Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

A suit for declaration of title, the burden to prove their case is always on the plaintiff to establish a clear title.

Headnote:
PROPERTY DISPUTE - TITLE - POSSESSION - REGULARIZATION - REJECTION - GOVERNMENT LAND - TOWN SURVEY - OBJECTION - REJECTION - GIFT DEED - SALE DEED - BOUNDARIES - DOOR NUMBER - PLAN - DISMISSAL OF SUIT - [O.S.No.153 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE (FTC), CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD]
Fact of the Case:

The appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The appellants claimed that they got the suit schedule property by way of gift deed from their mother and having developed it by raising temporary structures, they are in possession of the property but the defendants tried to interfere with their right and tried to dispossess them. The respondents/defendants contested saying that the property is Government land and the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for regularization was rejected by the Government and they have no title over the property, they are not entitled to any such relief.
Finding of the Court:

The trial Court having considered the oral and documentary evidence of both parties, came to the conclusion that plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought for in the suit consequentially dismissed the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property?2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property?To what relief?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellants have claimed that they have got the suit schedule property by way of gift deed from their mother and having developed it by raising temporary structures, they are in possession of the property but the defendants tried to interfere with their right and tried to dispossess them.2. The respondents/defendants contested saying that the property is Government land and the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for regularization was rejected by the Government and they have no title over the property, they are not entitled to any such relief.3. The trial Court having considered the oral and documentary evidence of both parties, came to the conclusion that plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought for in the suit consequentially dismissed the suit.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed.

[ 3258 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU o o CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL N 10 F 2021 Appeal Under Section 96 Fi/w Order 46 Rule-1 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.O9.2O21 made in O.S.No.153 of 2012 on the file of theCourtof the XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Between:

1. Mohd Adil, S/o Mr. Mohd Farooq, Aged about 31 yrs, Occ. Student, Rl/o H.no.

22-8-563, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad rep. by GPA Mohd lbrahim Khaleel, S/o Mr. Mohd Farooq, aged 21 yrs, Occ. Student, Fl/o H.No. 22.8-563, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad

2. Mohd Adnan, S/o Mr. Mohd Farooq, Aged 25 yrs, Occ. Student Rl/o H.no. 22-

8-563, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad, rep. by GPA Mohd lbrahim Khaleel, S/o Mr. Mohd Farooq, aged 21 yrs, Occ. Student, Ri/o H.No. 22-8-563, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad

3. Miss Azra Firdaus, D/o Mr. Mohd Farooq, aged about 23 yrs, Occ. Student, Fyo H.no. 22-8-563, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad

4. Shaik Mohd lmran, S/o Mr. Mohd Farooq, aged 22 yrs, Occ. Student, Fl/o H.No. 22-8-563, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad

5. Mohd lbrahim Khaleel, S/o Mr. Mohd Faroo(, aged 21 yrs, Occ. Student, Rl/o H.No. 22-8-563, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad.

...APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS AND

1. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, having office at Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad

2. The Commissioner GHMC, Having office at Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

3. The Tehsildar, Bahadupura Mandal, Hyderabad

4. The Chief Secretary, Govt of Andhra Pradesh, having office at Secretariat, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition undet Crder XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/w Sectic-r 151 CPC praying that in the circumsti rces stated in the affidavit filed herein tht) H gh Court may be pleased to grant nler m injunction order thereby restraini.(, th 3 respondents their employees rC persons claiming through and tlrrde' them from

2 dispossessing the )etitioners from the petition schedule l)rol)erty pending disposal of the appe t.

I'ETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that admeasurin( t\l C No 22 - 7 - 270126lA (Old part c,f -lou.';e No 22 - 7 - 270) admn 100sq rards situated at Nizam Bagh Diwaa L)eodi Hyderabad bounded by (

North: Bounded by ty Civil Court area South: Road 30 fee ric e '

East: Chaitanya Gav iyrrth West: Road 25 feet t ,ide Counsel for the App rllants: SRI MOHD. ADNAN Counsel for the Res rondent Nos.l, 3 & 4: GP FOR APPEALIi Counsel for the Res rcndent No.2: NONE APPEARED The Court delivered lhe following: JUDGMENT t-

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU c.c.c.A.NO.1O4 ot 202L ORDER The plaintiffs in O.S. No.153 of 20t2 on the fite of XIV Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C), City Civit Court at Hyderabad being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 27.09.2021 by which their suit for declaration was dismissed, have preferred this appeal on the following grounds.

The trial Court committed an error by holding that the sale deeds forming link documents of the appellants/plaintiffs does not contain the door number and plot number as described in the suit schedule property. The Court below committed an error by not considering the subsequent mutation of the property in the name of the appellants/plaintiffs and allotment of the door number and payment of property tax by the plaintiffs. The Court below failed to consider the boundaries of the suit schedule property which will prevail over the door numbers for identification purpose. They have also claimed that the Court below failed to consider the aspect that there was no challenge to the gift deed in favour of the appellant and there was no dispute with regard to genuineness of link documents of the respondents. The Court below wrongly considered that the suit was filed for declaration of suit property as ._ iitN l aa -J N. i,) I ri lLr21 private road. iut the Suit was filed for declaration 0. suiI scheclule property as p vlte property and not a Governnr rnt (rVM road. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document