1 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
IN THE COURT OF IV SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SMT.G.BHAVANI CHANDRA,
IV Senior Civil Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
TUESDAY, THE 1 ST DAY OF MAY, 2018
O.S. NO. 134 OF 2014 AND O.S.NO. 97 OF 2015
O.S.No. 134/2014
BETWEEN:
Smt.D.Deena W/o D.Ch.Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 47 years,Occ: Government Employee, R/o:H.No.82684/209/1, Second Floor, NBT Nagar, Road No.12, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad. ...Plaintiff.
AND
D.Annapurna W/o Sriramaraju, Aged : 81 years, Occ: Household, R/o:H.No.82684/209/1, Ground & First Floor, NBT Nagar, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. …Defendant.
O.S.No. 97/2015
BETWEEN:
D.Annapurna W/o Sriramaraju, Aged : 81 years, Occ: Household, R/o:H.No.82684/209/1, Ground & First Floor, NBT Nagar, Road No.12, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad. ...Plaintiff.
AND
1. Smt.D.Deena W/o D.Ch.Venkateshwar Rao, Aged : 47 years, Occ: Government Employee, 2.Sri.D.Ch.Venkateshwar Rao S/o Not Known, Aged : 52 years, Occ: Government Employee,
3. Sri.Sharan S/o D.Ch.Venkateshwar Rao, Aged : 24 years, Occ: Not known,
All the defendants are R/o:H.No.82684/209/1, Second Floor, NBT Nagar, Road No.12, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad. ...Defendants.
2 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
This Suits came up before me for hearing on 19.03.2018 and disposal in the presence of Sri.A.V.Krishna Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and
Sri.C.Shanmukha Rao, Advocate for defendant in O.S.134 of 2014 and of
Sri.C.Shanmukha Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri.A.V.Krishna Rao,
Advocate for Defendants No.1 to 3 in O.S. 97 of 2015 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day and as the subject matter of both the Suits is one and the same, as such, both Suits are being disposed of by way of Common Judgment.
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. The suit in O.S.No. 134 of 2014 is filed for eviction and recovery of arrears and with costs.
2. The brief averments of the plaint in O.S.No.134 of 2014 are that, plaintiff leased out the schedule property to defendant in the year
January, 2008 on a monthly rent of Rs.7,000/, it is enhanced from time to time, she is paying Rs.11,000/ per month from January, 2013. From
February, 2013 onwards, she is not paying on the pretexts he is intending to adjust monthly rent towards alleged transactions with the plaintiff. The tenancy is oral. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to vacate the premises on 03.09.2013, on that she got filed the complaint to police on 06.10.2013.
Under pretext of hand loan, the defendant collected several documents and signature of the plaintiff and though the amount is cleared, several documents are created documents as if there is a sale transaction. To the knowledge of the plaintiff, there are no dues to the defendant. The defendant promised to vacate the premises but failed. For the reasons best known to defendant filed the suit in O.S. 2425/2013 on the file of VII Junior
Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad. During the first week of September 2013 the
plaintiff requested to vacate the premises. The defendant has not only violated the conditions of the lease but also not paying monthly rents from
3 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
February, 2013. she promised and undertaken to vacate the premises within a month by paying entire rents by 30.09.2013 but failed and started postponing the same and filed the suit in O.S.No. 2425/2014. The plaintiff got issued legal notice don 12.12.2013 demanding to vacate the premises received the said notice but not complied the demand. Hence the suit.
3. Written statement is filed by the defendant denying the averments of the plaint and further contended that due to ill health, she was in need of constant assistance, in view of that she started searching for a house near to her only daughter’s house who is residing in MLA colony, then plaintiff stated that she was the owner of the schedule property and and offered to let out the suit premises consisting of ground and first floor, on that she got the premises on lease in the month of January, 2008. Subsequently the plaintiff offered to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs.23,00,000/ for which she agreed to purchase, accordingly paid Rs.10,00,000/ on 01.03.2008 towards part sale consideration. Having come to know that the plaintiff has neither title nor constructed with the permission of the authority she approached the Government of AP on 02.03.2008 and also applied for regularization on 23.06.2008. She paid the balance consideration of
Rs.13,00,000/ on 05.05.2009, on the same day entered into agreement of sale thereafter the she invested huge amount to make necessary changes and further constructed room with attached bath rooms adjacent to the ground floor and permitted her driver to reside, so that he can assist her. It is further pleaded that in the month of July 2012 the plaintiff borrowed
Rs.10,00,000/ from her under promissory note on 15.07.2012, after lapse of one year when she has demanded, the plaintiff and her family members started quarreling causing in convenience thereby she has filed the suit
4 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
O.S.No.2425/2013. The plaintiff has no title to the property in question,
encroached government land and constructed the building and later on giving out she is the owner and sold property after receiving Rs.23,00,000/.
It is false to say that she is tenant and she is owner having purchased.
Though the defendant entered into suit premises as tenant in the month of
January 2008 but having purchased in the month of March, 2008, she is in possession in the capacity of owner thereby question of promising to vacate does not arise. The defendant has given suitable reply to the notice. Hence pray to dismiss the suit.
OS. 97/2015.
