Telangana High Court
Balaraju vs Vikasapuri Cultural And Welfare ... on 10 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO.165 OF 2016
ORDER:
1. This appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code
(hereinafter referred to as CPC) assailing the judgment and decree
in O.S.No.1821 of 2007, dated 30.03.2016, passed by the
Additional Judge - cum - VI Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.
2. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants
in the suit.
Averments of the plaint:
3.1 Appellant-plaintiff is the absolute owner, possessor and
enjoyer of house bearing No. 8-3-167/A/1 consisting of ground
floor plus, two upper floors at Vikasapuri, S.R.Nagar, Yousufguda,
Hyderabad. Appellant-plaintiff was allotted open plot No.1,
admeasuring 300 sq.yds. i.e., 250.80 sq.mts, being the member of
M/s. B.H.E.L. (R and D) Employees Cooperative Housing Society
(i.e., defendant No.4) under registered sale deed bearing document
No.2026/1978 for valuable sale consideration. Initially, the
appellant - plaintiff constructed ground floor after obtaining
permission from the concerned authorities. Subsequently, he
constructed two upper floors after obtaining permission vide
BRMR, J
permit No.27/52, dated 08.11.2002 from Circle No.5, Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad.
3.2 At the time of purchase of the plot, there was left over open
space of size 21 x 16 sq.ft., i.e., admeasuring 37.33 sq.yds.,
towards south-east corner of the plot besides electrical substation
(suit schedule property). The open space became nuisance for the
appellant-plaintiff and his family members being the immediate
neighbours and the locality people used to dump all waste material
and debris and it was used as a place of dumper bin. The
appellant-plaintiff and his family members were badly effected and
he requested the committee members of defendant No.4 - society
for taking appropriate measures to safeguard the plaintiff's right.
The president of defendant No.4 - society directed the appellant-
plaintiff to take appropriate measures and left the issue to his
convenience. Municipal authorities also expressed their
inconvenience and directed the appellant-plaintiff to take
appropriate measures. Appellant-plaintiff engaged private security
personnel in removing the said nuisance during the year 1990 and
constructed a compound wall and a servant room in the leftover
space. Since 1990 the appellant-plaintiff and his family members
are in peaceful, absolute and exclusive possession and enjoyment
of the same. Neither the defendant No.4 - society nor the Municipal
BRMR, J
authorities and Revenue authorities have set up any claim
whatsoever over the same. Appellant-plaintiff has perfected his title
by prescription, being in continuous, uninterrupted possession for
all these years.
3.3. Defendant No.1 - society, which is formed subsequently,
represented by its president and secretary (i.e., defendant No.2 and
3), without having right over the schedule property, started causing
nuisance by way of obstructing the repair works taken up by the
appellant - plaintiff. The defendants have no right, interest or title
over the suit schedule property. Defendant No.4 constructed a
mulgi for cooperative store towards the southern side of the suit
schedule property in the year 1978. But left the open space as it
belongs to them. Defendant No.1 has also constructed two mulgies
to the south of the old mulgi constructed by defendant No.4.
Defendant No.1 or defendant No.4 - societies have no right or title
over the suit schedule property. On 05.07.2007 the defendants
tried to remove the structures of the suit schedule property by
engaging anti-social elements. On 07.07.2007, at about 08:30
a.m., to 09.00 a.m., defendants came with a mob of 20 to 25
persons, tried to dismantle the existing structure of the suit
schedule property. Appellant - plaintiff has reported the matter to
the police, due to their timely intervention the defendants could
BRMR, J
not succeed. Police has advised the appellant-plaintiff to approach
the Court for appropriate reliefs and prayed to decree the suit as
prayed for.
4. Appellant-plaintiff has originally filed the suit against
defendant Nos.1 to 3.
5.1 Defendant No.1 has filed his written statement which is
adopted by defendant No.2 and 3.
