OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 1 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
Present : Ch.Jithendhar,
XVII Addl.Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad Thursday, this the 30th day of October, 2025
OS No.229 of 2016OS No.506 of 2018
& CNR No.:CNR No.: TSHC030001312016TSHC030006462018
OS No.229 of 2016
Between:
Bano Begum w/o Mohd.Sayeed, age : 39years, Occ: housewife, r/o h.no.11-4-76, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad
... Plaintiff
AND S.Praveen Kumar s/o not known, age: 38yrs, occ.: service, r/o 10-4-771/2/E, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. … Defendant Counsel for plaintiff : Sri Md.Saber, Advocate Counsel for defendant : Sri E.Phani Kumar, Advocate
OS No.506 of 2018
Between :
1. S.Prema w/o late S.Ganpath Rao, age:60yrs, occ.: household, r/o h.no.10-4-771/2/E, plot no.304, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad
2. S.Shailaja w/o S.Ramakrishna d/o late S.Ganpath Rao, age:49yrs, occ.: service, r/o h.no.3-5-118/B, road no.1, Krishna Nagar, Hyderguda, Rajendranagar, RR Dist.
3. Dr.Jailaja w/o A.Prashanth, d/o late S.Ganpath Rao, age:47yrs, occ.: doctor, r/o h.no.7-2-69/1, Ravindra Nagar, Nacharam, Uppal mandal, RR Dist.
4. Dr.P.Geetha Srinivas w/o P.Srinivasa Chakravarthy, age:43yrs, occ.:
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:54:17 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 2 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
doctor, r/o h.no.10-4-771/8/1 & 1/A, flat no.301, RK Arcade, Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad
5. Pushpa w/o Janardhan, d/o late S.Ganpath Rao, age:41yrs, occ.: govt.service, r/o h.no.8-5-3/1, Teachers Colony, Mahabubnagar.
6. S.Praveen Kumar s/o late S.Ganpath Rao, age:39yrs, occ.: pvt.service, r/ o h.no.10-4-771/2/E, plot no.304, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad
7. Dr.S.Santhosh Kumar s/o late S.Ganpath Rao, age:37yrs, occ.: doctor, r/ o h.no.10-4-771/2/E, plot no.304, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad
8. Dr.S.Abhilash Kumar s/o late S.Ganpath Rao, age:35yrs, occ.: doctor, r/o h.no.10-4-771/2/E, plot no.304, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad (plaintiffs no.1 to 5, 7 & 8 are r/by their GPA holder i.e., plaintiff no.6) … Plaintiffs AND
1. Mohd.Sayeed s/o Sher Mohammed, age:40yrs, occ.: business, r/o h.no.11-4-76, Red Hills, Nampally, Bazarghat, Hyderabad
2. Mohd.Ayub s/o Sher Mohammed, age:37yrs, occ.: business, r/o h.no.8- 4-549/290, Netaji Nagar, Erragadda, Balanagar, RR Dist.
3. Bano Begum w/o Mohd.Sayeed, age:39yrs, occ.: housewife, r/o h.no.11- 4-76, Red Hills, Nampally, Bazarghat, Hyderabad … Defendants Counsel for plaintiffs : Sri E.Phani Kumar, Advocate Counsel for defendant : Sri Md.Saber, Advocate
These cases having come before me for hearing from 12/6/25 till 28/10/25, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :
COMMON JUDGMENT
While suit vide OS No.229/2016 is filed on 29/2/2016 for perpetual injunction, other suit vide OS No.506/2018 is filed on 1/5/2018 for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits. After evidence of PW1 in both suits, on 27/6/23 said evidence was clubbed as joint trial and common evidence in both suits and proceedings thereafter were held in OS
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:54:25 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 3 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
no.506/18. Hence, this common judgment.
1.Plaint averments in OS No.229/2016 in brief :
1.1.S.Ganapathi Rao was owner of the suit schedule property.
Husband of plaintiff purchased it from him through an absolute agreement of sale dtd 7/8/2010. Later he sold it to Mohd.Ayub vide regd.sale deed dtd 20/8/2015. Later the same was rectified vide regd.deed no.5874/2015.
Later plaintiff herein purchased it from said Ayub vide regd.sale deed no.633/2016 dtd 9/2/2016. As such she became owner and possessor of suit schedule property. Even prior to that husband of plaintiff was in possession of the same as he was using it for go-down for storing material as he was in business of roofing and construction.
1.2.However, defendant, without any right or concern, started interfering with plaintiff’s possession over suit schedule property, without showing any documents. On the other hand plaintiff supplied copies of her documents to defendant. Keeping quiet for some time, later on 18/2/2016 defendant again came and tried to enter the property forcibly, but such attempt was thwarted by plaintiff with the help of her husband and their workmen. But defendant tried to dispossess her again on 25/2/2016.
Immediately she approached police, with whose assistance such unlawful attempt of defendant was resisted. However, police advised her to approach civil court. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for perpetual injunction.
2.Written statement in OS No.229/2016 in brief :
2.1.All the documents of sale transactions pleaded by plaintiff are
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:54:33 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 4 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
false and fabricated documents. This false suit is filed malafide with all false contentions with intention to grab the property. The cause of action incidents pleaded by plaintiff are concocted and they never happened.
2.2.In fact grandfather of defendant i.e., late S.Hanumantha Rao acquired 1700sq.yrds and had been in possession since 1940. He had 4 sons viz., S.Subba Rao, S.Srinivasa Rao, S.Vasantha Rao & S.Ganapathi Rao.
S.Ganapathi Rao/father of defendant succeeded to 360sq.yrds consisting h.no.11-4-143, 11-4-144 & 11-4-146. During his life he constructed three asbestos rooms therein. Mohd.Sayeed/husband of plaintiff took the suit schedule property of 86sq.yrds for rent @Rs.2000/- per month and is in possession of it for last 4yrs conducting business of false ceiling material therein. Such tenancy was on oral terms.
2.3.Father of defendant executed a gift settlement deed vide
No.1542/2013 dtd 25/3/2013 in favor of defendant, his mother, sisters and brothers comprehensively according to which they succeeded. Father of defendant/S.Ganapathi Rao died on 18/5/2015. Later defendant used to collect the rents from husband of plaintiff and other tenants. Plaintiff’s husband paid Rs.12000/- in June 2015 towards part arrears of rent and requested time to vacate the premises. But he created forged document dtd 7/8/2010 and later created false documents through which plaintiff is claiming now ownership.
2.4.Immediately on knowing about the same defendant lodged complaint with police which was registered vide Cr.No.113/2016 for offences u/s 420, 468, 471 r/w 120B IPC at PS Nampally. Plaintiff approached this Court with unclean hands. Hence, this suit is liable to be
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:54:43 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 5 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
dismissed.
3.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial on 25/9/2018.
1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?
2. Whether there is any cause of action proved by the plaintiff to file this suit ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of perpetual injunction as prayed for against the defendant ?
4. To what relief ?
4.Plaint averments in OS No.506/2018 in brief :
4.1.Late S.Hanumantha Rao acquired 1700sq.yrds and during his life his four sons viz., S.Subba Rao, S.Srinivasa Rao, S.Vasantha Rao &
S.Ganapathi Rao orally partitioned the same whereby S.Ganapathi Rao became owner and possessor of 360sq.yrds consisting h.no.11-4-143, 11-4- 144 & 11-4-146. During his life late S.Ganpath Rao let out small portion of it i.e., one room of 10’ x 10’ abutting open land on southern side through oral tenancy for rent of Rs.1730/- per month to defendant no.1. The same was increased from time to time. Later he was permitted orally to use the open land abutting said room for storing his business material, with a condition that he shall pay rent @ Rs.4275/- w.e.f. October 2011. Defendant no.1 was irregular in payment of rent and sometimes deposited into account of late
Ganpath Rao and sometimes paid cash.
