1 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
IN THE COURT OF THE I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, AT HYDERABAD.
Dated this the 3 rd day of November, 2015
PRESENT:Sri.K. Seshagiri Rao,
I Senior Civil Judge
O.S.No. 2052 of 2002
Between:
Hemendra V Shah … Plaintiff
A N D
Rathan Prakash Paul ...Defendant
This suit came up before me for final hearing on 13.10.2015 and for disposal in the presence of Sri K. Sunil, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri M. Papa Reddy, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the
Court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for the following reliefs:- (1)Directing the Defendant and his men to vacate and handover vacant and actual possession of Plaint schedule property bearing No. 11-6-184, Vallabhdas Building,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
(2)Passing a Decree for a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards past damages for the period from 28.9.1999 to 29.9.2002 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month.
(3)Passing a Decree for future damages at the rate of Rs.
5,000/- per month or at any further rate till the date of handing over vacant and actual possession of the plaint schedule property to the Plaintiff, and
2 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
(4)Passing a Decree for Suit Costs.
2.The case of the Plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:-
a)The Plaintiff is the owner of the Suit schedule property.
Originally the said property was joint family property of Sri Raja Bahadur
Chaturbhuj Das Goverdhandas and Sons, of which the Plaintiff was a
Member. The joint family property was partitioned among family members by virtue of a compromise Decree passed in O.S. No. 239/98 on the file of the Court of V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad and among other properties, the Plaint schedule property fell to the share of the Plaintiff. Thus the Plaintiff became the exclusive owner and possessor of the Plaint schedule property.
b)One late Major Prakash Rao was a tenant of the Plaint schedule property having been inducted into possession of the same by
Sri Vallabdas B.Shah, Kartha of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of Sri Raja
Bahadur Chaturbhuj Das Goverdhandas and Sons. The monthly rent was originally agreed to Rs. 55/- and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.
85/- per month and the said Prakash Rao paid such rents till he demised in the year 1978. After his demise, his wife Mrs. Florence Prakash Rao being the only legal heir and successor became the tenant of the Plaint schedule property. Subsequently Mrs. Florence Prakash Rao died in the
City of Hyderabad in the month of May, 1999. The said Major Prakash
Rao died issue-less.
3 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
c)After partition of joint family property as stated above, the
Plaintiff issued Notice dated 1.4.1999 to Smt. Florence Prakash Rao intimating her that there was partition among the family members and the Plaint schedule property fell to his share and asked her to pay rents to him.
d)The Defendant herein claimed to be the grand son of Major
Prakash Rao and Mrs. Florence Prakash Rao and further claimed that he became the tenant of the schedule property after the demise of Florence
Prakash Rao being her grand Son. The Defendant is not at all the grand son of Major Prakash Rao and Mrs. Florence Prakash Rao.
e)That being so, the Defendant filed rent control case in
R.C.No. 569/1999 against the Plaintiff and Sri Raja Bahadur Chaturbhuj
Das Goverdhandas and Sons Under Section 8 of A.P. Buildings (Lease,
Rent and Eviction) Control Act No. 15 of 1960 on the file of III Additional
Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking permission to deposit the rents into the Court, claiming that he being the tenant of schedule property and alleging that the Respondents therein who were refusing to receive the rents being sent by way of Cheques and Money orders from April, 1999 onwards.
f.The Defendant has no any tenancy rights over the schedule property and that he is not the grand son of Major Prakash Rao and
Florence Prakash Rao. The said case was ultimately dismissed on contest by Order dated 18.4.2001 with a finding that the Defendant is not the tenant of the schedule property and that he is not entitled to maintain the Petition Under Section 8 (5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act No. 15 of 1960, (for short Act 15 of 1960). The
4 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
Defendant is noway concerned with the original tenants, Major Prakash
Rao and Florence Prakash Rao and as such, he is not entitled to be in possession of schedule property.
g)The Appeal preferred by the Defendant from the Order in
R.C.No. 569 of 1999 to the Hon'ble Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court,
Hyderabad, in R.A. 260 of 2001 is also dismissed confirming the Lower
Court Order. That being so, the Defendant in collusion with one Smt. N.
