Telangana High Court
S.Ravi Kumar vs S. Pramila on 20 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3924 of 2023 & 1457 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both the civil revision
petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and
disposed of together by way of this common order.
2. C.R.P.No.3924 of 2023 is filed challenging the order
dated 21.04.2023 passed in O.S.No.147 of 2016 (Old
O.S.No.54 of 2008) by the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal,
Hyderabad.
3. C.R.P.No.1457 of 2024 is filed challenging the order
dated 12.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.930 of 2023 in O.S.No.47
of 2023 by the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal, Hyderabad.
4. The brief facts of the cases are that these two civil
revision petitions, arise from two separate suits, namely,
O.S.No.147 of 2016 and O.S.No.47 of 2023. Both suits
involve the dispute over the same property and the parties
therein seek perpetual injunctions against each other. During
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3924 of 2023 and 1457 of 2024
the pendency of O.S.No.47 of 2023, I.A.No.930 of 2023 was
filed seeking to restrain the respondents therein from
interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property
of the petitioners.
5. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as they
are arrayed in C.R.P.No.1457 of 2024.
6. The petitioners, who are the lawful tenants of
respondent No.2 for over 60 years, are seeking an interim
injunction to restrain respondent No.1 from interfering with
their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property. The petitioners have been paying rent regularly, and
the last payment of Rs.8,000/- was made on 04.11.2023.
Respondent No.1, who is the elder son of petitioner No.1 and
got separated from the petitioners over 20 years ago, is trying
to interfere with the property. Despite having no legal rights,
respondent No.1 obtained a rental agreement in the year
2008, which was done illegally and without government
approval. The petitioners contend that respondent No.1 is
neither the owners of the property nor is in possession of the
said property. The petitioners are apprehensive that
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3924 of 2023 and 1457 of 2024
respondent No.1 may repeat his illegal acts and dispossess
them from the property, causing great injury and hardship.
Therefore, the petitioners pray for an interim injunction to
protect their possession and enjoyment of the property.
7. On the other hand, respondent No.1 filed counter
affidavit in I.A.No.930 of 2023 stating that O.S.No.47 of 2023
and I.A.No.930 of 2023 are not maintainable in law or on facts
and therefore, the same should be dismissed. He denies all
the allegations made in the petition, stating that the
petitioners are trying to mislead the Tribunal by
misrepresenting the facts. Respondent No.1 claims that he is
in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property, House
No.15-2-111, Maharajgunj, Gowliguda Chaman, Hyderabad,
which is 34 square yards, and that the petitioners have
illegally occupied 12 square yards. Respondent No.1 also
claims to have paid rent, electricity bills, and has official ID
proofs and water connections in his name, establishing his
possession. He alleged that the petitioners have a history of
playing fraud on the Court and are trying to grab the property.
Respondent No.1 also mentions that the petitioners' rental
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3924 of 2023 and 1457 of 2024
receipts are fabricated and that they will not establish
possession over the property.
8. The trial Court after hearing both sides, vide order dated
12.02.2024 dismissed I.A.No.930 of 2023 observing that the
petitioner and respondent No.1 are closely related and that
petitioner No.1 is the mother of petitioner No.2 and
respondent No.1. The suit schedule property consists of 80
square yards, was originally leased to the husband of
petitioner No.1, out of the said 80 square yards respondent
No.1 occupied 22 square yards. Despite disputes, respondent
No.1 continued to live separately in the premises, and
documents, including rental receipts, electricity bills, and ID
proofs, establish his possession. The petitioners failed to
provide evidence as to when they took possession of the
premises from respondent No.1, and therefore, demolition of
their portion and construction of a new structure does not
establish their possession over the entire property. As the
petitioners failed to establish prima facie evidence of trespass
or damage, they are not entitled to interim injunction.
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3924 of 2023 and 1457 of 2024
9. Further, the trial Court vide order dated 24.01.2023
dismissed O.S.No.147 of 2016 observing that the suit
schedule property, bearing House Nos.15-2-109, 110, and
111, is a Wakf property leased to one Satyanarayana, who is
the husband of petitioner No.1. After his death, petitioner
No.1 became the tenant and continued to pay rent. The Wakf
Board granted her permission to construct a house, as such,
she demolished the existing structure, except for H.No.15-2-
111, which she left intact. Respondent No.1 claimed
possession, but the Court found that he had no evidence of
possession prior to the year 2008, except for a rental
agreement executed by the Secretary Managing Committee for
property Nabi Baksh and Other Waqf institutions in his favor
on 10.05.2008. However, this agreement was deemed invalid
as the Secretary Managing Committee had not obtained prior
permission from the Wakf Board. The Court concluded that
respondent No.1 had only notional possession, being the son
of petitioner No. 1, but not physical possession.
10. Aggrieved by the said orders, both the respective parties
filed the present civil revision petitions.
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3924 of 2023 and 1457 of 2024
11. Heard Smt. L. Vani, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner in C.R.P.No.3924 of 2023 and
respondent in C.R.P.No.1457 of 2024 as well as Sri N.
Amarnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners in C.R.P.No.1457 of 2024 and respondents in
C.R.P.No.3924 of 2023.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in
C.R.P.No.3924 of 2023 submitted that the judgment under
revision is erroneous and contrary to law and facts on record
and that the trial Court ignored key admissions of respondent
Nos.1 and 2, who acknowledged the possession of the
petitioner, but claimed that it was permissive. She further
submitted that as non-owners, respondent Nos.1 and 2
cannot claim to have permitted the possession of the
petitioner and that the trial court also overlooked Managing
Committee's admission of the lease and possession of the
petitioner. She contended that the trial Court failed to
recognize that the subject property was leased to the father of
the petitioner, and upon his demise, the petitioner and
respondents 1 and 2, as legal heirs, were entitled to the lease
and that the trial Court erred in its inquiry into the lease and
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3924 of 2023 and 1457 of 2024
ignored crucial documents, including Ex-A4 and A5, and the
stand of the landlord. The compromise and decree of the
respondents were obtained fraudulently and are not binding
on the petitioner. She further contended that the trial Court
also overlooked key admissions by DW1 during cross-
examination, specifically regarding possession of the petitioner
of the subject property. Therefore, she prayed the Court to set
aside the order of the trial Court by allowing C.R.P.No.3924 of
2023.
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
in C.R.P.No.1457 of 2024 submitted that the order of the Waqf
Tribunal is flawed as it disregards crucial evidence and legal
precedents and that the Tribunal overlooked key documents,
including Ex.P-2, Ex.P-11, and rental receipts, which
establish possession of the petitioners and their tenancy
rights. Furthermore, the claims of respondent No.1 are flawed
by contradictions, as he claimed to be a tenant but executed a
gift deed as owner, demonstrating inconsistencies in his
testimony. He further submitted that the Tribunal also failed
to discuss crucial documents, including Ex.P-9, Ex.P-15 to
Ex.P-17, and Ex.R-6 and Ex.R-7, which are vital to
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3924 of 2023 and 1457 of 2024
understand the case. He further submitted that the schedule
property is a notified Waqf property, and the Telangana State
Waqf Board acknowledged the tenancy rights of the petitioners
in their written statement and that the Tribunal disregarded
this critical information and instead relied on the oral
evidence of respondent No.1, which is riddled with
contradictions.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the
Tribunal's non-compliance with the interim orders of this
Court in C.R.P.No.3924 of 2023 is also a significant
procedural error. The orders of this Court specifically stated
that both parties should maintain status quo, but the Tribunal
ignored this direction and dismissed the injunction petition
without considering the merits of the case. He further
contended that these oversights and contradictions
undermine the conclusions of the Tribunal, necessitating re-
examination of the case. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set
aside the order of the trial Court by allowing C.R.P.No.1457 of
2024.
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3924 of 2023 and 1457 of 2024
15. This Court has carefully examined the material on
record and considered the submissions of both counsel in
C.R.P.Nos.3924 of 2023 and 1457 of 2024. These revision
petitions challenges the orders of the trial Court in O.S.No.147
of 2016 and in I.A.No.930 of 2023 in O.S.No.47 of 2023,
dismissing the suit for perpetual injunction and restraining
respondent No.1 in C.R.P.No.1457 of 2024 or any other
person claiming through him from interfering in the peaceful
possession and enjoyment and dispossession of the
petitioners in C.R.P.No.1457 of 2024 from the suit schedule
property, respectively. Upon perusal of the record, it is
evident that the petitioner in C.R.P.No.3924 of 2023 failed to
establish lawful possession of the subject property on the date
of filing the suit.
16. The rental agreement (Ex.A1) dated 10.05.2008,
executed between the Managing Committee and the petitioner
in C.R.P.No.3924 of 2023, is disputed due to lack of
permission from the Wakf Board. This omission raises
significant doubts about the validity of the agreement.
Furthermore, the rental receipts (Ex.A2 and Ex.A3) dated
21.11.2006 and 13.05.2008, respectively, cannot be relied
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3924 of 2023 and 1457 of 2024
upon to prove possession. These documents are insufficient
to establish the possession of the petitioner in C.R.P.No.3924
of 2023 of the subject property.
17. The cause of action alleged on 03.05.2008 is
unfounded, as the rental agreement was executed only on
10.05.2008. This discrepancy undermines the claim of the
petitioner in C.R.P.No.3924 of 2023 with regard to possession
on the date of filing of the suit. Moreover, the written
statement reveals that respondent Nos.1 and 2 in
C.R.P.No.3924 of 2023 did not dismantle the property bearing
No.15-2-111 but only dismantled H.Nos.15-2-109 and 110
with permission from the Wakf Board due to their dilapidated
condition. This clarification further erodes the claim of
possession by the petitioner in C.R.P.No.3924 of 2023.
18. In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds
that the orders of the trial Court in dismissing the suit for
perpetual injunction filed by the petitioners and I.A.No.930 of
2023 in O.S.No.47 of 2023, restraining respondent No.1 in
C.R.P.No.1457 of 2024 or any other person claiming through
him from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3924 of 2023 and 1457 of 2024
and dispossession of the petitioners in C.R.P.No.1457 of 2024
from the suit schedule property is justified. The petitioner in
C.R.P.No.3924 of 2023 failed to establish lawful possession of
the subject property, and the disputed rental agreement and
rental receipts do not support their claim. The revision
petitions lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.
19. In view thereof, these civil revision petitions are
dismissed confirming the order dated 21.04.2023 passed in
O.S.No.147 of 2016 (Old O.S.No.54 of 2008) and the order
dated 12.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.930 of 2023 in O.S.No.47
of 2023 by the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal, Hyderabad,
respectively. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 20.02.2025
SAI
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.3924 of 2023 and 1457 of 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
P.D. COMMON ORDER
IN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3924 of 2023 & 1457 of 2024
Date: 20.02.2025
SAI