4.2.Late Ganpath Rao executed a gift settlement deed vide
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:54:48 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 6 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
No.1542/2013 dtd 25/3/2013 in favor of plaintiffs viz., his wife, sons and daughters comprehensively according to which they succeeded. However, as defendant no.1 was in occupation of suit schedule property as tenant, he was permitted to continue. Ganpath Rao died on 18/5/2015. As defendant no.1 was due rent from February 2015 plaintiffs asked him, but he dodged payment on one or other pretext. Finally plaintiff no.6 approached defendant no.1 in February 2016 and demanded arrears of rent. But defendant no.1 not only refused to pay the arrears but also claimed title over the suit schedule property saying that late Ganpath Rao sold it to him.
When plaintiffs demanded him to vacate the premises defendant no.3 filed a false suit vide OS No.229/2016 against plaintiff no.6 with forged and false documents. Learning the mischief played by them, the same was reported to police which was registered vide Cr.No.113/2016 for offences u/s 420, 468, 471 r/w 120B IPC at PS Nampally which later was pending before Court vide CC No.22/2017. During investigation police sent the disputed agreement of sale to FSL for expert opinion which confirmed that it is a forged document. Defendant no.1 & 2 are own brothers and D3 is wife of
D1. Such close relationship and proximity of the documents created by them clearly impresses their mischief.
4.3.Immediately plaintiffs filed OS No.1059/2016. But it was filed for relief of declaration and recovery of possession without issuing statutory notice u/s 106 of Transfer of Property Act erroneously instead for relief of eviction. Hence, the same was later withdrawn seeking liberty to file fresh proper suit and the same was permitted by the Court. Plaintiffs issued legal notice on 13/11/2017 to vacate the property and to pay arrears of rent
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHAR
CHIRANJI
CHIRANJI
Date: 2025.10.30
13:54:53 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 7 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
@Rs.15300/- from February 2015. Accordingly, plaintiffs filed this suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits. As the suit property fetches
Rs.30,600/- as rent per month in said locality, they are entitled to the mesne profits even. Hence, this suit.
5.Written statement in OS No.506/2018 in brief :
5.1.This suit is devoid of merits. Plaintiffs may be legal heirs of late
S.Ganpath Rao. But they shall prove his ownership over property. The alleged tenancy, rent etc., are denied. There is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between late S.Ganpath Rao & Mohd.Sayeed at any point of time. Defendant no.1 never paid any rent to him. The alleged gift deed dtd 25/3/2013 does not bind defendants. It was created to defeat the interests of defendants.
5.2.Defendant no.3 filed OS No.229/2016 against plaintiff no.6.
Defendant no.3 became owner through valid and genuine documents. But plaintiffs lodged a false complaint and manipulated expert opinion. In OS
No.1059/2016 plaintiff no.1 made certain admissions and to overcome the same the said suit was withdrawn. If those admissions are considered Rent
Control Act would be applicable and hence this court will not have inherent jurisdiction to try this suit. Alleged rent claimed in previous suit and criminal complaint is completely contradictory to present suit. Defendant no.1 purchased suit schedule property from late S.Ganapathi Rao vide absolute agreement of sale dtd 7/8/2010 for a valuable consideration and obtained possession of the same. As such defendants are legally in possession of it. Hence, this suit is liable to be dismissed.
6.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:54:59 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 8 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
trial on 17/9/2021.
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant as prayed for ?
2. Whether defendants are liable to pay Rs.5,50,800/- towards arrears of rent as prayed for ?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits as prayed for ?
4. If so, to what relief ?
7.During trial in OS No.229/16 husband of plaintiff therein was examined as PW1 and ExA1 to A9 were marked. Similarly during trial in OS
No.506/2018 plaintiff no.6 therein was examined as PW1 and ExA1 to A19 were marked. Husband of plaintiff in OS No.229/16 is defendant no.1 in OS
No.506/2018. Plaintiff no.6 in OS No.506/2018 is sole defendant in OS
No.229/16. On 17/2/23 the counsel for defendant in OS No.229/16 filed a memo adopting his evidence as PW1 in OS No.506/2018 as defendant evidence in OS No.229/16. Later he filed another memo on 8/3/23 for clubbing the two suits and clubbing the evidence led in both suits. On hearing both sides counsels, on 27/6/23 vide detailed docket order evidence led as such in both suits was clubbed and treated the same as joint trial and common evidence as both pertain to same property comprehensively between same parties. Since then proceedings were conducted in OS
No.506/2018 as it is comprehensive suit.
8.While plaintiffs in OS No.506/2018 claimed ownership over property as legal heirs of late S.Ganpath Rao as well as owners through his regd.gift deed in 2013 and prayed for eviction of defendants, arrears of rent and mesne profits, plaintiff in OS No.229/16 (defendant no.3 in OS
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:55:07 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 9 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
No.506/2018) also claimed ownership through defendants no.1 & 2 in OS
No.506/2018 who claimed title through same late S.Ganpath Rao vide an agreement of sale dtd 7/8/10 and prayed for perpetual injunction.
9.Such direction for joint trial was passed after evidence on both sides.
Hence, each issue in both suits require to be answered herein. However, on such clubbing, directions as to revised references of above evidence were not passed, which is necessary in my considered opinion. As both the parties in
OS No.229/16 are also parties in OS No.506/2018, for convenience the
parties are referred hereinafter as they are arrayed in OS No.506/2018.
Hence, PW1 in OS No.506/2018 and ExA1 to A19 marked through him are to be considered as it is. If PW1 examined in OS No.229/16 and ExA1 to A9 are also considered as it is, the same not only leads to confusion and complication in proper understanding but also makes it difficult to refer in this judgment. Hence, I reasonably opine it fit and proper to consider the evidence of PW1 in OS No.229/2016 i.e., evidence of Mohd.Sayeed (defendant no.1 in OS No.506/2018) shall be referred and considered hereinafter as DW1 and ExA1 to A9 marked through him in OS
No.229/2016 shall be referred and considered as ExB1 to B9 hereafter for convenience and proper understanding.
10.Apart from said above evidence, on the application of defendants
CW1/plaintiff no.1 was examined and ExC1 was marked and on the application of plaintiffs CW2 to 4 were examined and ExC2 to C11 were marked.
11.Both sides counsels filed written arguments. Heard learned counsels for both sides. Perused the record. Chief examination of PW1 & DW1 is
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:55:15 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 10 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
nothing but brief of their pleadings respectively in the form of affidavit.
Their cross examination is lengthy containing admissions, suggestions and various aspects which will be discussed properly at appropriate stage hereunder.
12.Learned counsel for plaintiffs in OS No.506/2018 argued that OS
No.229/2016 is filed by defendant no.3 claiming title based on regd.sale deed but her predecessors i.e., defendants no.1 & 2 claimed title through a forged agreement of sale, that when her predecessors themselves do not have valid title she cannot claim better and valid title against plaintiffs, that forgery is proved in criminal trial and defendants no.1 to 3 were convicted in this regard, that the agreement of sale dtd 7/8/2010 was not impounded and validated as it is forged document as already reported by expert, that it is not marked into evidence and there is no reliable evidence to prove the said agreement of sale, that there is no independent corroborative evidence to prove the alleged cause of action incidents on 18/2/2016 & 25/2/2016, that defendants miserably failed to prove their case, that defendant no.3 filed false suit vide OS No.229/2016 with forged and false documents malafide to grab the property, that plaintiffs adduced sufficient evidence to prove deposit of rents by defendants which clearly establishes their jural relationship as landlord and tenant, that injunction cannot be granted against true owner, and that plaintiffs have sufficient evidence to prove their entitlement for the reliefs prayed.
