IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Jurisdiction of Civil Court—Questions relating to disputed claims of parties for title to immovable property can be decided only by competent civil courts—Objection as to exclusion of civil courts jurisdiction for availability of alternative forum should be taken before trial court at the earliest.
(2) Bar on subsequent suit—In order to attract bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC, earlier suit should be founded on same cause of action on which subsequent suit is based.

ORDER

Dr. G. Radha Rani, J.—Heard Ms. B. Madhavi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

2. From the facts on record and as noticed by the trial Court, to the extent relevant are as under:—

(i) According to the 1st respondent, while he was working outside the Country, his wife was living in Hyderabad. He was sending the money earned by him to his wife to invest the same in landed property. By the money provided by him she purchased house property bearing H.No.8-1-366/A/72, admeasuring 200 Sq yards consisting of ground + two upper floors situated in Janaki Nagar, Tolichowki, Hyderabad, but it was registered in her name. When the 1st respondent returned to India he came to know this fact.

3. Contending that his request to register the property in his name was not agreed by his wife and she tried to alienate the property, the 1st respondent instituted O.S.No.1476 of 1997 in the Court of I-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. He prayed to grant decree of declaration that he was the owner of suit schedule property and also sought injunction restraining the defendant i.e., his wife from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property. During pendency of the above suit, temporary injunction was granted by the trial Court on 09.09.1997 in I.A.No.1754 of 1997 restraining the respondent therein from alienating the suit schedule property. An ex parte decree was granted on 04.11.1998. Wife filed I.A.No.3057 of 1998 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, but the same was dismissed on 28.06.2005 and thereby the decree granted on 04.11.1998 had attained finality.

4. It appears, in violation of the temporary injunction, the respondent therein executed registered sale deeds on 17.09.1997 and 19.09.1997 in favour of the 3rd respondent herein. This compelled the 1st respondent herein to institute O.S.No.259 of 1999 arraying the respondents 2 and 3 herein as defendants and sought to grant decree of declaration that the said sale deeds executed by the 2nd respondent herein in favour of 3rd respondent as null and void and not binding. The 1st respondent herein also sought to declare that he was entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule house property. It appears, pending the above suit, the 3rd respondent who was the purchaser of house property from the wife of 1st respondent executed sale deed on 11.07.2000 and 12.07.2000 in favour of respondents 4 and 5. Thus, they were impleaded as defendants to O.S.No.259 of 1999. The said suit was decreed on 21.11.2007 granting the prayer sought by the plaintiff/1st respondent herein. It appears that during pendency of the suit, on 14.05.2004 the respondents 4 and 5 in turn executed sale deeds in favour of appellants herein.

5. As the decree was not implemented and possession was not restored to the plaintiff, the plaintiff/1st respondent herein instituted E.P.No.43 of 2013 in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Challenging the E.P. proceedings, seeking declaration that the decree granted by the trial Court in O.S.No.259 of 1999 is not binding on them, appellants herein filed E.A.No.64 of 2014. They also filed I.A.No.2 of 2019 under Order XXI Rules 98, 99 and 101 of Code of Civil Procedure, claiming that they were the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 14.05.2004 for valuable sale consideration. According to the appellants they were the bonafide purchasers and before their purchase, they had issued advertisement in the newspapers calling for objections. Since no objections were received, the sale transaction was completed and the sale deeds were executed in their favour. Therefore, the 1st respondent could not seek enforcement of the decree granted behind their back. This contention was not found favour wit