1 O.S.No.742 of 2013
IN THE COURT OF V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; CITY CIVIL COURT; HYDERABAD
Monday, the 23 rd day of January, 2017
PRESENT: SRI GOTTE RAVINDER, B.Sc., LL.B.,
V JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
O.S.No.742 of 2013
Between:
M/s.Blitz Hotels and Resorts Pvt., Ltd., Rep by Director Madde Narsaiah, Aged about 43 years, A15, II Floor, Hous Khas, New Delhi,
.....Plaintiff.
and
1)M/s. Mysore Fertilizers Company Pvt., Ltd., rep. by its Director Gowra Praveen, No.338, Thambuchetty Street, ChennaiI, Tamil Nadu.
2)R. Jaganadham, S/o Ramaswamy, Aged about 53 years.
3)Smt. R. Pramila Devi, W/o Jaganadham, Aged about 48 years.
4)R. Amarender, S/o Jaganadham, Aged about 30 years
Defendants 2 to 4 above are residing at H.No. 7134/1, S.P. Nagar, Malkajgiri, R.R. District.
... Defendants
This suit is coming on 23112016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. T. Sreedhar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri V. Sripathi Rao, Advocate for defendant No.1 and Sri. D. Brahmanandam, Advocate for defendant No.2 to 4 and upon hearing the counsel, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
Plaintiffs has filed plaint under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure for relief of perpetual injunction.
2).
It is mainly averred the plaint that the plaintiff is the company registered
2 O.S.No.742 of 2013
under the companies Act, the plaintiff company is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.82675 admeasuring 5291 square yards with common passage of 389 square yards totally admeasuring 5680 square yards in ward No.11, BlockU, survey No.129/40, T.S.No.12, situated at Road No.13,
Banjara Hills, hereinafter called as suit schedule property. The said property was purchased under registered sale deed vide document No.5676 of 2006,
dated 13.11.2006 from its original owner. The said property is bounded by
North: Road No.13, Banjara Hills, South: H.Nos.82676/B, 82676/4, 5 and 6 and H.No.82676/17/B/5, East: H.No.82674 and West: H.No.82675 (704 square yards retained by vendors), 82675/A and 82676/1/B7. The said schedule property is subjected to the proceedings under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The Survey number was given new Sy.No. as 129/40/1.
3).
One Najimunniss Akbar Ali Khan sold out 7688 square yards of land and
H.No.82675 including the plaint schedule property vide sale deed, dated 26.07.1965 in favour of Nazir Latif. Subsequently the sale deed was rectified in respect of measurements of the land i.e. from 7688 square yards to 6628 square yards. The said Mohd. Nazir Latif executed declaration of gift deed, dated 17.08.1971 to his sons and daughters i.e. 775 square yards to his wife Alia Latif, 1020 square yards to his son Hasan Latif, 1505 square yards to his daughter
Amena Latif and 1300 square yards to another daughter Zehra Latif. After the above gift settlement, the property was subjected to assessment under the Land
Ceiling Act and issued proceedings vide No.E2/3944/CC/76, dated 05.07.2005 has hold that inter alia legal representatives of Nazir Latif i.e. his wife Alia Latif
3 O.S.No.742 of 2013
hold surplus land to an extent of 34.67 square meters, his daughter Amena Latif held surplus land to an extent of 186.37 square meters. Accordingly the
Government vide its G.O.Ms.No.8 of Revenue (UC.IV) Department, dated 05.01.2006 had fully exempted the said surplus land from the provisions of
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 after receiving the required amount.
4).
Thereafter the said Nazir Latif and his family members have entered into development agreement with Marri Shashidhar Reddy and Madison
Construction Company, represented by its Managing Partner, Smt. Farzana
Khatoon, dated 27.11.1991 and 31.03.1992 and also executed separate GPAs on 26th and 27th of May, 1993 in favour of Marri Shashidhar Reddy and K.
Chandramouli Reddy. Smt. Farzana Khatoon and Marri Shasidhar Reddy have further executed an agreement of sale, dated 15.07.2006 in favour of Mohsin
Shariff, S/o Dr. A.M. Dhariff for 5440 square yards. Subsequently all of them including their representative agents have executed sale deed, dated 13.11.2006 in favour of the plaintiff i.e. Blitz Hotels Private Limited admeasuring 5680 square yards. After purchase of the above land, the plaintiff has subjected the plaint schedule property for Urban Land Ceiling. Accordingly the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.966 Revenue (UC.III1) Department, dated 10.07.2007 and exempted the said plaintiff's schedule property from provisions of Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Since then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property to the knowledge of the members in the locality including the defendants. The defendants have no manner of right or possession over the plaint schedule property at any time, the
4 O.S.No.742 of 2013
defendant in to extract money from the plaintiff started developmental activities over the plaint schedule property and tried to interfere into suit schedule property. The defendants are not neighbours to the plaint schedule property since the survey number, premises number and boundaries of the suit schedule property are different with the property of the defendants property. The plaintiff never encroached nor attempted to encroach the property of the defendants or any others.