13.Learned counsel for defendants argued that defendant no.3 had valid title through proper documents, that the admissions of PW1 himself impress that he does not know much about the alleged tenancy, that there is no jural
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:55:22 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 11 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
relationship of landlord and tenant at all between the parties herein, that as admitted in OS No.1059/2016 if the rent is Rs.1730/- per month this suit vide OS No.506/2018 for eviction and arrears of rent is not maintainable in this Court as this Court do not have subject matter jurisdiction and the same should be tried by Rent Controller concerned, that the evidence of PW1 also is contradictory not only to their pleadings herein but also to their pleadings in earlier civil & criminal litigation due to which it is unreliable, that the defendant no.1 is no way concerned with the alleged entries in ExA3 & A4, that defendants are in peaceful possession of suit schedule property since 2010, that plaintiffs do not have any cause of action to file OS No.506/2018, that CW2 to 4 are not the authorized persons and the incomplete bank statements marked through them are not taken from proper custody in proper procedure due to which they are not reliable, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs prayed by them, and that defendants proved their entitlement for the relief of perpetual injunction.
14.Brief notes as to suits :
OS No.229/16OS no.506/2018
For Perpetual injunctionFor eviction, arrears of rent & mesne profits 1 plaintiff & 1 defendant (plaintiff =8 Plaintiffs (wife and children of defendant no.3; & defendant =late S.Ganpath Rao) against 3 plaintiff no.6 in OS No.506/2018) defendants
Suit schedule property : h.no.11-4-Suit schedule property : Room 144/1 (part of h.no.11-4-144)admeasuring10’x10’with admeasuring 86sq.yrds comprising 1apurtenant land of 86sq.yrds room of 157sft with open area atb.no.11-4-144 at Bazarghat, Asif Bazarghat, Asif Nagar (with sameNagar (with same boundaries) boundaries)
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:55:33 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 12 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
15.Flow of title :
Plaintiffs in OS No.506/2018defendant no.3 in OS No.506/18 (Plaintiff in OS No.229/2016)
Late S.Hanumantha Rao acquired 1700sq.yrds and during his life his four sons including late S.Ganapathi Rao orally partitioned the same whereby S.Ganapathi Rao became owner and possessor of 360sq.yrds consisting h.no.11-4-143, 11-4-144 & 11-4-146.
Late S.Ganpath Rao executed a giftS.Ganapath Rao was owner of the settlement deed vide No.1542/2013suit schedule property. dtd 25/3/2013 in favor of his wife, sons and daughters (plaintiffs) comprehensively according to which they succeeded.
defendantno.1/Mohd.Sayeed (husband of defendant no.3) purchased it from him through an absolute agreement of sale dtd 7/8/2010.
Later he sold it to his brother/Mohd.Ayub/defendant no.2 vide regd.sale deed dtd 20/8/2015. Later the same was rectified vide regd.deed no.5874/2015.
Later defendant no.3 herein purchased it from defendant no.2/said Ayub vide regd.sale deed no.633/2016 dtd 9/2/2016.
16.Admitted facts :
16.1.Relationship of the plaintiffs and relationship of defendants are undisputed facts.
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:55:41 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 13 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
16.2.Original ownership of late S.Ganpath Rao over the suit schedule property is admitted fact as both parties are claiming through him in different channels.
17.Considering the contentions on both sides in both suits, I opine it is fit and convenient to discuss first and decide the issues later based on such discussion, as they are interdependent on each other and to avoid repetition of same discussion.
18.While plaintiffs claimed suit schedule property through late
S.Ganpath Rao vide regd.gift deed of 2013 and prayed for eviction of defendants alleging them as defaulting tenants, defendants denied jural relationship and claimed ownership over the property through same
S.Ganpath Rao vide an absolute agreement of sale of 2010. As both parties are claiming through same predecessor in admitted title, we need to first decide whether any valid title passed to defendants in 2010. If the answer is yes, there is no question of title passing to plaintiffs in 2013 through said gift deed. If answer is no, plaintiffs will have valid title over the property through such regd.gift deed. It is settled principle and as per s.50 of
Registration Act registered sale deed prevails over unregistered sale deed.
19.Channels of legally considerable transfer of immovable property through sale :
19.1.Immovable property generally is of two types – agricultural land and non-agricultural property. There are two channels as such for legally considerable transfer of immovable property. First is statutory channel i.e., a comprehensive reading of s.54 of Transfer of Property Act &
S.17 of Registration Act mandate that a sale transaction of immovable
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:55:46 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 14 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
property worth more than Rs.100/- to be through a registered document and delivery of possession of said property.
19.2.Second is based on public policy though provided in s.5A of AP
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (RoR Act). It is generally known fact that such transactions are even done through unregistered and unstamped documents out of ignorance or otherwise. However, as stamp duty and registration are only fiscal & technical issues, to safeguard the interests of genuine purchasers and to create an alternate path for regularization of such otherwise valid transactions, this procedure is provided. However, this second channel is applicable only to agricultural lands but not to non-agricultural properties. There is no direct alternative law to a registered sale deed that can regularize the sale of a residential property like suit schedule property herein.
20.Original ownership of late S.Ganpath Rao :
Defendants pleaded in both suits that defendant no.1 purchased the suit schedule property from late S.Ganpath Rao vide absolute agreement of sale dtd 7/8/2010. DW1 also deposed the same. Plaintiffs also pleaded the same in both suits that suit schedule property was part of the property fell to the share of late S.Ganpath Rao in partition with his brothers. PW1 also deposed the same. As such it is admitted fact so far as these parties concerned and does not need any detail discussion further.
21.Title of defendants – proof of agreement of sale of 2010 :
21.1.Though defendants claimed ownership over the suit schedule property vide registered transactions among themselves vide ExB1 to
B3/ExA5 to A7 in 2015-16, their claim of initial title is by defendant no.1
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHAR
CHIRANJI
CHIRANJI
Date: 2025.10.30
13:55:53 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 15 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
from said late S.Ganpath Rao vide absolute agreement of sale dtd 7/8/2010.
DW1 deposed that he initially purchased the property from late S.Ganpath
Rao. Initial burden to prove the same lies on defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that it is created by defendants and a forged document. They further denied the validity of ExB1 to B3/ExA5 to A7 as their source is said forged agreement of sale dtd 7/8/2010. The law governing property transfers, including rulings by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is very clear that registration of a sale deed is mandatory for the legal transfer of residential property.
21.2.Said S.Ganpath Rao died in 2015. For nearly 5yrs during his life defendant no.1 neither got the registered sale deed executed nor even choose to file any suit for specific performance against said Ganpath Rao during his life or after his death against his legal heirs.