Andalamma, filed another case in R.C. 393 of 2001 on the file of Second
Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad Under Section 9 (3) of the Act
15/1960 against the Plaintiff and Sri Raja Bahadur Chaturbhuj Das
Goverdhandas and Sons and Smt. N. Andalamma, on false and baseless allegations that there is a benefit of doubt and dispute as to the person entitled to claim and collect rents and therefore he may be permitted to deposit the rents into the Court and the said case is pending ( may be by the date of filing this suit).
h)After demise of Florence Prakash Rao on 25.5.1999 the possession of the Defendant in the Plaint schedule property is illegal and that of a trespasser. The Defendant has no manner of right to continue his possession in the schedule property after the demise of Mrs. Florence
Prakash Rao.
I)The Plaint schedule property is located in prime locality. The
Defendant being a trespasser, is liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.
5,000/- per month for unauthorized use and occupation of the premises, which is quite reasonable and proper in view of prevailing rates in the
5 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
locality. The Plaintiff therefore claims a Decree for past mesne profits for the period from 28.9.99 to 29.09.2002 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month amounting to Rs. 1,80,000/-. So also future damages at the same rate. It is under those circumstances, the present Suit is made to be filed for the reliefs sought for supra.
3.The Defendant filed his detailed Written Statement denying all the material allegations and contending inter alia as follows:
(a)The allegations that the Plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property is not correct and hence the same is denied. The Defendant came to now about the said fact only when he received a Notice dated 11.8.2001 from one Smt. Andalamma calling upon this Defendant not to pay monthly rent to the Plaintiff herein but to pay the same to her as she along with others are Inamdars of the said property. Hence, the defendant was constrained to file a Petition Under Section 9(3) of the Act 15 of 1960 and the same is pending on the file of II Additional Rent
Controller, Hyedrabad in R.C. No. 393/2001.
(b)It is true that Smt. Florence Prakash Rao died in Hyderabad in May, 1999 and this Defendant who is the grand son of late Major
Prakash Rao was staying along with them in the schedule property since his childhood. This Defendant was examined as RW1 in R.C.No.
262/1980 filed by the joint family of the Plaintiff for eviction against Smt.
Florence Prakash Rao. The said Florence Prakash Rao had executed a
Will dated 25.3.1995 wherein she bequeathed tenancy rights in respect of the schedule property to this Defendant.
6 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
c)After dismissal of the case in R.C.No. 559/1999 filed by this
Defendant, the Defendant received Notice dated 11.8.2001 from one
Smt. N. Andalamma claiming to be the owner of the schedule property and demanding for payment of rent to her. As such, this Defendant was constrained to file another case in R.C. 393/2001 on the file of II
Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad Under Section 9 of the Act. This
Defendant does not know whether the Plaintiff is absolute owner of the schedule property and he did not furnish any document about his ownership though they are asked in the reply given by the Florence
Prakash Rao when she received Legal Notice from the Plaintiff on 1.4.99.
In pursuance of the Will executed by the said Florence, this Defendant has succeeded to the tenancy rights of the schedule property. Even otherwise, this Defendant was residing with Smt. Florence Prakash Rao throughout her life time and since his childhood and as such even otherwise he succeeded to the tenancy rights in respect of the Suit schedule property under Section 2(ix) of the Act XV of 1960. As the rent was Rs. 85/- per month for the schedule property and that the premises is of very old, more than 60 years, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit.
(d)As the possession of the Defendant is not that of a trespasser, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim any past and future mesne profits. Even otherwise the claim of Rs. 5,000/- per month is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, the Suit is absolutely devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
(e)If the Plaintiff denies relationship between him and the
Defendant as that of Landlord and Tenant, he has to necessarily
7 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
maintain suit on the market value on the basis of his title. But he did not do so. As such, on this ground also, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
Absolutely, there is no cause of action for the Suit and that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit and as the Defendant is a protected tenant under the Act, the Suit is not at all maintainable and hence the same is liable to be dismissed in limini.
4.Basing on the respective Pleadings, the following issues are settled for determination:- (1) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit as tenancy in respect of suit schedule property is protected tenancy Under the Act 15 of 1960?
(2)Whether the Plaintiffs is entitled for recovery of possession of Suit schedule property from the Defendant?
(3)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards past damages?
(4)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for decree for future damages at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month till handing-over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property?
(5) To what relief?
5.To substantiate the case of the Plaintiff, he himself is examined as
PW1 and he got the documents Exs. A1 to A4 marked on his behalf.
Ex.A1 is Certified Copy of Compromise Decree dated 27.7.1998, Ex.A2 is
Certified Copy of Order in R.C.No. 559/1999 dated 18.4.2001, Ex.A3 is
Rough Plan. Ex.A4 is Certified Copy of Order in R.A. No. 260 of 2001
dated 18.6.2001.