5.2 It is stated in the written statement that it is the appellant-
plaintiff who dumped the waste construction material in the open
land where he has constructed two more floors on the existing
structure in plot No.1. Defendant No.3 being the secretary of the
defendant No.1-society, spent the society money and got removed
the waste construction material from the open land. The municipal
number mentioned by the appellant - plaintiff belongs to his
residential house and it is nothing to do with the open space and
the municipal tax paid by the appellant-plaintiff is assessed only to
his residential house constructed in the plot. Appellant-plaintiff did
not perfect his title by adverse possession over the suit schedule
property. Municipal authorities and Revenue authorities have
nothing to do with the same. Defendant No.4-society developed the
layout and sold the plots to its members and the appellant -
plaintiff is one of the members, who purchased plot No.1
BRMR, J
admeasuring 300 sq.yds. The open land abutting the eastern side
of the appellant-plaintiff's plot and plot No.24 form part and parcel
of the layout developed by the society. The open land admeasuring
264 sq.yds was earmarked for the proposed cooperative societies in
the MCH sanctioned layout. Appellant-plaintiff is the member of
the housing societies and he suppressed the factum of ownership
over the suit schedule property. Defendant No.4 - society is
existing and is managed by elected committee.
5.3 Defendant No.4-society leased out the open plot of 264
sq.yds bearing No.8-3-167/A/24/A to defendant No.1-society by
registered lease deed for 99 years commencing from 02.03.1996
permitting the defendant No.1 to make constructions, additions,
alterations to the existing structure for the purpose of leasing out
the said premises to the defendant No.1-society. Since then
defendant No.1-society is in peaceful possession of 264 sq.yds.,
including the suit schedule property and the appellant-plaintiff is
aware of the same. Appellant-plaintiff is claiming to be in
possession of 37 sq.yds., out of total extent of 264 sq.yds.
Defendant No.1-society is paying municipal tax since 1978 till
date. In the month of July, 2007 when the appellant-plaintiff tried
to undertake some activity in a part of the land abutting the
compound wall, the defendant No.1 has lodged a complaint with
police station SR Nagar, on 07.07.2007, after due inquiry, they
BRMR, J
have registered a case in crime No. 624 of 2007 under Section 447
of IPC against the appellant - plaintiff. After the registration of the
criminal case appellant-plaintiff kept silent for more than five
weeks and then filed this suit on 21.08.2007.
6. The Trial Court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed in the
plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction?
3. To what relief?
7. Defendant No.4 (respondent No.4) is impleaded as per the
orders in I.A.No.124 of 2009 dated 19.11.2009 and he filed a
separate written statement, which is in the lines of the written
statement filed by defendant No.1.
8. The learned Trial Court has not framed any additional issue.
9. Appellant is examined as PW1, also examined PW2 D.Bala
Narasimha and PW3-Shaik Rahmatullah and got marked Exs.A1 to
A17. President of defendant No.1 is examined as DW1 and got
marked Exs.B1 to B8.
10. The learned Trial Court after analyzing the evidence adduced
by the parties and after going through the documents thereon has
BRMR, J
dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, which is impugned in the
present appeal.
11.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Judge has totally erred in dismissing the suit by not considering
the material placed before it with that of the evidence of PW1 to
PW3. The learned Trial Court ought to have seen that the suit was
filed for relief of declaration and for grant of perpetual injunction.
Suit schedule property does not form part and parcel of the land
purchased by the original society i.e., respondent No.4-defendant
No.4 under Exs.A2 to A5, which piece of land is in absolute and
exclusive possession of the appellant - plaintiff.
11.2 Respondent No.4 - defendant No.4 society has purchased an
extent of Ac.4-08 guntas which is equivalent to land admeasuring
20,328 sq.yds., under Exs.A2 to A5 and by misleading the
municipal authorities they obtained layout under Ex.A8 showing
an extent of land admeasuring 20,620 sq.yds., without having valid
right. That is the reason why they left the suit schedule property
on the southern side of electrical substation and northern side of
the appellant-plaintiff's property.
