Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
G. Madhusudan Rao – Appellant
Versus
Ammireddy Srinivas Reddy – Respondent
CRP 2384/2023
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The revision petition was filed against an order dismissing an application for the return of original documents (!) (!) .
The case involves a dispute over the return of original documents, including a title deed and a mortgage deed, which were filed in a pending suit that was later settled out of court and dismissed (!) (!) .
The petitioner, who is the owner of the property, had executed a mortgage deed in favor of the respondent, who was the plaintiff in the suit (!) .
The petitioner requested the return of the original documents after the suit was settled and dismissed, claiming ownership and entitlement to the documents (!) (!) .
The trial court dismissed the application, citing that only the party who filed the documents could request their return, and did not consider the petitioner’s ownership of the property (!) (!) .
The petitioner’s counsel argued that, as the owner of the property, the petitioner is entitled to the original documents, and relied on legal principles and judgments supporting the right of property owners to reclaim their documents (!) (!) .
The respondent’s counsel contended that since the documents were produced by the plaintiff in the suit, only the plaintiff was entitled to their custody and return (!) .
The appellate court observed that the original documents were produced in the suit by the respondent, but since the dispute was settled and the respondent was not the owner of the property, the petitioner, as the owner, was entitled to the documents (!) (!) .
The court concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing the application without properly considering the petitioner’s ownership rights and directed the documents to be returned to the petitioner upon substitution with certified copies (!) .
The revision petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to return the original documents to the petitioner, closing any pending miscellaneous petitions (!) (!) .
These points summarize the case’s factual background, legal issues, and the court’s reasoning and decision.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2384 of 2023
ORDER:
This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.605 of 2020 in O.S.No.551 of 2019 by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking for return of original documents was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri Sankalp Pissay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1. It is endorsed that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not necessary parties. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1, respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the defendant Nos.2 and 3 before the trial Court.
4. The brief facts of the case are that upon request of the petitioner, respondent No.1 has arranged a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- as loan to the petitioner on 24.05.2012 and the petitioner executed a simple mortgage deed vide document No.1410 of 2012, dated 24.05.2012. Since the petitioner defaulted in repayment of the amount, the above suit was filed. Respondent No.1 filed a suit vide O.S.No.551 of 2019 on the file of the XI Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 for recovery of money of Rs.94,24,666/- and to declare the agreement of sale vide document No.1901 of 2015, dated 15.05.2015 as null and void.
5. While the suit was pending for adjudication, the matter was compromised and settled outside the Court and the respondent No.1 not pressed the suit and the suit was dismissed as not pressed on 24.08.2020. Consequent upon dismissal of the suit, the petitioner herein filed an application vide I.A.No.605 of 2020 seeking return of the simple mortgage deed bearing document No.1410 of 2012, dated 24.05.2012 and the original sale deed bearing document No.856 of 2012 which pertains to the suit schedule property. The trial Court vide the impugned order, dismissed the said application with an observation that the documents which were filed before the Court are permitted to be received not by the other party to file the same and thus, the application was dismissed without even issuing notice to respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has given the Original title deed pertaining to the suit schedule property to respondent No.1 and executed simple mortgagee deed bearing document No.1410 of 2012, dated 24.05.2012 and since the entire amount was paid, the petitioner is entitled to receive the original title deed documents. He would further submit that the trial Court without considering the fact that the petitioner being the owner of the suit schedule property is entitled to receive the documents, erroneously dismissed the application only on the ground that the documents shall be returned only to the person who filed the documents, but not to the other persons.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 placed reliance on the jugdment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.K.Velusamy v. N.Palanisamy, (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 275, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
“(d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or be against the intention of the legislature.”
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in W.P.No.100487 of 2022, wherein it was held that though documents are produced by the plaintiff, the defendant being owner of the property is entitled to receive the said documents
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