5).
The defendant No.1 allegedly purchase the property under the sale deed
dated 21111974 from B.V.N.V. Narasimha Rao which is plat number
admeasuring 2539 Sq. yards forming part of land in new Sy.No.286 old
Sy.No.129/40 and municipal No.82675/A admeasuring 4143 Sq. yards situated behind the land adjoining H.No.82675 bound by North: Road No.13,
South: Road and Compound wall of H.No.82676/1B/7, East: H.No.82675,
West: Land bearing municipal No.82675/B.
which makes clear that defendant No.1 purchased H.No. bearing No.82 675/A.
6).
The Major Akbar Ali Khan Sold to Dina Naval Cooper/Nawal
Burjonji/Miss. Amy Eduljaichinoy under the sale deed bearing document
No.1578 of 1962 dated 20101962 which is part and parcel of non agriculture land in municipal zone bearing new Sy.No.286 old Sy.No.129/40 admeasuring 4143 Sq. yards situated behind the land adjoining the vendors house No.82675 bounded by North: Road No.13, South: land belongs to Vendor Major Akbar
Alik Khan, East: Same, West: land belonging to Safdar Ali Mirza.
5 O.S.No.742 of 2013
7).
Another sale deed No.756 of 1964 dated 1671964, Safdar Ali Mirza has sold to Miss. Dina Naval Cooper/Nawal Burjonji/Miss. Amy Eduljaichinoy, bounded by North: Road No.13, South: land belong to Vendor Safdar Ali Mirza,
East: land belongs to Dina Naval Cooper purchased from Major Akbar Ali Khan
West: land belongs to Safdar Ali Mirza.
8).
As per another sale deed D.No.2431 of 1970 dated 16111970 executed by Dina Naval Cooper/Nawal Burjonji/Miss. Amy Eduljaichinoy and B. Vinod
Kumar, Dr. K.K.Sharma and B.V.N.V. Narasimha Rao exhibits that schedule land therein was purchased by B.V.N.V. Narasimha Rao and E.A. Padmanabha Reddy part and parcel of non agriculture land in municipal zone in new Sy.No.286 old
Sy.No.129/40 and municipal No.82675/A admeasuring 4143 Sq. yards situated behind the land adjoining H.No.82675 belonging to Nazeer Latif bouded by North: Road No.13, South & East: H.No.82675 and land belonging to Nazeer Latif, West: land bearing No. Hyderabad Municipal No.82675/B.
9).
Another sale deed D.No.246 of 1974 dated 21111974, wherein B.V.N.V.
Narasimha Rao sold to the defendant No.1 the plat of land admeasuring 2539
Sq. Yards forming part of land bearing new Sy.No.286 or old Sy.No.129/40 and municipal No.82675/A admeasuring 4143 Sq. yards bounded by North: Road
No.13, South: Road and Compound wall of H.No.82676/1B/7, East: H.No.8 2675, West: land bearing municipal No.82675/B.
6 O.S.No.742 of 2013
10). Adjoining to the west of suit schedule property which correspondence sale
deed of defendant No.1 there is a big building complex in the name of 675 apartments Mythri Villas which is fully developed property with no scope to raise any boundary dispute.
11). One Miss Roopa Reddy claimed to be a GPA agent of defendant No.1
Company had shown wrong boundaries of schedule property contrary to what was purchased by defendant No.1 by projecting incorrect boundaries as all that property of 2539 Sq. yards of land with small old house baring No.82675/A bearing new Sy.No.286 old Sy.No.129/450 bounded by East: land bearing
No.82675/B, West: H.No.82675 and open land, North: Road No.13, South:
Road and Compound wall .
12). The defendant No.1 had obtained NOC for the purchase of property vide
Memo No.II/3317/2001 dated 1872002 by showing, it is purchased under sale deed dated 21111974 in a different locations. After due enquiry by the Joint
Collector, Hyderabad vide proceedings No.II/6970/2004 dated 3152006 had cancelled the NOC. In the said course of proceedings the Deputy Director (Survey and land records) had conclude that the land property claimed by the defendant No.1 is located on west of the property purchased by the plaintiff.