21.3.In Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 Hon’ble Supreme Court held - “We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of “GPA sales” or “SA/GPA/will transfers” do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized as valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53-A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious
Digitally signed by
JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHAR
CHIRANJI
CHIRANJI
Date: 2025.10.30 13:56:00 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 16 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
practice of SA/GPA/will transactions known as GPA sales.” 21.4.Legal maxim - “Nemo dat quod non habet” means no one can confer a better title than what he himself has. As such the validity of ExB1 to
B3/ExA5 to A7 depends on whether defendant no.1 initially got valid title through said agreement of sale dtd 7/8/2010 or not. The said original document was sent to FSL for expert opinion in CC No.22/2017 by concerned Court after calling the same from this Court officially on the request of investigating authority. PW1 deposed the same. Later it was returned to this Court, but the same remained unmarked into evidence.
21.5.As per s.56 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. As per s.59 of BSA documents shall be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned. S.94 & 95 of BSA exclude oral evidence to prove the contents of a transaction which requires to be reduced to writing as per law and which though not required by law to be in writing was reduced to writing by the parties voluntarily, except through the document itself except where secondary evidence is admissible as per law. But as original of such agreement of sale is available, secondary evidence in proof of its contents cannot be admitted unless the circumstances as per s.60 of the said Act are not established. Hence, when the agreement of sale dtd 7/8/2010 itself is not marked into evidence, oral evidence of DW1 in this regard also is inadmissible and through such oral evidence of DW1 said transaction and its terms cannot be proved. As such I reasonably opine that defendants failed miserably to prove the said agreement of sale dtd 7/8/2010 which is the basis for execution of ExB1 to B3/ExA5 to A7
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:56:11 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 17 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
subsequently.
21.6.When the title of defendant no.1 through said agreement of sale dtd 7/8/2010 is not proved, he cannot be presumed legally to have passed on any better or valid title than what he has to defendants no.2 & 3 subsequently vide ExB1 to B3/ExA5 to A7. Further DW1 stated that the agreement of sale dtd 7/8/10 was witnessed by Barkatullah and Naushad.
But they were not examined to prove it. Why such available witnesses were ignored impresses adverse that they may not support the defendants. DW1 stated that he paid Rs.9,90,000/- to S.Ganpath Rao towards consideration.
But except such self-serving oral testimony there is no reliable evidence to prove the same. As per Income Tax Act provisions payment of such huge amount in cash is violation of such provisions. On the other hand he admitted that he had no proof to show that he had such huge amount as his savings as on August 2010.
21.7.Defendants claimed ownership over suit schedule property mentioning no.11-4-144/1, but when and how such by-number is given is not explained or proved. When specifically ExB2 & B3 does not show the same and when they contend that the property in both suits are different, the burden is heavy on defendants to prove the same, but they adduced no proper and reliable evidence in this regard. Though DW1 stated the same, the extent, boundaries and description of the property in dispute in both suits is one and the same except the by-number. It is settled principle that boundaries prevail over the other description of the property. Adding to it
DW1 during cross examination stated that he filed this suit as to property no.11-1-144.
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:57:27 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 18 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
21.8.Plaintiff complained about agreement of sale dtd 7/8/10 being forged document vide ExA9/CC of FIR No.113/16 of PS Nampally whereby during investigation of the case police referred the document to FSL where expert vide ExA11/CC of FSL report opined that the disputed and admitted signatures were not written by same person whereby police filed charge sheet against defendants and others for offences u/s 420, 468 & 471 r/w 120B IPC reporting that vide ExA12 Dy.Commissioner of GHMC reported that tax receipt no.60/15 dtd 10/7/14 for h.no.11-4-144, Red Hills with
Assessment no.3145607205642 issued in favor of Mohd.Sayeed (defendant no.1 herein) was not issued by such office, that since 2012 itself manual receipt system was discontinued, that as such said receipt is not pertaining to GHMC office.
21.9.Based on ExA10/CC of charge sheet therein the said case was tried vide CC No.22/2017 wherein defendants were convicted vide judgment dtd 14/11/2023 as can be seen from Court Information System of the concerned court. As per record, original agreement of sale dtd 7/8/2010 was sent to XII Addl.CMM, Nampally, Hyd vide Dis.No.244/2016 dtd 17/8/2016 and later called for from concerned court and received on 19/3/22 by this Court and it is on record unmarked. As such there is reasonable evidence to opine that expert opined agreement of sale dtd 7/8/10 relied on by the defendants is a forged and fabricated document and competent criminal court held defendants guilty of such offence.
21.10.Hence, I opine and hold that no valid title passed on to defendants through ExB1 to B3/ExA5 to A7 over suit schedule property.
22.Gift in favor of plaintiffs :
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:57:35 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 19 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
22.1.On one hand defendants admitted original ownership of late
S.Ganpath Rao over suit schedule property as they claimed title through him only. On the other hand they asked plaintiffs to prove the ownership of late
S.Ganpath Rao, which cannot be permitted and admitted facts need not be proved is settled principle.
22.2.An unregistered sale deed does not confer ownership or title.
While possession may have been handed over, the legal title remains with the original owner. PW1 stated that his father/S.Ganpath Rao executed regd.gift deed/ExA1 in 2013 in favor of plaintiffs as to his property of which suit schedule property is a part. Defendants contended that regd.gift deed dtd 25/3/2013 vide ExA1 was brought into existence only to defeat the interests of defendants over suit schedule property. If so, what prevented them from filing suit for specific performance based on their agreement of sale dtd 7/8/2010 till the death of said Ganpath Rao on 18/5/2015 is not explained. DW1 during cross examination admitted that he did not even issue legal notice to him for execution of registered sale deed. It is settled principle and as per s.50 of Registration Act registered document prevails over unregistered document. ExA1 being registered, as per s.60 of
Registration Act there is presumption that it is duly registered after due enquiry by concerned authority as per the Act.
22.3.As such in the form of oral evidence of PW1 and ExA1 there is sufficient evidence as to valid title of plaintiffs.
23.Possession of defendants :
23.1.Defendants pleaded that they were in possession of suit schedule property since the purchase of the same by defendant no.1 from
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:57:41 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 20 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
late S.Ganpath Rao on 7/8/2010. They used it for their business and storing their material. Though possession by defendants is admitted even by plaintiffs, the nature of their possession is disputed fact among the parties herein. While plaintiffs alleged that the possession of defendants as such is as a tenant, defendants alleged their possession as owner.
23.2.To prove their possession defendants got marked
ExB4/electricity bill receipt dtd 28/1/2016, ExB6/intimation for payment dtd 7/11/15, ExB5/water bill receipt dtd 14/11/15, ExB7/property tax receipt dtd 27/1/16, ExB8/property tax notice dtd 18/1/16 and ExB9/letter of electricity authorities for disconnecting electricity connection meter dtd 25/8/15.
23.3.In Dolla Subba Rao and another v. Eeda Amrutha Rao and others, 2017(5) ALT 245 it is clearly held - “It is settled law that tax receipts are not evidence of possession – also bank pass books, pension pass book and ration card also cannot be treated as evidence of possession of the plaint schedule property.” Though electricity bills and water bill receipts etc., impress possession over the property, it cannot be held juridical possession merely based on such documents. When valid title/ownership is not established, it is for the defendants to plead and prove the nature of their possession. Specially when the plaintiffs’ legal title is clearly established, the burden is heavy on defendants, but they failed to adduce evidence to prove their possession as juridical one.
24.Jural relationship of tenancy – proof :
24.1.While defendants denied tenancy and jural relationship as such, plaintiffs contended that defendants are tenants of late S.Ganpath Rao
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:57:48 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 21 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
and after the gift deed/ExA1 in their favor they continued to be the tenants of plaintiffs jointly since 2013. Defendants denied jural relationship of landlord and tenant between late S.Ganpath Rao & defendant no.1. As discussed and held supra, as defendants failed to prove their title with proper evidence, the burden to prove the nature of their possession otherwise than as tenancy is on defendants themselves.