6.To substantiate the case of the Defendant, he himself is examined as DW1 and he got documents Exs.B1 to B8 marked on his behalf. Ex.B1
8 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
is Certificate issued by Bhavan's New Science College, Ex.B2 is
Certificate issued by New Science College, Ex.B3 is Memorandum of
Petition filed by Vallabhadas against Rangaiah and others dt. 6.7.81.
Ex.B4 is the Letter dated 29.8.81 addressed by RDO, Hyderabad Division to Sri Vallabhadas, Ex.B5 is Letter dt. 2.7.09 issued by District Revenue
Officer. Ex.B6 is Certified Copy of Affidavit of late Smt. Florence Prakash
Rao dt. 23.3.90, Ex.B7 is Certified Copy of Ration Card, Ex.B8 is Certified
Copy of Common Order in R.A.No. 311/1987 and R.A. No. 312/1987
dated 2.2.1994 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes
Court, Hyderabad.
7.Heard the Counsel on either side. Apart from oral submissions, they also submitted brief Written Arguments along with Citations. They are also perused.
8. Before going to decide the Issues settled, the Court shall bare in mind as to what are the facts not in dispute and in dispute, so as to decide the issues conveniently. Thus;
The facts that are not in dispute:
1. The fact of the Defendant be in possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing the Suit and prior to it atleast from the date of the death of said Florence Prakash Rao.
2. The fact of finding of the Rent Control Court in R.C. No. 559/1999 to the effect that the Defendant is not the tenant of schedule property.
3. The fact that the finding of the Rent Controller in R.C.No. 559/1999 became final as seen from the evidence.
4. The fact that the Rent Control case was filed against the Plaintiff herein also apart from Hindu Undivided Family of Sri Raja Bahadur Chaturbhuj Das Goverdhandas and Sons.
5. The fact that the Plaintiff herein got issued Legal Notice on 01.04.1999 intimating the tenant Smt. Florence Prakash Rao
9 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
about his being owner of the schedule property and demanding for payment of rent to him.
6. The fact that the Defendant is not the grand son of original tenant Major Prakash Rao and his wife Smt. Florence Prakash Rao.
The facts which are in dispute:
1. Whether or not the Plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property.
2. Whether the Defendant is the Tenant of the schedule property, or whether his possession of the schedule property is that of a trespasser.
3. Whether the Plaintiff sought a correct relief and whether the Court Fee paid by him is correct or not?
4. Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit.
5. Whether the pendency of CRP No. 5946/2007 preferred against the Order passed in R.A. No. 124/2005 has got any baring on the decision of this Suit.
9. ISSUE NO. 1:-“Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit as tenancy in respect of suit schedule property is protected tenancy Under the Act 15 of 1960”
a) On careful examination of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any material to accept the contention that the Defendant is the tenant of the schedule property. Already a finding was given in Rent
Control Case in R.C.No. 559/1999 to the effect that the Defendant failed to prove that he was the tenant of the schedule premises. Though the said finding given is not binding on this Court, as stands now, besides the said finding, there is no material filed before this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the Defendant is the tenant. It is also pertinent here in this context to refer and extract the evidence of DW1 about his various admissions which gives support to the case of the Plaintiff.
10 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
Cross examination of DW1 dated 2.4.2008:
“ I do not know the plaintiff personally. I came to know him as a
Notice was issued to my grand mother........ The entire property including plaint schedule property is owned by joint family of one Sri
Raja Bahadur Chaturbhuj Das Goverdhandas and Sons. I do not know whether the Plaintiff is one of his family member. I am not aware about compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 239/1998 on the file of V
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad”...
Cross examination of DW1 dated 3.2.2009:
…..It is true that I have not filed any document to show that my mother resided with her father in 1996. It is true that my mother is not born to Smt. Florence Prakash Rao. It is true that Major Prakash Rao and
Florence Prakash Rao have no children. ….....I have not filed any document to show that Naomi Prakash Rao is legally wedded wife of
Major Prakash Rao. ….. I have no proof to show that the plaintiff herein at any time recognized me as a tenant. It is true that Vallabhadas Shah is father of the Plaintiff, I am speaking as per record in R.C.No. 262/1980.