11.3 Ex.B1 is registered lease deed dated 02.03.1996 of the
respondent No.1 - defendant No.1 - society by that time the
BRMR, J
appellant - plaintiff was already in possession of the suit schedule
property as per the endorsement of president of respondent No.4 -
defendant No.4 society under Ex.A10. The learned Judge ought to
have seen that the suit schedule property of the appellant-plaintiff
does not form part and parcel of the property admeasuring 264
sq.yds. The photographs i.e., Ex.A17 and the tax receipts i.e,
Exs.A13 and A14 are the proof of possession of the appellant -
plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Respondent No.4 -
defendant No.4 - society failed to produce any witness nor filed any
documentary evidence to disprove the possession of the appellant -
plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Appellant - plaintiff is in
possession of the suit schedule property since 1990, which the
learned Trial Court has lost sight of. The learned Trial Court has
also not considered Ex.A10 dated 20.12.1990 wherein the
president of respondent No.4 - defendant No.4 - society gave
permission to the appellant directing him to take appropriate
measures in protecting the suit schedule property.
11.4 The learned Trial Court ought to have seen that the appellant
-plaintiff claim is not defended either by the respondent Nos. 1 to
3- defendant Nos.1 to 3 or by respondent No.4 - defendant No.4 as
they have given up their evidence [evidence of DW1]. The Trial
Court, instead of appreciating the documentary and oral evidence
produced by the appellant - plaintiff and decreeing the suit, has
BRMR, J
dismissed the suit by considering the given up evidence of DW1
and prayed to set aside the impugned order.
11.5 Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that
learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence adduced
by the parties by looking into the documents marked thereon and
rightly dismissed the suit filed by the appellant - plaintiff, no
interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
12. Notice to respondent No.4 is given by way of paper
publication.
13. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material.
14. Now the points for consideration are:
i) Whether the appellant - plaintiff has adduced proper
evidence to declare him as the owner of the plaint schedule
property and for perpetual injunction, if so?
ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned
Trial Court in O.S.NO.1821 of 2007, dated 30.03.2016
suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires
interference of this Court or not?
POINT NOs.1 & 2:
15. The prayer made in the plaint is as under:
BRMR, J
a) declaring the Plaintiff as absolute, exclusive owner, possessor and
enjoyer of all that suit scheduled property by way of prescription of
title, in view of his continuous and uninterrupted possession
adversely against to all,
b) to grant perpetual injunction consequentially, restraining the
defendants, their members, their agents, representatives and all
persons claiming through them or on their behalf from interfering
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff and his
family members over the suit scheduled property and in any manner
dispossessing them from the same,
c) to award costs and expenses of the suit,
d) and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice.
16. The suit schedule property is as under:
All that South-Eastern portion of size 21 sq.ft. x 16 sq.ft i.e.,
adm.37.33 sq.yds, farming part of all that house baring M.No.8-
3/167/A/1 and 8-3-167/A/1/A-I & II constructed on plot No.1 situated at
Vikasapuri (Vikasnagar), Yousufguda (Eragadda Extn.), Hyderabad is
bounded on:
NORTH : Electrical Sub-station and 60 ft.wide road.
SOUTH : Cooperative stores/Mars Tailor.
EAST : 40 ft. Wide road
WEST : portion of H.No.8-3-167/A/1
17. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 27.07.1978
bearing document No.2026/1978 executed by defendant No.4 -
Society in favour of the appellant-plaintiff alienating plot No.1
admeasuring 300 sq.yds with boundaries as North: 60 ft wide road,
South: Plot No.24, East: Electrical Sub-Station, West: Plot No.2.
BRMR, J
Exs.A2 to A5 are the certified copies of sale deeds dated
16.02.1976 executed by A.L.Sailoo and Mohd. Ibrahim Khan
alienating different extents of land to defendant No.4 - society.
