Telangana High Court
Laxman Rao vs Ganga Ram Died on 27 March, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
C.C.C.A.No.256 of 2003
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellants - claim petitioners aggrieved by
the order and decree dated 25.07.2003 passed in E.A.No.22 of 2003 in
E.P.No.70 of 2001 in O.S.No.387 of 1989 by the learned V Senior Civil Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. O.S.No.387 of 1989 is filed by the respondents - plaintiffs for eviction of
the respondent - defendant from the suit schedule premises, for arrears of rent
of Rs.55,100/- and for damages for use and occupation @ Rs.1500/- per month.
The said suit was decreed with costs directing the defendant to vacate the suit
schedule premises and to deliver vacant possession of the same on or before
01.10.1999 and to pay a sum of Rs.54,000/- towards arrears of rent and mesne
profits @ Rs.1500/- per month from 01.02.1989 till the date of vacating the
premises.
3. For executing the said decree, E.P.No.70 of 2001 was filed by the
plaintiffs - D.Hrs. In the said E.P., E.A.No.22 of 2003 was filed by the third
party claimants under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC contending that the property
belonged to Raja Dhanraj Giri and that they purchased the same from Raja
Dr.GRR, J
ccca_256_2003
Dhanraj Giri and the respondent No.5 - defendant had no title or interest and
could not confer title on the D.Hrs. in O.S.No.387 of 1989. The respondents -
plaintiffs - D.Hrs. as well as the respondent No.5 - defendant - J.Dr. had not
contested the matter in E.A.No.22 of 2003.
4. The learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed
the impugned order on 25.07.2003 as follows:
"Heard.
A perusal of Ex.A1 shows that the Hon'ble High Court only held that there is
no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent
No.1 and the petitioners questioning ownership of respondent No.1 is bonafide
as held by Rent Control Court, but it did not say that the respondents cannot
file a suit claiming title to the suit property nor a finding is given that
petitioners are the owners.
Even otherwise the petitioners have not filed any application questioning the
authenticity of the decree in O.S.No.387 of 1989.
Hence, I am not inclined to allow this petition. Hence, petition is dismissed."
5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said application, the claim petitioners
preferred this appeal.
6. Notices were served on the respondents in this appeal. But there is no
representation for them.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
Dr.GRR, J
ccca_256_2003
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit was filed in
respect of premises Nos.5-1-497, 5-1-498, 5-1-434, 5-1-434/1 and 5-1-434/2
situated at Putli Bowli, Hyderabad against respondent No.5. But the respondent
- plaintiff sought to execute the same in respect of the premises of the claim
petitioners bearing Municipal Nos.5-1-499 to 5-1-506. Without adverting to the
same, the claim application was dismissed by the Executing Court, which was
wholly unsustainable. The observation of the trial court that the appellants have
not filed any application questioning the authenticity of the decree in
O.S.No.387 of 1989, was not correct, as the said decree was not passed in
respect of the premises belonging to the appellants. The said decree was not
binding on the appellants. The executing court ought to have noticed that the
D.Hrs. in Rent Control Court were not the landlords and there was no landlord
and tenant relationship and there was a bonafide dispute of title and
consequently the rent control petitions filed against the appellants were
dismissed. The same was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority i.e. by this
Court in the CRPs and the same was also confirmed in the Special Leave
Petition. As such, it was the duty of the respondents to file an independent suit
against the appellants seeking declaration. But the respondents - plaintiffs
obtained a collusive decree against respondent No.5 - defendant against the
premises bearing Nos.5-1-497, 5-1-498, 5-1-434, 5-1-434/1 and 5-1-434/2, but
sought to execute against the appellants and prayed to allow the claim petition
Dr.GRR, J
ccca_256_2003
by setting aside the order dated 25.07.2003 passed in E.A.No.22 of 2003 in
E.P.No.70 of 2001 in O.S.No.387 of 1989.
9. Perused the record.
10. The claim applications have to be tried like a suit under Order XXI Rule
58 of CPC. But the impugned order passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge
would disclose that no trial was conducted, no evidence was let in and no
opportunity was given to the petitioners to adduce evidence. The appendix of
evidence was recorded as nil, but the order mentions about Ex.A1. The order
would not disclose what was the Ex.A1 referred by the learned V Senior Civil
Judge.
11. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellants and as the order passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad is not in accordance with law, it is considered fit to
remand the matter to the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad to pass order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to
the parties to adduce evidence.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated
25.07.2003 passed in E.A.No.22 of 2003 in E.P.No.70 of 2001 in O.S.No.287 of
1989 by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the
Dr.GRR, J
ccca_256_2003
matter is remanded directing to pass the same on merits after giving an
opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 27th March, 2025
Nsk