1. This suit is filed for permanent injunction with costs.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that, the plaintiff is the owner and possession of the suit premises, defendant No.1 originally owned the suit property, she offered to let out the premises, the same is accepted and she became the tenant for ground floor and first floor in the month of January, 2008 and subsequently she agreed to purchase the same for consideration of
Rs.23,00,000/, paid Rs.10,00,000/ in the month of March, 2008 since the
March, 2008 she is in possession as the owner. Immediately after purchase applied to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for regularization. She has also paid Rs.13,00,000/ on 05.05.2009 and the defendant No.1 executed agreement of sale to that effect. Thereafter she invested huge amounts, constructed small rooms adjacent to the ground floor, thereby driver is residing to assist her. She also let out the first floor to the tenants. She also got incorporated her name in the electricity meter and water connection over the ground floor, but the name of defendant No.1 is continuing for second floor in the month of July, 2012, the defendant No.1 asked Rs.10,00,000/
5 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
the same was received on 15.07.2012 for which promissory note was executed. After lapse of one year, when demanded to repay, started interfering with her peaceful possession. Since beginning of September 2013, the defendant started creating troubles and on 03.10.2013 suddenly came with malafide intention and insisted to vacate the room constructed by her and also on 05.10.2013 started interfering with her peaceful possession and tried to shut down forcibly the water meter and electricity connection etc., On 06.10.2013 with unsocial elements tried to tresspass and threatened with dire consequences and so also on 01.12.2013. Hence the suit.
3.Written statement is filed by the defendant denying the averments of the plaint and further pleaded that plaintiff suppressed the true and material facts. Taking the advantage of the money transaction and signed documents, filed this suit. No sale transaction took place. The defendant No.1 never sold away the property nor handed over the peaceful possession to the plaintiff.
As she is a tenant but not otherwise. The plaintiff is in possession of the property as tenant since June, 2008 and the relationship is landlord and tenant. It is further pleaded that the defendant No.1 is the absolute owner and possession of the suit property as purchased the same with earned money and developed by constructing ground + second floor and let out ground and first floor i.e., suit property in the month of January 2008 on monthly rent of Rs.7,000/ per month, thus at present Rs.11,000/. The plaintiff is not paying rent from August 2013. The defendant No.1 never offered to sell the property, thereby question of offer and execution does not arise. It is denied that balance consideration of Rs.13,00,000/ was paid on 05.05.2009. After going through the plaint the defendant No.1 came to know about the transfer of the electricity meter etc., for which taking
6 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
separate steps. The plaintiff agreed to pay electricity consumption charges, thereby no doubted about this transfer. It is true the defendant No.1 approached for hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/ in the month of June, 2005 but not in the year 2009. The plaintiff has taken signature of defendant No.1 on several papers including the stamp papers, signed blank cheque, promissory note etc., It is denied that on 03.10.2013, 05.10.2013 and on 01.12.2013 tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. As the defendants have no other property to offer as security and executed the documents as stated by the defendant at the time of availing the loan amount at the time of repayment of the amount stated she would arrange to return all the documents but created the documents with the help of the signed documents.
On the pretext of securing the loan transactions, the plaintiff obtain several signature. No prudent man will not keep quite having paid such huge amount without taking steps for registration. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
4.On basis of pleadings the following issues are framed for trail in
O.S.No.134/2014:
1. Whether the plaintiff has title to the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit for eviction of
the defendant in view of denial of the plaintiff’s title by the
defendant in respect of the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent from February to
December 2011 totaling to Rs.1,21,000/ as prayed for?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits Rs.20,000/ per month as prayed for?
6. To what relief?
7 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
5.On basis of pleadings the following issues are framed for trail in
O.S.No.97/2015:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
As per orders passed by this Hon’ble High Court as per the docket orders in the suit in OS 97 of 2015 is clubbed with OS 134 of 2014 which is comprehensive suit. Common evidence has been recorded in OS 134 of 2014 and the same has been treated as evidence in both the suits for disposing the same under a 'Common Judgment'.
6. To prove the case of the plaintiff, she herself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 and also examined MRO as PW2 and got marked Ex.A10 to Ex.A12. To prove the case of the defendants, SGPA is examined as DW2 as the evidence of DW1 is eschewed and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B35.
7.Heard the arguments of both sides and also filed written arguments along with citations.
8.Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the parties established their respective contentions issue wise by all probabilities?
ISSUES NO.1 TO 3 in O.S.No. 134/2014:
1. Whether the plaintiff has title to the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit for eviction of
the defendant in view of denial of the plaintiff’s title by the
defendant in respect of the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property?
8 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
9.The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant took the suit premises on lease in the month of January, 2008 not paying the rent since
February, 2013, under the pretext of loan collected several documents and created sale transactions, as failed to vacate, notice was also issued, hence liable for eviction and recovery of arrears.
10.On the other hand, the case of the defendant is that she took the premises on lease in the month of January 2008 but subsequently in the month of March,2008 she purchased, paid Rs.10,00,000/, subsequently also paid balance sale consideration, thereby agreement of sale was executed on 05.05.2009, she is in possession and enjoyment as owner having purchased, but not as tenant, hence cannot be evicted.
11.To prove the case of the plaintiff, she herself examined as PW1, her evidence is in tune with the pleadings. In her evidence she got marked
Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. Further MRO is examined as PW2. In his evidence Exs.A10 to A12 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, though the chief examination affidavit of defendant is filed, failed to appear for the cross examination thereby, her evidence is eschewed. Further her SGPA is examined as DW2 whose evidence is reiterating the contents of the written statement. In her evidence got marked Ex.B13 to Ex.B34 as Ex.B1 to B12 are marked in the cross examination of PW1 and Ex.B35 marked in the cross examination of PW2.
12.In an eviction suit, the landlord is required to plead and prove only two things to enable her to claim a decree for eviction against her tenant from the premises. First that exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and second, the ground on which the landlord is seeking eviction. The contention of the plaintiff in this suit is that
9 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
the defendant took the premises on lease in the month of January 2008, she is continuing as a tenant but committed default in payment of rent. The defendant is also not denying that she took the premises on lease in the month of January 2008 but the plea is that she is not the tenant from March, 2008 onwards having purchased suit premises under agreement of sale from the plaintiff. Whether the defendant is in possession of the property as a tenant as pleaded by the plaintiff or as an owner as pleaded by the defendant is the point for consideration.
