Telangana High Court
Mukarram Jah Trust For Education And ... vs Nawab Najaf Ali Khan on 7 November, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3380 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant
No.1; and Mr. Mohammad Adnan, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 / plaintiff.
2. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the
petitioner / defendant No.1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India challenging the order dated 18.12.2024, in Interlocutory
Application No.1077 of 2024 in Original Suit No.3765 of 2023,
passed by the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
3. Vide the impugned order; the Trial Court dismissed the
Interlocutory Application No.1077 of 2024 filed by the petitioner /
defendant No.1 under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, seeking stay of all further proceedings in
the O.S.No.3765 of 2023.
4. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.1 and respondent
No.1 herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. For the sake of
facility, the parties are hereinafter referred to with their rank before
the Trial Court.
5. The facts relevant for disposal of the present Civil Revision
Petition are that the plaintiff filed O.S.No.3765 of 2023 for
declaring the Trust Deed (document No.4117 of 1971) to be illegal,
null and void. In addition, the plaintiff also sought for declaring the
Lease Deeds (document Nos.1902 of 2018 and 830 of 2019) to be
illegal, null and void. The substantial foundation on the basis of
which the suit was filed is that the so-called gift deed being
executed in favour of Late Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan by Late
H.E.H. Nizam VII, which was registered on 21.03.2957, to be a
invalid document in law. According to the plaintiff since the gift
deed itself was per se invalid, the so-called creation of the trust by
Late Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan vide document No.4117 of 1971, is
also invalid.
6. The aforesaid Interlocutory Application No.1077 of 2024 by
defendant No.1 was filed on the ground that the same issue is
directly and substantially in question in yet another suit i.e.
O.S.No.404 of 2016 which is pending consideration before the XI
Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
7. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
defendant No.1 is that the issues involved and the parties involved
are all same. The pleadings made in both the suits are also
identical in nature. Therefore, the judgment or decree passed in
O.S.No.404 of 2021 which was the earlier suit would operate as a
res judicata in the present suit. It was also contended by the
learned Senior Counsel that since the decision in O.S.No.404 of
2021 would have a direct and binding effect on the outcome of the
present suit, it would be more appropriate if the subsequent suit on
identical set of facts and issues be stayed until the decision in
O.S.No.404 of 2021 is taken.
8. It was further contended by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for defendant No.1 that in the event if the subsequent
suit is not stayed, it may result in parallel litigation regarding the
same substantial issue being thrashed out before two different
forums, which could lead to conflicting and contradictory verdicts
leading to unnecessary complications. Hence, there was a dire need
of staying of the subsequent suit.
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant No.1, in
support of his contentions, relied upon the following decisions:
a) Ram Narain vs. Ram Swarup and Others 1
b) Sagar Shamsher Jung Bahadur Rana and Another vs.
The Union of India and Others 2
c) National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences
vs. C. Parameshwara 3
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended
that the present Civil Revision Petition is totally devoid of merit for
the reason that the facts of the two suits are entirely different.
Though the suit subject could be the same in the two suits and also
the parties to the two suits also are same, but the reliefs are
entirely different. The nature of evidence to be led in respect of the
relief sought for in the two suits also would be entirely different.
Therefore, the need for staying of all further proceedings in
O.S.No.3765 of 2023 is not required at all, and the Trial Court has
rightly rejected the same.
1961 SCC OnLine All 240
1978 SCC OnLine Del 220
(2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 256
11. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, O.S.No.404
of 2021 is, in fact a suit for partition and separate possession.
Whereas, the O.S.No.3765 of 2023 is which has been filed seeking
for declaration of the Trust Deed (document No.4117 of 1971) as
also the Lease Deeds (document Nos.1902 of 2018 and 830 of
2019) to be null and void.
12. Lastly, the learned counsel for the plaintiff referring to the
nature of relief sought for in the two suits, contended for dismissal
of the present Civil Revision Petition.
13. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on
perusal of records, it would be relevant at the first instance to refer
to the reliefs sought for in the two suits. The relief sought for in
O.S.No.3765 of 2024 reads as under:
"a. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a
judgment and decree thereby declaring that the Trust
Deed vide document No. 4117 of 1971 is illegal, null and
void, in the interest of justice.
b. To pass a judgment and decree declaring that the lease
deed in favour of the defendant No.2 executed by the
defendant No.1, vide document No. 1902 of 2018, as
illegal and null and void having been executed by
imcompetent person, in the interest of justice.
c. To pass a judgment and decree declaring that the lease
deed in favour of the defendant No.3 executed by the
defendant No.1, vide document No. 830 of 2019, as illegal
and null and void having been executed by incompetent
person, in the interest of justice.
d. The Costs of the suit and any other relief as deemed fit
and proper may also be awarded."
14. Likewise, in O.S.No.404 of 2021 which was filed earlier and is
pending, the relief sought for is as under:
"a. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a
judgment and decree for partition and separate
possession thereby dividing the suit schedule properties I
TO V with metes and bounds and allot 0.44% share to the
plaintiff and put him in peaceful possession of the same,
and if any or all the properties are not found divisible then
an advocate commissioner may be appointed and the
concerned property/properties may be sold in auction and
plaintiff's share from the sale proceeds may be paid to
him, in the interest of justice.
b. To pass a judgment and decree declaring that the sale
deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the
defendant No.2, vide document No.1640 of 2018, dated
30th May 2011, as illegal and void having been executed
by incompetent person, in the interest of justice.
The Costs of the suit and any other relief as deemed fit
and proper may be awarded."
15. The two suits are pending consideration before two different
Courts. The nature of evidence to be adduced in respect of the
issues those have been cropped up in the two suits would be
entirely different.
16. True it is that a suit could be between the same parties. It
can also be a case where the property in one could also be one of
the properties in other case. However, considering the fact that one
being a declaratory suit seeking for declaration of the trust deed as
also the lease deeds to be illegal, null and void, and the other being
a suit for partition in the ancestral properties. Thus, this Court is of
the opinion that the view expressed by the Trial Court while
reaching to the conclusion that though there appears some overlap
in the allegations and pleadings concerning the gift deed, however
the scope of adjudication in the two suits being markedly different,
particularly taking note of the fact that in the suit for partition
there is a claim made from five specific properties; whereas, the
present suit i.e. O.S.No.3765 of 2023 the validity of the trust deed
involves more than 160 properties. Thus, there is a substantial
difference between the two suits on account of which the provisions
of Section 10 of the CPC cannot be applied in a straight jacked
formula.
17. If we look into the judgments cited by the learned Senior
Counsel for the defendant No.1, a plain reading of the facts of the
proceedings involved therein and the facts and relief sought for in
the two suits involved in the present case would itself make it clear
that those judgments were passed under entirely different
contextual background unlike in the present case. Therefore, they
are distinguishable on facts itself.
18. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no strong case has been made out by defendant No.1
for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
The present Civil Revision Petition, therefore deserves to be and is
accordingly, dismissed.
19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
_____________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 07.11.2025
GSD
