Smt. M. Kiran Mahi

IN THE COURT OF THE IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD. 

FRIDAY, DATED THIS THE 24 th DAY OF MARCH, 2017

PRESENT: SMT. M. KIRAN MAHI, B.L, LL.M. 

IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S. No. 4766 OF 2008

Between: Mohd. Riazuddin Imran, S/o: Md. Ejazuddin, aged about 42 years, Occu: Business, R/o: 10­2­ 317/50, Vijay Nagar Colony, Hyderabad 

... Plaintiff 

And

Mohd. Ayazuddin, S/o: Late Mohd. Azizuddin, aged 56 years, Rep. By his G.P.A. Mohd. Osman S/o: late Mohd. Khaja G.P.A. Aged about 45 years, Occu: Business, R/o: 10­3­ 284/2/2B, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad.

... Defendant

This suit is coming on 15.03.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.Syd Ahmed Mohiuddinanfzal, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri. Papa Reddy, Advocate for the

Defendant and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

 J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his family members, Agents, 2 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

workmen, etc.,. from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the suit schedule property i.e.

All that the double storied House bearing MCH No.10­2­317/50 admeasuring 400 Sq. Yards equivalent to 334.49 Sq. Meters situated at Ex.Service men colony, Vijay Nagar colony, Hyderabad and bounded by North: 30; feet wide road, South: Neighbours house, East: H.No.10­2­317/51 and West:H.No.10­2­317/49/A (hereinafter referred as suit schedule property).

2.The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:­

Plot No.32/B at Ex.Service Men Colony, Vijaynagar Colony was leased on long lease to Sri. Mohd. Azizuddin by A.P.Housing Board being an Ex.Service Man during the year 1950. The ownership has not yet been transferred in favour of the leaseholders by the A.P. Housing

Board due to pending dispute. Said plot No.32/B is measuring 400

Sq.Yards, over which two floors were constructed by the lease holder bearing MCH No.10­2­317/49 and 50 during the year 1953, which is suit schedule property herein. 

Mohd. Azizuddin, who died in the year 1978, was survived by his wife Smt. Bushra Begum and five sons, including father of the plaintiff, and two daughters. Mother of the plaintiff died while he was minor.

3 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

His father married another woman in 1978 and were residing separately. The other sons and daughters of late Md. Azizuddin were settled abroad.

The plaintiff was born and brought up in the suit premises. His grand father Md. Azizuddin during the year 1976 declared HIBA (Oral

Gift) of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of his wife namely Smt. Bushra Begum and Sri. Mohd. Vasiuddin, who is one of the existing tenant in the suit premises. At that time plaintiff was aged about two years. He was brought up by his grand mother Bushra

Begum., who died in 1997 at Saudi Arabia. Before leaving for abroad, she uttered one Mr. Mohd Inayat Mohi Uddin Shah, who is tenant of suit premises, that the suit premises was orally gifted by her husband to the plaintiff. 

The plaintiff completed his education by staying at suit premises, he is in occupation of suit premises and paying all taxes after demise of his grand mother viz., Smt. Bushra Begum since 1997 till date. A.P.

Housing Board has not conveyed title in the name of the grand father of the plaintiff but the plaintiff has been in possession of it since 1997. The defendant, who is uncle of the plaintiff, claimed himself to be owner of the suit premises and threatened the plaintiff and his tenants in suit 4 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

premises to vacate the suit premises. Hence, this suit. 

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that, A.P. Housing board has transferred the ownership of the plot No.32/B in his favour by virtue of Registered Sale deed vide document No.2720/2008. The plaintiff does not know even extent of land. The suit property extent is not 400 Square yards, it’s total extent is 418 Sq. yards. The building consists of only one floor, there are no two floors as alleged by the plaintiff.

The defendant constructed upper floor in the year 1981­1982 after taking due permission from Municipal authorities. The plaintiff also put a commemorative plaque slab on the first floor and inscribed on it the date of construction 20­3­1981. Md. Azizuddin was allotted the said land in 1953 and thereafter he constructed a pucca ground floor house on it. 

The plaintiff was not born in the suit premises but born in a maternity hospital at the residence of plaintiff maternal grand mother and Md. Azizuddin was a lessee of A.P. Housing board. He was never owner of the suit property as such he was not in a capacity to gift the said property to any person nor was the possession of the suit premises was delivered to any legal guardian. Plaintiff is not in occupation of 5 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

portion of suit premises No.10­2­317/50, admeasuring about 100

Square yards, but in other portions bearing numbers 10­2­317/49, 10­2­ 317/49/B and 10­2­317/50/A are in occupation of the tenants of the defendant and also the defendant is himself in occupation and possession of one of portion. Except telephone bills and educational certificates, all other documents do not show the name of the plaintiff.

The defendant is the rightful owner of the suit premises and has every right to claim the ownership of the suit premises.

The suit schedule property initially belong to the erstwhile City

Improvement Board, presently known as A.P. Housing Board. Said board gave the suit schedule property on a long lease of 99 years to Mr.

Azizuddin, who is father of the defendant. Mr. Azizuddin was in occupation of the suit premises till his death as a lessee of Housing

Board. In 1978, after death of Mr. Azizuddin, his five sons and two daughters continued residing in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is son of Mr. Ezazuddin, the eldest son of Mr. Azizuddin.

In the year 2005, A.P. Government issued G.O.No.46 Housing (HB.II) dated 02.07.2005 that the Government converted the lease­hold land into free­hold. Later A.P. Housing Board issued letters to all such occupants calling upon them to purchase said land by paying the 6 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

decided market value to the Housing board and get the tenancy land converted into ownership land.

On 26.07.2005 A.P. Housing Board issued a letter permitting the

Board to convert lease hold land into free hold to the Ex.­service men and also issued certain guidelines and also given the validity for one year from the date of issue of the above said G.O.,. Thereafter, A.P.

Housing Board also issued one more reminder letter dated 09.12.2005.

On receipt of letters, Mr. Azizuddin executed a Release Deed thereby relinquishing their respective right in the suit property, by receiving huge monetary consideration in favour of the defendant. Thereafter, legal heirs of Mr. Azizuddin also gave no objection letter in favour of the defendant to the Housing Board. Hence, Housing Board executed a sale deed in his favour on 25.06.2008 vide document No.2720/2008.

Suit property was neither gifted nor was the possession was delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff colluded with two tenants of the defendant namely Md. Vasiuddin and Md. Inayat Mohiuddin Shah, who stopped paying rents since October 2008. The defendant filed

R.C.Nos.99/2009 and 100/2009 for eviction of them before Principal

Rent Controller, Hyderabad and he filed a suit for recovery of possession against the plaintiff vide O.S.No.185 of 2009 on the file of Hon’ble II 7 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 

5.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:­

1.Whether the plaintiff is in possession and occupation of the suit schedule property ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant as prayed for?