24.2.Defendants pleaded that defendant no.1 never paid any amounts and never deposited any amounts to the account of late S.Ganpath
Rao as rent for suit schedule property. PW1 stated that his father died on 18/5/15, that since then he had been demanding defendant no.1 for payment of arrears of rent which he dodged on one or other pretext, that finally in February 2016 when he approached defendant no.1 in that regard defendant no.1 refused to pay rent and wrongfully claimed ownership. It is only on 29/2/2016 OS No.229/16 was filed which impresses cause of action. To prove death of S.Ganpath Rao ExA2/his death certificate is marked.
24.3.Though defendants denied tenancy, as admittedly they were doing business in the name of SM Ceiling works in suit schedule property, they could have filed their establishment registration certificate to prove since when they are in occupation of suit schedule property. As there are entries of credit from the account of such business establishment in to account of late S.Ganpath Rao, the filing of such business establishment certificate issued by concerned Municipal authority or any other concerned authority would have helped in proving their contention that they came into possession of suit schedule property only through agreement of sale dtd
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:57:54 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 22 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
7/8/10. Otherwise even the stray entries in the form of periodical credits as can be seen from statements of accounts through ExA3 & A4 and ExC2 to
C11 impress payment of rent as contended by plaintiffs herein. Otherwise nature of the said payments have to be pleaded and proved by the defendants themselves. Unfortunately there is no pleading or explanation at all as to why such payments were made to late S.Ganpath Rao from the defendants’ business establishment. Surprisingly, defendants not only denied tenancy but also denied the quantum of rent as Rs.1730/- or
Rs.2000/- or Rs.4275/- as pleaded by plaintiffs at various places of this litigation and earlier litigation.
24.4.PW1 said that defendant no.1 remitted rent accordingly into account of late S.Ganpath Rao, though irregularly. To prove the same bank accounts of said S.Ganpath Rao are marked through ExA3 & A4 pertaining to Andhra Bank and Canara Bank. ExA3 shows credit of Rs.5085/- on 7/3/2009 and Rs.1695/- on 8/4/2009. 1695 x 3 = 5085 and hence the said entry of Rs.5085/- impresses credit of rent for 3 months. Similar entries of
Rs.1695/- are count on 20/5/09, Rs.3560/- on 19/8/09 and Rs.1780/- on 7/10/09 & 23/10/09 which impresses increase of rent from Rs.1695/- to
Rs.1780/- in between. Similar entries found on 9/11/09, 15/12/09. Again it appears to have decreased to Rs.1730/- which can be observed from entries to that effect on 10/2/10, 22/6/2010, 19/8/10. Later it appears to have increased as can be seen from entries of Rs.1870/- on 10/9/10, 13/10/10, 9/11/10, 9/12/10, 23/4/11, 2/6/11 & 13/7/11.
24.5.As deposed by PW1 the said rent deposited increased after
October 2011 as can be observed from entries of credit of Rs.4275/- on
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:58:04 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 23 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
1/12/11. Later the same appears to be increased to Rs.5890/- as can be seen from credit entry on 2/5/2012. The same appears to be increased to
Rs.6174/- as can be seen from credit entry on 18/9/12, 11/10/12. There after there are no such regular/irregular entries in ExA3. ExA4 shows credit entry of Rs.12,965/- through ch.no.198787 on 21/5/13, Rs.9075/- through ch.no.46991 on 25/10/13, Rs.4537/- through ch.no.46992 on 10/12/13,
Rs.9534/- through ch.no.46999 on 9/4/14, Rs.4766/- through ch.no.47000 on 28/7/14, Rs.14300/- through ch.no.46958 on 23/2/15.
24.6.Learned counsel for defendants argued that CW2 to 4 are not the proper persons to give evidence on behalf of the concerned banks, that they did not obtain the respective documents vide ExC2 to C11 from concerned banks in proper procedure, and that they are not proper witness to prove the contents thereof.
24.7.But CW2 to 4 were summoned to give evidence and to produce bank statements pertaining to certain entries and cheques referred in ExA3 & A4 vide orders in IA No.990/2023 dtd 15/11/2023 which was decided on hearing both sides counsels. They are working managers of concerned banks at the time of recording their evidence and they deposed to have taken such statements from their banks’ systems as maintained by Core Banking system.
ExC2 is produced and marked through CW2 with 65B certificate and the same squarely falls under the category of S.2(8)(c) of Bankers’ Books
Evidence Act.
24.8.CW2 stated that Andhra Bank was merged into Union Bank and that the account of S.Ganpath Rao was closed on 22/6/15. ExC2 contained the same entries as can be seen in ExA3 in 2012. Though it was
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:58:10 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 24 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
objected on the ground that it is not a complete statement, witness will produce only that part of the statement which is called for by the order.
CW2 admitted that he was not working in the said bank at the time of such transactions. But to prove the bank entries present bank manager is sufficient and he need not be working at the concerned time of transactions.
24.9.CW3 is relationship manager of ICICI bank and through him
ExC3 to C9 were marked. He stated that they have an account of
Mohd.Sayeed/defendant no.1 representing SM Ceiling works. CW3 stated that as per ExC3 through ch.no.498180 dtd 30/4/2012 Rs.5,890/- was credited to S.Ganpath Rao’s account from such defendant no.1 account. The same corelates with entries in ExA3 dtd 2/5/12. CW3 stated that as per
ExC4 through ch.no.506814 & 506815 dtd 17/9/12 & 10/10/12 Rs.6174/- each were credited to S.Ganpath Rao’s account from such defendant no.1 account. The same corelates with entries in ExA3 dtd 18/9/12 & 11/10/12.
CW3 stated that as per ExC5 Rs.4766/- was credited to S.Ganpath Rao’s account from such defendant no.1 account on 28/7/14. The same corelates with entries in ExA4 dtd 28/7/14.
24.10.CW3 further stated that as per ExC6 through ch.no.46999
Rs.9534/- were credited to S.Ganpath Rao’s account from such defendant no.1 account. The same corelates with entry in ExA4 dtd 9/4/14. CW3 stated that as per ExC7 through ch.no.46992 Rs.4537/- were credited to
S.Ganpath Rao’s account from such defendant no.1 account. The same corelates with entry in ExA4 dtd 7/12/13. CW3 stated that as per ExC8 through ch.no.46991 Rs.9075/- were credited to S.Ganpath Rao’s account from such defendant no.1 account. The same corelates with entry in ExA4
Digitally signed by
JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHAR
CHIRANJI
CHIRANJI
Date: 2025.10.30 13:58:18 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 25 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
dtd 25/10/13. CW3 stated that as per ExC9 through ch.no.498181
Rs.5890/- were credited to S.Ganpath Rao’s account from such defendant no.1 account. The same corelates with entry in ExA3 dtd 4/5/2012.
24.11.Learned counsel for defendants suggested to CW3 that those statements are not from proper custody in proper procedure. But it is not suggested that the account as reflected in ExC3 to C9 is not pertaining to defendant no.1 or that defendant no.1 is no way concerned with said SM
Ceiling works. On the other hand it was suggested to CW3 & CW4 that he cannot say for what purpose those cheques were issued. When issuance of such cheques is admitted indirectly as such, it is for defendants to prove the purpose otherwise, but defendants failed miserably to prove the same.