13. In addition to it, it is also the plea of the defendant that subsequently she came to know that plaintiff had no title and constructed the building without any permission. In this case as per the evidence and suggestions the defendant is setting up title in Government. For that, he is relying upon the documents under Ex.B13, Ex.B14, Ex.B20, Ex.B23, Ex.B25,
Ex.B26 and Ex.B31 to Ex.B34. As per above documents, the defendant made an application to the government for regularization and further sale deed was also executed by the Government under Ex.B34.
14.In this case the defendant plea with regard to denial of the title of the plaintiff is of two folds. First one is that defendant has purchased from the plaintiff and other one is plaintiff has no title as it is the Government property. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant that as the suit property is pertaining to the Government, suit itself is not maintainable before this court under Section 9 of CPC. For that he relied upon the decision reported in 2012 SCC Del 5413 in a case of Ismail Devi
V. DDA and other 2011 (3) MWN (civil) 394 in a case of T.S.Sankara Iyer and sons reptd by its Proprietor S.Kirthivasam Vs Union of India. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition laid down in the above decisions
10 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
but in the first case of above the concerned offices were the parties to the suit, already proceedings were initiated before the competent officer, adjudication took place, and order was passed against the plaintiff directing to be evicted, appeal and WP were also filed, then suit was filed with a prayer to declare suit proceedings as null and void and further reliefs. In the second case also suit is filed challenging the eviction proceedings initiated by defendant. But in the present case the government is not a party, no proceedings at all took place before the concern officer and no orders were passed etc., thereby the above decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
15.Further, the defendant has obtained the possession of the suit premises from the plaintiff only under the tenancy. Further more as per the pleadings she came to know that plaintiff has no title after payment of
Rs.10,00,000/ but subsequent to that only she entered into the agreement of sale by paying alleged remaining consideration etc., that shows knowing that the plaintiff has no title, she purchased the property. It is not the case where the defendant occupied the government property herself and in possession of it, it is regularized under Ex.B34. It is obtained during pendency of the suit, without showing there is a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant, pendency of cases etc., as per Ex.A10. Further more prior to that the plaintiff also made an application to the Government under Ex.A12 and further made a representation not be consider the request of defendant for regularisation in view of the pending suit under Ex.A23. Inspite of said request sale deed is executed by the Government to the suit premises in favour of the defendant without giving any notice and enquiring the matter. Though PW2 deposed after enquiry, no material to that effect is placed. Further more the plaintiff is
11 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
also in possession of the suit property i.e, second floor along with defendant and who is in possession of first floor and ground floor, when it is the regularization for land as ground + two floors are on the same land.
16.It is submission of the learned counsel for plaintiff that the defendant is the tenant of the suit premises, she cannot deny the title, that itself will be the ground for eviction, his duty is to surrender possession and then to seek remedy. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the decisions reported in 1996 SC 629 in a case of Atyam Veerraju and others
Vs P.Venkanna and others, AIR 2006 SC 2403 in case of B.Kannababu
and others Vs V.Pydamma and others, AIR 1985 SC 857 in a case of Sant
Lal Jain Vs Avtar Singh and also in AIR 1981 SC 695. No dispute with regard to the proposition laid down in the above decisions and will be followed herein respectively. But it is held in AIR 1985 SC 857 in a case of
Sant Lal Jain Vs Avtat Singh that no need to surrender if acquired title from the lessor or someone else lawfully claiming under him. In this case also the one of the pleas of defendant is that she purchased from plaintiff. However the burden of proving that the relationship between landlord and tenant has ceased is on the defendant who ascertain so as per the decision reported in
AIR 1987 SC 695.
17.It is the plea and evidence of DW1 that the defendant purchased the suit premises in the month of March, 2008 paid part consideration of
Rs.10,00,000/ and subsequent to that made payment of remaining balance consideration and obtained agreement of sale on 05.05.2009. In this case
PW1 has admitted only the signatures on agreement of sale under Ex.B1 but not the contents. Then it is for the defendant to prove the execution of the said documents. No evidence is placed to that effect but only the oral
12 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
testimony of DW1 who is also not the defendant but her SGPA. Though she is daughter of the defendant, no where it is the plea and evidence that she was present at the time of transaction under agreement of sale, thereby she is aware. No steps are taken for regularisation of agreement of sale since the year 2008. The execution of sale deed under Ex.B34 is not basing on said agreement of sale after making due enquiry by giving notice to the plaintiff and further it is after filing of the suit.
18.The defendant in this case failed to prove the execution of agreement of sale. Once, she failed to prove the same, it cannot be said that the defendant purchased from the plaintiff, thereby it is the plaintiff who is the owner of the property. It is also brought on record as admitted by DW1 that plaintiff came into the possession of the suit property by way of purchase by paying consideration to third parties.
19.Actually the question of the title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves existence of landlord and tenant relationship to the suit premises and further proves existence of ground on which eviction is sought, the eviction suit succeeds.
20.In this case as discussed above, admittedly as the defendant came into the possession of the suit property by virtue of the lease, and as the defendant failed to prove she purchased the property from the plaintiff, the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is landlord and tenant.
Further, it is also admitted fact that the defendant is not paying rent, even as per the own pleadings on the ground of purchase, which is not proved. Hence for the reasons discussed above, as the defendant failed to prove her purchase from the plaintiff and can file the suit for eviction having proved the
13 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
relationship as landlord and tenant and committed default in payment of lease, I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for eviction.