It is true that Vallabhadas Shah is Kartha of the joint family as per record in R.C.No. 262/1980. It is true that the plaintiff addressed a Letter dated 1.4.1999. The Plaintiff informed Florence Prakash Rao that he has become exclusive owner of the suit schedule property. I am aware of the said Letter. After the above said letter, rents from Florence were not demanded by any other family members of Sri Raja Bahadur Chaturbhuj
Das Goverdhandas and Sons. It is true that myself and Florence Prakash
Rao did not try to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the Partition Suit in
O.S. 239 of 1998....... It is true that I have not filed the said notice ….”
Cross examination dated 13.2.2009 “It is true that I have not filed Will in this case...... It is true that I have filed R.C. 393/2001 Under Section 9 of Rent Control Act and the same was allowed on 24.5.2005. The Rent Appeal R.A.No. 124/2005 preferred by the Plaintiff herein was allowed on 19.7.2007. I preferred
Revision bearing No. C.R.P. No. 5946 of 2007 before the Hon'ble High
11 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and same is pending.... I have not filed any documentary evidence to show that I am grand son of Major Prakash
Rao. From September, 1999 I know that the plaintiff is not treating me as a tenant in respect of suit property. It is true that I have not filed any suit for declaration or initiated any proceedings in any Court to declare me as Tenant of the suit schedule property......”
10.On examination of various admissions on the part of the
Defendant, one can come to a conclusion that there is no convincing, cogent and acceptable evidence placed before this Court by the
Defendant to believe his contention that he was continuing in schedule property as a statutory tenant. Even in the year 1999 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice informing to the then tenant, Smt. Florence Prakash
Rao that he became the owner of the schedule property in view of the compromise decree made in O.S.No. 239/1998 and also demanding for payment of rents to him. Thus, the defendant has got full knowledge about that notice and accordingly the tenant has to make payment to the plaintiff, but he did not do so. Further, he did not enquire about the said partition suit filed in O.S. No. 239/1998. Further, there is no subsequent demand made to the tenant by anybody else claiming title and demanding for payment of rent. In such a case, there is no meaning in disputing the title of the plaintiff to the schedule property. Hence, I do not find any impediment to arrive at a conclusion that the Plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
a)Even as seen from the definition of a tenant under the Act 15 of 1960, the Defendant does not come under the purview of that definition. It is also relevant in this context to have such definition extracted here under:
12 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
Section 2 (ix) defines tenant. “ Tenant means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any Son or Daughter, of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of tenant's of family upto the death of the tenant and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building, by its tenants or a person to whom the collection of rent or fees in a public, market cart-stand or slaughter-house or of rents for shops has been framed out or leased by a local authority”
b)On careful examination of the definition, the defendant who is said to be the grand Son of the original tenants Major Prakash Rao and
Smt. Florence Prakash Rao, doesn't fall under the definition, even otherwise. So far as the fact that the defendant is the grand son of the said Prakash Rao is concerned, there is no evidence placed before this
Court except a bald statement of the defendant himself. The documents that are filed by the defendant which are marked as Ex.B1 to B8 are not all helpful for the Court to come to a conclusion that the defendant is the grand son of the said Major Prakash Rao.
11.The other contention of the Defendant is that he is bequeathed his rights of tenancy from Florence Prakash Rao under a Will. The said Will is not filed before this Court. As such, it does not require any discussion.
In that way also, the Defendant had failed to substantiate his case that he is the tenant for the schedule property.
12.Thus, on careful examination and scrutiny of available evidence on record, it can be concluded that the Defendant has miserably failed to
13 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
establish his case that he is the tenant for the schedule property. If that be the finding of the Court, the possession of the Defendant is nothing but a possession as that of a trespasser, illegal and unauthorized. In other words, this Court has got every jurisdiction to entertain the Suit in view of the finding that the Defendant is not at all a tenant and that his possession is that of a trespasser and that he cannot be called as a protected tenant under the Act 15 of 1960. Accordingly, this Issue is held against the Defendant.
13. ISSUE NO. 2: “Whether the Plaintiffs is entitled for recovery of possession of Suit schedule property from the Defendant?”
a)In view of elaborate finding given in Issue No.1 where it is found that the possession of the Defendant is that of a trespasser, certainly he is liable to be evicted from the schedule property as he cannot enjoy the property of others. In this view of the matter, this
Court has no hesitation to give a finding on this Issue to the effect that the Plaintiff is absolutely entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the Defendant.
b)So far as the pending of CRP is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said CRP does not have any baring on the disposal of this Suit. The other reason is that when once it is found that the Defendant is not at all tenant, he cannot maintain even the case in R.C.No. 393/2001 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller,
Hyderabad Under Section 9(3) of the Act 15 of 1960, in connection of which, the CRP is pending.
