IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. Madhavi Devi, J.
B. Lalitha Devi and others – Petitioner
Versus
Lakshman and others – Respondents
CRP No.1087 of 2024
Decided On : 17-10-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendant's counterclaim and argument regarding title. (Para 5 , 6 , 12) |
| 3. plaintiff's argument based on possession and reliance on past judgments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's interpretation of order 12 rule 6 cpc. (Para 14 , 24) |
| 5. court's dismissal of the civil revision petition. (Para 25 , 26) |
ORDER :
T. Madhavi Devi, J.
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 20.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.21 of 2023 in O.S.No.138 of 2016 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Sangareddy, in respect of the petition filed under Order XII Rule 6 of C.P.C. by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioners herein are the plaintiffs who filed suit i.e., O.S.No.138 of 2016 for perpetual injunction. The suit schedule property is a house bearing No.1-9-165/9, situated as Karas Guthy Road, consisting of seven mulgies, one store room, one pump house, one stair case and two toilets, constructed on land admeasuring 242 square yards on Plot Nos.26/1 and 26/2 in Survey No.23/2, Narayankhed Village, Medak District. According to the plaintiffs, originally, one P.Venkatesh Rao was the absolute owner and possessor of various extents of lands admeasuring about Ac.5-00gts., situated in Survey No.23/2. In order to carry on agricultural activity in the said land, Mr.P.Venkatesh Rao approached one Mr.B.Krishna Murthi (husband of Plaintiff No.1 and father of Plaintiffs No.2 to 5) and requested him to solve the drainage issue in the said lands and Mr.B.Krishna Murthi devoted substantial part of his time and came to a conclusion that it was not possible to carry on agricultural activity in the said land and has accordingly advised Mr.P.Venkatesh Rao to go in for development of the same and not to proceed further with agricultural activity. According to the plaintiffs, Mr.B.Krishna Murthi did all the said work for P.Venkatesh Rao free of cost without charging any amount. Thereafter, Mr.P.Venkatesh Rao has developed the said property and in order to show the gratitude to Mr.B.Krishna Murthi, had executed a Gift Deed in favour of the Mr.B.Krishna Murthi and had transferred Plot Nos.26/1 and 26/2, total admeasure 242 square yards in his favour. Consequent thereto, Mr.B.Krishna Murthi had made an application to the Gram Panchayat, Narayankhed, seeking permission to construct building with RCC roof vide application dated 11.10.1988 and the Village Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Narayankhed vide File No.263/GPN/1988-89, dated 23.10.1988 had accorded permission for construction of building in the said property. Thereafter, Mr.B.Krishna Murthi paid the requisite fees to the Gram Panchayat and the plan was sanctioned for construction of the building and Mr.B.Krishna Murthi has made construction of a structure comprising of mulgies and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same without there being any interference of whatsoever from any person/persons. It is submitted that pursuant to the construction, the Gram Panchayat authorities assigned door number to building as 1-9-165/9 and Mr.B.Krishna Murthi has been paying property tax regularly to the concerned Gram Panchayat and electricity department had also allotted service connection bearing No.4424602108 and Mr.B.Krishna Murthi has been paying the electricity bills regularly and an ownership certificate dated 10.05.2016 was also issued in favour of the Mr.B.Krishna Murthi and he has been paying property tax for the said property thereafter.
3. It is submitted that the mulgies were let out on rent and the rents were being collected by Mr.B.Krishna Murthi. While that being so, it is submitted that on 07.05.2016, the defendant No.1 along with his sons and henchmen, forcibly tried to enter into one of the mulgies and take possession of the same but these efforts were successfully thwarted by Mr.B.Krishna Murthi with the help of w
Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain and Others Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo
Inder Sain Bedi (Dead) By Lrs., Vs. Chopra Electricals
Charanjit Lal Mehra and Others Vs. Kamal Saroj Mahajan (Smt) and Another
Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande Vs. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta and Another
Karam Kapahi and Others Vs. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust and Another
Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Limited Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) and Another
Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd., Vs. United Bank of India and Others
Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja
For judgment under Order XII Rule 6, admissions must be clear and unconditional; conditional admissions do not suffice.
A decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC requires clear, unconditional admissions of fact, which were absent in this case.
The essential ingredients for adverse possession must be pleaded clearly, and long possession alone is not sufficient to establish adverse possession.
Establishing adverse possession requires clear, unambiguous evidence of hostile intent and disclosure of all necessary details; mere long possession without asserting hostile rights does not suffice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC should be stringent, and the plea of limitation should be adjudicated on the merit....
Admissions in pleadings or related documents allow for expedited judgments under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, affirming that clear and unequivocal admissions can preclude the need for further evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.