Thus these issues No. 1 to 3 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.4 in O.S.No.134/2014
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent from February to
December 2011 totaling to Rs.1,21,000/ as prayed for?
21.According to the plaintiff, the defendant committed default in payment of rents from February, 2013 onwards. There is no dispute at all to that effect. It is not the case of the defendant that she paid the rent for that period. The only plea is she purchased, which is not proved. Hence I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent of
Rs.1,25,000/ as prayed.
Thus this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.5 in O.S.No. 134/2014 :
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits Rs.20,000/ per
month as prayed for?
22.Plaintiff is also seeking mesne profit @ Rs.20,000/ p.m., from the date of the suit till the date of handing over the possession but no material at present is placed to prove the same, except sole testimony, which is not sufficient. Hence she is at liberty to claim the same on a separate application under Order XXI Rule 12 of CPC.
Thus this issue is decided accordingly.
14 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
ISSUE NO.1 in O.S.No. 97/2015 :
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed
for?
23.The case of the plaintiff is that she took the suit premises on lease in the month of January, 2008, having purchased in the month of
March, 2008 she has been in possession and enjoyment but the defendant is interfering. It is already held at earlier stage that the defendant failed to prove her purchase, relationship is existing between the parties as landlord and tenant, thereby having committed default in payment of lease liable for eviction. In view of the entitlement of defendant for eviction, the plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction.
Thus this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
ISSUE NO.6 in O.S.No. 134/2014 and ISSUE NO.2 in O.S.No. 97/2015:
To what relief?
24.As it is held in issue No.3 and 4 in O.S.No.134 of 2014 that the plaintiff is entitled for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.1,21,000/, the suit O.S.No.134 of 2014 is decreed and further as it is held in Issue No.2 in O.S.No.97 of 2015 that plaintiff is not entitle for permanent injunction, the suit O.S.No.97 of 2015 is dismissed.
In the result, the suit in O.S.No. 134/2014 is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises and hand over the vacant possession within two months from the date of this judgment failing which the plaintiff is entitled for recovery under due process of law.
Further, the defendant is liable to pay arrears of rent
Rs.1,21,000/ i.e., arrears of rent from February, 2013.
15 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
Further the defendant is also directed to pay the rent @ Rs.11,000/ (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) per month from the month of January, 2014 onwards till the date of delivery of possession.
The plaintiff is at liberty to seek future mense profits by filing separate application under order 20 rule 12 of CPC and
The suit in O.S.No.97/2015 is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 1st day of May, 2018.
IV SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT :HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT
PW1 : Smt.D.Deena. DW1: Smt.D.Annapurana(eschewed)
PW2 : S.Ramulu. DW2: Smt.Laxmi.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
Ex.A1: is the sketch plan of the suit schedule property.
Ex.A2: is the CC of plaint in O.S.No.2425/2013.
Ex.A3: is the office copy of legal notice dated 12.12.2013.
Ex.A4:is the two postal receipts in original dated 12.12.2013.
Ex.A5: is the acknowledgment in original dated 13.12.2013.
Ex.A6: is the acknowledgment in original dated 13.12.2013.
Ex.A7:is the certified xerox copy of orders and decreetal orders in
I.A.No.324/13 dated 13.12.2013.
Ex.A8:is the certified xerox copy of written statement dated 10.12.13.
Ex.A9:Counter affidavit of PW1 in I.A.324/13 in O.S. 2425/13.
Ex.A10: Photographs(Numbering 3).
Ex.A11:Application dated 12.06.2016.
Ex.A12:Acknowledgment letter.
16 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
Ex.B1: Signature on the stamped receipt cum declaration dt March,08.
Ex.B2 to Ex.B4: Signature on the agreement of sale dated 05.05.2009.
Ex.B5: Signature on form pertaining to Sec. 32A of Registration Act.
Ex.B6: Agreement of sale dated 05.05.2009.
Ex.B7: Signature of B.Sudhakar on agreement of sale dt.05.05.2009.
Ex.B8: Signature of B.Kalpvalli on agreement of sale dt. 05.05.2009.
Ex.B9: Signatures of husband of PW1.
Ex.B10: Signatures of Shubhakar.
Ex.B11:Signatures of Kalpvalli pertaining to sec.32 A of Registration Act.
Ex.B12:is the part of address bearing No.802684/209/1 situated in
Road No.12, Banjara Hills in Check list and acknowledgment.
Ex.B13:Original acknowledgment for regularization dt. 02.03.2008.
Ex.B14:Original applicable to GHMC for BPS with plan dt. 23.06.2008.
Ex.B15:Original acknowledged copy for police report to SHO dt.3.9.13.
Ex.B16:Original photographs along with CD.
Ex.B17:Reply notice to plaintiff dated 12.02.2014.
Ex.B18:Courier receipt dated 12.02.2014.
Ex.B19:Postal receipt dated 14.02.2014.
Ex.B2O:Notice form GHMC dated 09.02.2010.]
Ex.B21:Telephone Bill from BSNL dated 08.08.2008.
Ex.B22:Telephone Bill from BSNL dated 08.06.2008.
Ex.B23:Letters along with representation dated 13.10.15 & 13.11.2015.
Ex.B24:RTI Application to the Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad.
Ex.B25:Representation to APSCSS along with documents dt 22.04.2016.
Ex.B26:Original ack., for regularization with application dt. 12.01.2015.
Ex.B27:Original special power of attorney dated 20.12.2016.
Ex.B28:Original memo issued by RTI dated 15.03.2017.
