Point of Law: Defendants have established their title and the plaintiff’s claim for title has been negatived though his possession was confirmed. When his possession is claimed by virtue of title set up by plaintiff and when the title is negatived, granting injunction would tantamount to perpetuating the unauthorized occupation and driving the rightful owner to start fresh litigation in the name of recourse to law to retake possession is a denial of justice.

JUDGMENT :

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.176 of 2001

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2001 in O.S.No.1108 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court-cum-VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, wherein and whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and consequential injunction was dismissed.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the said suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of portion of house property bearing No.17-4-534 along with appurtenant land admeasuring 1171 square meters (1680 square yards), situated at Yakutpura, Hyderabad (hereinafter, it is referred to as “suit property”).

4. The pleadings further show that the first defendant is the step-mother of the plaintiff and the second defendant is the natural son of the first defendant. The first defendant is the absolute owner of properties bearing Municipal Nos.17-4-511, 17-4-535 to 37, admeasuring 5021 square yards. Prior to filing of declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ULC Act), the first defendant divided the properties in favour of the plaintiff and the second defendant, and to that effect, she made a sworn statement before the ULC Authorities, recognizing the plaintiff as a co-sharer in the property along with the second defendant. Since 1976, the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit property and he is having ration card as well as electricity bills, house tax receipts, etc., to establish his possession over the suit property for more than 20 years. The first defendant, with the assistance of local musclemen, tried to interfere with his possession, as such, he filed the above suit.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement and the second defendant adopted the written statement of the first defendant. The pleadings of the defendants would show that they did not deny the relationship. They denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. They accepted filing of declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act. They denied that the first defendant has made any sworn statement conferring any right, interest and title to the suit property or any other properties in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant never divided her properties and allocated any property more so the suit property either in favour of the plaintiff or any other person. As per the orders of the Special Officer under the ULC Act, the structure covered with house bearing No.17-4-534 admeasuring 171.84 square meters and the appurtenant land admeasuring 1000 square meters were exempted from the ULC Act. Such exemption is nothing to do with the plaintiff’s case.

6. The pleadings of the defendants further show that the house properties bearing Nos.17-4-511, 17-4-532 to 537 (corresponding to old Municipal Nos.3005/3008/1, 2979 to 2987 and 2985) comprise double storied building, single storied house and mulgies and other structures. Originally such properties belonged to Viqarunnisa Begum, the mother of the first defendant. After her death, those properties were devolved on the first defendant under a registered partition and relinquishment deed dated 20th day of Mehr 1346 Fasli. Ever since, the first defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properties and she never shared her properties to her own son or anyone else. The plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands and prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?”

8. The plaintiff, to support his case, examin