THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.34 of 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated

07.11.2022 in I.A.No.918 of 2022 in L.A.O.P.No.42 of 2013, passed by the learned I-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Petitioners herein have filed an application vide I.A.No.918 of 2022 in L.A.O.P.No.42 of 2013, against the respondents before the trial Court seeking to reopen their evidence and to provide an opportunity to file chief affidavit of petitioners/claimants No.1 to 3. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioners preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Initially, petitioners herein along with respondent No.6 filed a claim petition before the trial Court vide L.A.O.P.No.42 of 2013, to declare that petitioners as rightful owners and possessors of land admeasuring Acs.2 – 30 gts in Sy.No.403, Jubilee Hills Municipal Plot No.10, situated at Road No.10, Shaikpet village, Banajara Hills, Hyderabad, by dropping all further proceedings initiated under Andhra Pradesh Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974. Subsequently, the claim petitioners No.12 to 15 put forth rival claims regarding the subject property. Petitioners herein along with respondent No.6 filed the claim petition on the ground that they have perfected their title and possession over the subject property. Petitioners stated that originally, the subject property was allotted to one Shaheen Aziz Ahmed by Nizam Government. He purchased the same and transferred it to one V.Malla Reddy by way of sale deed. After the demise of V.Malla Reddy, the subject property was devolved onto his legal heirs i.e., petitioners No.1 to 9 along with respondent No.6, who had alienated the said property in favour of petitioner No.10 through registered sale deeds/agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney with possession. Since 1948 their predecessor in title continued to be in possession and ownership of the subject property, which has been devolved onto the petitioners No.1 to 9 along with respondent No.6, who had later alienated in favour of petitioner No.10 and they remained in the continuous possession and ownership of the subject property.

4. O.S.No.33 of 1988 and O.S.No.1536 of 1996 were also the similar claims to the present L.A.O.P. The trial Court passed the Orders in favour of the petitioners on 07.02.2001, as such respondent No.3 has filed C.C.C.A.No.198 of 2001 and C.C.C.A.No.45 of 2002 before this Court and the same are still pending. The respondent No.1 and its officials started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject property. Challenging the said acts, petitioners filed W.P.Nos.25967 and 26301 of 2003, before this Court and the same were allowed on 28.01.2004. Aggrieved by the said Orders, respondent No.1 and its officials filed appeals vide W.A.Nos.1007 and 1008 of 2004 and the same were allowed, against which petitioners herein filed review petitions vide W.A.M.P.Nos.456 and 458 of 2006 and the same were dismissed by Order dated 08.06.2007. Against the said Orders, petitioners approached the Hon’ble Apex Court vide Civil Appeal Nos.8469 and 8475 of 2009 and the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the said appeals on 20.07.2022, considering the pendency of the present claim petition and gave liberty to the petitioners to pursue the present claim petition and further directed the Civil Court to consider all the contentions raised by the petitioners in the present claim petition. The present claim petition is at the stage of evidence of petitioners along with respondent No.6. When the claim petition was coming for petitioners’ evidence, the authorized representative of the petitioner No.10 and witness M.V.Srinivasa Murthy was unable to appear before the trial Court as they went to the U.S.A for his son’s engagement, as such chief affidavit of the said witness was not filed.