3. To what relief ?

6.Plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got examined PW2 and also got marked Exs.A.1 to A.48 on his behalf.

The defendant got examined his G.P.A. Holder as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 on his behalf. 

7.Heard both sides. Perused the written arguments filed by the plaintiff and citations filed by the counsels for the defendant.

8.ISSUE Nos: 1 and 2 

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and occupation of the suit schedule property ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant as prayed for?

Since both issues are interdependent and to avoid repetition of facts, both issues are taken up together for discussion.

8 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

PW1, in order to substantiate his case, deposed in terms of plaint pleadings. As per PW1, his grand father obtained suit property on lease from A.P. Housing Board as he is an Ex­service man and ownership is not transfered in favour of his grand father.

PW1 was born and brought up in the suit property and his mother died and his father has performed second marriage and left the plaintiff with his grand parents. Thereafter, grand father of the

PW1 by name Md. Azizuddin orally gifted the suit property to

PW1 in the year 1976, at that time PW1 was aged about 2 years and his grand father died in the year 1978 and subsequently his grandmother namely Smt. Bushra Begum brought up PW1 and during her lifetime she uttered before one Mohd. Inayat Mohi

Uddin Shah that her husband orally gifted suit property to PW1 and she died in the year 1997. 

It is not disputed by the defendant that PW1 was residing in the suit schedule property. It is also not disputed by the defendant that suit property was leased out by the A.P. Housing

Board to grand father of the PW1, who is also father of the defendant, but the defendant contended that suit schedule property has been acquired by him under Registered document 9 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

issued by A.P. Housing Board in the year 2008.

The plaintiff in order to substantiate his case, got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A48. The documents filed by the plaintiff are pertaining to the period from 1982 to 2008. PW1 got marked telephone bills, tax receipts, educational certificates and S.S.C.

memo, which are issued in the name of PW1 in the address of suit property. Demand notice of M.C.H. and tax receipt are issued in the name of the grand father of PW1 by name Azizuddin. Though

PW1 stated that suit property was orally gifted to him, mere filing of telephone receipts, educational certificates do not establish his title and possession over the suit schedule property. If suit schedule property was orally gifted to PW1 in the year 1976, he would have taken steps on attaining majority to get property mutated in his name. PW1 did not take any such steps.

It is also admitted by PW1 that his grand father was not owner of the suit schedule property and was only leaseholder of the suit property. PW1 did not take steps to produce witnesses

before whom oral gift was executed. Though he stated that one

Mohd. Vasiuddin was present when his grand father orally gifted suit property to him, he did not choose to produce him as witness.

10 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

The defendant relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court (reported in 2014 AIR SCW 6261) in a case

between Rasheeda Khatoon (D) Through L.R.s V. Ashiq Ali

through L.R.s wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “when the donee is not in actual physical possession of premises and could not produce any rent receipts, when there is no proof to show that land was mutated in her favour and she was not in constructive possession and also elements of valid gift would not be satisfied, it is held that gift was not complete”.

He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case between State of A.P. and others Vs. M/s. Star Bone Mill and

Fertilizer Co. (Reported in 2013 AIR SCW 1454) wherein it is observed that “sale deed admittedly executed by person who was mere lessee of suit property is liable to be set aside”. 

In the instance case, as observed above, the grand father of the plaintiff is not owner of the suit schedule property, hence the same can not be conveyed to PW1 by his grand father. 

PW1 also admitted that the defendant has filed suit for declaration in respect of portion of suit schedule property. Under

Ex.A1, suit schedule property was converted from leaseholder to 11 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

free holder. It appears that PW1 after receipt of Ex.A1 did not make any demands to A.P.Housing Board.

The defendant contended that no objection certificate was executed by father of the plaintiff and his brothers and sisters and registered suit schedule property in the name of the defendant.

Though PW1 denied the same, he did not produce any evidence nor could establish that no such no objection certificate was issued in favour of the defendant. PW1 also admitted that suit was filed before Hon’ble II Additional Chief Judge, vide

O.S.No.189 of 2009 for recovery of possession wherein the

defendant herein has not pressed suit in the year 2013 and PW1 also admitted that memorandum of compromise was filed in

O.S.No.185 of 2009 which bears his signature. But he stated that

signature was obtained under force and compulsion. As per memorandum of compromise, which is marked as Ex.B8, the plaintiff has accepted that the suit schedule property belongs to the defendant and that also he is vacating and handing over the suit schedule property to the defendant, and agreed to withdraw the suit. Though PW1 stated that Ex.B8 was executed by putting him under force and compulsion, he did not take any steps to 12 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

cancel said memorandum of compromise.

PW2 stated that the defendant's wife along with few others came to the suit schedule property and threatened him and his tenant to vacate the suit schedule property, but the defendant did not come to the suit schedule property. But in his pleadings he specifically stated that the defendant threatened the plaintiff and his tenants to vacate the suit schedule property. It appears that the defendant never came to the suit schedule property and demanded the plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule property. PW1 specifically admitted that on 15.07.2008, 10.09.2008 and 12.12.2008 the defendant did not come to the suit schedule property as he was in abroad.

PW1 stated that his tenants were in occupation of the suit schedule property. He could not produce any rental receipts; and rental deeds before the Court that he and his tenants were in possession of the suit schedule property.

Though the registered document was executed by the A.P.

Housing Board in favour of the defendant, he did not challenge the same. PW1 stated that he addressed a letter to A.P.Housing

Board intimating them about the gift made to him and that he 13 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

intend to purchase the suit schedule property from A.P.Housing

Board, but said letter is not filed before this Court. PW1 himself admitted that he did not file any third party affidavit or his tenants affidavit in the Court to show his possession over the suit schedule property. He also admitted that he did not file any documents to show that he is owner of the suit schedule property.

In order to establish his possession and ownership over the suit schedule property, Plaintiff also got examined PW2 who is said to be his tenant during the period from 2000 to 2011 PW2 deposed that Smt.

Bushra Begum, who is grandmother of the plaintiff, told him that her husband gifted the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. PW2 admitted that the defendant has filed eviction suit against him. He stated that he has rental agreement with PW1. But he did not produce any written rental agreement executed in the year 2002 to 2011. It appears that since suit is filed for eviction against him, there is every chance for PW2 to support PW1 in order to protect his rights and also take out his vengeance against the defendant. Hence, evidence of PW2 is not found reliable and trustworthy. The plaintiff could not produce any evidence to show that he has acquired suit property from his grandfather and that he has been in possession of suit property since year 1976. Further the 14 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

plaintiff has claimed his right through his grandfather who himself is not owner of the suit property.

