Infrastructure Private ... on 3 July, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.455 & 456 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the
Order dated 20.07.2023 in I.A.Nos.194 & 234 of 2023 in
O.S.No.61 of 2023, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Medchal.
2. Respondent No.1 herein represented by its authorized
signatory has filed an application in I.A.No.194 of 2023 in
O.S.No.61 of 2023, for grant of temporary injunction against the
petitioners and respondent No.2 and restraining them from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property. They have also filed another application
in I.A.No.234 of 2023 in O.S.No.61 of 2023, for grant of
temporary injunction against petitioners from alienating or
creating third party interest over the suit schedule property in
any manner whatsoever during the pendency of the main suit.
The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides, allowed
both the applications. Aggrieved by the said Order, respondents
therein preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
3. Initially, respondent No.1 herein has filed the suit in
O.S.No.61 of 2023, against petitioners and respondent No.2,
seeking permanent injunction and to declare the sale deed,
rectification deed, gift deed and development agreement cum
General Power of Attorney as null and void. During the
pendency of the said suit, injunction petitions are filed by
respondent No.1. Respondent No.1/plaintiff in the suit stated
that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land
admeasuring 3025 Sq.yrds (comprising of 1815 Sq.yrds and
1210 Sq.yrds in Sy.No.151), situated at Bachupally Village and
Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. Initially one Mohammadi
Begum, Mir Akbar Ali, Mir Jahangir Ali, Shoukat begum, Mir
Sajjid Ali, Mir Abid Ali, Mir Nazir Ali and Khadija Begum
(represented by their mother and natural guardian Mohammadi
Begum), executed a registered sale deed on 08.01.1969, vide
document No.20 of 1969, in favour of one K.Raja Reddy,
K.Venkat Reddy, K.Bal Reddy and K.Parma Reddy (all are sons
of one K.Bhadra Reddy), conveying land admeasuring
Acs.154-02 gts, situated at Bachupally Village, Medchal Taluq,
Hyderabad District.
4. They further stated that on 24.07.1989, the legal heirs of
K.Raja Reddy, as group D-1, K.Parma Reddy along with his
daughters and grandson as group D-2, K.Venkat Reddy along
with his sons and grandson K.Peda Bhadra Reddy as group D-3
and K.Bal Reddy along with his sons as group D-4, executed an
agreement by entering into family partition/settlement between
them into four equal shares out of larger extent and Group D1,
D3 and D4 got Acs.38-00 gts and Group D2 got Acs.38-02 gts.
The said partition was confirmed by the learned II-Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in
I.A.No.1825 of 2002 in O.S.No.660 of 1999 and also in
arbitration O.P.No.327 of 2013. By virtue of the said partition,
the vendors' of their vendor acquired entire extent of land
admeasuring Acs.14-31 gts in Sy.No.151 of Bachupally Village.
5. Respondent No.1/plaintiff further stated that
K.Seetharam Reddy, having acquired title along with his son
K.Raja Reddy, executed registered sale deed dated 07.10.2002,
vide document No.8543 of 2002, measuring an extent of
Acs.5-00 gts out of Acs.14-31 gts in favour of Sukhavasi Radha
Krishna and Sukhavasi Kamala Kumari, who are vendors of
their vendor. Subsequently, Sukhavasi Radha Krishna and
Sukhavasi Kamala Kumari, executed registered sale deed dated
15.03.2013 vide document No.6810 of 2013, in favour of
M/s.Nakhat Real Estate Private Limited, represented by its
Managing Director Hanumammal Nakhat, to an extent of
Ac.1-21 gts out of Acs.5-00 gts in Sy.No.151. Thereafter,
M/s.Nakhat Real Estate Private Limited filed an application
before the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue
Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division, Ranga Reddy District, for
conversion of land from agriculture to non-agricultural usage in
respect of land admeasuring Ac.1-21 gts in Sy.No.151 and the
same was approved by R.D.O, vide proceedings No.L/1706/16.
Later, M/s.Nakhat Real Estate Private Limited, executed two
registered sale deeds vide documents No.8442 of 2016 and
10298 of 2018 dated 13.10.2016 and 08.05.2018, for an extent
of 1815 Sq.yrds and 1210 Sq.yrds respectively, in their favour.