The Writ Petition No.13116 of 2006 filed by the defendant No.1 against the orders of Joint Collector was dismissed on 1292006.
13). Mean while one Ramesh Gaikwad said to be another GPA agent of
7 O.S.No.742 of 2013
defendant No.1 without referring to earlier GPA Roopa Reddy has filed
OS.No.177 of 2013 before this Court against the plaintiff for relief of perpetual
injunction. The suit schedule property shown in OS.No.177 of 2013 makes it clear that the defendant No.1 is not claiming any right over the suit schedule property. The boundaries are also shows incorrect as per the sale deed dated 21111974 i.e. D.No.246 of 1974. In view of the interim orders passed in
IA.No.30 of 2013 in OS.No.177 of 2013 the defendant No.1 is trying to trespass
into the suit schedule property with muscle strength since 3rd April 2013 and resisted all such unlawful efforts with great difficulty. The police Banjara Hills called plaintiff Director at the instance of defendant No.1 on 442013 and took explanation.
14). While so the defendant No.2 to 4 who have no manner of right over the
suit schedule property have filed OS.No.132 of 2013 against the plaintiff for relief of perpetual injunction in respect of different properties referring to right of the plaintiff over the schedule property and filed IA.No.14 of 2013 the same was dismissed.
15). It is further submitted that all the defendants have colluded each other to trespass into the schedule property to disposes the plaintiff. The plaintiff has spent around 17 crores to construct resorts which is in progress, hence the suit.
16). The defendant No.2 to 4 have filed the written statement refuting the
averments of the plaint and submits that Smt. Qadeer Begum, W/o Late Nawab
8 O.S.No.742 of 2013
Abdul Salam Khan was the owner, pattedar and possessor of land bearing survey No.129/15, revision survey No.290, admeasuring Ac.100 i.e. 4840 square yards situated at Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village and
Mandal, Hyderabad, hereinafter called as property of defendant No.2 to 4. The said Qadeer Begum divided the suit schedule land into two portions i.e. 'A' and 'B'. 'A' portion of land admeasuring Ac.020 Guntas i.e. 2420 square yards was sold out to plaintiffs No.3 & 4 under agreement of sale, dated 06.12.1994 after receiving the entire sale consideration and defendant No.3 and 4 were put into physical possession of the property. Time is not essence of contract. Since then defendant No.3 and 4 are in possession of the said 'A' portion of the property.
For remaining portion of land i.e. 'B' portion, Qadeer Begum appointed one Md.
Moizuddin as her GPA and executed GPA document bearing No.343 of 1990,
dated 22.03.1990. The GPA holder entered into memorandum of understanding
in respect of 'B' portion of land with defendant No.2 on 06.11.2006 and put defendant No.2 in physical possession of the property. From the date of memorandum of understanding, defendant No.2 is in actual physical possession of 'B' portion of land admeasuring 2370 square yards. Thereafter defendant
No.2 has invested huge amounts as on date. According to memorandum of understanding, defendant No.2 is entitled to get 45% share on the total sale consideration of 'B' portion of land. Accordingly defendant No.2 to 4 are in possession of the property as on the date.
17). It is further pleaded that there are some boundary disputes in respect of
the property so they approached revenue officials to fix boundaries to their property. Since the revenue authorities have not taken any action, defendant
9 O.S.No.742 of 2013
No.2 filed writ petition vide W.P.No.28106/07. Accordingly the Hon'ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records to demarcate the property and fix the boundaries. Since the land and survey authorities have not taken any action, they have filed contempt case vide
C.C.No.416 of 2011.
18). While the above process is in progress, the GPA holder of Qadeer Begum
entered into agreement of sale, dated 10.11.2009 to sell 'B' portion of the land to defendant No.2 in the presence of Qadeer Begum for total consideration of
Rs.50,00,000/ with a condition that defendant No.2 shall pay part of sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/ on the date of execution of agreement.
Accordingly defendant No.2 has paid Rs.1,00,000/ on the date of execution of agreement of sale. Thereafter defendant No.2 has paid an amount of
Rs.45,000/ on 14.09.2010 and an amount of Rs.33,000/ on 06.10.2010 as part sale consideration totaling to Rs.1,78,500/. The GPA of Qadeer Begum agreed to receive the remaining balance sale consideration at the time of registration of sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and no specific time frame is fixed.
