Telangana High Court
Mohd. Afzal vs Mohd. Shaker Hussain on 20 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3140 OF 2024
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in
I.A.No.1043 of 2024 in A.S.No.48 of 2021 on the file of the
II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, this Civil
Revision Petition is filed.
2. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the
application filed under Section 107 r/w 151 CPC seeking to grant
permission for demarcation of the suit schedule property.
3. Heard Sri Shaik Shafee Ur Raheman, learned counsel for
petitioner, and Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for
respondents.
4. The petitioner is plaintiff and the respondents are defendants
in the suit before the trial Court. For convenience, the parties are
hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.
5. Brief factual matrix of the matter is that the plaintiff filed the
appeal-AS.No.48 of 2021 aggrieved by the judgment and decree
dated 16.07.2021 passed in OS.No.1307 of 2010 on the file of VII
Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by which the suit
which was originally filed for perpetual injunction and
LNA, J
subsequently, amended to that of suit for declaration of title in
respect of the suit schedule property was dismissed. While the
appeal is pending adjudication, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid
application stating that the controversy between him and
respondent No.5 is with regard to localization and identity of the
suit schedule property.
6. The trial Court has considered the contentions advanced on
behalf of both the parties and observed that the plaintiff claimed
that he is owner of the suit schedule property with specific
boundaries to a specific extent having acquired the same under a
registered document, therefore, the burden is on him to establish
the identity of the said property. If a Commissioner is appointed for
demarcation and localization of the suit schedule property, it
amounts to collection of evidence. The trial Court further observed
that the vendor of the plaintiff got 1,180 square yards along with
other shareholders and entered into agreement of sale for an extent
of 250 square yards with the petitioner, however, the sale deed was
executed only for an extent of 150 square yards and no boundaries
are furnished in respect of the above extents. Therefore, there is no
possibility to identify the land that fell to the share of the vendor of
LNA, J
the plaintiff and the extent claimed by him and other parties who
acquired the rights through the vendor of the plaintiff are also not
made parties to the suit and as such, localization of properties is not
possible.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that
the trial Court has committed error in dismissing the application on
mere conjectures and surmises without considering the grounds
raised and the submissions made by the petitioner. He further
contended that the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction
vested in it, which resulted in injustice to the petitioner.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/
defendants contended that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the
application filed by the petitioner for demarcation of the suit
schedule property, as the same amounts to collection of evidence.
He further contended that the plaintiff failed to make out any
ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the trial
Court and therefore, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. It appears from record that the plaintiff filed the suit-
O.S.No.1307 of 2010 for perpetual injunction and declaration of
tile in respect of house bearing Municipal No.19-3-1077,
LNA, J
admeasuring 150 square yards situated at Sarfaraz Jung Colony,
Engine Bowli, Jahanuman, Hyderabad, having the following
boundaries:-
North : Neighbours property
South : 3 feet passage
East : Main road
West : Plaintiff's vendor's property.
10. From a bare perusal of the boundaries, it is evident that on
the west of the suit schedule property, there lies the plaintiff's
vendor's property. Admittedly, the vendor of the plaintiff and
defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit entered into compromise decree in
respect of total extent of 1,180 square yards. It is the case of the
plaintiff that he acquired title in respect of 150 square yards as per
the registered sale deed dated 02.12.2006, whereas the total extent
of land covered under agreement of sale is 250 square yards,
pursuant to which the aforesaid sale deed was executed. However,
he failed to offer explanation for the said discrepancy and further, it
is pertinent to note that the first appellate Court has observed that
there is no mention of boundaries in the agreement of sale,
pursuant to which sale deed was executed. Thus, this Court finds
LNA, J
serious lacuna in the case of the plaintiff which cannot be allowed
to be filled up by demarcation of suit schedule property. The appeal
filed by the petitioners has to fall or stand on its own merits and
material placed on record.
11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
12. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No costs.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:20.03.2025
dr