On the contra, the defendant got examined his G.P.A. Holder as

DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 on his behalf. Under Ex.B7,

A.P.Housing Board executed registered sale deed in favour of the defendant and subsequently under Ex.B8, Memorandum of Compromise was executed in between the defendant and plaintiff in O.S.No.185 of 2009 on the file of Hon'ble II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts,

Hyderabad, wherein the plaintiff has agreed to vacate the suit schedule property. Subsequently under Ex.B4, Suit schedule property was developed and property tax notice and receipts were issued in the name of the defendant. 

Plaintiff himself while cross­examining DW1 admitted that the defendant was not in India as on the date of execution of Ex.B4.

Plaintiff has denied about genuineness of Ex.B4 stating that Ex.B4 does not contain stamp of Indian Embassy. Such a plea is only a technical ground. The plaintiff himself has to prove his case and he can not depend upon the weaknesses of defendant. On one side the plaintiff admitted that the defendant was not in India as on the date of cause of action and on the other hand he himself suggested to DW1 that in the 15 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

year 2008 the defendant has quarreled with the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. Though plaintiff have cross­examined DW1 at length, nothing was elicited to show the plaintiff is owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The documents filed establish that the defendant has acquired suit schedule property from A.P. Housing Board under registered sale deed and thereafter he has been in possession of it.

The plaintiff can not claim perpetual injunction against true owner.

Further the plaintiff vide memorandum of compromise agreed that he would vacate the suit schedule property and withdraw the suit, but he failed to do so. Further the plaintiff also could not establish his possession and his tenants over the suit schedule property and also did not file any suit challenging Ex.B7 or Ex.B8. There is no evidence on record to show that the defendant has interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

The defendant, in support of his case, filed decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in a case between Prataprai N.Kothari Vs. John

Braganza (reported in (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 403) wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “ A person who has been in long continuous possession of an immovable property can protect the same by seeking an injunction against any person in the world other than 16 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

the true owner.”

He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others Vs. Assistant Charity

Commissioner and others (reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court

cases 137) wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that “no injunction could be granted against true owner at the instance of persons in unlawful possession”. In the instant case also, it is proved by the defendant that he is true owner of the suit schedule property. Hence, no injunction can be granted against the defendant. 

Hence, in view of the above discussion, the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and he is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. Hence, both issues are answered against the plaintiff in favour the defendant.

10.  ISSUE No:3

To what relief ? 

In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24 th day of March, 2017.

IX Junior Civil Judge City Civil Court, Hyd.

17 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Plaintiff Defendant PW1 Mohd. Riazuddin DW1 Mohammed Osman

PW2 Mohammed Inayat Mohiuddin Shah

Exhibits marked for plaintiff 

Ex.A1 is Lr.No.218/15/2000, dated 27.03.2006

Ex.A2 is the Original S.S.C. Memo dated 31.10.1989

Ex.A3 is progress report for the year 1980­1981

Ex.A4 is Monthly test progress report for the year 1980­1981

Ex.A5 is Telephone bills dated 22.11.2002

Ex.A6 is Original telephone bill dated 09.12.2002

Ex.A7 is original receipt dated 22.01.2003

Ex.A8 is original receipt dated 28.01.2003

Ex.A9 is original receipt dated 28.03.2004

Ex.A10 is original receipt dated 06.05.2004

Ex.A11 is original receipt dated 21.08.2005

Ex.A12 is original receipt dated 01.09.2005

Ex.A13 is original receipt dated 21.11.2006

Ex.A14 is original receipt dated 08.12.2006

Ex.A15 is property tax demand notice dated 02.03.1982

Ex.A16 is original tax receipt dated 06.08.1993

Ex.A17 is original tax receipt dated 23.12.1993

Ex.A18 is original tax receipt dated 04.08.1994

Ex.A19 is original tax receipt dated 31.03.1995 18 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

Ex.A20 is property tax demand notice dated 02.03.1982

Ex.A21 is original tax receipt dated 10.03.1990

Ex.A22 is original tax receipt dated 31.03.1995

Ex.A23 is original receipt dated 19.12.1995

Ex.A24 is original receipt dated 05.01.1993

Ex.A25 is original receipt dated 22.04.1994

Ex.A25 is original receipt dated 22.04.1994

Ex.A26 is original receipt dated 24.04.1995

Ex.A27 is original receipt dated 22.10.1996

Ex.A28 is original receipt dated 18.11.1996

Ex.A29 are the two original receipts

Ex.A30 are the two original receipts dated 28.01.2002 & 8.2.2002

Ex.A31 are the two original receipts dated 25.11.03 & 23.1.2004

Ex.A32 are the two original receipts dated 18.12.2004 & 1.2.2005

Ex.A33 is the original receipt dated 15.02.2006

Ex.A34 is the original receipt 

Ex.A35 are the two original receipts dated 1.12.1989 & 6.1.1990

Ex.A36 are the two original receipts dated 5.2.1990 & 19.3.1990

Ex.A37 are the two original receipts dated 10.1.1993 & 28.1.1993

Ex.A38 are the two original receipts dated 1.9.1998 & 14.9.1998

Ex.A39 are the two original receipts dated 12.10.01 & 30.10.2001

Ex.A40 are the two original receipts dated 29.2.02 & 13.2.2002

Ex.A41 are the two original receipts dated 9.2.2002 & 13.2.2002

Ex.A42 is the original receipt dated 08.07.2003

Ex.A43 are the two original receipts dated 7.1.2004 & 23.1.2004

Ex.A44 are the two original receipts dated 6.1.2006 & 17.1.2006

Ex.A45 are the two original receipts dated 12.9.2006 & 29.9.2006 19 OS 4766­2008 Perp.Inj.

Ex.A46 is the original receipt dated 05.06.2007

Ex.A47 are the two original receipts dated 5.2.2008 & 27.2.2008

Ex.A48 is the certified copy of decreetal order in O.S.No.185 of 2009 on the file of Hon'ble II Additional Chief Judge, dated 25.11.2013

Exhibits marked for Defendant

Ex.B1 are the property tax receipts (five in number)

Ex.B2 are the electricity bills (three in number)

Ex.B3 is Original General Power of Attorney dated 26.2.2011

Ex.B4 is Certified copy of development Agreement­Cum­General 

Power of Attorney dated 23.01.2001 bearing document

No.356/2011

Ex.B5 is the certified copy of release deed dated 20.12.2005 bearing document No.687/2006

Ex.B6 is the original NOC issued by the siblings of the defendant.