Ex.B29:Attested through RTI Pahani of Sy.403 year 198384.
Ex.B30:Original postal cover received under RTI, dt 24.3.17.
Ex.B31:CC of judgment in LGC.No.36/04 dated 09.07.2009.
Ex.B32:Original assessment proceedings of the GHMC dt 13.2.07.
Ex.B33:Original property tax paid dated 14.02.2017.
Ex.B34:CC of the sale deed vide Doc.No;6617/16 dt.20.12.16.
Ex.B35:Agreement of sale dated 05.05.2009.
IV SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
17 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
CITY CIVIL COURT :HYDERABAD
Discussion
The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant took the suit premies on lease in the month of January, 2008 not paying the rent since February, 2013 under the pretext of loan collected several docuements and created sale transactions as failed to vacate, notice was also issued, hence liable for
18 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
eviction and recovery of arrears.
On the other hand the case of the defendant is that she took the premises on lease in the month of january 2008 but subsequently in the month of
March,2008 she purchased, paid Rs.10,00,000/ subsequently also paid balance sale consideration, thereby agreement of sale was executed on 05.05.2009 as she is in possession and enjoyment and owner having purchased cannot be effected, further plaintiff have stood in the _________said premises.
To prove the case of the plaintiff she herself examined as PW1, her evidence is in tune with the pleadings. In her evidence she got marked Ex.A1 to Ex. .Further MRO also examined as PW2. In his evidence____________________ on behalf of the defendants though the chief examination of defendant is filed as failed to proceed with the cross examination, her evidence is eschewed. Further her SGPA is examined as
DW2 whose evidence is reteirate the contents of the written statement. In her evidence got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.______ are marked inthe cross examination of PW1.
In a eviction suits, the landlord is required to plead and proved only two things to Hon’ble Court to claim decree for eviction against his tenants from the premises first with exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant and second the ground on which the landlord is seeking eviction, so the contetnion of the plaintiff in this suit is that the defendant took the premises on lease in the month of January 2008 she is continue as a tenant but committed default in payment of arrears but the defendant is also not denying that she took the premises on lease in the month of January 2008 but the plea is that she is not the tenant from March,
19 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
2008 onwards having purchsed suit premises under agreement of sale from the plaintiff. Whether the defendant is in possession of the property as a tenant as pleaded by the plaintiff or as a owner as pleaded by the defendant as tenant for consideration in addition to it, it is also the plea of the defendant that subsequent she came to know that plaintiff is in title and constructing the builidng without any permission. Thus in this case the defendant has stood by title under Government policy. Further, he is relied upon the documents under Ex.B13, Ex.B14, Ex.B22, Ex.B25, Ex.B26, Ex.B31 and Ex.B34. As per the above documents the defendant made the applications to the government for regularization and further sale deed was also executed by the Government under Ex.B34.
In this case the defendant plea with regard to denial of the title of the plaintiff is of two folds, first one is that defendant has purchased from the plaintiff and other one is plaintiff is in title as it is the Government property.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant is that as the suit property is pertaining to the Government , suit itself is not maintainable
before this court under section 9 of CPC. He relied upon the decision reported
in 2012 SCC Del 5413 in a case of ____________________, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition laid down in the above decision but in the case the authority and the concern officer were the parties to the suit. Already proceedings were initiated before the competant officer, adjudication took place and order was passed against the plaintiff directed to be evicted, appleas and WP were also filed , this suit was filed with a prayer and thereby necessary to be stayed but in the present case the government is not a party to the proceeding and no proceedings at all took place before the concern officer and no orders were passed etc., thereby the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand. Further, the defendant has obtained the possession of the suit premises from the plaintiff only under the tenancy,
20 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
further more as per the pleading its she came to know that plaintiff is entitle after payment of Rs.10,00,000/ but subsequently to that only she entered into the agreement of sale by paying remaining consideration etc., that shows not only that the plaintiff is entitled, she purchased the property. It is the case whether the defendant took government property herself, possession proceeding to it, he is relied under Ex.B34 sale deed under EX.B34 is after filing of this suit by the plaintiff, it is obtained during pendency of the suit.
Further more without showing that there is no dispute between the plaintiff and defendant, pendency of case etc., obtaining the registered sale deed under Ex.B34,further more to that the plaintiff also made the applications to the Government. Further more prior to that plaintiff also made the application under ____________________ inspite of said request sale deed is executed by the Governemnt to the suit premises in favour of the defendant without giving any notice and any way the matter that PW2 deposed after enquiry no material to that effect is filed. Further more it is the plaintiff also in possession of the suit property i.e, second floor along with defendant and i.e., first floor and ground floor, when it is regularization for land as Ground + 2 are on the same building.
It is submission of the plaintiff that the defendant is the tenant of the suit premises she cannot denied the title that itself will be the ground for eviction. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the decision reported in 1996 SC 629 AIR 2006 SC 240, AIR 1985 SC 857 and also in AIR 1981 SC 695. As per the decision in AIR 1985 SC 857 it is the dutiy of the tenant to surrender possession of the property, mere denying the title sought by any means or any one else. The tenant who is the _________________ possession was surrender by his landlord, the tenant was precluded from denying the title of the landlord ____________ established between the landlord and tenant thereis no decision with regard to the decision laid down
21 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
in the above decision but inthe case of hand as discussed above the defendant also pleaded her title by virtue of purchase under agreement of sale and simply not only denied the title _______
Thus the plea and evidence of DW1 that the defendant purchased the plaint premises in the month of March, 2008 obtained the consideration of
Rs.10,00,000/ and subsequent to it the balance consideration and executed agreement of sale on 05.05.2009. In this case PW1 is admitted only the signature of agreement of sale under Ex.B1 but not the contents, then it is for the defendant to prove the execution of the said documents, no evidence is placed to that effect but only the oral testimony of DW1 which is also not the defendant but her SGPA, though she is daughter of the defendant no way it is the plea and evidence that she was present at the time of transactions under agreement of sale thereby she is aware. The regularization signed basing on agreement of sale after making due enquiry by giving ntoice to the plaintiff and further after filing of the suit.