From the date of purchase, they are in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the property admeasuring 3025 Sq.yrds by
erecting blue sheets and it is not encumbered nor parted in
respect of the above said land. The original photographs of the
suit schedule property are filed before the Court.
6. The respondent No.1/plaintiff further stated that in view
of the above sale deeds, they became absolute owners of the
land admeasuring 3025 Sq.yrds and it was referred as suit
schedule property. On 17.02.2023, the henchmen of the
petitioners No.6 and 7 herein tried to interfere with their
peaceful possession of the suit property and their workers
resisted their acts. The employees of respondent No.1's
Company also tried to lodge complaint against petitioners No.6
and 7, but P.S.Bachupally, denied to take complaint as it is a
dispute of civil in nature and thus they approached the
Advocate for legal opinion and it was informed that petitioners
have no right, title or interest over the suit land, as group-D3 of
K.Venkat Reddy acquired Acs.38-00 gts of land as per the family
partition dated 24.07.1989 and further on prior execution and
after execution of the said agreement, they sold the entire land
i.e., K.Venkat Reddy, along with his sons through General
Power of Attorney executed the document bearing No.917 of
1989, K.Narsimha Reddy executed the registered sale deed
bearing document No.9195 of 1993, dated 30.08.1993, K.Veera
Reddy and K.Bhupal Reddy executed registered sale deed vide
document No.9228 of 1993 dated 30.08.1993, K.Veera Reddy
and K.Bhupal Reddy executed registered sale deed vide
document No.9229 of 1993 dated 30.08.1993 and K.Bala
Krishna Reddy executed registered sale deed vide document
No.9230 of 1993 dated 30.08.1993. K.Venkat Reddy executed
registered sale deed vide document No.1720 of 1996 dated
30.11.1996 and thus K.Venkat Reddy and his sons branch
belongs to Group-D3 alienated land admeasuring Acs.38-20 gts,
which is in excess of their share of 1/4th share out of 4 shares
purchased through sale deed vide document No.20 of 1969.
7. The respondent No.1/plaintiff also stated that respondent
No.2 and petitioner No.3 can transfer only what they possess
and they have no subsisting right, title, interest and possession
of whatsoever in nature and hence the transaction made by
respondent No.2 and petitioners No.3 in favour of petitioners
No.1 & 2 and 4 to 7, was not valid as per the family
partition/arrangement of agreement dated 24.07.1989. The
respondent No.2 and petitioner No.3 have no land as their
family members have alienated their share of land admeasuring
Acs.38-00 gts prior to execution of the above said sale deeds.
Respondent No.2 herein was in peaceful possession and
invested huge profits over the suit schedule property. They have
also filed an application before the Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority, seeking to cancel/revoke the Building
permission bearing No.032550/R1/U6/HMDA/04012020 dated
31.08.2020, issued in favour of petitioner No.7 i.e., Khyathi
Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd and the same is pending and thus
they filed suit for permanent injunction and also to declare the
sale deeds, gift deed and development agreement as null and
void and also requested to grant relief of not to alienate or create
third party interest and also to granted ad-interim injunction
restraining the petitioners from interfering with their peaceful
possession by filing interlocutory applications.
8. In the counter filed by petitioner No.6 herein in I.A.No.194
of 2023, he denied all the material allegations except that are
specifically admitted herein. According to the alleged document
No.29 of 1969, it was clear that Sy.No.151 was having
Acs.14-31 gts of land. He further stated that partition was not
confirmed by the Court in the suit and also in the arbitration
O.P, in fact petition filed under Order 10 rule 1 was allowed,
suit was closed and arbitration O.P was dismissed without any
finding, as such the said two documents cannot became judicial
record and not binding on any party. He also stated that
K.Seetha Rami Reddy was having only Acs.9-10 gts and not
Acs.14-31 gts in Sy.No.151. The facts relating to title and
possession, legality would be disclosed in trial only. The
mutation of the petitioners have been questioned by the
neighbouring land owners in the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh and Telangana and interim suspension of the mutation
was granted in W.Ps.No.40189 of 2017 in W.P.M.P.No.49863 of
2017. The respondent No.1 was failed to prove his title over the
property, interlocutory applications filed by them are not
maintainable in view of suppression of facts. He further stated
that respondent No.2 herein had executed a registered sale deed
in favour of petitioner No.1 vide document No.1098 of 1999 to
an extent of Ac.0-20 gts in Sy.No.151 and it was rectified by
supplementary deed vide document No.5487 of 1999. Petitioner
No.2 herein purchased Acs.0.14.132 gts out of Ac.0-25 gts in
Sy.No.151 of Bachupally village through registered sale deed
vide document No.10757 of 2002 and the same was rectified
vide rectification deed vide No.7673 of 2012. Petitioner No.3 sold
the land admeasuring 2242 Sq.yrds in Sy.No.151 through
registered sale deed vide document No.9558 of 2012 to
petitioners No.4 and 5. Thereafter, they obtained electric
connection vide S.C.No.842812877 and enjoying the ownership
and possession of the property till now. The petitioner No.1 who
is his brother executed a gift settlement deed vide document
No.33 of 2019, in his favour for remaining 708 Sq.yrds and he
had executed development agreement cum General Power of
Attorney vide document No.10356 of 2019 to petitioner No.7 in
respect of the remaining land out of 25 gts. It was also having
its own electric connection bearing No.S.C.No.112827921. All
the documents filed by the petitioners proved their title and
possession over the suit property.
9. He further stated that petitioners herein are the absolute
owners and are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their
respective lands from the date of purchase and started
construction in their property. The vendors of the petitioners
had also purchased the same through registered sale deeds.
Petitioners are in possession of their respective lands since more
than 13 years and they protected their title by way of adverse
possession. He also stated that respondent No.1 herein has
taken two different stands to prove their saying i.e., vendor of
the petitioners is not having any land according to the family
settlement deed in respect of survey numbers, but at the same
time they agreed that petitioners name was showing in revenue
records and 1-B register and thus respondent No.1 has no right,
title or possession and no title was passed through his vendor
and documents are created for the purpose of creating suit.
10. Petitioner No.6 has also stated the following legal points
for consideration:
i) The suit filed by respondent No.1 is barred by limitation, as
the sale deed was executed in the year 1999 in favour of
petitioner No.1 and now respondent No.1 is seeking for
declaration of documents as null and void i.e., after 19 years.
ii) Respondent No.1 did not file any document regarding their
vendor's vendor title and their vendors' title. Only family
settlement deed does not confirm any title and possession over
the suit property.
iii) The identification of the suit schedule property is also in
dispute. The boundaries shown in the suit schedule property
are incorrect.
iv) The vendor of respondent No.1 had no valid title and there
are no link documents filed by respondent No.1.
v) Respondent No.1 did not challenge the petitioners' title, even
though they are aware of the documents of the petitioners since
1999.
vi) Respondent No.1 filed a sale deed bearing document No.8543
of 2002, i.e., document No.7, which shows that vendor of the
respondent No.1 was having only Acs.9-30 gts, whereas, total
extent in Sy.No.151 was Acs.14-31 gts. Moreover, vendor of
respondent No.1 purchased only Acs.5-00 gts of land out of
Acs.9-10 gts and the extent of respondent No.1 was limited to
30225 Sq.yrds and no document was filed regarding the
remaining land in Sy.No.151.
vii) O.S.No.660 of 1999 and its I.A.No.1825 of 2002, has nothing
to do with the suit and I.A.No.1825 of 2002 was the implead
petition filed under Order 10 rule 1 of C.P.C and it was allowed,
but the suit was closed. Arbitration O.P.No.327 of 2003 was
dismissed without any finding and thus they cannot be looked
into.
viii) The partition deed was not followed, as all the documents
filed by respondent No.1 contained all the survey numbers.
ix) Respondent No.1 failed to establish prima facie case by virtue
of contradicting documents and failed to establish their
possession and enjoyment to the extent of the suit schedule
property and also the irreparable loss and hardship. There is no
balance of conveyance subsisting in their favour.
x) The plaint and affidavit filed by respondent No.1 neither prove
their title nor protect their possession and there is no whisper
regarding partition deed, on which respondent No.1 is relying
and depending.
xi) The respondent No.2 had sold the land measuring an extent
of Ac.0-25gts to petitioners as shown in 1B register and it is to
be considered as title deed. Photographs and electricity
connections shows the possession of petitioners. Respondent
No.1 has not approached the court with clean hands and filed
the suit with bogus transactions. They suppressed the material
facts and they have not made out prima facie case, there is no
balance of conveyance in their favour and they are not entitled
to any relief and thus requested the Court to dismiss
interlocutory applications with exemplary costs.