Ex.B7 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 24.06.2008 bearing document No.2720/2008

Ex.B8 is the certified copy of memorandum of compromise filed in

O.S.No.185 of 2009

Ex.B9 are the photographs along with C.D.

Ex.B10 is the original property tax demand notice (four in number) issued by G.H.M.C.

Ex.B11 is the property tax payment receipt for the year 2013­14 issued by G.H.M.C. (two in number)

IX Junior Civil Judge City Civil Court, Hyd.

IN THE COURT OF THE IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD. 

 MONDAY THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016

PRESENT: Ms. M. KIRAN MAHI, B.L, LL.M. 

IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S. No. 686 OF 2015 

Between: Syed Minhaj Hussaini S/o late Syed Asghar Hussaini a/a 35 yrs, Occ:Business R/o 10­5­391/54/10/8/F , Syed Nagar­11

First Lancer, Hyderabad. .. Plaintiff 

And 

1. Munni Begum W/o Mohd Kareem a/a 45 yrs, Occ:House wife

2. Mohd Kareem s/o not known to the plaintiff a/a 50 yrs, Occ:Pvt.Employee 

Both R/o H.No. 10­5­391/54/74 , Syed Nagar

First Lancer, Hyderabad. .. Defendants

This suit is coming on15.03.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Khaja Moinudd, Advocate for the 

Plaintiff and of Sri R.Dayanand Reddy advocate for Defendants and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

 J U D G M E N T 

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for grant of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, their Agents, legal heirs, successors, associates, henchmen, or any other person or persons claiming or acting under them from dispossessing, evicting and interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 2 OS 686­15 Perp. Injn.

plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e. all that part and parcel of the shop/mulgi covered bearing M.No. 10­5­391/54/10/8/F admeasuring approximately 10' x12' ft situated at Syed Nagar,First 

Lancer, Hyderabad and bounded on North Road, South: Neighbour property, East and West: remaining property belonging to defendants.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

The plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the shop bearing M.No. 10­5­391/54/10/8/F admeasuring approximately 10' x12' ft situated at Syed Nagar­II, First Lancer, 

Hyderabad (herein after will be referred as suit schedule property) 

The 1st defendant is the original owner of the suit schedule property and 2nd defendant is the husband of 1st defendant. 

Plaintiff approached the 1st defendant for lease of suit schedule property in the year 2001. The tenancy is oral on a monthly rent of Rs.800/­p.m excluding electricity charges. Plaintiff deposited 

Rs.18,000/­ with 1st defendant towards security deposit and invested an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ for construction of suit schedule property as per the request of the defendants. The rent was enhanced to Rs.2,000/­ Defendants 1 and 2 used to collect rents from the plaintiff but did not pass rent receipts. Defendants repeatedly came to the suit schedule property and demanded exorbitant amount and threatened the plaintiff that they would evict him from the suit schedule property.

3 OS 686­15 Perp. Injn.

It is stated that on 15.03.2015 at about 10.30 a.m defendants came to the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff but the same was resisted by the plaintiff with the help of his neighbours and passersby. Again on 25.03.2015 defendants along with unsocial elements came to suit schedule property and tried to interfere and dispossess the plaintiff from suit schedule property and illegally demanded money from the plaintiff. The plaintiff resisted the same with the help of his family members, customers neighbours and friends by name Syed Ali and Mirza Rasheed Baig. Defendants threatened him that they would evict the plaintiff from suit schedule property on or before 05.04.2015. Plaintiff approached the concerned police but they refused to take any action and advised to go to Court of law. Hence this suit.

3.Defendant No.1 filed written statement. Defendant No.2 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by 1st defendant.

The defendant denied the averments of the plaint and submitted that 1st defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property and 2nd defendant is the husband of 1st defendant. 

Plaintiff is guilty of suppression of facts and approached this 

Court with unclean hands. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff and the dates of cause of action are imaginary. The suit 4 OS 686­15 Perp. Injn.

is barred by time and also the suit is under valued. Defendants let out the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and the present rent is of Rs4,000/­. Plaintiff stopped paying rents from March 2014 became willful defaulter in payment of the rents. 

Defendants demanded the plaintiff to pay the rents and it is the only source and livelihood of defendants. Plaintiff filed this suit to knock away the suit schedule property. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering and dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

5.Plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked 

Exs.A.1 to A.3 on his behalf. Defendant No.1 got examined herself as DW1 and no documents re marked on behalf of the defendants.

6.Heard both sides.

7.ISSUE No: 1

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering and dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property as prayed for ?

5 OS 686­15 Perp. Injn.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction. 

The plaintiff has to establish his possession over the suit schedule property and interference of the defendants in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Before going into the merits of the suit, some of the 

admitted facts are that the plaintiff is the tenant of 1st defendant and the suit schedule property is let out to the plaintiff by 1st defendant. Plaintiff in order to establish his plea examined himself as PW1, wherein he stated that intially the rent was 

Rs.800/­p.m and thereafter it was enhanced to Rs.2,000/­p.m. 

Plaintiff filed Ex.A.1 which establishes that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit. Said fact is also not disputed by the defendants. Hence prima facie the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is established.

8.The only point that is to be considered by this Court is whether the defendants 1 and 2 on 15.03.2015 at about 10.30 a.m. and again on 25.03.2015 illegally interfered with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and they tried to dispossess him from the suit schedule property. PW1 stated that due to interference by the defendants, plaintiff approached the police who directed him to approach Court of Law. Plaintiff did not produce any document to show that the defendants interfered 6 OS 686­15 Perp. Injn.

with his peaceful possession. If he has approached the concerned police, they would have either received the complaint or would have refused to receive the alleged complaint. Plaintiff should have produced the written complaint or atleast the endorsement of the police on the complaint filed by him, but no such evidence is produced by the plaintiff.

9.The contention of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is leased out on rent of Rs.2,000/­p.m but the defendants took a plea that it is leased out for Rs.4,000/­p.m and that the suit schedule property is consisting of two mulgies and the walls separating two mulgies were removed and made into one mulgi Though there is a dispute between the plaintiff and defendants in respect of the quantum of rent, but this Court cannot decide the said aspect, as the suit is filed for mere perpetual injunction.