Through CW4 the bank account statements of S.Ganpath Rao were marked as ExC10 & C11, but the same reflect the entries in ExA3 & A4 for certain period.
24.12.From the discussion supra, I opine that there are reasonable circumstances and sufficient evidence to impress and prove the jural relationship of tenancy.
25.Attornment of tenancy :
25.1.Defendants admitted that defendant no.3 is wife of defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 is his own brother. Why there was need for execution of ExB1 to B3/ExA5 to A7 within a span of 6months between the defendants who are close family members to each other remained unexplained and the same reasonably raises suspicion over such transactions that they may be sham transactions to claim false against plaintiffs.
25.2.S.109 of TP Act provides attornment of lease that if the lessor
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:58:24 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 26 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the rights, and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer, cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him.
25.3.Through registered gift deed/ExA1 plaintiffs became transferees as such from late S.Ganpath Rao. Assuming that it was not notified to defendants/tenants, as per s.108 of TP Act the lessee is bound to pay or tender, at the proper time and place, the premium or rent to the lessor or his agent in this behalf. On death of S.Ganpath Rao on 18/5/2015 it is the duty of tenants/defendants to find their lessor to comply with such legal duty, in which they not only failed but acted contrary by claiming ownership.
25.4.Hence, I reasonably opine and hold that there is sufficient material as to attornment of tenancy in favor of plaintiffs.
26.Default/grounds for eviction :
26.1.Firstly, defendants created false documents and claimed title against the interests of original owners/plaintiffs, which itself is a prime ground for their eviction and determination of tenancy. But learned counsel for defendants argued that since there is no jural relationship between the parties the eviction suit is not maintainable, relying on judgment reported vide Ved Raj Bhalla (died per LRs) vs. Krishan Puran Mahajan and another, 1980 LawSuit (P&H) 379 wherein it is held that where there is no
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:58:30 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 27 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties the respondents are not liable for ejectment. Unfortunately there is sufficient evidence to prove jural relationship of landlord and tenants between plaintiffs and defendants as discussed supra.
26.2.Plaintiffs alleged that as there was no written lease deed and defendant no.1 entered into tenancy initially on oral terms between him and late S.Ganpath Rao such tenancy is legally to be considered from month to month. S.106 of TP Act provides that in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for any other purpose than agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice.
26.3.Plaintiffs explained that they filed OS No.1059/2016 erroneously due to which later it was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh and proper suit vide orders vide ExA13, that the said earlier suit for eviction was filed without issuance of statutory notice u/s 106 of Transfer of
Property Act, that after withdrawing the same they issued statutory notice for vacating the suit schedule property and for payment of arrears of rent vide ExA15 on 13/11/2017, that though the said notices were sent to the adress which defendant no.3 admitted and mentioned in OS No.229/16 as her address, that hence service can be deemed as per General Clauses Act.
Further DW1 during cross examination admitted that in 2017 they were residing in h.no.11-4-76, Red Hills, to which address ExA15 was posted as can be seen clearly from returned covers/ExA16 to A18. This will be the second ground for eviction.
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:58:39 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 28 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
26.4.Learned counsel for defendants argued that as per the judicial admissions made in OS No.1056/2016, OS No.229/2016 & CC No.22/2017 when the rent is Rs.1730/- or Rs.2000/- this court will not have jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Jurisdiction of the Court are not decided based on earlier statements in other litigation, but will be decided based on the pleadings in plaint. Plaintiffs clearly pleaded that rent was Rs.4275/- since
October 2011 and claimed Rs.15300/- per month from February 2015 as arrears of rent. According to these figures, this court will surely have jurisdiction. Those earlier statements may at the most estop plaintiffs from claiming more than such earlier mentioned rent.
26.5.Finally, plaintiffs alleged that defendants defaulted in paying rents since March 2015. If this is proved, it will be the third ground for plaintiffs’ entitlement of eviction of defendants from suit schedule property.
27.Injunction :
27.1.Injunction restraining interference generally will be granted, if any right or interest over and settled legal possession of specific property is established as on the suit date, prior to it and till date by approaching the court with clean hands and bona fide, to protect such right or interest or possession by the process of law. Hence, legal and peaceful possession over specific property is the core point to be observed. Hence, the prime questions which arise are - 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property ? If so, whether it is juridical one ? & 2. Whether defendants caused any interference with the same ? If so, whether it is unjustified one ?
27.2.While possession of defendants is an admitted fact, the nature
Digitally signed by
JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHAR
CHIRANJI
CHIRANJI
Date: 2025.10.30 13:58:49 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 29 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
of such possession being juridical possession is disputed by plaintiffs. From the discussion supra, I reasonably opine and hold that it cannot be treated as juridical possession.
27.3.Coming to interference, defendants pleaded that plaintiff no.6, without any right or concern, interfered with their possession over suit schedule property on 18/2/16 and again on 25/2/2016 he tried to dispossess defendant no.3 from suit schedule property which attempt she could resist with the help of other defendants and police. Plaintiffs denied those alleged incidents in toto and alleged that it is only a concocted story.
27.4.Surprisingly, DW1 deposed that on 25/11/2016 plaintiffs tried to dispossess them from suit schedule property, which is contrary to their pleadings. Though he mentioned about incident on 18/2/2016, he did not depose anything to have occurred on 25/1/2016 or 25/2/16 as pleaded in plaint. On the other hand he mentioned a different date of 25/11/16 during his evidence. If such interference by plaintiffs was true and really defendants resisted the same with the help of police constables, they could have examined those constables to prove such interference and resistance. But they were not examined.
27.5.As such except the self-serving oral testimony of
DW1/defendant no.1, there is no other evidence to corroborate him as to cause of action incidents alleged. Apart from defendants, if any such incidents occurred, the neighbors would be the best witnesses to speak, but the defendants completely ignored them and did not explain why. Such intentional ignorance of available witnesses raises adverse inference against the contentions of defendants that those incidents might not have occurred
Digitally signed by
JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHAR
CHIRANJI
CHIRANJI
Date: 2025.10.30 13:58:55 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 30 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
or that they might have been concocted for filing OS No.229/2016 falsely.
DW1 stated specifically that he do not remember the neighbors of property.
Adding to it during cross examination DW1 stated that the interference occurred in January 2016. Such inconsistent and inherent contradictory statements about alleged cause of action do not inspire confidence in evidence of DW1.
27.6.Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, offers a limited form of protection for a transferee in possession under an unregistered sale agreement. This doctrine can be used to prevent the original owner (the transferor) from evicting the buyer. However, it does not grant the buyer legal ownership and cannot be used to prove title against a third party. But this doctrine is applicable and will help defendants only when they prove such agreement of sale dtd 7/8/10 for collateral purpose of proving delivery of possession of suit schedule property through it, however defendants miserably failed even in this regard due to which this doctrine of part performance as provided u/s 53A of TP Act is also not applicable to defendants.
27.7.Hence, I reasonably opine and hold that defendants failed to prove the alleged cause of action incidents and their entitlement to the relief of perpetual injunction against defendants. Moreover, when title of plaintiffs is clearly established, settled principle is that injunction cannot be granted against the true owner, specially when default of tenant is clearly established.
28.Arrears of rent :
28.1.Plaintiffs pleaded through written statement in OS
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:59:01 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 31 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
No.229/2016 that Md.Sayeed was inducted into tenancy of suit schedule property and that he had been paying Rs.2000/- per month as rent for the last 4yrs. As said written statement was filed on 29/6/16, it impresses such payment of rent from 2012. On one hand plaintiffs claimed rent @Rs.15,300/- per month from March 2015, in their written statement in OS
No.229/2016 they contended that Md.Sayeed/defendant no.1 paid
Rs.12,000/- in June 2015 towards arrears of rent. At what calculation said arrears was received is not explained.
