Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
G. SRI DEVI, J.
B. Ranga Swam and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Secy. Revenue Dept. Hyd. and Ors. - Respondents
I.A. No. 2 of 2021 in C.C.C.A. No. 22 of 1999
Decided On : 01-04-2021
A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Section 14 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Sections 80 and 96 - Indian Evidence Act- Section 114 - Telangana Revenue Act, 1317 - Section 24 - Transfer of property Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Suit for Declaration of Title and Injunction - Sale Deed - Registered Sale Deed - Peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective lands as absolute owners - Whether plaintiffs are owners and possessors of suit land - Whether suit land is a Government land and part contended by the defendant Government - Whether the suit is not maintainable under law - Whether Section 80 CPC notice is not served - Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of parties - Appellant/plaintiff No. 2 and respondent No. 3/plaintiff No. 1 filed against Respondent No. 1 and 2/Defendant No. 1 and 2 i.e., the State of Andhra Pradesh through Revenue Secretary Collector, Hyderabad District, seeking to declare that Plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessors of suit land admeasuring Ac. 2-10 gts. forming part of Survey - plaintiffs are partners along with another partner carrying on business under name and style with its office at Road No. 14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - Certificate of Registration of firm is marked are situated Hyderabad adjoining each other which is a private land and not Government land as contended by the Government/Defendants - Originally situated within boundaries of Shaikpet Village, now within limits of Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, was purchased Original Owner - written in Urdu language and its translated copy is marked defendants got marked the same Sale Deed as Ex. B6 and translated copy plaintiff No. 2 purchased a portion of the said land admeasuring Ac. 2-10 gts. from the heirs of Late Raja Dharam Karan by way of a Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 1640 of 1964 in Book - property covered under aforesaid registered document is the suit schedule property - Plaintiffs further averred that the land in Sy. No. 129/73 admeasuring about Ac. 11-10 gts. Situated –
Finding of the court : faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if persons on the right side of law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrongdoer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the courts to see that such wrongdoers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years' long litigation. Despite the settled legal positions, obvious wrongdoers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble - Regard to the aforesaid legal propositions and in the facts and circumstances of the present case as reflected from the material available on record, as the appellants have clearly established the ownership, title and possession of the plaintiff No. 2 beyond all probabilities and the respondents/defendants having failed to establish their case as setup by them to dislodge the appellants –
Result : Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
G. Sri Devi, J.
1. This is a First Appeal preferred by the Plaintiff No. 2 challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 10.11.1998 passed in O.S. No. 609 of 1981 on the file of the V-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, thereby dismissing the Suit for Declaration of Title and Injunction.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Sri. M. Surendar Rao, appearing for Sri. M. Sharath Kumar, learned Counsel for the Appellants; learned Advocate General appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/Defendants and Sri. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4. The matter was heard on several occasions and while reserving for Judgment, the parties were directed to file their written submissions. The Appellants and the Respondent No. 1 and 2 have filed their written submissions which are taken on record.
3. The appellant/plaintiff No. 2 and respondent No. 3/plaintiff No. 1 (M/s. Bhayanagar Studio Pvt. Ltd.) filed O.S. No. 609 of 1981 against Respondent No. 1 and 2/Defendant No. 1 and 2 i.e., the State of Andhra Pradesh through Revenue Secretary (now Telangana: cause-title amended) and the Collector, Hyderabad District, seeking to declare that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit land admeasuring Ac. 2-10 gts. forming part of Survey No. 129/56 as detailed in the schedule and plan annexed and to prohibit the Defendants/Government not to interfere with and cause obstruction in the construction work over the suit land and enjoyment and possession of the suit land as detailed and described in the schedule.
The Case of the Appellants/Plaintiffs is as follows:
4. The plaintiffs are the partners along with another partner Smt. B. Saroja Devi, carrying on business under the name and style of 'Bhagyanagar Studio' with its office at Road No. 14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The certificate of Registration of the firm is marked as Ex. A7. The Land in Sy. No. 129/56 and Sy. No. 129/73 are situated at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad adjoining each other which is a private land and not Government land as contended by the Government/Defendants. The land admeasuring Ac. 8-12 gts. (sic. Ac. 3-12 Gts) in Sy. No. 129/56 of Thathi Khana, originally situated within the boundaries of Shaikpet Village, now within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, was purchased by Late Raja Dharam Karan from the Original Owner Syed Riaz Ahmed through a Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 1525 at pages 114, 115 in Book No. 1 Volume V dated 27th Ardibehisht, 1355 Fasli corresponding to 27.03.1945 which was marked as Ex. A1 written in Urdu language and its translated copy is marked as Ex. A2. (The defendants got marked the same Sale Deed as Ex. B6 and translated copy as Ex. B7). The plaintiff No. 2 purchased a portion of the said land admeasuring Ac. 2-10 gts. from the heirs of Late Raja Dharam Karan by way of a Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 1640 of 1964 in Book I dated 03.09.1964 which was marked as Ex. A3 and the plan annexed to this Sale Deed was marked as Ex. A4. The property covered under the aforesaid registered document is the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs further averred that the land in Sy. No. 129/73 admeasuring about Ac. 11-10 gts. situated at Thatti Khana Sivar Shaikpet, Tq. West Hyderabad District, was purchased by Rani Jayanthi Devi wife of Raja Dharam Karan as per Registered Sale Deed dated 5th Shahariwar 1353 F corresponding to 10.07.1944 from one Rustomji Pistanji Moosa and Adesher Rustomji Moosa. The plan of this Sale Deed of the year 1944 was marked as Ex. A19. The partner of plaintiff No. 1 i.e., Smt. B. Saroja Devi (wife of the brother of plaintiff No. 2) purchased a portion of the said land i.e., Ac. 5-38 gts. in Sy. No. 129/73 by way of a Registered Sale Deed Document No. 1642 of 1964 dated 03.09.1964 which is marked as Ex. A5 and the plan annexed to this Sale Deed is marked as E
Point of law: The principle of lis pendens is still settled principle of law. In this connection, the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Peary, AIR 1978 All 318] has considered the scope o....
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the identity of the property and the correctness of the plaint schedule.
The need for a fair consideration of evidence and the requirement for the Government to disclose crucial evidence in land dispute cases.
Boundaries specified in a sale deed prevail over measurements when determining property 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