Accordingly, this Issue is also answered in favour of the Plaintiff.
14 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
14. ISSUE NO. 3: “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards past damages?”
a)So far as this Issue is concerned, some how or other, the
Plaintiff has not taken much care to place any evidence in respect of rental values in that area where the schedule property is situate. Of course, the property is situate in Nampally area of Hyderabad, for which a judicial cognizance can be taken that it is a posh locality. As already mentioned above, there is no evidence placed by the Plaintiff in respect of rental values in that area. By taking judicial cognizance in this regard, this Court is of the considered view that it would be just and reasonable to fix the rental value of the schedule premises at Rs. 2,500/- per month for the reason the original rent for the schedule premises is that of Rs.
85/- till the death of Smt. Florence Prakash Rao in the year 1999.
Accordingly, this Court feels that it is just and proper and also reasonable to fix such amount as past mesne profits/damages.
Accordingly, this Issue is partly answered in favour of the Plaintiff and partly in favour of the Defendant.
15. ISSUE NO. 4 “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for decree for future damages at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month till handing-over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property?”
a) So far as this Issue is concerned, this Court has no hesitation to give a finding to the effect that the Plaintiff is certainly entitled for future damages. But to ascertain such damages, a separate enquiry is required to be made. Hence, the Plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate
Petition for getting future damages ascertained from the date of the Suit till the date of handing over the vacant possession of the schedule
15 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
property.
Accordingly, this Issue is held in favour of the Plaintiff.
16. ISSUE NO. 5:- “To what relief”
a) As there is no specific Issue settled in respect of maintainability of the Suit in respect of payment of Court Fee, this Court is inclined to decide whether Suit is not maintainable on the ground that the Court Fee paid under a specific provision is not correct. In my considered opinion referring a wrong provision of A.P. Court Fee and Suit
Valuation Act and payment of Court Fee under that provision cannot disentitle the Plaintiff to claim the relief. The said mistake can be rectified if necessary directing the Plaintiff to pay Court Fee under the relevant Provision of A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act.
b)Here in the instant case in hand, the Plaintiff paid Court fee
Under Section 40 of A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act which deals with suits between Landlord and tenant. But here the contention of the
Plaintiff is that the Defendant is not the tenant. More so, his specific case is that the Defendant is a trespasser. If that is so, the correct provision could be Section 21 of A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956. Section 21 of the Act deals with Suits for immovable property and it reads that subject to the other provisions of this Act, in a Suit relating to immovable property, fee shall be computed on 3/4th of the market value of the property.
17.In this regard, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff placed reliance on the following Judgments:-
1. 2002 ALT 24 (DB) of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
16 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
Hyderabad (Between New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Nizamabad and Others Vrs. A. Senapathi Reddy and others.) It is observed that where cases/appeals are filed without court fee or with deficit court fee and where such cases are entertained on payment of deficit court fee and disposed of on merits. As the defects are curable in nature at any stage of the suit or appeal, by latter compliance of the provisions of law and cases would not be dismissed on technical grounds for non complying at the threshold.
2.1998 (3) ALD 282 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad (Between Nadikatla Narayana Swamy and others,
Appellants Vrs. State of A.P. Represented by Dist. Collector,
Srikakulam and another, Respondents.) It is also observed in this
Verdict that the Court has got power to collect deficit court fee at any stage of the proceedings if it is of the opinion the court that fee paid is insufficient.
3.2005(6) ALT 308 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad (Between Rv. D.D. Nirmala Kumar and others,
Appellants Vrs. Rv. G. Sunder Sekhar and others, Respondents.) It is also observed in this Verdict that the court has got jurisdiction to direct the payment of deficit court fee and it is neither illegal nor irregular in directing the parties to pay such deficit court fee.
In view of such Verdicts this court directs the plaintiff to pay balance of court fee according to Section 21 of A.P. C.F. & S.V. Act within two weeks from the date of this Judgment, then only the Decree shall be drawn.
