Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Alok Aradhe, C.J., N.V.Shravan Kumar, J.
M.Anand S/o. M.Seshagiri Rao and others - Claimants
Versus
Dr. N.S.D.Prasad Rao S/o. N.K.Rao – Respondent
Applications No.361, 364, 367, 370 of 2007; 1228, 1235, 1239, 1249 of 2008 & 43 of 2009 In C.S. No.14 of 1958
Decided On : 09-09-2024
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXI Rule 99 – Claim petitions filed by purchasers of plots in Hydernagar village against illegal dispossession by Bailiff – Court held that the Bailiff's report and panchanama dated 02.04.2007 are illegal and void as the applicants were not parties to the original decree and no final decree had been passed – The applicants' claims were based on registered sale deeds, asserting independent title to the properties. (Paras 73, 100, 104)
(B) Jurisdiction – The court emphasized that the executing court must determine the rights of parties in possession and that unregistered deeds do not confer valid rights. (Paras 89, 90)
(C) Final Decree – The court reiterated that without a final decree, possession cannot be delivered, and the preliminary decree holders were not present in the current proceedings. (Paras 96, 103)
(D) Legal Rights – The court clarified that the applicants could pursue their claims independently in a competent forum. (Para 107)
ORDER :
N.V.Shravan Kumar, J
Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P.T.P. Sastry, learned counsel for the applicants.
Dr. Sarosh Sam Bastawala, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Application No.361 of 2007 has been filed seeking to declare that the claim petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of petition A to K properties and to set aside the Bailiff’s report and panchanama dated 02.04.2007 in E.P. No.26 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, as being illegal and void. Alternatively, deliver actual, physical and vacant possession of the petition schedule A to F properties to the claim petitioners herein, by evicting the respondents No.1 to 5 if this Court comes to the conclusion that as per the Bailiff’s report dated 02.04.2007 the claim petitioners have lost their possession.
3. It is submitted that the 1st claim petitioner is the owner and possessor of Plot bearing No.23 admeasuring 300 square yards, in Sy.No.145 of Hydernagar village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.974/2001 dated 28.02.2001, from its previous owners B.Shankaraiah and others, described as Schedule ‘A’ property.
4. Similarly, 2nd and 3rd claim petitioners are the joint owners and possessors of Plot bearing No.33 admeasuring 315 square yards in Sy.No.145 of Hydernagar village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.160/2001 dated 14.09.2000, from its previous owners B.Shankaraiah and others, described as Schedule ‘B’ property.
5. The 4th claim petitioner submitted that he is the owner and possessor of Plot bearing No.47 admeasuring 300 square yards in Sy.No.145 of Hydernagar village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.977/2001, dated 28.02.2001, from its previous owners B.Shankaraiah and others, described as Schedule ‘C’ property.
6. The 5th claim petitioner submitted that he is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot bearing No.49 admeasuring 300 square yards in Sy.No.145 of Hydernagar village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.978/2001, dated 28.02.2001, from its previous owners B.Shankaraiah and others, described as Schedule ‘D’ property.
7. The 6th claim petitioner submitted that he is the absolute owner and possessor of Plots bearing Nos.51 and 52 admeasuring 300 square yards each. All the said plots are situated in Sy.No.145 of Hydernagar village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District having purchased the same under a registered sale deeds bearing document No.2177/2001 and 531/2002, dated 26.04.2001and 04.02.2001, from its previous owners B.Shankaraiah and others, described as Schedule ‘E’ and ‘F’ property.
8. Application No.364 of 2007 has been filed seeking to declare that the claim petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of petition schedule A to I properties and to set aside the Bailiff’s report and panchanama dated 02.04.2007 in E.P. No.26 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, as being illegal and void. Alternatively, deliver actual, physical and vacant possession of the petition schedule A to I properties the claim petitioners herein, by evicting the respondents No.1 to 15 if this Court comes to the conclusion that as per the Bailiff’s report dated 02.04.2007 the claim petitioners have lost their possession.
9. In support of this application, the claim petitioners submits that the claim petition No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of four plots No.69 & 70, 71 & 72, both admeasuring 550 square yards each in Sy.No.145 of Hydernagar village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District, having purchased the same under two registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.5907 of 2001 and 5906 of 2001, both dated 02.11.2001 from its previous owner
The executing court cannot deliver possession without a final decree, and unregistered deeds do not confer valid rights; dispossession without due process is illegal.
A preliminary decree in a suit for partition merely declares shares that parties are entitled to in any of properties included in plaint schedule and liable to partition--On the basis of a mere decla....
Subsequent purchasers possess the legal right to execute possession decrees under CPC without needing an assignment of the decree.
In Order XXI Rule 97 CPC claims, obstructor bears burden of proof; purchase certificates under Kerala Land Reforms Act invalid without notice to parties.
(1) Execution of decree – A third party to decree has right to approach Court even after dispossession of immovable property, which he was occupying – Term “Stranger” would cover within its ambit, a ....
Subsequent purchasers of property cannot independently challenge a partition decree that has attained finality; their rights are limited to those of the transferor.
A plaintiff asserting ownership based on historical rights and alleged partition must be permitted to pursue relief through trial when faced with disputed claims and questions of fact.
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
