Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 657
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, T. Amarnath Goud, JJ.
Mahesh Kumar Kedia - Appellant
Versus
Tejvangirdhanrajgir And Others - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 118 of 2020
Decided On : 08-10-2020
A. Venkatesh, Advocate, P. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, L. Ravichander, Advocate
Headnote:
Agreement of Sale - Schedule properties - Sale Deed - Suit for specific performance of a registered Agreement of Sale in respect of A Schedule property, and an oral Agreement of Sale in respect of B Schedule property - Respondent nos.1 and 2 are co-sharers of A and B Schedule properties along with several others, and these properties form part of a large property - Also not in dispute Gyan Bagh Palace was originally owned by one Late great grandfather of respondent nos.1 and 2 / defendant nos.1 and 2, and on his death, the property was settled in favour of late by way of a Settlement Deed - Father of respondent nos.1 and 2 / defendant nos.1 and 2 is a brother - Held, any alienation of specific portion of the property which is subject matter of O.S. by respondents and rest of the share holders might potentially affect the prior right created in appellant under Ex.P6 agreement of sale as there is every possibility of the land sold to 3rd respondent including/covering land which the appellant might get if his suit were to be decreed. This would cause serious prejudice to the appellant - However coming to B schedule property, since appellant had pleaded only an oral agreement of sale, we are of the view that the appellant has not made out at this stage prima facie case and that he is entitled to a temporary injunction – Appeal is allowed
In the context of the legal document provided, the question pertains to whether a limitation period is prescribed for obtaining a final decree in the specific proceedings related to the partition suit and the enforcement of the agreement of sale.
Based on the document, it is clear that the proceedings involve a partition suit (O.S.No.76 of 1970) where only a preliminary decree has been passed, and a final decree has not yet been issued. The court notes that the initiation of final decree proceedings does not depend on the filing of a specific application for such a decree, and the law recognizes that multiple preliminary and final decrees can be passed in a partition suit (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court emphasizes that the duty to pass a final decree lies with the court and that the absence of a final decree is not necessarily due to any procedural lapse or limitation period. It also points out that the respondents did not challenge the order dismissing the final decree petition, and that the final decree can still be passed as part of the ongoing proceedings (!) (!) .
Therefore, the legal framework and the specific facts of this case suggest that no specific limitation period is prescribed for obtaining a final decree in such a partition suit. The passage of time alone does not bar the court from passing a final decree, provided the proceedings are still active and the court's jurisdiction remains intact.
In summary, within the context of this case, there is no indication that a limitation period is prescribed for obtaining a final decree in the partition suit. The absence of a final decree is not due to any statutory time limit but rather due to procedural and judicial considerations.
JUDGMENT
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dt.24.01.2020 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1490 of 2019 in Original Suit No.781 of 2019 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The appellant herein is plaintiff in the above suit.
3. The said suit was filed by appellant for specific performance of a registered Agreement of Sale dt.28.09.2011 in respect of 'A' Schedule property, and an oral Agreement of Sale dt.10.10.2014 in respect of 'B' Schedule property.
4. It is not in dispute that respondent nos.1 and 2 are co-sharers of 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties along with several others, and these properties form part of a large property of an extent 50,107 Sq.Yds. bearing Municipal No.14-2-335 [14-2-335/1], 14-2-334, 334/2 and 333, situated at Gyan Bagh Palace, Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad.
5. It is also not in dispute that the Gyan Bagh Palace was originally owned by one Late Raja Narshing Giriji, the great grandfather of respondent nos.1 and 2 / defendant nos.1 and 2, and on his death, the property was settled in favour of Late Raja Dhanraj Giriji by way of a Settlement Deed bearing No.75 of 1923 dt.09.04.1923. The father of respondent nos.1 and 2 / defendant nos.1 and 2 is Dhairyavangir Dhanraj Giriji, a brother of Raja Dhanraj Giriji.
6. It is also not in dispute that O.S.No.76 of 1970 was filed before the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by one Raja Mahender Giriji, S/o.Raja Dhanraj Giriji for partition of several properties including this above referred property and a preliminary decree was passed on 24.04.1986.
7. As per the preliminary decree dt.24.04.1986 passed in O.S.No.76 of 1970, the father of respondent nos.1 and 2 Raja Dhairyavangir Dhanraj Giriji got 23% of share in the land, but no final decree was passed in the said suit; and there is no division of the property by metes and bounds on the death of Raja Dhairyavangir Dhanraj Giriji, i.e., the father of respondent nos.1 and 2 on 19.11.1992. The respondent nos.1 and 2 became entitled to 11.5% share each, and this was confirmed in the amended preliminary decree dt.02.04.1993 in the above suit.
The case of the appellant/plaintiff
8. It is the case of appellant that respondent nos.1 and 2 approached him and offered to sell 600 Sq.Yds. abutting the 40 feet wide road from out of the 25% undivided share of respondent nos.1 and 2 in the 50,107 Sq.Yds. property bearing Municipal No.14-2-335 [14-2-335/1] situate at Gyan Bagh Palace, Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad ('A' Schedule property), and received Rs.45 lakhs towards part consideration out of the total consideration of Rs.90 lakhs; and that they promised that Sale Deed would be executed in favour of the appellant after the partition by metes and bounds of the properties of their family as per the preliminary decree dt.24.04.1986 in O.S.No.76 of 1970. The said Agreement of Sale was registered as Ex.P.1 dt.08.06.2004 by the parties.
9. According to the appellant, the respondent nos.1 and 2 once again approached him and offered to sell another 1000 Sq.Yds. of property bearing Municipal No.14-2-334/2 ('B' Schedule property) forming part of the premises bearing No.14-2-335 [14-2-335/1] for Rs.2.5 crores, and the oral agreement was dt.10.10.2014 pursuant to which the appellant claims to have paid Rs.10 lakhs towards part sale consideration. The appellant also claimed to have financed a sum of Rs.42 lakhs for renovation and re-construction of the premises which was in a dilapidated condition on the request of respondent nos.1 and 2 from 10.10.2014 to 05.03.2019.
10. The appellant claims to have been put in possession of the I Floor of the A schedule property towards part performance of the registered Agreement of Sale dt.28.09.2011 and also oral Agreement of Sale dt.10.10.2014, and the appellant claims to be using the same as a godown after obtaining GST assessment and insurance.
11. The appellant also claims to ha