11. The trial Court observed that the case of respondent No.1
is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit
schedule property. They purchased the same from its owners for
a valuable sale consideration under registered document and
possession was delivered to them. They have also filed an
application for conversion of land from agriculture to non-
agriculture and the same was accorded. Subsequently,
petitioners No.6 & 7, who are no way concerned with the suit
schedule property are trying to interfere with their possession
on 17.02.2023 and on 08.03.2023. Petitioners contended that
respondent No.1 is not in possession and enjoyment of the
petition schedule property, they are the absolute owners and
they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment since the date of
purchase. They started construction in their properties, their
vendors also purchased the same through registered sale deed
and they are in possession for more than 13 years and protected
their title by adverse possession. It was further observed that
the father of petitioner No.3 namely K.Yadi Reddy filed a suit for
partition and separate possession against respondent No.2 vide
O.S.No.660 of 1999 and subsequently it was referred to
arbitrator. On 24.07.1989, there was family settlement and the
same was confirmed by the Order in I.A.No.1268 of 2002 in
O.S.No.660 of 1999 and also in Arbitration O.P.No.327 of 2013.
Respondent No.1 came into possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property by way of sale deed filed under Exs.P8
and P10. Further, Ex.P30-Police report shows that when
petitioners interfered with the possession and enjoyment of
respondent No.1 over the suit property, they lodged a complaint.
It was held that it is not the stage to decide the matter on merits
and the scope of the petition is very limited. To avoid
multiplicity of the litigation, to protect the interest of the parties
and considering the documents filed by respondent No.1, as
prima facie case is in their favour, granted temporary injunction
and also directed the petitioners not to alienate the suit
schedule property during the pendency of the suit. Aggrieved by
the said Order, respondents No.2 to 8 therein preferred the
present revision petition.
12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners herein mainly
contended that petitioners No.4 and 5, filed a suit in O.S.No.309
of 2017 for perpetual injunction against the vendors of the
respondents herein and the same was re-numbered as
O.S.No.50 of 2023 and the same is pending. The Order and
decree of the trial Court passed in I.A.No.194 of 2023 in
O.S.No.61 of 2023 is contrary to law. The trial Court failed to
appreciate the facts of case in right prospective and not
considered the documentary evidence of the petitioners herein.
The respondent No.1 has not filed any application under Section
32 of Cr.P.C while filing the suit in O.S.No.61 of 2023 and also
failed to file resolution of the Company. He also contended that
petitioner No.2 purchased the property under Ex.A18. From
1998 onwards she is in possession and enjoyment of the
property. She erected a compound wall with gate, two bore wells
and two electricity connections in the year 2017-18 and it
indicates the continuous un-interrupted possession and
enjoyment over the suit schedule property and thus suit is
barred by limitation. On 19.06.2023, respondent No.1 has filed
a memo before the trial Court, but it was not pressed against
respondent No.2. Further, he relied upon the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ananthula Sudhakar
Vs.P.Buchi Reddy 1, in which it was held that "Where the title of
the plaintiff is in cloud, a suit for mere injunction without praying
for declaration of title is not maintainable. Suit for bare injunction
is not maintainable when both parties are claiming title on that
too, effective possession cannot be proved." He also relied upon
AIR 2008 SC 2023
the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Jarkhand state Housing Board Vs. Didar singh and
another, 2 in which it was held that "In each and every case
where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff it is not
necessary the plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit
for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a
genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raised at cloud
over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those
circumstances plaintiff cannot maintain suit for bare injunction."
He further relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Civil Appeal No.5577 of 2021, between T.V.Ramakrishna
Reddy Vs. M.Mallappa and another, in which it was held as
follows:
"Suit for perpetual injunction restraining defendants from
interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of suit property - Held, if matter involves
complicated questions of fact and law relating to title,
court will relegate parties to remedy by way of
comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of
deciding issue in suit for mere injunction - Issue with
regard to title can be decided only after full-fledged trial
on basis of evidence that would be led by parties in
support of their rival claims."