The defendant in this case failed to prove the execution of agreement of sale onces failed to prove the same it cannot be said that the defendant purchased from the plaintiff, thereby it is the plaintiff who is the owner of the property. It is also brought on record as admitted by DW1 that plaintiff came into the possession of the suit property by way of purchase by paying consideration.
Merely the existance of the title to the suit premises seeking germant _________________of eviction suit the reasons being failed to prove to the suit premies but proves existenace of landlord and tenant relationship to the suit premises and further proves an existence of an ground on which eviciton is sought. Eviction suit succeed.
In this case as discussed above the defendant failed to prove she
22 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
purchased the property from the plaintiff and admittedly as the defendant came into the possession of the suit property by virtue of the lease, the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant is landlord and tenant.
Further, it is also admitted fact that the defendant is paying rent, even as per the own pleadings and onthe ground of purchase, which is not proved. Hence for the reasons discussed above I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled as the defendant failed to prove her possession from the plaintiff and can filed the suit for eviction having succeed the relationship as landlord and tenant and have commited default in payment of lease, entitled for eviction.
Thus this issue No. 1 to 3 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.4:
According to the plaintiff the defendant commited default in payment of lease from February, 2013 onwards there is no dispute at all to that effect.
It is not the case of the defendant that she paid the rent for that period, the only plea is she purchased which is not proved. Hence I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for the arrears of rent of Rs.1,25,000/ as prayed.
Thus this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO.5.
Plaintiff is also seeking mesne profit @ Rs.20,000/ from the date of the suit to till the date of hand over the possession but no material at present is filed to prove the same, she is at liberty to claim the same under separate application under order 21 Rule 12 of CPC
OS 197/2015
The case of the plaintiff is that she took the suit premises on lease
23 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
inthe month of January, 2008, having purchased in the month of March, 2008 she has been in possesion and enjoyment but the defendant is interfering. It is already held at earlier stage that the defendant failed to prove her purchase, relationship succeed between the parties as landlord and tenant, thereby having committed default in payment of lease liable for eviction in veiw of the entitle of defendant for eviction, the plaintiff is not entitle for permanent injunction
Thus this issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issuse : To what relief
As it is held in issue No.3 and 4 in O.S.NO.134/2014 that the plaitniff is entitle for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.1,51,000/. The suit
O.S.134/2014 is decreed and further as it is held in Issue No.2 in
O.S.No:97/15 the plaintiff is not enttle for permanent injunction and thus the
O.S.No:97/2015 is dismissed.
24 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
IN THE COURT OF IV SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SMT.G.BHAVANI CHANDRA,
IV Senior Civil Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
TUESDAY, THE 1 ST DAY OF MAY, 2018
O.S. NO. 1207 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
Azhar Khan S/o Late Taher Khan, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o:Bunglow bearing M.No.82293/82/L/84A, On plot No.84A, Sy.No.102/1, Sri. Venkateshwara Cooperative House Building Society, Road No.12,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ...Plaintiff.
AND
1. Mohd. HabeebUrRahman S/o Md.FazalUrRahman, Age : 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.81398/PM/370, Sultan Manzil, Paramount Colony, Tolichowki, Hyd.
2. Sri Abdul Wahid Ali S/o Mohd.Gulam Ali, Age : 64 years, Occ: Business,
3. Smt.Bilquis Fatima W/o Abdul Wahid Ali, Aged : 56 years, Occ: Household.
Defendants No.2 and 3 are R/o: Flat No.1006, Mount Nasar, Saifabad, Hyderabad. …Defendants.
This suit coming up before me for disposal on 12.04.2018 in the presence of Imitiaz Ahmed Mansoor, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of
Sri.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for defendant No.1 and of Sri.Damodar Mudra,
Advocate for defendant No.2 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
25 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed for perpetual injunction and with costs.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that, plaintiff is a lessee of the suit schedule property having obtained under registered lease deed dated 11.12.2015 for a period of 2 years years @ Rs.50,000/ per month for the purpose of running the guest house. The defendant who was the tenant earlier to the suit schedule property. The lessor was constrained to file
EP.No.133/ 2015 and the bailiff vacated the defendant from the suit schedule
property and to delivered possession to the lessor under cover of panchanama, after evicting the defendant the lessor leased out the premises to him, he continue to hold the possession but the defendant without having any right title or interest trying to interfere with his peaceful and enjoyment having grudge with the lessor of the plaintiff he was threatened plaintiff with dire consequences of illegal dispossession, he along with some anti social elements on 12.12.2015 threatened with dire consequences, however with the help of others he could stopped him. Hence the suit.
3.Written statement filed by the defendant No.1 denying the averments of the plaintiff and further pleaded that he has not aware of the fact that the plaintiff is the lessor of the suit schedule property under lease deed. Plaintiff is to be strict proof that plaintiff lessor was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and plaintiff continue the possession by virtue of the registered lease deed the allegations are created and fabricated and for the purpose of the plaint and no merits in the pleadings.
Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
26 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
4.Written statement filed by the defendants No.2 and 3 denying the averments of the plaintiff and further pleated that it is false that the plaintiff is lessor of the suit schedule property under registered lease deed, infact the plaintiff filed the suit in collusion of defendant No.1 with sole intention to harass the defendant who are absolute owners by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 04.08.1992 executed by V.M.Sasikala who acquired under registered lease deed. It is further pleaded it is false that the defendant No.1 was the earlier tenant of the suit schedule property, the alleged lessor of the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant No.1 filed the suit for eviction, knowing well that the property is in their possession plaintiff played a fraud by got the matter compromised before the Lok Adalat, therefore filed EP.No.
133/2015 and took possession of the property from their watchmen, thereby they filed the suit in O.S.No. 276/2016 for declaration to declare that award passed by the lok adalat is null and void. Plaintiff has not filed single documentary evidence to show he is in possession, allegedly interfering by the defendant No.1 is also a concocted stories, neither the defendant No.1 was in possession nor he vacated but in guise of the compromise decree they are dispossessed. The allegations that on 12.12.2015 the defendant No.1 along with anti social elements created and filed for the purpose of the case without valid cause and they are absolute owners. Hence pray to dismiss the suit.
27 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
5.On basis of pleadings the following issues are framed for trail:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
2. To what relief?
6. To prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. To prove the case of the defendant No.1, he filed his chief examination affidavit but did not turn up for his chief examination and his evidence is eschewed. To prove the case of the defendants No.2 and 3, defendant No.2 himself examined as DW2 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B7.
7.Heard the arguments of both sides.
8.Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the parties established their respective contentions issue wise by all probabilities?
ISSUES NO.1:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed
for?
9.The case of the plaintiff is that, he obtained obtained suit schedule property under registered lease deed since then in possession and enjoyment but the defendant No.1 who was the earlier lessor interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment as he was vacated.
10.On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant No.1 that he is not aware that the plaintiff is the lessor by virtue of the lease deed and in possession and he is denying the claim of the plaintiff entirely. It is the contention of the defendants No.2 and 3 who come on record subsequently by virtue of the implead petition that plaintiff filed present suit
28 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
conclusively with defendant No.1 to harass them who are absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Further the vendor of the plaintiff in collusive with defendant No.1 filed the false suit for eviction and got obtained the possession by dispossessing through watchman and the plaintiff has not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and further no cause of action at all but created for the purpose of the suit.
11. To prove the case of the plaintiff he himself examined PW1.His evidence is in tune with his pleading. In his evidence he got marked lease deed under Ex.A3, deliver of possession, panchanama proceedings under
Ex.A4 and further bailiff report and gas connection under Ex.A6 and Ex.A2.
On the other hand thought the defendant No.1 filed his chief evidence affidavit he did not turn up to proceed with the case thereby his evidence was eschewed.
12. On the other hand the case of the defendants No.2 and 3 that the defendant No.2 is examined as DW2 and his evidence is also reiterate the contents of false allegations in the written statement. In his evidence he got marked certified copy of the sale deed under Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 and
Encumbrance Certificate and further statement of extract and electricity consumption, arrears history and water supply, Customer ledger under Ex.B5 to Ex.B7.
13.As the suit is filed for permanent injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove he is in possession and enjoyment on the date of the suit___________________________________________ to prove the possession of the plaintiff he is relied upon his sole testimony and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and
29 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
other documents under Ex.A4 to Ex.A6 only pertaining to their possession of the suit property to the lessor of the plaintiff with which plaintiff has no way concern, Ex.A3 is the lease deed which shows he obtained the suit property and lease on 11.12.2005, though telephone bill under Ex.A1 is filed it is not containing the house number to say it pertains to the suit property, Ex.A2 is the gas connection that also does not prove possession, no entries at all to show him the suit house and plaintiff is the sons obtained gas connection by showing particular number I snot much difficult, so based on it, it cannot be said plaintiff is not continuous possession of the suit property.
14. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant No.2, who is examined DW2 himself admitted that they are in possession filed the suit for recovery of possession and delivery, thus there is no dispute about merely because the defendants No.2 and 3 are in possession that itself will not make the plaintiff entitle for permanent injunction. It is for the plaintiff to prove he is in possession and enjoyment on the date of the suit and also subsequently, according to the defendants No.2 and 3 they are owners of schedule property by virtue of the sale deed but the lessor of the plaintiff conclusively filed suit for eviction against the defendant No.1 and subsequently by compromised thereby got obtained the possession through court bailiff, the WILL deed and link documents are marked under Ex.B1 to
Ex.B4.
15.True, thus originally the suit is filed against defendant No.1 only, as discussed above he denied the pleas of the plaintiff that he interfered with
30 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
possession and enjoyment and further pleaded the allegation are created and fabricated for the purpose of the suit, it is also subsequently only to obtain injunction false suit is filed which is denied, so it cannot be considered as submitted by the learned counsel for plaintiff that the defendant No.1 is esteemed the claim of the plaintiff.
16.At the same time it cannot be said that as defendants No.2 and 3 came on record subsequently they are no way concern with the alleged property by the plaintiff as the suit property is house, according to the plaintiff he is running the guest house as it is containing 24 rooms. It is his evidence in cross examination that incurring the expenditure of Rs.3,000/ towards electricity and Rs.1000/ towards water charges. If he is really running guest house in the suit property and earning Rs.1,00,000/ as deposed by him in cross examination, he could have filed the electricity bill, water bills but not filed.
16. On the other hand under Ex.B6 and Ex.B7 filed by the defendants No.2 and 3 showing no consumption at all, if really himself he is being running in schedule property by the plaintiff being in possession, there would have been consumption of electricity bill, if consider arrears also admitted in cross examination he has not filed any documentary evidence to show he is been running guest house, he also not filed any register or permit for running guest house, no examined any one either neighbours or workers in support of his version he also not filed any receipt to show paying rents to the lessor, further also bit examined the lessor itself except the lease deed no other document shows the possession of the plaintiff.
