Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 2190
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, J.
Rathod Nandu, S/o. Late Rathod Babaiah - Appellant
Versus
Rathod Narsing Rao, S/o. Late Rathod Babaiah – Respondent
CCCA.NO. 3 of 2016
Decided On : 05-12-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : G Ravi Chandran
For the Respondent: Vedula Chitralekha
The court ruled that insufficient evidence existed to establish property ownership, determining the trial court erred in adjudicating the plaintiff's claim based on fraudulent documentation.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 r/w Order 43 Rule 1 - Eviction and damages - Respondent-plaintiff filed for eviction and Rs.3,000/- damages from August 2011; suit partly decreed by trial court - The appellant-defendant claimed property ownership based on alleged fraud by respondent-plaintiff regarding a conveyance deed - Evidence was analyzed leading to the trial court’s decision - Court determined that the respondent-plaintiff failed to establish the legitimacy of the documents - Order is set aside for lack of proof. (Paras 1, 2, 7, 12, 26)
Facts of the case:
The respondent-plaintiff claimed the house as his own after purchasing it from the government and allowing his brother (the appellant-defendant) to live there as a licensee. There was a family dispute regarding the ownership of the house, with allegations of fraud concerning the transfer of rights.
Findings of Court:
Court found the trial court's judgment contained significant legal lapses, primarily concerning the foundation of title.
Issues: The court addressed whether the trial court's decision included any legal errors or significant wrongful findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondent-plaintiff did not establish the necessary legal claim over the property and that the trial court erred in its reliance on insufficient evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim.
Result: Appeal allowed, judgment of trial court set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of first appeal under cpc (Para 1 , 2) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, J.
1. This Memorandum of First Appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 43 Rule 1 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) assailing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.383 of 2012, dated 07.10.2015 by the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, wherein the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for eviction and damages is partly decreed.
2. Appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in OS. No.383 of 2012.
3.1. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for eviction and for damages @ Rs.3,000/- per month from August, 2011 against the appellant-defendant in respect of House bearing No.10-5-391 admeasuring 72 Square yrds out of 144 Square yrds, Street No.15, Sai Nagar near Indira Gandhi Statue, Tukaramgate, Secunderabad falling in Sy.No.844/13 P, T.S.No.33, Block No.1, Ward No.132 of Malkajgiri Village of Maredpally Mandal, Hyderabad District with boundaries.
3.2. It is stated in the plaint that respondent-plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and he acquired the same from Government of A.P. under Registered Deed under Conveyance dated 28.01.2010 with document No.158 of 2010. He has constructed a house in a piece of land admeasuring 144 Sq.yrds in the year 2000 and he has applied for regularization of his dwelling house on the Government land under G.O.M.S.No.166, dated 16.02.2008 and accordingly the Government has approved the same. Respondent-plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.5,76,180/- vide Challan bearing No.157050 dated 06.10.2009, Challan No.190347 dated 26.12.2009 and Challan No.190556 dated 26.12.2009 in favour of Government of A.P.
3.3. The respondent-plaintiff has introduced the defendant who is none other than his own brother into possession of three rooms of the said house (suit schedule property) by providing all facilities like drainage, electricity and water connection as his licensee. Respondent-plaintiff demanded the defendant to vacate and hand over the suit schedule property but he has developed an evil intention, refused to vacate and hand over the possession to the plaintiff. Appellant-defendant has filed suit in OS.No.604 of 2010 before the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad and the same is dismissed on 16.11.2011 and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.
4.1. Appellant-defendant filed his written statement and contended that originally the mother of the respondent-plaintiff and the appellant-defendant acquired the House No.10-5-391 and she herself constructed two separate houses along with two separate stair cases and entrances with that of separate electricity bills and water connections and distributed each house to the appellant-defendant and respondent-plaintiff and she used to reside in House No.10-5-391 part. The respondent-plaintiff taking advantage of the G.O. without the knowledge of the appellant- defendant got transferred the entire suit schedule property in his name and thereby cheated the appellant-defendant and his family members. Respondent-plaintiff has created a false story of introducing the appellant-defendant as a licensee for the purpose of filing the case and to grab the suit schedule property and other properties which were acquired by his mother late Smt.R.Laxmi Bai. District Collector, Hyderabad made enquiry with regard to the forgery of documents by the respondent-plaintiff with the help of Tahsildar, Marredpally.
4.2. Tahsildar, Marredpally has submitted his report to the District Collector on 20.04.2012 vide Letter No.B/7567/2011. The report of Tahsildar, Marredpally goes to show that the respondent- plaintiff has obtained Transfer Certificate to the extent of 144 Sq.yrds in premises bearing No.10-5-391 with forged documents from Collectorate. Appellant-defendant after knowing the same has lodged a private complaint before X ACMM, and the same was referred to P.S. Tukaramgate for the offences under Sections 406