Ex.A6 is the rough sketch of the suit schedule property filed by the
plaintiff. Ex.A7 is the market value certificate dated 23.08.2007 for
House.No.8-3-167/A/1. Ex.A8 is the certified copy of layout plan of
defendant No.4 - society for the site in survey No.137, with total
area of 20,620 sq.yds of Yousufguda, Hyderabad. Ex.A9 is the plan
showing the proposed construction of first and second floor on the
existing ground floor of plot No.1 in survey No.137, H.No.8-3-
167/A/1 Vikaspuri Colony, Yousufguda Hyderabad of the plaintiff.
Ex.A10 is the office copy of the letter dated 20.12.1990 addressed
by the plaintiff to the president of defendant No.4 - society. Ex.A11
is the property tax demand notice dated 17.11.2006 of the plaintiff
for H.No.8-3-167/A/1/A-I and II. Ex.A12 is the property tax
demand notice dated 17.11.2007 issued by the GHMC to the
plaintiff for the same door number. Exs.A13 and 14 are property
tax receipts. Ex.A15 is the office copy of complaint lodged by the
appellant-plaintiff in SR Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. Ex.A16
is the approved plan showing plot No.1 of survey No.137 in favour
of the appellant-plaintiff. Ex.A17 are the photographs four in
number.
BRMR, J
18.1 As per Ex.A8 layout dated 27.07.1978 towards East of plot
No.1 it is mentioned as existing substation and proposed
cooperative store, towards South of plot No.1, plot No.24 is shown.
Ex.A16 is the permission issued by MCH dated 20.09.1980 for
construction of the house in plot No.1 purchased by the appellant -
plaintiff. Ex.A9 is the building permission of the appellant -
plaintiff for construction of first floor and second floor in plot No.1
on the existing ground floor of Municipal bearing No.8-3-167/A/1
of Vikaspuri Colony, Yusufguda, Hyderabad.
18.2 Ex.B1 is the certified copy of registered lease deed dated
02.03.1996 executed by respondent No.4 - defendant No.4 in
favour of respondent No.1-defendant No.1. The schedule of the
property is as under:
All the premises bearing No.8-3-167A/24A totally measuring 264
sq.yards (241.4 sq.mtrs) with a built up area of 470 square feet (43.7
sq metres), more clearly shown in the enclosed plan, situated at
Vikaspuri, S.R.Nagar (Post), Hyderabad - 38 and bounded on the:
North : APSEB Room & 80ft wide road
South : 40 ft wide road
East : 60 ft wide road & Aurvedic hospital
18.3 As per the schedule in Ex.B1 towards western side, plot
No.24 and plot No.1 are mentioned thereon, which is in conformity
with Ex.A8 layout.
BRMR, J
19. Ex.A10 is the letter addressed by the appellant-plaintiff to
the president of defendant No.4 - society on 20.12.1990 requesting
to maintain hygiene condition adjacent to his plot No.1. It is stated
in the letter that on eastern side of his house, there is a piece of
vacant space left by the society and it has become nuisance
exclusively for him and his family members. There is an
endorsement of one C.N.Srinivasan stating that "Mr. Balraju, since
all the plots are handed over to individual members, you are aware
that society is not keeping any security guards. Being neighbour
your may kindly take all necessary steps in protecting the said
land from nuisance".
20. Appellant in his cross-examination stated that as per the
directions of the society, he has constructed a compound wall to
the suit schedule property and there is a substation on the
Northern side of the scheduled property, a tailor shop on the
Southern side, main road is on the Eastern side and on the West
side his property is in existence. Defendant No.4 society has
executed a registered Lease Deed in favour of defendant No.1 -
society for the property consisting of the suit schedule property
[Ex.B1] and he knows that defendant No.1 has taken the property
on lease from defendant No.4 in the year 1996. As per the
admission made by the appellant in his cross examination the suit
BRMR, J
schedule property is covered by Ex.B1 registered lease deed dated
02.03.1996.
