Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Kunuru Lakshman, JJ.
M/s.Gold Stone Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M.S. Murthy, S/o. M.G. Rao and Ors. – Respondents
I.A.No.1 of 2014 in OSA No.54 of 2004, I.A.No.2 of 2014 in OSA No.54 of 2004, I.A.No.2 of 2019 in OSA No.54 of 2004, I.A.No.3 of 2019 in OSA No.54 of 2004, I.A.No.1 of 2014 in OSA No.56 of 2004, I.A.No.2 of 2014 in OSA No.56 of 2004, I.A.No.2 of 2019 in OSA No.56 of 2004, I.A.No.3 of 2019 in OSA No.56 of 2004, I.A.No.2 of 2014 in OSA No.57 of 2004, I.A.No.3 of 2019 in OSA No.57 of 2004, I.A.No.5 of 2019 in OSA No.57 of 2004, I.A.No.2 of 2014 in OSA No.58 of 2004, I.A.No.2 of 2019 in OSA No.58 of 2004, I.A.No.2 of 2014 in OSA No.59 of 2004, I.A.No.3 of 2014 in OSA No.59 of 2004, I.A.No.4 of 2014 in OSA No.59 of 2004, I.A.No.1 of 2017 in OSA No.59 of 2004, I.A.No.2 of 2017 in OSA No.59 of 2004, I.A.No.1 of 2018 in OSA No.59 of 2004, I.A.No.2 of 2018 in OSA No.59 of 2004, I.A.No.2 of 2019 in OSA No.59 of 2004, I.A.No.3 of 2019 in OSA No.59 of 2004, I.A.No.5 of 2019 in OSA No.59 of 2004, I.A.No.4 of 2019 in OSA No.59 of 2004, AND O.S.A. No. 54, 56, 57, 58 and 59 of 2004
Decided On : 20-12-2019
Civil law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Or. XXI - Rule 97- 101 - Civil Suit - Land Issue - Registered sale deeds - Possession -There are no admissions of fact by appellants i.e. the basis of claim of claim petitioners in respect of the lands claimed by them, has not been admitte d by appellants in the Memo filed by them. There is no admission of facts in Form No. 11 in Appendix C required by Rule 5 of Order XII.
Facts of the case: Claiming that pattas were issued to Ruquia Begum, Waris Ali and Ghani Sharif before 1948 by Revenue Secretariat of HEH the Nizam of Hyderabad in respect of land that these pattedars through their G.P.A. entered into an agreement with Setwin Employees Housing Cooperative Society to sell then-lands either to tSociety or to its members; and claim petitioners, who were members of said Society, purchased various extents measuring between 100 to 300 sq. yds. in Sy. Nos. 172/11, 172/13 and 172/14. In their claim petition they seek recall of warrant in EP. issued for delivery of possession of these properties in Sy. No. 172 to appellants by District Court, Ranga Reddy District.
Finding of the court: There was no adjudication in favor of appellants by Division Bench and what remained was that OSA was allowed and application 994 of 1995 was simply restored, but there was no adjudication in favor of appellants in it - That is why, even though there was no SLP against order in OSA, there is no res judicata on question of entitlement of appellants to possession of subject land even though, there is no appeal against order of Division Bench in OSA 59 of 2004 to Supreme Court.
Result: Implead applications dismissed.
ORDER :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
Introduction:
1. All these Original Side Appeals (for short 'the OSAs') arise out of CS No. 14 of 1958 on the file of this Court. There were several judgments/orders passed by this Court and there have been 3 remand orders from the Supreme Court of India, the last one being on 5.3.2014.
Serious issues of fraud practised by appellants and their predecessors in interest on the Courts-both the District Court, Ranga Reddy and the High Court of A.P, and also collusion in disposal of various applications affecting third parties in possession/respondents in these OSAs are raised in these OSAs.
2. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, a learned Single Judge of this Court had passed a common order dt.26.10.2004 in claim petitions/Application No. 585 of 2002, Application No. 708 of 2002, Application Nos. 294 of 2003, Application No. 296 of 2003, Application No. 1319 of 2003, Application Nos. 1320 of 2003 filed by the respondents in the OSAs under Or. XXI, Rule 97- 101 CPC in E.P.3 of 1996 in C.S. No. 14 of 1958 allowing them. He also passed order dismissing an Application No. 994 of 1995 filed by the appellants in C.S. No. 14 of 1958 on the file of this Court.
3. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Justice B. Prakash Rao and Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy set aside the above order of the learned Single Judge on 23.6.2006 in OSA Nos. 52-59 of 2004.
4. The Supreme Court of India, by orders passed on 5.3.2014, in CA. No. 3327 of 2014, 3328 of 2014, CA. No. 3329 of 2004, CA. No. 3330 of 2004 and CA. No. 3331 of 2004, set aside the common order dt. 23.6.2006 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in OSA Nos. 52-59 of 2004 and the OSA Nos. 54, 56, 57 and 58 of 2004 were remitted back for fresh consideration to this Court. This is the third remand of the matter to this Court.
5. Post-remand by the Supreme Court, the present common order is being passed in these OSAs.
6. Henceforth, the respondents in the OSAs will be referred to as claim petitioners and the applications filed by them under Or. XXI, Rule 97-101 CPC will be referred to as 'claim petitions'.
7. For better appreciation of the issues raised herein, the following index is given:
| Part I: | Events prior to 1948 up to 29-3-1996, the date of alleged delivery of possession to appellants. | Para 17 pg.17 to para 77 pg.37 |
| Part II: | Events between 29.3.1996 from filing of Applications in EP 3 of 1996 by 3rd parties under Order 21 Rule 97, up to date of 1st Remand order of Supreme Court dt.14-8- 1997. | Para 78 pg.37 to para 89 pg.45 |
| Part III | Events subsequent to 1st Remand order of Supreme Court on 14-8-1997 up to 23-11- 2001, 2nd Remand order of Supreme Court. | Para 90 pg.45 to Para 99 pg.48 |
| Part IV | Events from 23-11-2001 order of Supreme Court up to 5-3-2014 when Supreme Court passed the 3rd Remand Order. | Para 100 pg.49 to para 136 pg.62 |
| Part V | Events after 3rd Remand order of Supreme Court dt. 5-3-2014 and Discussion of the points argued and findings thereon in the present OSAs. | Para 137 pg.62 To Para.235 pg.100 |
| Part VI | Whether the claim petitioners/respondents in the O.S.A.s have established their right, title and interest in the properties claimed by them in the claim petitions. | Para 236 pg.100 to para 289 pg.117 |
| Part VII | Contentions 1 to 15 raised in the written submissions of appellants, discussion and findings thereon. | Para 290 pg.117 to para 362 pg.135 |
| Part VIII | Whether OSA.No.59 of 2004 also gets reopened consequent to the concession made by the appellants before the Supreme Court and whether the said OSA is also required to be decided afresh by this Court & Question whether judgment of High Court in OSA 59 of 2004 dt.23-6-2006 against which no SLP was filed, is also void on account of coram non judice and finding thereon. | Para 363 pg.135 t |
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
