The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Second Appeal Nos.414 and 415 of 2025

Common Judgment:

Heard Sri Syed Ahmed Ali, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Syed Mounis Jafer Abidi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. These second appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree passed by the learned XIV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. in A.S.Nos.132 and 136 of 2023, dated 02.04.2025, confirming the common judgment passed by the XVII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.Nos.1078 of 2017 and 1498 of 2019, dated

07.07.2023.

3. The brief facts of the case are that O.S.No.1078 of 2017 is filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking recovery of possession, recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.10,80,000/-, perpetual injunction and mesne profits with respect to property admeasuring 1650 sq.yds., out of total extent of 1900 sq.yds. bearing H.No.16-3-616/1, Ibrahim Mansion, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, bounded by North: Road, South: Remaining property of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, East: Neighbour’s property and West: Neighbour’s property. The deceased respondent No.1 was the absolute owner and possessor of the entire property admeasuring 1900 sq.yds., bearing H.No.16-3- 616/1, Ibrahim Mansion at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. He had given the property to an extent of 1650 sq.yds. to the father of appellant by name Syed Jallal Bukhari for carrying on business in the name and style of ‘J.B.Company’ for a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/- from the year 2014 onwards. For the purpose of business convenience, the father of defendant No.1 got a Partnership Deed executed though the nature of relationship was landlord and tenant. The last Partnership Deed was executed in the year 2014 and the same expired in the year 2017. Thereafter, no Partnership Deed was executed and there is failure on the part of the appellant to pay the monthly rent from the year 2017 onwards. Therefore, suit for eviction has been filed.

4. After filing of the suit for eviction, the appellant herein filed suit vide O.S.No.1498 of 2019 for perpetual injunction as there was a demand from respondent Nos.1 and 2 to vacate the suit schedule property. Out of fear of forcible dispossession, the said suit is filed upon receiving notice in the suit for eviction.

5. Since both the suits had same parties, same subject matter and the facts leading to cause of action are the same, both the suits were clubbed and evidence was led in O.S.No.1078 of 2017 as said suit is a comprehensive suit seeking relief of eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits. On the basis of evidence lead by both the parties which is consisting of PW1, PW2 and Exs.A1 to A4 on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and DW1, DW2 and Exs.B1 to B6 on behalf of appellant, the suit for eviction in O.S.No.1078 of 2017 has been decreed and the suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.1498 of 2019 has been dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein preferred A.S.Nos.132 of 2023 and 136 of 2023 challenging the judgment and decree in both the suits. The learned First Appellate Court upon considering the case of both the parties dismissed the appeals confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the Second Appeals are preferred. 6. In both the Second Appeals, the appellant raised the following substantial questions of law:

1. That both the appellant and trail Court below fail to consider the fact and evidence on record i.e. Ex A1 to Ex A 4 filed by the Plaintiff and entire suit of the Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants is based on partnership deed executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant dated 01-09-2014 marked subjected to the objection raised by the Defendant as Ex A1, which is an unregistered partnership deed as such suit filed by the Respondents/Respondents/Defendants is not legally maintainable as per Section 69 of Indian partnership act and the same is liable to be dismissed. As