10.The other contention of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property was constructed by him or it was constructed by the defendants also is not an issue in this suit. It is an established fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has taken mere plea that the defendants interfered and tried to dispossess him from the suit schedule property. As per the evidence of PW1 one Syed Ali and Mirza 

Rasheed Baig were present during tenancy transaction and also 7 OS 686­15 Perp. Injn.

plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the defendants with the help of his family members, customers, neighbours, and friends by name 

Syed Ali and Mirza Rasheed Baig. Though plaintiff has not filed any document, except his evidence, he also not filed any evidence of the persons who witnessed the illegal acts of the defendants. 

Defendants being the landlords are entitled to recover the rents from the plaintiff by following due process of law. Mere demand for enhancement of rent cannot be a ground to seek injunction against the defendants. Plaintiff did not produce any evidence to show that he has constructed the suit schedule property by investing Rs.1,00,000/­. If plaintiff has invested such a huge amount in construction of suit schedule property, he would have definitely entered into an agreement with the defendants at the time of construction of the suit schedule property. It appears that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands.

11.PW1 also stated in his cross examination that he did not deposit any rent in the Court from the date of filing of this suit till today, as the defendants refused to receive the rent, he would have sent the rent by way of Money Order. If the plaintiff has sent the rent by way of Money Order, he would have filed the acknowledgment of Money Order or at least return M.O receipts 

before this Court. Since the plaintiff approached this Court, it is 

for him to establish his plea. Though his possession is established 8 OS 686­15 Perp. Injn.

he has to establish the interference of the defendants with his possession. There is no evidence placed in affirmative to establish the plea of the plaintiff that the defendants interfered with his possession.

12.The defendants have taken a plea that the plaintiff has not paid the rents nor deposited the rents since March 2014 and that the plaintiff intend to knock away the suit schedule property, thereby evading the payment of rents. Defendants also did not produce any evidence to establish his plea except putting bare suggestions to PW1. The defendants cannot resort to illegal means for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. 

Hence defendants also could not establish their plea. Plaintiff has to stand on his own case to establish his plea and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendants. Plaintiff by filing suit for injunction cannot try to evade the payment of rents to the defendants. However the same can be decided before the appropriate forum. PW1 except taking bald allegations could not produce any evidence to establish his plea. Further as observed by this Court that plaintiff approached this Court with unclean hands by suppressing the real facts. There is no evidence on record except the evidence of PW1 to establish that the defendants interfered with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence in view of the above 9 OS 686­15 Perp. Injn.

discussion, plaintiff is not entitled for relief of injunction. This issue is answered against the plaintiff.

13.ISSUE No:2

To what relief ?

In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Senior Assistant, transcribed by her, 

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 4th day of April, 2016.

IX Junior Civil Judge City Civil Court, Hyd.

Appendix of Evidence

 Witnesses Examined

Plaintiff Defendants PW1 Syed Minhaj Hussaini DW1 Munni Begum

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff 

Ex.A.1Original Electricity bills and receipts

Ex.A.2Original postal cover received by the plaintiff 

Ex.A.310.03.2004Original receipt.

Exhibits marked for Defendants

Nil

IX Junior Civil Judge City Civil Court, Hyd.

IN THE COURT OF THE II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL

COURT:

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : Smt. M. KIRAN MAHI, B.L., LLM,

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

I/C. II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FRIDAY, THIS THE 29 th DAY OF JULY, 2022

O.S.NO. 2271 OF 2006

BETWEEN: M/s. State Bank of India Represented by its Branch Manager, New Mallepally Branch, Hyderabad. … Plaintiff

And

1. Papatla Prabhakar, S/o. Late P. Seetharamaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Tradesman 'F', NFC, CFFP, ECIL Post, Hyderabad-500 062,

2. Papatla Hymavathi, W/O P. Prabhakar, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Household, R/O D-1/7, D.A.E. Colony, ECIL Post, Hyderabad - 500 062. … Defendants

This suit coming on 22.07.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. C.S. Chakravarthy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and

Sri. A.K. Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Defendants and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff Bank for recovery of money of

Rs. 4,28,719.76 Ps/- from the defendant along with interest @ 8.25 %

Page No.2 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.2271 of 2006, Dt. 29.7.2022 per annum from 15.12.2006 till the date of realization with costs.

2.Brief averments of the plaint are that, the plaintiff is State Bank of India, situated at Mallepally, Hyderabad. The defendant no.1 is a permanent employee working as Tradesman “F” in M/s. Nuclear Fuel

Complex, CFFP, ECIL, Post, Hyderabad. Defendant no. 2 is the wife of defendant no.1. Both defendant nos. 1 and 2 jointly availed house loan from plaintiff bank on 18.12.2003 and house loan of Rs.

8,21,000/- was disbursed to the defendants on 24.12.2003.

Defendant no. 1 and 2 jointly executed Memorandum of Term Loan

Agreement and the loan is repayable in 120 equated monthly installments of Rs. 10,073/- per month commencing from 15.3.2004 with interest @ 8.25% per annum. They also created equitable mortgage of title deeds of the property situated at Flat No.F-F3 on first floor, Plot no. 25 in Sy.No. 98 and 147 plinth area of 1115 Sf.ft in

Sowbhagya Laxmi Nilayam, Kothapet Village, LB Nagar in favour of plaintiff bank. Defendant no. 1 and 2 defaulted in payment of house loan upon which plaintiff on auction has sold the same in auction in

SARFESI Act, 2002 and the sale proceeds were credited to the defendants account, still the defendants are due to pay an amount of Rs. 4,28,719.76 Ps/- as on 14.12.2006 with further interest. The plaintiff bank got issued legal notice to the defendants on 15.12.2006 but the defendants did not repay the loan amount.

Page No.3 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.2271 of 2006, Dt. 29.7.2022

Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant no. 2 was set exparte. Defendant no. 1 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that he worked in NFC and also availed loan of Rs.

8,21,000/- from plaintiff bank and that defendant nos.1 and 2 jointly executed Memorandum of Term Loan Agreement and accepted to pay in installments. The plaintiff suppressed facts that defendants paid EMIs regularly and were in possession of the property, subsequently they came to know that the bank officials without issuing notices forcibly took possession of the property and the defendant no. 1 is poor employee with meager salary and he tried to persuade the plaintiff bank as he cannot pay EMI of Rs. 10,000/- as his salary is below Rs.10,000/- for which the plaintiff bank did not respond. Bank officials managed records and got auctioned the property and also promised that they will not recover any further amount from defendant no.1. and defendant no. 1 was under impression that the loan was cleared. He was surprised to know that the plaintiff bank also filed the suit wherein he has not received any notice or summons. Defendant no. 1 retired in July, 2010 and the pension benefits are stopped by the act of the banker and defendants lost his property for the fraud played by the plaintiff bank

Page No.4 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.2271 of 2006, Dt. 29.7.2022 and the builder and was forced to pay the amount which he is not responsible to the bank. The plaintiff bank in connivance with the builder as played fraud and filed the suit hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. This Court initially passed an exparte judgment and decree against the defendant no. 1 and 2, on 20.11.2007 and same was restored on an application filed by defendant no.1 by setting aside the said judgment on 19.6.2012 thereafter the suit proceeded against defendant no.1. After filing the written statement the Court has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit

amount from the defendants as prayed for?

2. To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, plaintiff bank has examined Pw.1 and

Pw.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-4 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, defendant no. 2 wife of defendant no.1 is examined as

Dw.2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.

6.Heard and perused the written arguments filed by the counsel for the plaintiff. At the stage of defendant evidence it was brought to the notice of the court that the defendant no.1 died and a memo was filed by the counsel for the plaintiff along with petition under

Page No.5 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.2271 of 2006, Dt. 29.7.2022 order 22 rule 4 of CPC intimating this court that the defendant no. 2 is the sole legal heir of defendant no.1.

7.However the said application under order 22 rule 4 of CPC was returned and since no steps were taken against defendant no.1, as such the suit against defendant no. 1 was abated on 14.7.2022

8. Issue No. 1 :- Before going into the merits of the suit it has to be observed that since defendant no.1 died and no steps are taken against defendant no. 1 as such the suit cannot be proceeded against the dead person as such, the suit against defendant no.1 is dismissed as abated. The suit can be proceeded only against defendant no.2 as she was set expate being co-borrower along with defendant no.1. The plaintiff in order to substantiate its plea has got examined its Branch

Manager as Pw.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the loan agreement. Ex. A2 is the arrangement letter executed by defendant no.

1 and defendant no.2 infavour of plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank got issued legal notice under Ex.A3 to defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 and Ex.A4 is the statement of account, dt. 14.12.2006 which shows that defendant no.1 and 2 are liable to pay the due amount to the plaintiff bank.

Page No.6 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.2271 of 2006, Dt. 29.7.2022

9.Further Pw.2 is also Branch Manger of plaintiff bank who succeeded Pw.1. Pw.1 deposed in terms of pleadings and also Pw.2 deposed in terms of Pw.1 corroborating the evidence of Pw.1. Pw.1 in his cross examination could not say the date of public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction towards sale of immovable property of the defendant. He also admitted that the plaintiff bank did not say anywhere in the plaint and also in chief evidence affidavit of

Pw.1 about outstanding liability of the defendants as on the date of auction and to have not stated about the name of the auction purchaser. He also admitted that except Ex.A4 plaintiff bank did not file any document to show the liability of the defendants. He admitted that he did not file copy of sale certificate or copy of notice issued to the defendants prior to the auction. However, defendant no. 1 has admitted that he alone with defendant no. 2 has availed house loan from the plaintiff bank and once he has admitted his liability it is for the defendants to establish that the said liability was discharged. To substantiate his case, defendant no. 1 has not filed any document to show that he has paid house loan amount and defendant no. 2 failed to challenge the case of the plaintiffs. Though defendant no.2 was set exparte but she got examined herself as Dw.1 and she in her chief examination affidavit reiterated the contents of the written statement, she got marked Exs.B1 to B4 wherein Ex.B1 is CC of Sale Deed. Ex.B2

Page No.7 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.2271 of 2006, Dt. 29.7.2022 to B4 are the encumbrance certificates for the period from 28.6.1988 to 10.6.2012 which shows that the property under Ex.B1 Sale Deed stands in the name of defendant no.1 and there are nil encumbrances upon the said property. Defendant no.2 failed to contest the plea of the plaintiff and though she was examined as Dw.1 she did not choose to set exparte order passed against her and also failed to bring notice of this Court about the death of defendant no.1 and continued to be examined as defendant no.1. Even after the death of defendant no.1 it appears that defendant no. 2 with a malafide intention not disclosed the facts before the Court or Hon'ble High Court and obtained an order against the dead person more over when defendant no.1 himself has expired and the suit against defendant no.1 is abated, there arises no evidence to be adduced on behalf of defendant no.1 and since defendant no. 2 is set exparte she cannot produce any evidence on her behalf until the said exparte order is set aside against her .

10.The evidence of DW.1 does not establish that defendant nos. 1 and 2 have repaid housing loan and in spite of it, the plaintiff bank has taken steps against them and filed the suit falsely against the defendants. The evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 in corroboration with Exs.A1 to A4 establishes the plea of the plaintiffs. Hence this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 2.

Page No.8 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.2271 of 2006, Dt. 29.7.2022

11.Point N o .2: In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 2 for an amount of Rs. 4,28,719.76 Ps/- with interest @ 8.25 % per annum from 15.12.2006 to till the date of decree and future interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of July, 2022.

Sd/-

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

I/c. II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT S : Pw.1: G.R.K. Subba Rao, Dw.1: P. Hymavathi, Pw.2: V.V.Prasad.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Loan Agreement, dt. 24.12.2003

Ex.A2Arrangementletter,dt. 24.12.2003

Ex.A3Office copy of legal notice, dt. 15.12.2006

Ex.A4Statement of accounts.

Page No.9 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.2271 of 2006, Dt. 29.7.2022

FOR DEFENDANT S :

Ex.B1Sale Deed, dt. 24.12.2003

Ex.B2EC for the period 28.06.1980 to 30.09.2007

Ex.B3EC for the period 01.10.2007 to 04.06.2010

Ex.B4EC for the period 01.01.2007 to 10.06.2012

Sd/-

I SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

I/c. II SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

1 Judgment in OS No 409/2020 dt: 23.06.2022 VII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, HYD.

IN THE COURT OF VII SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SMT.M KIRAN MAHI,

I Senior Civil Judge,

FAC: VII Senior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Dated the 23 rd day of June 2022

OS No. 409 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

Mrs Nasreen Sultana, W/o Shabeer Khan, S/o Mohd Abdul Samad, aged about 34 years, Occ: hosehold resident of H No 2-4-387, CIB Quarters 133 C, Nehru Nagar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. ...Plaintif.