28.2.Surprisingly in plaint in OS No.506/2018 plaintiffs pleaded that defendant no.1 initially entered into tenancy with late S.Ganpath Rao for rent @Rs.1730/- per month, that the same was increased from time to time, that in 2011 said Ganpath Rao permitted him to use open land also conditionally on rent @Rs.4275/- per month from October 2011. PW1 deposed that defendant no.1 paid the said rent irregularly into bank account and sometimes through cash. However, plaintiffs failed to explain how and when the rent was increased from Rs.4275/- to Rs.15300/- as claimed herein. PW1 during cross examination admitted that he do not know when defendant no.1 was inducted into property as tenant.
28.3.During cross examination ExA3 was specifically confronted to
PW1 and these credit entries were referred by learned counsel for defendants and suggested that the name of defendant no.1 was not reflected therein against such entries. Learned counsel for defendants argued that defendants are not concerned with such entries in ExA3 & A4. Hence, CW2 to 4 were examined by plaintiffs to establish the connection of such entries with defendants.
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:59:08 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 32 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
28.4.PW1 during cross examination stated that the last rent paid by defendant no.1 was Rs.14,300/- plus maintenance of Rs.1000/-, but that he do not know since when the rent was enhanced as such, that he do not know for what period defendant no.1 paid such rent plus maintenance. PW1 during cross examination admitted that in written statement in OS
No.229/16 he admitted that the rent payable was Rs.2000/- per month.
28.5.CW1 is wife of late S.Ganpath Rao and plaintiff no.1 herein and she deposed that initially rent was Rs.2000/- and the same was enhanced gradually, but that she do not know much about it as her husband used to take care of the same. Certified copy of her deposition as PW1 in OS
No.1059/2016 was marked as ExC1 wherein also she stated that initial rent was Rs.2000/-. She stated that suit schedule property was let out to muslims and tenant used to pay rent in cash at times and through cheque at times.
28.6.Though ExA4 shows credit entry of Rs.14300/- through ch.no.46958 on 23/2/15, plaintiffs failed adduce similar evidence to prove this entry as made by defendants. Plaintiffs should have filed a clear statement of rent due from defendants month wise. The last properly proved regular monthly amount was Rs.6174/- as can be seen from ExA3 dtd 18/9/12 & 11/10/12. Hence, at the most this amount can be deemed as proved rent to be payable by defendants. While plaintiffs showed default in payment of rent by defendants from March 2015 and claimed arrears of rent since then, defendants failed to plead and prove any payment since March 2015. However, defendant in OS No.229/16 pleaded that Plaintiff’s husband i.e., Mohd.Sayeed paid Rs.12000/- in June 2015 towards part arrears of rent and requested time to vacate the premises. As they denied tenancy and
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHAR
CHIRANJI
CHIRANJI
Date: 2025.10.30
13:59:16 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 33 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
claimed ownership, the adverse inference is that they did not pay any amount as rent since March 2015. Hence, plaintiffs are entitled to arrears of rent since March 2015 @ Rs.6174/- per month minus Rs.12000/-.
29.Issue no.1 in OS No.229/16 : Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?
29.1.This issue is framed in OS No.229/16 of which plaintiff is defendant no.3 in OS No.506/18. Possession of defendants is admitted. But nature of such possession is disputed by plaintiffs. Defendant no.3’s predecessors did not get valid title from late S.Ganpath Rao as contended.
Hence, defendants’ claimed ownership is not proved. Tenancy is denied by the defendants. But they did not even explain the transfer of amounts to the account of S.Ganpath Rao.
29.2.S.105 of TP Act defined a lease of immovable property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms, wherein the said periodic money is called rent.
29.3.Plaintiffs adduced sufficient evidence to prove such periodic payment of amount to late S.Ganpath Rao by defendant no.1, which establishes reasonably the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. Keeping aside ExA1 in 2013, after death of said Ganpath Rao in 2015, naturally the said tenancy attorns in favor of his legal heirs viz., plaintiffs. But defendants did not consider the same. On the other hand there is sufficient evidence to
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:59:25 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 34 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
impress that defendants malafide created sham documents to claim ownership against the plaintiffs. In such case more than the denial of the plaintiff’s entitlement to claim rent, the false claim of ownership amounts to a threat to the right and interests of plaintiffs over suit schedule property.
Specially after statutory notice u/s 106 of TP Act to vacate the property, the possession cannot be considered as juridical one in these circumstances.
Accordingly, this issue is answered in negative.
30.Issue no.2 in OS No.229/16 : Whether there is any cause of action proved by the plaintiff to file this suit ?
From the discussion supra at para no.27, I reasonably opine and hold that plaintiff in OS No.229/16 i.e., defendant no.3 in OS No.506/18 miserably failed to prove the cause of action as contended by her as against the defendant/plaintiff no.6. Accordingly, this issue is answered in negative.
31.Issue No.3 in OS No.229/16 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of perpetual injunction as prayed for against the defendant ?
From the discussion supra at para no.27 and decision arrived as to issues no.1 & 2 supra, I reasonably opine and hold that plaintiff in OS
No.229/16 i.e., defendant no.3 in OS No.506/18 miserably failed to prove her entitlement to this relief as against the defendant in OS No.229/16.
Accordingly, this issue is also answered in negative.
32.Issue No.1 in OS No.506/2018 : Whether plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant as prayed for ?
From the discussion supra at para no.21 to 28, I reasonably opine and hold that plaintiffs in OS No.506/18 established their title over suit schedule
Digitally signed by
JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHAR
CHIRANJI
CHIRANJI
Date: 2025.10.30 13:59:34 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 35 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
property as against the defendants. On the other hand defendants failed to establish their title. Though denied tenancy, there is reasonable evidence to opine such tenancy. Defendants failed to prove their nature of possession otherwise. There is sufficient evidence to prove jural relationship of landlord and tenant, default on part of defendants and valid determination of tenancy by notice by plaintiffs. Hence, I opine and hold that plaintiffs succeeded in proving their entitlement to this relief and that defendants failed to prove their defense. Accordingly, this issue is also answered in affirmative.
33.Issue no.2 in OS No.506/2018 : Whether defendants are liable to pay
Rs.5,50,800/- towards arrears of rent as prayed for ?
Considering the discussion supra at para no.26 & 28 supra, I reasonably opine that the defendants defaulted in payment of rent to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claimed arrears of rent since March 2015. However, as already discussed supra at para no.28.6 there is sufficient evidence to hold that plaintiffs are entitled to arrears of rent since March 2015 @ Rs.6174/- per month, minus Rs.12000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled as per the said calculation only. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
34.Issue No.3 in OS No.506/2018 : Whether plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits as prayed for ?
Plaintiffs pleaded that suit schedule property is located in thickly populated residential area close to Nampally Railway Station and several commercial establishments due to which it will easily fetch Rs.30,600/- per month as rent, that the defendants continued their possession even after notice to vacate they are liable to pay mesne profits at such rate per month
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:59:41 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 36 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
for their unauthorized occupation of suit schedule property. PW1 deposed the same. But except such self-serving oral testimony, plaintiffs failed to adduce any reliable or corroborative evidence to prove the same.