19). defendant No.2 requested the Deputy Director on 21.05.2009,
23.09.2009, 27.10.2010, 12.11.2011, 26.09.2012 and 12.01.2012 to demarcate the suit schedule property and fix boundaries. Accordingly Deputy Director,
Survey of Lands issued notice to defendant No.2 and all the concerned including the plaintiff to be present at the suit schedule property vide his notices, dated 13.02.2010, 29.10.2009 and 28.04.2011. But, the Deputy Director, Land and
10 O.S.No.742 of 2013
Survey officials have not taken up fixation of boundaries to the schedule property.
20). While the things stood thus, GPA holder of Qadeer Begum instigated one
Guru Murthy to interfere over the suit schedule property. So defendant No.2 has filed the suit for perpetual injunction against said Guru Murthy vide
O.S.No.4265 of 2010 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, which was disposed as decreed on 02.06.2011. The plaintiff, Guru
Murthy has not preferred appeal. Qadeer Begum had failed to perform part of contract by not registering the land in favour of defendant No.2 to 4. Therefore, they filed a suit for specific performance, vide O.S.No.1670 of 2012 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same is pending.
The defendant No.2 to 4 have filed the suit in OS.No.132 of 2013 on the file of this Court and prayed to read the contents of the plaint as part and parcel of their written statement. Wherein the above suit the defendant No.2 to 4 sought for relief of perpetual injunction against the plaintiff as they interfered into their property 01012013 and also they gave report to police on 07012013. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
21). The defendant No.1 remained exparte, subsequently it has filed the
petition vide IA.No.211 of 2015 to set aside the exparte Orders against them but this Court dismissed the said IA.No.211 of 2015 dated 10122015. Aggrieved by the said orders the defendant No.1 approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed Civil Revision Petition vide Cr.P.No.4627 of 2016 the said Cr.P was disposed as follows
11 O.S.No.742 of 2013
The trial Court shall club both the suits and read the plaint in
OS.No.177 of 2013 as written statement in OS.No.742 of 2013 and vice
versa and also to read the evidence of plaintiff in OS.No.742 of 2013
on Pseries as PW1 and the other witnesses in continuation to it and
the documents exhibited in Aseries and by permitting cross
examination and evidence of the 1 st defendant in OS.No.742 of 2013 to
the extent not covered if at all by reading the evidence already on
record in OS.No.177 of 2013 mentioning as PW1 to treat as DW1 by
so describing by virtue of this Order and other witnesses in
continuation to it and the documents marked therein in Aseries as B
series respectively and by virtue of this Order give common disposal if
necessary by recalling any witness to the limited scope without any
further additional pleadings from the existing issues. The trial Court
shall dispose of both suits, preferably within three months, from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No Order as to costs.
It is true that the defendant No.1 has filed the suit in OS.No.177 of 2013 against the plaintiff as defendant No.1 and one Shantha Sreeram Construction as defendant No.2 for the relief of perpetual injunction. As per the Orders in
Cr.P No. 4627 of 2016 dated 18122016 the plaint averments in OS.No.177 of 2013 are considered as written statement of defendant No.1 in this case which are as follows. The defendant No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 2539 Sq. yards with small old house bearing municipal No.82 675/A new Sy.No.286 and old S.No.129/40 situated at Road No.13, Banjara
Hills bounded by, East: H.No.82675, West: land bearing H.No.82675/B belongs to Padmanabha Reddy, North: Road No.13 (which is his suit schedule property) the said property was purchased under registered sale deed vide document No.246 of 1974 dated 21111974 from its lawful owner. Since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment without anybodies interference.
After purchase of the schedule property it was kept vacant with an intention to make a construction after accumulating certain amounts. The defendants who have no right or title over the suit schedule property started interfering with the
12 O.S.No.742 of 2013
possession of the plaintiff with an intention to grab the same. Accordingly on 1612013 and 2612013 the defendants and their anti social elements came to the suit schedule property and try to take possession but due to strong resistance they left the place, then the plaintiff made a compliant to the police but they have not taken any action as it is of civil nature, hence he filed the suit in OS.No.177 of 2013.
22). With the above rival pleadings of both the parties the following issues
are framed.
1). Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule
property or not ?
2). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction
as prayed for ? 3). If so, what relief
23). On behalf of the plaintiff he himself is examined as PW1 got marked
Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the defendant No.2 to 4, defendant No.2 is examined as DW1 got marked Exs.B1 to B19. The defendant No.1 who is examined as PW1 in OS.No.177 of 2013 is considered as evidence of DW2 and his documents marked as Exs.A1 to A9 in OS.No.177 of 2013.
24). Heard, the plaintiff and defendants have filed written arguments.
25). Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property or
not;
26). It is pertinent to mention here the particulars of suit schedule property.
Suit schedule property in this case as well as the suit schedule property in
OS.No.177 of 2013 and OS.No.132 of 2013, they are as follows
13 O.S.No.742 of 2013
OS.No.742 of 2013 All that piece and parcel of immovable
propertybearinghouseNo.82675, admeasuring 5291 Square yards with a common passage of 389 Square yards totally admeasuring 5680 Square yards in Ward No.11, BlockU in Survey No.129/40 (new No.129/40/1) TS No.12, situated at Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Shaik Pet Mandal at Hyderabad and bounded by North: Road No.13, Banjara Hills, South: H.No.82676/B, 82276/4, 5 & 6 and H.No.82676/17/B/5, East: House No.82674, West: H.No.82675 (704 Sq. yards retained by Vendors), 82 675/A & 82676/1/B7
OS.No.177 of 2013 All that part and parcel of open land admn.
2539 Sq. yards with a small old house bearing municipal number 82675/A, new Sy.No.286 and old Sy.No.129/40 situated at Road No.13 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad bounded by East: Land bearing H.No.82675, West: H.No.82 675/B and open land, North: Road No.13, South: Road and compound wall.
OS.No.132 of 2013SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY: All that the
land admeasuring 2420 square yards, H.NO.8 2675/6/1, situated in survey No.129/15, Revision Survey no.290, at Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District and bounded by, NORTH: Road No.13, SOUTH: Neighbours land, EAST: Remaining land of plaintiff No.1, WEST: Survey No.129/40, Revised Survey No.286
SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY: All that the land admeasuring 2420 square yards, H.NO.8 2675/6/1, situated in survey No.129/15, Revision Survey no.290, at Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District and bounded by, NORTH: Road No.13, SOUTH: Neighbours land, EAST: Remaining land of plaintiff No.1, WEST: Survey No.129/40, Revised Survey No.286
27). In all the cases the plaintiff sought for relief of perpetual injunction
14 O.S.No.742 of 2013
against the defendants who are plaintiffs in other suits. As seen from the above suit schedule properties in all the suits are differs to each other. The documents exhibited by the plaintiff would show that it has purchased the suit schedule property from its owner and he is in possession of the said property. It is the case of defendant No.2 to 4 that the defendant No.2 to 4 are in possession of their property as per their agreement of sale. As there was a boundary dispute so he approached the revenue officials to fix the boundaries. As the revenue officials have not taken any action on his application the defendant No.2 has filed writ petition in W.P.No.28106 of 2007, the Hon'ble High Court directed the survey and land records to demarcate their property and fix the boundaries.
The survey authorities have not taken any action so the defendant No.2 has filed contempt case. The said dispute is admitted by the defendant No.2 to 4 that there is boundary dispute of their property. In the same manner the defendant
No.1 is also disputing with the boundary to their property which was purchased by them under the sale deed. The evidence which is available on record would clearly shows that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 4 are in possession of their respective properties. It is only the dispute with regard to the boundaries, the parties have to approach the appropriate forum to resolve their boundary dispute. But all the parties i.e. plaintiff, defendant No.1 to 4 are approaching the courts for simplicitter injunction showing their possession in their respective properties. This Court has no jurisdiction to resolve their boundary disputes.
OS.No.132 of 2013 which was filed by the defendant No.2 to 4 against the
plaintiff was disposed holding that there is a boundary dispute. In this case also there is no dispute that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property from its owner and he is in possession of the same. It is contended by the
15 O.S.No.742 of 2013
defendant No.2 to 4 that the documents pertains to the land in Sy.No.129 are not filed and exhibited and the said documents were exhibited by defendant
No.2 to 4 so the purchased land is not as per the sale deed of the plaintiff. The said contention raised by defendant is nothing but the defendants are disputing the boundaries of plaintiff but not his possession. The defendant No.1 also has not disputed with regard to the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
Therefore the possession over the suit schedule property by the plaintiff is not dispute, hence it has to be held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, accordingly the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
28). Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction
as prayed for;?
