T.Ramanaiah, Yellareddiguda, ... vs Mandava Ravi, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2890 Tel

Telangana High Court

T.Ramanaiah, Yellareddiguda, ... vs Mandava Ravi, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ... on 7 March, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                     CCCA No. 283 OF 2008

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal is filed challenging the judgement and

decree dated 01.12.2008 in O.S.No. 205 of 2005 on the file of

the III Additional Civil Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

2. Parties in the Appeal are referred to as they are

arrayed in the suit.

3. Respondents herein are Plaintiffs who filed the

mentioned suit to declare judgement and decree dated

12.11.1999 in O.S.No. 4862 of 1991 on the file of the IV Junior

Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and sale deed

executed by the said Court dated 24.03.2005 pursuant to the

decree passed in favour of defendants in the suit vide document

Number No.187 of 2004 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Banjara

Hills, Hyderabad, and to declare the same as null and void and

not binding on Plaintiffs and together a consequential relief of

injunction.

4. The schedule property is a piece of land

admeasuring 650 square yards in Survey No.41 situated at

Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad with specific boundaries. It is the

case of Plaintiffs that they are legal heirs of Late N. Koteshwara

Rao who along with Sri A. Ramachandra Rao, and Sri K. Appa

Rao jointly purchased land admeasuring Ac.4.22 guntas in

Survey Nos. 41 and 42 situated at Yellareddyguda Village,

Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad, vide registered Sale Deed

dated 30.06.1964. Thereafter, they orally partitioned the said

land by metes and bounds, followed up by execution of a

partition deed dated 10.07.1978. In the said partition, Sri

Ramakoteshwara Rao got an extent of 9922 square yards of

land.

5. During the life time of Sri Ramakoteshwara Rao,

Sri A.Ramachandra Rao, and Sri K. Appa Rao executed General

Power of Attorney in favour of one Mr. Balakotaiah in respect of

the aforesaid land, who, in turn, had entered into an Agreement

of Sale dated 22.11.1975 with M/s Bhagyalakshmi Co-operative

Housing Society Limited. It is the claim of Plaintiffs that the said

GPA was cancelled which fact was informed to the Society with

an advice not to deal with Mr. Balakotaiah and that the

aforesaid Agreement of Sale had lapsed by efflux of time. It is

the further case of Plaintiffs that the above three persons filed

independent declarations before the Special Officer and

Competent Authority, U.L.C., Hyderabad in respect of lands

held by them in Survey Nos. 41 and 42 under Section 6(1) of the

Urban Land Ceiling Act in proceedings in C.C.No. E1/5538/76

dated 06.11.1977. The Competent Authority under the Urban

Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976, had allowed plaintiffs to

retain 938 square meters in Survey Nos. 42 and 62 square

meters in Survey No.41 and balance land of 8254 square meters

was declared as surplus land. Plaintiffs contested the said order

and final order was passed on 07.08.2004, allowing them to

retain 8000 square meters and declared balance 5881.68

square meters as surplus and applied for regularization as per

G.O.Ms.No.455 and paid Rs.82,68,711/- by each plaintiff to

Government and sought for exemption of surplus land and the

same is pending consideration before the authorities concerned.

While matter stood thus, strangers had visited schedule land

and made an attempt to measure the boundaries of a portion of

schedule property and on enquiries, they revealed that they

purchased the said property. It is the further case of purchasers

that pursuant to the direction issued in Writ Petition No.7880 of

2005, the Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad processed

the Sale Deed dated 24.08.2005 and the said sale deed was

registered on 07.03.2005 in E.P No. 28 of 2005 in O.S.No. 4862

of 1991 and the Sub-Registrar had released the sale deed in

favour of defendants.

6. Plaintiffs came to know that the 2nd defendant and

father of the 1st defendant claim to have entered into an

Agreement of Sale dated 22.06.1981 with M/s Bhagyalakshmi

Co-operative Housing Society Limited (herein after referred to as

'Society') for purchase of suit land and had filed suit for specific

performance in O.S.No.4862 of 1991 on the file of the IV

Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the Society

and the said suit was decreed on 30.08.1995. Though Appeals

were preferred by the Society, the same were dismissed;

consequently, defendants filed E.P. No.19 of 1996 and

E.P.No.314 of 2000 which were dismissed by orders dated

19.03.2002 and 13.10.2003 and the third E.P. No. 28 of 2005

was allowed by the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts,

Hyderabad, pursuant to which, the Sale Deed mentioned supra

was presented by the civil Court on behalf of judgment debtor

on 24.03.2005, in favour of defendants, who are decree holders

and the same was received and kept pending for want of stamp

duty, thereby Writ Petition No. 7880 of 2005 was filed seeking

direction to process the Sale Deed. It is the further case of

Plaintiffs that they are in possession of Suit Schedule Property

and constructed a room and got a bore-well dug and that they

are not the parties to the suit filed by the defendants against the

Society and Defendants and Society have colluded with each

other and obtained the decree, hence, the same is not binding

on the Plaintiffs.

7. Society being only an agreement holder, had never

acted upon the agreement of sale and the same was terminated

around 1980 itself and the Society was not the owner of

property and possession of land was not delivered to Society or

to defendants at any point of time and Society being an

agreement of sale holder cannot transfer title or ownership to

defendants and that there is no registered deed of conveyance in

favour of Society pursuant to the agreement of the sale dated:

22.11.1975 and land was declared as surplus way back in 1977

itself. Subsequent to service of notices in suit, defendants filed

written statement, gist of which is that defendants have put a

challenge that Plaintiffs are legal heirs of late M.

Ramakoteshwara Rao, while admitting the fact that Sri

Ramakoteshwara Rao, Sri K.Appa Rao and Sri A. Janardhan

Rao jointly purchased the land admeasuring Acs.4.22 guntas in

Survey Nos. 41 and 42, vide Registered Sale Deed dated

30.06.1994, however, denied that there was partition by metes

and bounds and subsequently, they entered into partition deed

dated 10.07.1987 and it is also denied that Sri A. Ramachandra

Rao got an extent of 9922 square yards of the said partition. All

the three persons entered into General Power of Attorney in

favour of Mr.Balakotaiah who had entered into Agreement of

Sale with M/s Bhagyalakshmi Co-operative Housing Society

Limited, and as per the terms of the said agreement, the Society

was put in possession of land for development into plots by

obtaining layout. It is denied that Power of Attorney given in

favour of Mr. Balakotaiah was cancelled and that Agreement of

Sale had lapsed by efflux of time. The declarations filed before

the U.L.C. authorities were disputed by defendants and it is

categorically denied that Plaintiffs paid amounts towards

regularization scheme as per G.O.Ms.No.45 and sought for

exemption of surplus land and it is totally false and illegal. It is

specific case of defendants, that plaintiffs are never in

possession of suit property, the father of the 1st defendant and

the 2nd defendant entered into Agreement of Sale with the

Society for purchase of land consisting of 650 square yards

which is Suit Schedule Property and then Agreement of Sale

dated 22.06.1981 and paid part of sale consideration of

Rs.25,000/- leaving a balance Rs.14,000/- to be paid at the

time of registration of Sale Deed and the Society handed over

physical possession with specific boundaries and denied that

plaintiffs have right and possession over the property and in

view of non-compliance of the obligation by the Society,

defendants filed O.S.No. 4862 of 1991 and after obtaining a

decree, filed execution petition and got the sale deed executed

through Court and had obtained necessary order from High

Court in Writ Petition No. 788 of 2005 for processing Sale Deed

by the Sub-Registrar, who raised objection. Plaintiffs are not

owners and they are not in possession of property. Based on the

above pleadings, the trail Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether partition between Ramachandra Rao and two others dated:10-7-1987 is true? If so whether 9922 Sq.yards fell to the share of said Ramachandra Rao?

2. Whether Ramachandra Rao and others filed declaration before the U.L.C. in violation of agreement. Of sale dated 22-11-1975?

3. Whether the decree in O.S. No. 4862/1991 is not binding on the plaintiffs?

4. Whether the suit is not in time?

5. Whether the decree dated 12-11-1999 in O.S. No. 4862/1991 on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge and consequential sale deed executed by the Court on 24-03-2005 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration and for permanent injunction as prayed for?

7. To what relief?

8. Evidence was laid by both the parties to the suit.

The son of the 1st plaintiff was brought on record as legal heir

and was examined as PW-1 and documents Exs.A1 to A4 were

marked. On behalf of defendants, the 1st defendant was

examined as DW-1 and Ex. B1 - certified copy of sale deed being

document No.518 of 2008 registered in the office Joint Sub-

Registrar, Hyderabad executed in favour of the Defendants, was

marked.

9. All the issues framed in the suit were answered in

favour of Plaintiffs and the suit was decreed by judgement and

decree dated 01.12.2008. Challenging the said judgement and

decree, the present Appeal was filed by defendants.

10. Defendants are claiming title over subject property

admeasuring based on the Agreement of Sale from the

Agreement holder of the document in favour of Bhagya Nagar

Co-operative Society. They filed O.S. No. 4862 of 1991 against

the Society seeking the relief of Specific Performance of

Agreement of Sale dated 22-06-1981 and obtained decree on

30-06-1995. The Society filed A.S.No.299 of 1997 on the file of

the Vth Additional Chief judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad,

challenging the above decree and the same was dismissed.

Defendants therefore, filed E.P.No.19 of 1996 and E.P. No. 314

of 2000, which were dismissed by order dated 19-03-2002 and

13-10-2003 respectively. Again in 2005, appellants filed E.P.28

of 2005 seeking an execution of the decree, which was allowed

by the Court below, and the sale deed was executed through

Court. The Society filed E.A.No. 558 of 2005 to set aside the

order in E.P. No.28 of 2005. The Execution Petition was filed in

2004 and the same was ordered in 2005 vide order dated

24-03-2005. At the time of marking the boundaries, plaintiffs

came to know about passing of decree in O.S.No.4862 of 1991,

hence respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.205 of 2005 seeking

cancellation of the said decree; accordingly, O.S. No.205 of 2005

was filed within the period of limitation.

11. Plaintiffs claim that they filed an Application for

regularization of surplus land under G.O.Ms.No. 466, dated

29-07-2002, Government issued regularization of surplus land

in favour of plaintiffs/respondents vide G.O.Ms.No.1636, dated

09-09-2009 vide Ex.A2.

12. From the pleadings, evidence and impugned

judgment and decree, the following point fall for consideration

for adjudication of the present Appeal:

" Whether the suit is maintainable and can be

decreed as prayed for, in the absence of the document viz.

judgment and decree in O.S.No. 4862 of 1991 on the file of the

IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and

Partition Deed dated 10.07.1987 executed after death of Late Sri

M. Ramakoteshwara Rao, Sri K. Appa Rao and Sri A.

Janardhan Rao and whether the suit is in compliance with

Order VII Rule 14 CPC?"

13. It is apparent on the face of the record that

plaintiffs are relying on registered Partition Deed dated

10.07.1987 and are claiming rights over suit schedule property.

Order VII of the Code mandates that Plaintiff who is coming to

the Court shall file all the documents that are being relied.

Order VII Rule-14 is extracted hereunder: