The trial court's rejection of the claim petition based on prior decisions and lack of documentation was upheld as legally sound.

ORDER:

E P.SAM KOSHY, J.

Heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Barla Mallesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Sankalp Pissay, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the docket order dated 07.03.2025, in E.A.(SR) No.8050 of 2024 in E.P.No.12 of 2003 in O.S.No.1784 of 2002, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 97 to 101 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking allowing of the said petition by declaring the petitioner as the possessor of the suit schedule property; and also to declare the compromise decree and Lok Adalat Award dated 21.12.2002 and amended Lok Adalat Award dated 21.06.2004 in O.S.No.1784 of 2002 as inexecutable, void and inoperative, and also to grant perpetual injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, nominees or any person(s) claiming through them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the suit schedule property.

4. The facts of the case are that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed O.S.No.1784 of 2004 for specific performance seeking enforcement of the agreement of sale deed dated 09.03.1996. The suit is one which was filed on 21.10.2002. When the suit was filed, it was the respondent Nos.4 and 5 who were the defendants before the Trial Court. The matter later on got referred to the Lok Adalat and an award was passed on 11.12.2002.

5. The petitioner filed an claim petition in September, 2004, which was refused to be numbered and was entered in the records as E.A.(SR) No.8050 of 2024. The said E.A. was filed under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 read with Section 151 of CPC. Even without numbering the said claim petition, the Trial Court rejected the said E.A. and directed for issuance of delivery warrant for the remaining property under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC for the remaining property after payment of requisite process.

6. By way of claim petition under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of CPC, the petitioner claims herself to be the possessor of the suit schedule property since ages and thus prayed for allowing the claim petition by declaring the above mentioned compromise deed and the Lok Adalat award dated 21.12.2002, which stood amended by Lok Adalat on 21.06.2004, to be inexecutable, void inoperative and also grant perpetual injunction by restraining respondents or their agents or nominees or any other person from interfering and claiming possession over the suit schedule property.

7. The suit schedule property in the instant case is house property bearing No.3-3-844 (Old Number No.3642) admeasuring 471.22 square yards with a built-up area of approximately 2780 square yards situated at Qutibiguda, Hyderabad. When the petitioner filed the E.A. under Order 21 Rules 97 to 101 of CPC, filing section of the Trial Court returned the same with certain objections as to the sustainability of the said E.A. The first E.A. was filed on 30.07.2024 and the same got returned on 05.08.2024. The petitioner again resubmitted it on 12.08.2024, however, since the objections raised were not satisfactorily made, it was rejected vide the impugned order dated 07.03.2025.

8. The claim petition of the petitioner appears to be on account of she being in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property for more than six decades. Hence, according to the petitioner, she has perfected the title by way of adverse possession. When the said