17.As per the pleadings he never face lessor with regard to the
31 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
illegal interference of defendant No.1, thus lessor furnishing documents of title pleaded he was constrained with dire consequences on 12.12.2015 at about 11:00 AM he was constrained with dire consequence of illegal dispossession, concocted unsustained etc. but he took the premises under lease deed on 11.12.2013 that there is doubt about the cause of action appears to have created for the purpose of the suit.
18. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the evidence of DW2, itself is sufficient to decree the suit. No doubt the case of the defendants No.2 and 3 and evidence of DW2 is that they are in possession. Further, possession not challenged the lease deed, filed the suit for recovery of possession but the plaintiff was not made as party etc but no way it is evidence of DW2 that plaintiff is not possession could not filed the suit for recovery of possession against the plaintiff also supports the contention of the defendants No.2 and 3, plaintiff is not in possession merely because defendants No.2 and 3 are in possession that itself is not proved or amounts that the plaintiff is in possession as discussed above no documentary evidence is placed by the plaintiff to prove his possession except the lease deed on the date of the suit and subsequently there is no dispute with regard to the proposition of the law laid down in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel by the plaintiff
Citation to be typed.
Wherein it is held that _________
32 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
but in case of hand there is no delivery possession at all and further as discussed above, plaintiff failed to prove his possession till date, plaintiff himself deposed in cross examination that he is going to vacate the premises in the month of December 2017, the evidence is brought on record to show still he is continue in possession by extending the lease or otherwise by placing any oral or documentary evidence. Hence for the reasons discussed above I am of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled for the permanent injunction.
Thus this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.2:
To what relief?
19.As it is held in issue No.1 that the plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction. Thus this suit is dismissed.
20. In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 1st day of May, 2018.
IV SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT :HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT :
PW1 : Azhar Khan.DW1: Md.HabeebUrRahman.
DW2:Abdul Wahid Ali.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
Ex.A1: Original Telephone Bill dated 12.04.2016.
Ex.A2: Original Gas Connection book dated 16.12.2015.
33 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
Ex.A3: Original registered lease deed dated 11.12.2015.
Ex.A4:Certified copy of panchanama dated 26.11.2015.
Ex.A5: CC of delivery of possession receipt dated 26.11.2015.
Ex.A6: CC of bailiff report in dated 26.11.2015.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
Ex.B1: CC of sale deed Doc.No.3096/1983 dt.23.11.1983.
Ex.B2: CC of sale deed Doc.No.133/1987 dt. 21.05.1987.
Ex.B3: CC of sale deed Doc.No.3195/1992 dt. 03.08.1992.
Ex.B4: CC of sale deed Doc.No.2941/1992 dt. 04.08.1992.
Ex.B5: Statement of Encumbrance Certificate.
Ex.B6: CC of Extract of statement of Electricity Consumption, Bill
Connection, Arrears, history for Nov,15 to Feb, 18.
Ex.B7:CC of customer ledger issued by Hyderabad Metropolitian
Water Supply and Sewerage Board.
IV SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT :HYDERABAD
34 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
3.Defendants No.1 to 3 are set exparte as failed to appear inspite of services of summons.
4.Heard the arguments of the plaintiffs.
5.To prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 is examined as
PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.
6.Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injuction as prayed for?
7.To prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 is examined as
PW1. It is the testimony that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under the agreement of sale CUM GPA with possesion dated 13.02.2017 and since the date of purchase they have been in possession and enjoyment by paying all the cess and bills to concern authorities. It is further evidence that original M/s.Nalanda Cooperative Housing Society purchased the land in Sy.No:149 and Sy.No:150/1 under registered sale deed after obtaining permission from concern authorities and sold away to one Stephen under registered sale deed dated 13.05.1983 but inturn sold to Ravikanth
Kavoori under registered sale deed he executed gift settlement deed in favour of his brother but in turn again executed the gift settlemetn deed in favour of defendant No.1.
8.It is further evidence that the plaintiff approached defendant
35 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
No.1 who is residing in the same locality near to suit schedule property, he starting demanding Rs.15,00,000/ when the same was refused starting interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment. In his evidence he got marked the title deed of defendant No.1 under Ex.A2 and further certified copy of the agreement of sale cum GPA executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A5 along with the electricity bill and rental receipts and Encumbrance Certificate etc., Ex.A2 clearly shows that defendant No.1 sold the title over the suit schedule property and further
Ex.A5 proves that the plainitiffs are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by virtue of agreement of sale cum GPA by the defendant
No.1 and further Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 proves that the possession of the plaintiffs over the schedule property. Thus by the oral and documentary evidence it is proved that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property but the defendants are interfering. Thus the plaintiffs proves the case.
9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and permanent injunction is granted against the defendants, their henchmen, servants, relatives, agents or any body claiming through or under them etc., restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit schedule property.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of December, 2017.
IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Appendix of Evidence
Exhibits Marked
For Plaintiffs For Defendants.
PW1: Syed Ayub Ali. NIL
36 O.S. 134 OF 2014 and OS 97 of 2015 Fair
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF S
Ex.A1: Original electricity bill of the property dated 04.03.2017.
Ex.A2: CC of the Gift Settlemetn Deed dated 22.12.1995.
Ex.A3: Original rental receipt dated 15.03.2017.
Ex.A4: CC of EC of schedule property dated 28.03.2017.
Ex.A5: CC of agrement of sale cum GPA.
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
Nil
IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
KC. Bha 11