Considering the circumstances of this case, I reasonably opine that there is no sufficient or satisfactory evidence adduced by plaintiffs to prove this issue. Accordingly, I answer this issue in negative.
35.Issue No.4 in both OS No.229/2016 & OS No.506/2018 : To what relief ?
From the discussion supra as to other issues, I opine that plaintiff in
OS no.229/2016 is not entitled to any reliefs prayed therein and that said
suit is liable to be dismissed. Further I opine that the plaintiffs in OS no.506/2018 are entitled only to the reliefs of eviction of defendants from suit schedule property and arrears of rent with specific observations as held supra and that they are not entitled to the reliefs of mesne profits as prayed therein, and that the said suit accordingly is liable to be partly decreed and partly dismissed.
36.IN THE RESULT, the suit vide OS No.229/2016 is dismissed, with costs. The suit vide OS No.506/2018 is partly decreed so far as relief of eviction of defendants from suit schedule property and arrears of rent are concerned and partly dismissed so far as relief of mesne profits is concerned, with costs. Accordingly, the defendants in OS No.506/2018 are hereby directed to put the plaintiffs in vacant possession of the suit schedule property herein within one month. Further the defendants in OS
No.506/2018 are directed to pay plaintiffs the arrears of rent from March 2015 till the date of this judgment @Rs.6,174/- per month, minus
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 13:59:49 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 37 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
Rs.12000/-, within one month, failing which plaintiffs shall be entitled to such due amount with interest @6% per annum thereon till its realization.
Plaintiffs shall be entitled to such rate of rent from defendants till the actual delivery of possession of suit schedule property.
Typed by me on my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of October, 2025. Digitally signed by
JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHAR
CHIRANJI
CHIRANJI
Date: 2025.10.30 14:00:00 +0530
XVII Addl.Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad
Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined
For Plaintiffs in OS No.506/2018 & Defendant in OS No.229/2016 : PW1S.Praveen KumarPlaintiff no.6 in OS No.506/18 & defendant in OS No.229/16
For Defendants in OS No.506/2018 & Plaintiff in OS No.229/16 : (Though examined as PW1 in OS No.229/16, for convenience as per para no.9 supra he is shown as DW1 herein) DW1Mohd.SayeedDefendant no.1 in OS No.506/18 & husband of plaintiff in
OS No.229/16
Court : CW1S.PremaPlaintiff no.1 in OS No.506/18 CW2Ramakrishna PandeyUnion Bank manager CW3G.SandeepICICI bank relationship manager, Mehdipatnam branch CW4I.Ganga MaheshwarCanara bank manager, Ahmed Nagar branch
Exhibits marked
For Plaintiffs in OS No.506/2018 & Defendant in OS No.229/2016 : Exhibit throughMarked on Description of document ExA1/PW112/9/22Regd.gift deed no.1542 of 2013 dtd 25/3/2013
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 38 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
ExA2/PW112/9/22Death certificate of late S.Ganapth Rao on 18/5/2015 ExA3/PW112/9/22Statement of account of late S.Ganpath Rao with Andhra Bank dtd 1/1/2009 ExA4/PW112/9/22Statement of account of late S.Ganpath Rao with Canara Bank dtd 1/1/2013 ExA5/PW112/9/22Cc of regd.sale deed no.3565/2015 dtd 20/8/2015 ExA6/PW112/9/22Cc of rectification deed dtd 30/12/2015 ExA7/PW112/9/22Cc of regd.sale deed no.633/2016 dtd 9/2/2016 ExA8/PW112/9/22Cc of rectification deed dtd 8/3/2016 ExA9/PW112/9/22Cc of FIR No.113/2016 dtd 13/5/2016 ExA10/PW112/9/22CC of chargesheet filed by Police, Nampally dtd 3/2/2017 ExA11/PW112/9/22CC of report of handwriting expert from TSFSL to learned XII Addl.CMM, Hyderabad dtd 26/9/2016 ExA12/PW112/9/22CC of Letter no.1007013642/D4/7A/2016 from office of Dy.Commissioner, Circle-7, GHMC to SI of Police, Nampally PS dtd 21/5/2016 ExA13/PW112/9/22Copy of order in IA No.1072/2017 in OS No.1059/2016 ExA14/PW112/9/22Copy of plaint in OS no.229/16 dtd 26/2/16 ExA15/PW112/9/22Copy of legal notice to defendant dtd 13/11/2017 ExA16/PW112/9/22Returned postal cover dtd 15/11/17 ExA17/PW112/9/22Returned postal cover dtd 15/11/17 ExA18/PW112/9/22Returned postal cover dtd 15/11/17 ExA19/PW112/9/22GPA to appear on behal of all plaintiffs dtd 27/9/2016
For Defendants in OS No.506/2018 & Plaintiff in OS No.229/16 : (Though marked as ExA1 to A9 in OS No.229/16, for convenience as per para no.9 supra he is shown as ExB1 to B9 herein) Exhibit throughMarked on Description of document ExB1/DW126/11/19 regd.sale deed no.633/2016 dtd 9/2/2016 ExB2/DW126/11/19 regd.sale deed no.3565/2015 dtd 20/8/2015 ExB3/DW126/11/19 Regd.rectification deed no.5874/2015 dtd 30/12/15 ExB4/DW126/11/19 Electricity bill with receipt dtd 9/1/2016 ExB5/DW126/11/19 Water bill receipt dtd 14/11/15 ExB6/DW126/11/19 Original intimation dtd 7/11/15 ExB7/DW126/11/19 GHMC receipt dtd 27/1/2016
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 14:00:08 +0530
OS No.229 of 2016 & OS No.506 of 2018.. 39 of 39..Jt.Dt: 30/10/2025
ExB8/DW126/11/19 Special notice dtd 18/1/2016 ExB9/DW126/11/19 Letter issued by TSSPDCL dtd 25/8/2015
For Court : Exhibit throughMarked on Description of document ExC1/CW112/7/13CC of chief examination affidavit of PW1 in OS No.1059/2016 ExC2/CW222/1/14Bank statement of S.Ganpath Rao with s.65B certificate ExC3/CW35/2/24Bank statement of Md.Sayeed of SM Ceiling works as to cheque no.498180 dtd 30/4/12 ExC4/CW35/2/24Bank statement of Md.Sayeed as to entries of Rs.6174 through cheque no.506814 & 506815 dtd 17/9/12 & 10/10/12 ExC5/CW35/2/24Bank statement of Md.Sayeed as to entry of Rs.4766 credited into account of S.Ganpath Rao on 28/7/14 ExC6/CW35/2/24Bank statement of SM Ceiling works as to entry of Rs.9534 through cheque no.46999 credited into account of S.Ganpath Rao ExC7/CW35/2/24Bank statement of SM Ceiling works as to entry of Rs.4537 through cheque no.46992 credited into account of S.Ganpath Rao ExC8/CW35/2/24Bank statement of SM Ceiling works as to entry of Rs.9075 through cheque no.46991 credited into account of S.Ganpath Rao ExC9/CW35/2/24Bank statement of SM Ceiling works as to entry of Rs.5890 through cheque no.498181 credited into account of S.Ganpath Rao ExC10/CW45/2/24Bank statement of S.Ganpath Rao ExC11/CW45/2/24Bank statement of S.Ganpath Rao
Note : Section is directed to make the necessary endorsements as to revised references on concerned deposition and documents accordingly for further convenience.
Digitally signed by JITHENDHAR
JITHENDHARCHIRANJI
CHIRANJIDate: 2025.10.30 14:00:17 +0530
XVII Addl.Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad