Telangana High Court
Burra Rajeshwari vs Burra Rajamma on 30 July, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.R.P.No.237 OF 2024
Between:
Burra Rajeshwari
... Petitioner
And
Burra Rajamma (died) and Others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 30.07.2024
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_________________________________
MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
2 SN,J
CRP_237_2024
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
C.R.P.No.237 OF 2024
% 30.07.2024
Between:
# Burra Rajeshwari
... Petitioner
And
$ Burra Rajamma (died) and Others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitione : Sri T.Ramchandra Rao
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri B.Gopala Krishna for R2 &R3
? Cases Referred:
...........
3 SN,J
CRP_237_2024
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
C.R.P.No.237 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri Thimmaraju Ramchandra Rao, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
B.Gopala Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. The first petitioner in the Execution petition prayed
the present revision petition seeking prayer as under:
"......to set aside the orders passed by the Court of
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, at
Manthani, in E.P.No. 1 of 2018 in O.S.No.05 of 2018, dated
22.12.2023 by allowing the Revision, in the interest of
justice, and to pass such other order or orders..."
3. The Revision Petitioner is the decree holder No.1. For the
sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as shown in the
execution proceedings E.P.No.01 of 2018 in O.S.No.05 of 2018
on the file of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, at
Manthani. The decree holders/plaintiffs filed E.P. 01 of 2018 in
O.S.No.05 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant
Sessions Judge, at Manthani under Order XXI Rule 46(A) of CPC
4 SN,J
CRP_237_2024
seeking direction to the judgment debtors to deposit of
Rs.14,18,454/-. The plea of the first petitioner/decree holder
No.1 is that as per the Lok Adalat Award in O.S.No.5 of 2008 on
the file of Chairman/Senior Civil Judge., Legal Services Authority
at Manthani, out of the total amount of compensation of
Rs.36,21,136/-, they are entitled to get Rs.14,18,454/- towards
their 40% share and the judgment debtors who received the
entire compensation from Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.
have not paid their share so far, hence the petition.
4. The respondents/judgment Debtor Nos. 2 and 3 filed
counter admitting that as per the Lok Adalat, the petitioners are
entitled to get 40% share in the total compensation. But, they
denied the claim of the petitioners that they have not received
their share of the compensation. They stated that the first
petitioner/decree holder No.1 received her 40% share by filing
cheque petitions from time to time and that therefore, they are
not liable to pay the amount as claimed by the petitioner.
5. The first petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 examined themselves as RWs 1 & 2 and
2 other witnesses are RWs 3 and 4. The first petitioner got
5 SN,J
CRP_237_2024
marked two documents and the respondents got marked five
documents.
6. The lower Court after considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record came to a conclusion that the first petitioner
received her share of 40% of the compensation and accordingly,
dismissed the Execution Petition.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that as per the
Lok Adalat Award, dated 06.08.2010 in O.S.No.5 of 2008, the
first petitioner/decree holder No.1 is entitled to receive 40%
which includes the share of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, and the
judgment debtors the remaining 60% of the compensation.
8. The Judgment Debtors mainly relied upon exhibits R4 and
R6 to prove that the first petitioner/decree holder No.1 received
her share of 40% of the compensation. Exhibit R4 is the RTI
copy of the petition filed by the first petitioner/Decree holder
No.1 in PLC 10 of 2017.
9. In the first para of the petition, she stated that four houses
and five acres of land belonging to petitioner's family had been
acquired by Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. And after death of
6 SN,J
CRP_237_2024
her husband disputes arose between her and her sons and so
suit was filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Manthani and
Court passed award, dated 06.08.2010 and that they distributed
among themselves the money received towards their houses and
lands.
10. PW-1/B.Rajeshwari in her cross-examination admits that
she filed PLC 10 of 2017, but when asked whether she received
the amount as per the Lok Adalat Award, she evasively says
that she does not remember about it. That inferentially goes to
show that she deliberately says that she does not remember
about it knowing full well that in the PLC, she clearly stated that
she had received the amount of compensation.
11. This apart exhibit R6 is the agreement dated 12.11.2017
entered into between the first petitioner/decree holder No.1 and
the respondent Nos. 2 and 3/judgment debtors. A perusal of that
agreement clearly shows that she received 40% of the
compensation and acknowledged that the respondent Nos. 2 and
3/judgment debtors are not due to pay any amount to her.
7 SN,J
CRP_237_2024
12. In the cross examination of RW1 i.e., Burra Sravan Kumar
except a suggestion that the signature on exhibit R6 does not
belong to the petitioner/decree holder and that it is created to
evade payment, there is no worthwhile material elicited to doubt
the genuineness of exhibit R6 agreement.
13. In the cross examination of PW1, it is even suggested to
her that she executed the agreement in the presence of
witnesses. Therefore, both exhibits R4 and R6 will clearly prove
that the first petitioner had received 40% of the compensation.
14. It therefore follows that the claim of the petitioner for
deposit of EP amount is false. The lower Court after appreciating
oral and documentary evidence, came to the correct conclusion
that the first petitioner /decree holder No.1 had received 40% of
the compensation and hence, Execution Petition is liable to be
dismissed.
15. In view of the above, there is no illegality or
irregularity in the order dated 22.12.2023 passed in
E.P.No.01 of 2018 in O.S.No. 05 of 2008 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, at
8 SN,J
CRP_237_2024
Manthani and accordingly, the present C.R.P No.237 of
2024 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order
as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
also stand closed.
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Dated: 30.07.2024
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
B/o
ktm