AND

1. Shaik Muneer Ahmed, S/o Late Shaik Fakeer Ahmed, aged about 49 years, Occ Business, Resident of H No 2-3-48/D/1, Quadri Bagh, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

2. Shaik Zaheer Ahmed, S/o Late Shaik Fakeer Ahmed, aged about 46 years, Occ Business, Resident of H No 2-3-48/D/1, Quadri Bagh, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

3. Shaik Qadeer Ahmed, S/o Late Shaik Fakeer Ahmed, aged about 38 years, Occ Business, Resident of H No 2-3-48/D/1, Quadri Bagh, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

4. Shaik Yousuf Ahmed, S/o Late Shaik Fakeer Ahmed, aged about 37 years, Occ Business, Resident of H No 2-3-48/D/1, Quadri Bagh, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

5. Ayesha Siddiqa, W/o Shaik Nazeer Ahmed, aged about 42 years, Occ: household, resident of H No 2-3-48/D/1, Quadri Bagh, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

6. Shaik Chand, S/o Late Shaik Nazeer Ahmed, aged about 21 years, Occ Business, Resident of H No 2-3-48/D/1, Quadri Bagh, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

... Defendants

I Senior Civil Judge, FAC VII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, HYD.

2 Judgment in OS No 409/2020 dt: 23.06.2022 VII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, HYD.

This suit coming up before me for disposal in the presence of Sri.Abdul Samad, Advocate for the Plaintif and the defendants set exparte and 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

This suit is fled by plaintif against the defendants under order

VII Rule 1 and 2 R/w section 26 of Civil Procedure Code for recovery of an amount of Rs.23,60,000/- along with future interest @18% per annum from the date of fling of the suit to till date of its realization and costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

(i).The defendants are the Joint owners and possessors of the property bearing H.No.2-3-48/D/1 (New) (old No 2-3-48/A) admeasuring 184 Sq yards consisting ground, frst and second foors, situated at

Quadri Bagh, Amberpet, Hyderabad(herein after called as Suit

Schedule Property) acquired by the partition deed. The defendants approached the plaintif and requested to lend them an amount of

Rs.20,00,000/- for their urgent needs and as per the request the plaintif paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- on 19.11.2018 and defendants entered into an registered deed of mortgage by depositing title deeds without possession vide doc No 5377/2018 dt 19.11.2018.

After receiving the said mortgage amount of Rs.20,00,000/- the

I Senior Civil Judge, FAC VII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, HYD.

3 Judgment in OS No 409/2020 dt: 23.06.2022 VII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, HYD.

defendant Nos 1 to 6 handed over the original documents to the plaintif.

(ii). The defendants have promised to repay the said mortgage amount of Rs.20,00,000/- within a period of 30 months from the date of registered document to plaintif. On 13.11.2018 the defendant Nos 1 to 6 have executed another mortgage agreement (without possession) and agreed to pay Rs.30,000/-p.m. towards monthly rents in respect of the said property. The defendant Nos 1 to 6 have paid the agreed monthly rents till October 2019, but since then the defendants have failed to pay the agreed monthly rents. Inspite of several requests and demands the defendant failed to repay mortgage amount and monthly rents from October 2019 to September 2020 totally Rs.3,60,000/-. The plaintif got issued legal notice to the defendants on 07.09.2020, the said notice was received by the defendants, but the defendants have neither repaid the said amount nor given any reply to the said notice, as such the plaintif got issued a reminder on 27.10.2020 inspite of reminder and legal notice, the defendants failed to repay the mortgage amount.

(iii) The defendant Nos 1 to 6 are trying to alienate the said property to third parties to deprive the claim of the plaintif, as such the plaintif

I Senior Civil Judge, FAC VII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, HYD.

4 Judgment in OS No 409/2020 dt: 23.06.2022 VII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, HYD.

fled the protest petition on 14.12.2020 before the Sub-Registrar, offce of the Sub Registrar offce Chikkadpally, Hyderabad requesting not to register any documents pertaining to the suit schedule property. If the defendants succeeds in their attempts to sell the suit property the plaintif will be deprived to enjoy the fruits of the decree and sufer irreparable loss and injury. Hence the suit.

3.Inspite of legal notice and reminder the defendants did not appear before the court and the defendants set exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintif, the plaintif herself examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A8 were got marked on her behalf. Defendants remained exparte.

5.Heard the plaintif. Perused the entire material available on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

The contention of plaintif is that the defendants failed to pay the loan amount along with interest due by them inspite of repeated demands and notice. The defendants failed to pay mortgage amount and monthly rents. In order to prove their claim, the plaintif examined

I Senior Civil Judge, FAC VII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, HYD.

5 Judgment in OS No 409/2020 dt: 23.06.2022 VII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, HYD.

herself as PW1 and relied on documents under Exs.A1 to A8, Ex.A1 is registered deed of mortgage by depositing title deeds (without possession dt 19.11.2018) Ex.A2 is Mortgage agreement dt 13.11.2018, Ex.A3 is Original partition deed dt 17.01.2017, Ex.A4 is

Offce copy of legal notice dt 07.10.2020, Ex.A5 is Offce copy of the reminder dt 27.10.2020, Ex.A6 is Postal receipt dt 28.10.2022, Ex.A7 is

Computer generated postal tracking report No 6 and Ex.A8 is Original letter Lr No 712/2020, dt.14.12.2020. On perusal of the averments in the plaint coupled with the chief examination affdavit of PW1 and documents under Exs.A1 to A8 the claim of the plaintiff is proved since the defendant has not challenged the oral testimony of PW1 and

Exs.A1 to A8. There is no rebuttal evidence to the oral testimony of

PW1 and to disprove the documents.

7.In the above circumstances the plaintif is entitled for the relief and the suit is decreed with cost against the defendants for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.23,60,000/- and subsequent interest is awarded on amount of Rs.20,00,000/- @6% per annum from the date of fling of the suit to till the date of its realization. The point is answered accordingly.

I Senior Civil Judge, FAC VII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, HYD.

6 Judgment in OS No 409/2020 dt: 23.06.2022 VII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, HYD.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendants for an amount of Rs.23,60,000/- and subsequent interest is awarded on amount of Rs.20,00,000/- @6% per annum from the date of fling of the suit to till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of June, 2022.

I Senior Civil Judge FAC: VII Senior Civil Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For the plaintif: For defendant

PW1: Nasreen SultanaNIL

Documents marked on behalf of plaintif:

Ex.A1 : Registered deed of mortgage by depositing title deeds (without possession dt 19.11.2018) Ex.A2 : Mortgage agreement dt 13.11.2018 Ex.A3 : Original partition deed dt 17.01.2017 Ex.A4 : Offce copy of legal notice dt 07.10.2020 Ex.A5 : Offce copy of the reminder dt 27.10.2020 Ex.A6 : Postal receipt dt 28.10.2022 Ex.A7 : Computer generated postal tracking report No 6 Ex.A8 : Original letter Lr No 712/2020, dt.14.12.2020

Documents marked on behalf of defendant: -NIL-

I Senior Civil Judge, FAC VII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, HYD.

7 Judgment in OS No 409/2020 dt: 23.06.2022 VII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, HYD.

I Senior Civil Judge, FAC VII Senior Civil Judge, CCC, HYD.

IN THE COURT OF THE IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD. 

WEDNESDAY THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016

PRESENT: Ms. M. KIRAN MAHI, B.L, LL.M. 

IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S. No. 522 OF 2016 

Between: Mohd Sayeed Uddin, S/o Mohd Saleem Ahmed a/a 28 yrs, Occ:Private Service R/o H.No. 12­2­37/1/A/145, Zeba Bagh

Asif Nagar, Hyderabad .. Plaintiff 

And 

The Regional Passport Officer, Hyderabad Office adjacent to Prashant Theatre

Near Clock Tower, Secunderabad .. Defendant

This suit is coming on 24.03.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of, Sri G.Sridhar Reddy , Advocate for the 

Plaintiff and the defendant set exparte and and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaring his date of birth as 30­03­1987 and to direct the defendant to correct the date of birth of the plaintiff in his passport bearing No. E 4596571 

as 30­03­1987 instead of 10­06­1981.

2 OS 522­16 Decln. Ex.p

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that on 15.02.2003, plaintiff obtained passport from the defendant authorities, vide passport No. E 4596571. The said entry was wrongly mentioned as the application was filled up by the agent. Plaintiff's date of birth is mentioned as 30.03.1987 in the SSC Certificate and date of birth certificate. Plaintiff checked his passport when he intended to go to Umrah and Haj pilgrimage and came to know that his date of birth is wrongly mentioned in the passport. Defendant office advised the plaintiff to approach the Court of Law for remedy. 

Therefore, the plaintiff has no other go except to approach this 

Hon'ble Court. Hence, the present suit.

3.Defendant called absent, hence was set ex­parte.

4.Heard.

5.To prove the suit claim, on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff got examined PW1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is Original 

SSC Marks Memo Certificate dated 30­11­2004, Ex.A2 is the birth certificate dated 21­11­2015 and Ex.A3 is the Passport of plaintiff bearing No. E 4596571. Ex.A1 is showing the date of birth of plaintiff as “30.03.1987”.

6.Now the points for determination are:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for?

To what relief ?

3 OS 522­16 Decln. Ex.p

7. POINT No.1

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for?

Certain instructions are issued by the Ministry of External 

Affairs, Government of India, in its Circular No.VI/401/2/5/2001 

dated 29.10.2007, brought about a change in the scenario 

obtaining under clause (a) of the earlier circular instructions dated 18.04.2001. Clauses (a) to (e) of the Circular dated 29.10.2007 are extracted: 

(a)Where an applicant claims clerical/technical mistake in the entry relating to birth/place of birth in the passport and asks for rectification/correction: In all such cases the documents produced earlier as proof of date of date of birth/place of birth at the time of issue of passport may be perused (if not already destroyed) by PIA. In case, it is a clerical mistake either by the applicant or the PIA, date/place of birth correction may be allowed by issue of fresh passport booklet; in the former case, by charging fee for fresh passport and in the latter, 'gratis'. There is no need for declaratory court order in such cases.

(b)Where a competent authority which issued a birth certificate or an educational certificate, issues any correction or amendment in date/place of birth, PIA may effect the necessary amendment in the passport without insisting on a Court order provided the same document was produced earlier with the passport application. Fresh fees will be charged.

(c)Where files have already been destroyed, PIAs could use their discretion in correction of date of birth without a Court order, where such correction is only in months (not more than two years) and applicants provide satisfactory explanation that the same document(s) was provided at the time of initial passport application. Fresh fees will be charged. 

4 OS 522­16 Decln. Ex.p

(d)Where the initial entry has been made on the basis of a supportive document issued by one competent authority i.e. School/educational authority and the applicant subsequently requests for a change on the basis of a certificate issued by another competent authority i.e. Municipal authorities etc., resulting in conflicting documents for valid proof, the PIA should direct the applicant to procure an order from a First Class Judicial Magistrate, to effect the change as per Passport Manual 2001 (In some States, this function is discharged by Civil Magistrate)

(e)For those born on or after 26.01.1989, birth certificate is the only approved document, as already prescribed.

8.In the light of the clause (d) afore stated where the initial entry is made on the basis of supportive document issued by one 

Competent Authority i.e. School/Educational Authority and applicant subsequently requests for a change on the basis of a certificate issued by another competent authority i.e. Municipal 

Authorities, etc. resulting in conflicting documents, for valid proof, the PIA should direct the applicant to procure an order from First 

Class Judicial Magistrate to effect the change as per Passport 

Manual, 2001. But in the present case, the plaintiff did not file the supporting document submitted by him to the defendant at the first time of making initial entry in his passport i.e. in other words the plaintiff would have filed a supportive document before the defendant at the time of issuing of passport. The plaintiff did not state in his plaint that what document he filed before the defendant at the time of issuing of passport. Moreover, the plaintiff can approach the Court for declaration only when other authority subsequently issues another document/ certificate 5 OS 522­16 Decln. Ex.p showing the plaintiff's date of birth as different. When there is conflict between with regard to date of birth in supportive document filed by the plaintiff at the time of issuing of passport such as SSC Certificate, etc. and another document issued by other competent authority such as municipal authorities by mentioning the other date of birth, then only the plaintiff should approach the 

Court of law for declaration. As such, as per clause 'c' of Circular 

dated 29.10.2007, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration.

9.As per the averments of the plaint and also as per the contention of the plaintiff, it is only a clerical mistake. So, as per clause (a) of Circular dt. 29.10.2007 in case it is clerical mistake either by the applicant or the PIA, date/place of birth may be allowed by the issue of fresh passport booklet. There is no need for declaratory order in such cases. So, the defendant can issue fresh passport by making correction in the passport of the plaintiff. 

Plaintiff also submitted that when they approached the defendant, the defendant refused to cause entry in the passport. If a government servant or any government authority do not perform their duty as per law, there are remedies under Indian Constitution under Article 32 and 226. So, the plaintiff can take proper steps as per law against the defendant if he does not follow the Circular dt. 

29.10.2007 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs Government of India.

6 OS 522­16 Decln. Ex.p

10.In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Point answered accordingly.

11. POINT No.2 

To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is dismissed, without costs.

Typed, corrected on my personal laptop and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30th day of March, 2016.

IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

 Plaintiff: Defendant PW1 Mohd Seed Uddin Nil

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff 

Ex.A.130.11.2004SSC Marks Memo/Certificate Ex.A.221.11.2015Birth Certificate Ex.A.3Original passport

Exhibits marked for Defendant

Nil

IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.