29). The issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that there
is no dispute with regard to the possession of the parties over their respective properties but the only dispute is with regard to boundaries to each of the property of plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 to 4. It is the case of plaintiff that with aid of the documents of the defendants they are trying to encroach upon the property of the plaintiff. It is the case of plaintiff that he is constructing the hotel within the boundaries of their property. To grant injunction the plaintiff has to make out primafacie title, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. It is admitted fact that the primafacie title is in favour of the plaintiff but the plaintiff as well as defendants are only disputing with regard to the boundaries. The defendants are only disputing the boundaries but the evidence does not establish that the defendants interfered or trespass into
16 O.S.No.742 of 2013
the suit schedule property at any point of time. When the defendants have not encroached or interfered into the suit schedule property the question of restraining them is not proper. The only dispute is with regard to the boundaries of each of the properties of the parties, for which the defendant No.2 to 4 have approached the proper authorities to resolve their dispute. When the said proceedings are pending before the proper appropriate authority i.e. survey and land records this Court cannot resolve the dispute. Merely granting of injunction in favour of the plaintiff the dispute with regard to the boundaries cannot be resolved. All the parties would take appropriate steps to resolve their boundary dispute by approaching appropriate forum for reddressal. Since the dispute is only with regard to the boundaries and there is no sufficient evidence that the defendants encroached upon the suit schedule property, merely because the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is established he cannot be granted injunction, when the dispute in between the parties is of different in nature. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of injunction.
Both the parties have exhibited number of documents which shows that the ownership over their respective properties, as to how the defendants are doing legal battle by approaching different authorities i.e. the said fact about the documents exhibited by the parties are not disputed by the other party. As such the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of injunction accordingly the issue No.2 is answered against the plaintiff.
30). Issue No.3: If so, what relief;
31). In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Both the parties shall
17 O.S.No.742 of 2013
bear their own costs.
Dictated to the personal assistant and after transcribed and typed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23 th day of January, 2017. Sd/ G. Ravinder, V Junior Civil Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined
For the plaintiffs:For the defendant No.2 to 4: PW1: Madde NarasaiahDW1: R. Jagannadham
For the defendant No.1: who is examined as PW1 in OS.No.177 of 2013 is treated as DW2 Exhibits marked
For the plaintiffs: Ex.A1is Certificate of incorporation with board resolution
Ex.A2is Certified copy of sale deed dated 13112006
Ex.A3is Certified copy of sale deed dated 2671965
Ex.A4is Notarized gifted deed 1781971
Ex.A5is Proceeding of wide No.E2/3944/CC76 dated 572005
Ex.A6is G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 512006
Ex.A7is Certified copy of sale deed dated 20101962
Ex.A8is Certified copy of sale deed dated 1641964
Ex.A9is Certified copy of sale deed dated 16111970
Ex.A10is Certified copy of sale deed dated 21111974
Ex.A11is Orders of Joint Collector dated 3152005
Ex.A12is Certified copy Plaint copy of OS.No.177/2013
Ex.A13is Certified copy of plaint copy of OS.No.132/2013
For the defendant No. 2 to 4 Ex.B1is Copy of old village map with revised survey numbers
Ex.B2is Copy of revision book of Sy.No.129 of 15 revised Sy.No.290
Ex.B3is Copy of revision book of Sy.No.129 of 40 revised Sy.No.286
Ex.B4is Copy of wasool baki
18 O.S.No.742 of 2013
Ex.B5is Copy Pahani Patrika for the year 198384
Ex.B6is Copy GPA bearing Doc.No.343 of 1990
Ex.B7is Copy of compromise decree in OS.2062 of 1990
Ex.B8is Copy of MOU dated 6112006
Ex.B9is Copy of Writ petition No.28106 of 2007
Ex.B10is Copy notice No.A5/875/09 dated 29102009
Ex.B11is Copy of plaint in OS.No.1670 of 2012
Ex.B12is Copy of Judgment and Decree in OS.No.4265 of 2010
Ex.B13is Copy of Compliant given to SHO, Banjara Hills P.S.
Ex.B14is Copy of sale deed No.1578 of 1962
Ex.B15is Copy of sale deed No.2431 of 1970
Ex.B16is Copy of sale deed No.246 of 1974
Ex.B17is Sketch map
Ex.B18is Translation of revision Sy.No. of Ex.B3
Ex.B19is Judgment in OS.No.132 of 2013
For defendant No.1: Filed and exhibited in OS.No.177 of 2013 they are Exs.A1 to A9 are considered in this case.
Sd/ G. Ravinder, V Junior Civil Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad