Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
G. SRI DEVI, J.
Varuna Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Bitchareddy and Ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 708 of 2017
Decided On : 02-02-2021
Civil Procedure code,1908 - Section 100 - Indian Evidence Act ,1872 - Section 58 - Second appeal - Declaration of their title - Permanent injunction - Plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule property and they are in possession of the same - Plaintiffs that they have purchased the suit schedule property from the 1st defendant under a registered sale deed - At no point of time the 1st defendant and her family members made any objection when they constructed compound wall - Plaintiffs with a mala fide intention got defective registered sale deed with survey numbers of their choice - Whether both the judgments of the Court are perverse - Whether the Courts were justified in decreeing the suit, especially post the application for impleadment of the appellant herein was ordered and thereafter having made no averment or shown no cause of action by filing additional plaint - Whether the Courts below were justified in not looking properly the registered documents namely sale deeds, especially the boundaries and the boundaries stated by the Advocate-Commissioner in the earlier suit have been wrongly stated and they are distinct and separate –
Finding of the court : Suit schedule property fell to the share of the 1st defendant and that 1st defendant filed written statement, supporting the version of the plaintiffs, which was not denied by the 8th defendant. Further, the 4th plaintiff, stated that the 1st defendant sold away the suit schedule property, which fell to her share, to the plaintiffs under registered sale deed and that the said fact was not even denied by the appellant/defendant, who is the authorized signatory of the appellant company, also admitted that the 1st defendant had acquired the suit schedule property by virtue of a compromise decree - Appellant/defendant No. 8 had purchased the property from the legal heirs who himself did not get any right or title over the suit schedule property, the question of his legal heirs getting right to alienate the property in favour of the appellant does not arise - That apart, the appellant/defendant No. 8 has not shown cogent reasons to set aside the findings of the Courts - There is no legal infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Courts with regard to the title of the suit schedule property and possession held by the plaintiffs and that there is no perversity in the judgments of both the Courts -
Result :Second Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
G. Sri Devi, J.
1. This second appeal is filed, under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree of the learned III-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, dated 04.05.2017, passed in A.S. No. 264 of 2013, whereunder the learned Judge dismissed the said appeal with costs by confirming the judgment and decree, dated 28.06.2013, passed in O.S. No. 1787 of 2004 on the file of the VIII-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. Appellant is the 8th defendant, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 5 to 11 are defendant Nos. 1 to 7. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.
3. Necessary facts for disposal of this second appeal are as follows:
4. Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 filed O.S. No. 1787 of 2004 for declaration of their title to the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac. 1.12 guntas in Sy. No. 4 situated at Kothagudem Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their henchmen from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said land. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from the 1st defendant under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 1133/2004, dated 30.01.2004. The 1st defendant had acquired the suit schedule property along with other properties through a compromise decree, dated 20.10.2003 passed by this Court in A.S. No. 1857 of 1995 and since the date of purchase, the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and have started their efforts in developing the land and made construction of compound wall and gate to the suit schedule property. It is further stated that the 4th defendant, who is in no way concerned with the suit schedule property, started interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property under the guise of registered sale deed bearing document No. 9942/2003, dated 14.08.2003, having purchased the same from defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiffs came to know that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have purchased the suit schedule property from the coparceners of the 1st defendant under the registered document No. 3170 of 1994 dated 13.04.1994, which was executed during pendency of O.S. No. 473 of 1988 filed by the 1st defendant for partition, and after final decree the suit schedule land was not allotted to the share of one R. Advaiah and as such said transaction is hit by lis pendency. It is also stated that the 4th defendant with an evil eye to usurp the land of the plaintiffs came to the suit schedule property on 19.07.2004 along with anti social elements and declared that legal heirs of late R. Advaiah sold an extent of 990 square yards and demanded the plaintiffs to vacate the suit schedule land and as such the plaintiffs filed the above suit.
5. The aforesaid suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 8 by filing different written statements. The 1st defendant in her statement admitted each and every averment of the plaint. The 2nd defendant, while denying the averments of the plaint, contended that there is no cause of action for the suit and the 4th defendant did not come to the suit schedule property on 19.07.2004. The 4th defendant contended that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1994 through registered sale deed and in the year 1995 they have constructed a compound wall and erected a gate. It is further contended that at no point of time the 1st defendant and her family members made any objection when they constructed compound wall. It is further contended that the 4th defendant had purchased the suit schedule property from defendant Nos. 2 and 3 through valid registered sale deed dated 14.08.2003 and since then he has been in possession of the
The court affirmed that in seeking an injunction over immovable property, examination of title is necessary if challenged by the opposing party.
First appellate courts must thoroughly review evidence and provide reasoned judgments; failure to do so necessitates remanding cases for reevaluation.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of valid documentation and unchallenged possession in establishing ownership rights, as well as the requirement for legal challen....
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
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