21.1 The evidence of PW2 - D.Bala Narasimha is that initially the
suit schedule property was an open space, which was literally used
as a dumping bin by the locality people which caused nuisance
and unhygienic atmosphere in the locality, the appellant - plaintiff
and his family members have suffered a lot and with the consent of
the members and president of the society, the appellant - plaintiff
has constructed a compound wall and a thatched shed for keeping
the watchmen in preventing the people of the locality from
throwing dust and debris etc. Appellant-plaintiff has also
constructed a Pucca room for the livelihood of the watchmen in the
year 1990 itself and defendant No.1-society is not having any right
over the suit schedule property, the same is appurtenant land of
electrical substation. Appellant - plaintiff is in possession of suit
schedule property since more than 21 years.
21.2 In his cross examination he stated that he was allotted plot
No.24 by the defendant No.4-society and the suit schedule
property is the left over land after allotment of plots by defendant
No.4 - society. PW2 denied the suggestion that the appellant -
plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property.
BRMR, J
22. The evidence of PW3-Shaik Rehmathullah is same with that
of PW2. In his cross examination he stated that he is a tenant in
the premises No.6-3-167/A/24/1 Vikaspuri Colony, Hyderabad
and he has taken the said premises on lease from defendant No.4
and he is paying rents to defendant Nos.1 to 3. The adjacent Mulgi
is let out to Andha Bank ATM and he do not know whether
defendant No.4 has let out the same with that of suit schedule
property and adjacent Mulgi to defendant Nos.1 to 3 for 99 years.
PW1 is his neighbour. PW3 denied the suggestion that appellant -
plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property.
23. It is mentioned in paragraph No.12 of the judgment that
after the cross examination of the appellant - PW1 by counsel
defendant Nos.1 to 3 in part, subsequently he did not turn up to
face further cross examination in spite of granting opportunity.
Similar is the situation with D.W.1, which is stated in the
judgment in paragraph No.21.
24. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.624 of 2007,
the complainant therein is defendant No.1 - society who lodged
complaint against appellant - plaintiff on 07.07.2007 and the
offence is under Section 447 of IPC. Ex.B3 is the returned postal
cover addressed to defendant No.2. Ex.B4 is the demand notice of
MCH dated 14.11.2005 for H.No.8-3-167/A/24/1 of Vikaspuri
BRMR, J
Colony. Ex.B5 is the provisional receipt for check issued towards
tax dated 18.11.2005. Ex.B6 is the tax payment made by
defendant No.4-society for the house mentioned in Ex.B4. Ex.B7 is
also the tax receipt in respect of the same house number. Ex.B8 is
the layout permissions for construction of houses in favour of
defendant No.4 dated 25.11.1978.
25. Appellant-plaintiff-PW1 failed to appear for further cross
examination by the counsel on record for the best reasons known
to them. The admission made by the appellant in his cross
examination is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the suit
schedule property is covered by Ex.B1-lease deed dated
02.03.1996 and the tax receipts filed by the appellant under
Exs.A11 to A14 are pertaining to plot No.1 house. The learned Trial
Court has assigned cogent reasons in paragraph Nos.22, 23 and 27
holding that the appellant-plaintiff was unable to prove his
possession over the suit schedule property and alleged interference
by the defendants.
26. The appellant - plaintiff has failed to prove by way of cogent
evidence in seeking a declaration to declare him as the absolute
owner, possessor of the suit schedule property and also failed to
prove the interference by the respondents Nos.1 to 4 - defendant
Nos.1 to 4 over the suit schedule property.
BRMR, J
27. This Court is of the view that the reasons assigned by the
Trial Court do not require interference of this Court as the
appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove his case. There are no merits
in the appeal, deserves no consideration and the same is liable to
be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
28. In the result, Appeal is dismissed without cost.
Interim orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous
application/s stands closed.
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
10.11.2025
Dua
BRMR, J
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO.165 OF 2016
10.11.2025
Dua