18.So far as the argument of the learned Counsel for the Defendant that the suit for mere possession without seeking for declaration is not maintainable, is concerned, this court is of the view that the relief of declaration need not be asked as the defendant is not disputing the title
17 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
of the plaintiff directly. He takes some advantage from third party who is
Smt. Andalamma, and who raised a dispute in respect of title of the plaintiff to the schedule property. When he claims to be the tenant, he cannot deny the title of the plaintiff. More so, in the instant case in hand, it is found that the defendant is not directly disputing the title of the plaintiff to the schedule property. Further, in a suit for possession, declaration of title or ownership of the plaintiff to the schedule property shall be decided. Without the plaintiff being the owner of the property, he cannot recover possession. In other words, unless and until the Court decides the title or ownership of the plaintiff to the schedule property, the Court cannot grant the relief of recovery of possession of the schedule property. As already discussed above, I do not find any material evidence placed by the defendant to show that the plaintiff is not the owner of the schedule property. More so, the document which is filed by the plaintiff and which is marked Ex.A1 cannot be disputed or doubted. The plaintiff became the owner of the schedule property as per compromise decree made in O.S.No. 239/1998 on the file of V
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
19.In this view of the matter, this court has no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property. The learned Counsel for the defendant placed reliance on the following
Judgments:
(1)AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033 (Between Anathula Sudhakar Vrs. P.
Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.rs & others.
(2) 2010 (5) ALT 136 ( Between Pidikiti Venkatarathnam Vrs. Dr.
Ramanavarapu Sampath Kumar).
18 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
(3) AIR 1971 A.P. 408 ( Between V. Seetharama Raju, Petitioner, Vrs. K.
Venkata Narasamma, Respondent
a) In the 3rd case it is observed that “In a suit for possession on the basis of title to the property an issue relating to Plaintiff's title to the property is perfectly relevant. The plaintiff must prove his title to the property in such suit.
b)In this regard, I have already mentioned above in a suit for possession, title of the plaintiff shall be decided. Accordingly, this Court finds that the plaintiff has got title to the schedule property.
c)So far as first two Judgments are concerned, the facts and circumstances are different with that of the facts and circumstances present in the instant case in hand. As such, in my considered opinion, the said two Judgments do not help the case of the Defendant.
20. RESULT:-
a)In the light of the discussion made above on all the Issues answering all the Points which are in dispute as mentioned above and in the result, the Suit filed by the Plaintiff is decreed as follows:-
1.The Suit is Decreed for eviction of the Defendant from the
Suit schedule property directing the Defendant to vacate and hand over vacant and actual possession of the plaint schedule property to the
Plaintiff within One Month, failing which the Plaintiff is at liberty to get it done through the process of the Law and recover its costs from the
Defendant.
2.The Suit is partly decreed for an amount of Rs. 90,000/- towards past damages for the period from 28.9.1999 to 29.9.2002 at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month.
19 O.S. 2052 OF 2002
3.The Suit is decreed for future damages to be enquired into by a separate Petition to be filed by the Plaintiff and he is at liberty to do so and the Suit is also decreed awarding Suit Costs to the Plaintiff payable by the Defendant.
Dictated to Superintendent, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of November,
2015.
I Senior Civil Judge City Civil Court,Hyderabad
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS
PW1: Hemendra V. Shah DW1: Ratan Prakash Paul
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF
Ex.A1 is Certified Copy of Compromise Decree dated 27.7.1998,
Ex.A2 is Certified Copy of Order in R.C.No. 559/1999 dated 18.4.2001,
Ex.A3 is Rough Plan.
Ex.A4 is Certified Copy of Order in R.A. No. 260 of 2001 dated 18.6.2001.
For Defendants
Ex.B1 is Certificate issued by Bhavan's New Science College,
Ex.B2 is Certificate issued by New Science College,
Ex.B3 is Memorandum of Petition filed by Vallabhadas against Rangaiah and others dt. 6.7.81.
Ex.B4 is the Letter dated 29.8.81 addressed by RDO, Hyderabad Division to Sri Vallabhadas,
Ex.B5 is Letter dt. 2.7.09 issued by District Revenue Officer.
Ex.B6 is Certified Copy of Affidavit of late Smt. Florence Prakash Rao dt.
23.3.90,
Ex.B7 is Certified Copy of Ration Card,
Ex.B8 is Certified Copy of Common Order in R.A.No. 311/1987 and R.A.
No. 312/1987 dated 2.2.1994 on the file of Additional Chief Judge,
City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
I Senior Civil Judge City Civil Court,Hyderabad
20 O.S. 2052 OF 2002