2019 SAR (Civil) page 37
13. Admittedly, respondent No.1 herein filed the suit for
permanent injunction and also for declaration of documents as
null and void. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that
suit was filed only for mere injunction and not for declaration of
title is not tenable. During the pendency of the suit, respondent
No.1 filed two applications for grant of ad-interim injunction
and for directing the petitioners not to alienate the suit
properties to third parties during the pendency of the suit.
Except petitioner No.6, no other person filed any counter and he
is only the contesting the party. Petitioner No.6 is the General
Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.2 i.e., son of
K.Venkat Reddy. Respondent No.1 mainly relied upon the
registered sale deed vide document No.20 of 1969, executed by
Mohammadi Begum in favour of sons of K.Bhadra Reddy, for an
extent of Acs.154-02 gts. Later, all the sons of K.Bhadra Reddy,
executed family partition and settlement as detailed in petition
along with their children and grand children as Group-D1 to
D4. Group-D1, D3 and D4 got Acs.38-00 gts each and Group-
D2 got Acs.38-02 gts. They in turn alienated the property to
several persons. The legal heirs of K.Raja Reddy, alienated the
property in favour of Sukhavasi Radha Krishna and Sukhavasi
Kamala Kumari. They in turn sold the property to M/s.Nakhat
Real Estate Private Limited and they sought for conversion of
land from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose and later they
executed two sale deeds in favour of respondent No.1 for an
extent of 1815 Sq.yrds out of 7381 Sq.yrds and another for an
extent of 1210 Sq.yrds out of 7381 Sq.yrds in Sy.No.151.
Respondent No.1 has filed the said sale deed and clearly stated
that from then onwards they are in possession and enjoyment of
the land measuring an extent of 3025 Sq.yrds and they have
also filed photographs to support their contention. They have
also stated that the entire land measuring an extent of 3025
Sq.yrds is the petition schedule property. When petitioners No.6
& 7 interfered with their possession on 17.02.2023 and
08.03.2023, they filed suit for injunction and for declaration of
the documents as null and void. As the Court is dealing with
interlocutory applications, it is for the Court to see whether
prima facie case is met out by the respondent No.1 for granting
of interim orders in their favour.
14. Admittedly, respondent No.1 has filed two sale deeds to
prove their title and filed photographs to prove their possession.
Petitioners mainly contended that sale deed was executed in the
year 1999 and now they sought for declaration after lapse of 19
years and thus suit is barred by limitation. The limitation is to
be decided in the main suit after adducing evidence of both the
parties. They also contended that family settlement deed does
not confer any title or possession over the suit land. In fact,
legal heirs of K.Bhadra Reddy i.e., four sons and his kith and
kin executed several sale deeds in pursuance of the family
settlement. All the groups got Acs.38-00 gts each, except group-
D2, who got Acs.38-02 gts.
15. Petitioners have also contended that identification of the
suit schedule property is also in dispute and boundaries are in
correct. The total extent of the land is Acs.154-02 gts and it was
divided among Groups D1 to D4. Petitioners contended that the
vendors' of vendor of respondent No.1 was having Acs.9-10 gts,
but not Acs.14-31 gts. The vendor of respondent No.1 had
purchased only Acs.5-00 gts and the extent of respondent No.1
is limited to 3025 Sq.yrds. Petitioners also contended that
partition deed was not confirmed in I.A.No.1825 of 2002 in
O.S.No.660 of 1999. In fact, implead application was allowed
and the suit was closed and Arbitration O.P.No.327 of 2013 was
dismissed without any finding. The details of it can be gone
through during the pendency of the main suit. Several other
objections raised by the petitioners can be looked into in detail
and can be dealt with in the main suit after considering the
evidence and documents adduced by both the parties. These
applications are filed only to grant ad-interim injunction and to
grant relief of not to alienate the suit properties to third parties.
When respondent No.1 filed suit for declaration and also to
declare several other documents as null and void, it is for the
Court to protect the title during the pendency of the proceedings
as they proved their title and possession. The trial Court rightly
granted the above two reliefs and allowed the applications. This
Court finds no reason to interfere with the said reasoned order.
16. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are
dismissed, confirming the Order of the trial Court dated
20.07.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.194 & 234 of 2023 in O.S.No.61
of 2023. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 03.07.2024
tri
