THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU SECOND APPEAL No.1454 OF 2017

JUDGMENT:

Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated

13.07.2016 in A.S.No.332 of 2014 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by which the 1^st appellate Court dismissed their appeal, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.1206 of 2012 on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder the trial Court decreed the suit by granting perpetual injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, the 2^nd defendant in the said suit filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C., on the following grounds:

The Judgment and Decree of the Courts below are illegal, contrary to law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. Both the Courts below committed an error in passing Decree for perpetual injunction on the basis of fabricated document marked as Ex.A1, which in fact does not convey any title to the respondent/plaintiff. The Court below committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the respondent is having right and interest over the suit schedule property, but failed to understand that he could not prove the valid title or exclusive ownership over the property. Therefore, they cannot approach the 3rd defendant for construction permission. The appellant has claimed that the respondents/plaintiffs have no locus standie for seeking building construction permission, but the Courts below failed to appreciate that the matter regarding the right/interest over the schedule property is under dispute and the same was pending adjudication. The appellant has claimed that the Courts below have not acted fairly and interrupted the function of 3rd defendant. Therefore, sought for setting aside the decree that was granted in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs

2. Before adverting to the merits of appeal, it is necessary to see what was the claim of respondents/plaintiffs while filing O.S.No.1206 of 2012 and as to how the same was disposed by the trial Court and also to see whether the 1^st appellate Court dealt with the matter in a proper way.

3. As could be seen from the impugned Judgment in O.S.No.1206 of 2012, respondents/plaintiffs have filed suit for perpetual injunction by showing GHMC as defendant and sought for an injunction to restrain the employees, subordinates etc., of GHMC from interfering with the construction work or demolishing the structures in the property bearing municipal No.21-1-374. It appears from the record that the appellant herein has filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and sought to be impleaded as defendant No.2. The said interlocutory application was allowed.

4. The respondents/plaintiffs have claimed absolute ownership and possession over the suit schedule property and they filed the suit specifically with a contention that they submitted an application under Section 428-433 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and obtained permission vide Proceedings dated 24.11.2011 for construction of ground and 1^st floor. Thereafter, they proceeded with the construction. But, subsequently the officials of 1^st defendant i.e., GHMC interfered with the construction, threatened him that they would demolish the structures on the ground that there are deviations.

5. As already stated in the previous paragraphs, the present appellant came on record on his own application and filed written statement, disputing the title of the respondents/plaintiffs over the property. He has also claimed that already he has filed O.SNo.17 of 1995 on the file of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for partition and separate possession of the property. However, the said suit was withdrawn by the present appellant on the ground that the other legal heirs were ready and willing to settle the issue amicably. Since, there was no partition, the father of the plaintiffs namely Shyam Sunder filed another suit vide O.S.No.262 of 2002 on the file of XIV Additional Chie