Smt. P. Srivani

IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 1 st April, 2021

PRESENT: Smt P. Srivani, XVII Addl.Senior Civil Judge, FAC XVIII Addl.Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

O.S.No.193 of 2013

Between:

Mohammed Azhar Ali, S/o. Late Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Aged 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.16-9-434/A, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

AND

1.Mohammed Asghar Ali (Died per LRs D8 to D10) S/o. Late Mohammed Ahmed, Ali,

2.Mrs Kaneez Fatima Shaheen, W/o. Mohammed Vaseemuddin, D/o. Late Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Aged 56 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Flat No.203, 2nd Floor, #16-3-449/3 & 4 KFK Towers, Near Zaiqa Hotel, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, TS.

3.Mohammed Mazhar Ali, S/o. Late Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Aged 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.16-4-57/1, Feroz Manzil, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, TS.

4.Mohammed Athar Ali, S/o. Late Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Aged 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.16-4-57/1, Feroz Manzil, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, TS.

5.Mrs Kaneez Aisha Shahnaz, W/o. Mir Shabbir Ali, D/o. Late Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Aged 47 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.17-2-73, Chowni Nade Ali Baig, Yakutpura, Hyderabad, TS.

6.Mohammed Afsar Ali, S/o. Late Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Aged 45 years, Occ: Service in Dubai, R/o. Flat No.203, 2nd floor, 16-3-449/3 & 4/E, KFK Towers, Near Zaiqa Hotel, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, TS.

>> 2 of 15<< OS No.193/2013

7.Mrs Kaneez Sughra Shahana, W/o. Syed Iftequar Ahmed, D/o. Late Mohammed Ahmed Ali, Aged 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Flat No.203, 2nd floor, #16-3-449/3&4 KFK Towers, Near Zaiqa Hotel, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, TS.

8.Mrs Shahneela Ali, W/o. Late Mohammed Asghar Ali, Aged 46 years, Occ: Household, R/o. PO Box No.3195, Arabian Profile Co.Sharjah-UAE.

9.Ms Mari Ali, D/o. Late Mohammed Asghar Ali, Aged 34 years, Occ: Household, R/o. PO Box No.3195, Arabian Profile Co.Sharjah-UAE.

10.Mohammed Gazanfar Ali, S/o. Late Mohammed Asghar Ali, Aged 32 years, Occ: Service, R/o. PO Box No.3195, Arabian Profile Co.Sharjah-UAE.

...Defendants

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri Syed Muneer, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri Abdul Muqeet, Advocate for the defendants No.2 & 5 to 7, of M/s Farook Salahuddin, Advocate for the defendants

No.3 & 4, defendants No.1, 8 to 10 were remained exparte: 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 is a suit for partition and separate possession.

2..The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

i)Mohammed Ahmed Ali during his lifetime purchased a house property i.e., 16-4-57 admeasuring 350.41 Sq.yards out of total extent of 721.88 Sq.yards situated at Feroz Manzil, Chanchalguda Khalla, Hyderabad from its owner Smt Zeba Lateef under registered sale deed Doc.no.1852/1968. Since the suit schedule property was a part of H.No.16-4-57 in total extent of 721.88 Sq.yards Mohd Ahmed Ali applied and accordingly the municipal authorities allotted the house number as 16-4-57/1 in extent of 350.41 Sq.yards that was purchased by him, which is consisting of ground floor having seven rooms among which 2 halls, 2 kitchen, 2 bathrooms with RCC and ACC roof, open place and since the date of purchase Mohammed Ahmed Ali

>> 3 of 15<< OS No.193/2013

along with his wife and children resided in the suit schedule property till his death.

The plaintiff and defendants are none other than the children of the Mohdh Ahmed

Ali. Smt Rabbani Begum, the mother of plaintiff and defendants passed away on 20.04.2008 and by the date also the property was not joint and co-ownership of plaintiff and defendants. After the death of their parents, plaintiff and defendants succeeded to the suit schedule property and efforts were made during the lifetime of

Smt Rabbani Begum and after death of Rabbani Begum to effect the partition, but one or other defendant shown disinterest. In that process on 20.04.2008 a meeting was held to effect the partition among all the co-sharers, but was not effected due to the adamant attitude of the defendants No.3 & 4.

ii)Again on 21.10.2012, since defendant No.6 was in India on his vacation, a meeting was arranged to effect the partition as per Shariah law, but again defendants

No.3 & 4 not cooperated, without giving any reasons, dispersed the meeting. Hence, the elders expressed inability to change the attitude of defendants No.3 & 4. Hence it was also unfruitful.

iii)According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property is in possession of the defendants No.3 & 4 and documents pertaining to the suit schedule property is also in possession of defendants No.3 & 4 and he the plaintiff is in possession of two rooms, which is using as store for dumping articles.

iv)According to the plaintiff, each son of their father is entitle for 2/13th share each and daughters entitled for 1/13th share. Since the meeting for effect of partition was not fruitful, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dt.03.11.2012 through his counsel to all the defendants demanding for partition and among all the defendants, defendants No.3 & 4 received notices through registered post, defendants No.2, 5 to 7 received notices in person while he served notices to defendant No.4 through

>> 4 of 15<< OS No.193/2013

defendant No.6 in Dubai in the month of November First week, 2012, for which defendants No.1 & 6 sent e-mail messages stating no objection for the partition.

v)Though all the defendants received notices, they did not come forward for the partition. Since the documents under which their father purchased suit schedule property is in possession of the defendants No.3 & 4, he applied for the EC for the period of 01.01.1959 to 03.06.1969, but it was written with endorsement that indexes of the office relating to the period was destroyed in the fire accident occurred on 03.06.1969.

vi)Since the none of the defendants come forward for the partition to effect the partition, he filed the present suit. By saying so, the plaintiff prayed to pass a preliminary decree of partition and put him in separate possession of his 2/13th share i.e, 53.91 Sq.yards and defendants No.1, 3, 4 & 6 to an extent of 53.91 Sq.yards i.e., 2/13th share each being sons while defendants No.2, 5 & 7 are entitle for 1/13th share each being daughters ( defendant No.1 died during the suit proceedings and his LRs were brought on record as defendants No.8 to 10, who were remained exparte), to appoint a commissioner for causing and effecting the partition and put him in separate possession of 2/13th share in the suit schedule property and if it is not possible for the practical to physical division, the property shall be put for auction and to give 2/13th share of sale proceeds and for costs.

3..Summons held sufficient to the defendants. The defendant No.1 remained exparte and after his death, defendants No.8 to 10 the LRs of defendant No.1 also remained exparte, while defendant No.2 & 5 filed a written statement separately, defendants No.3 & 4 filed written statement separately, defendants No.6 & 7 adopted the written statement of defendant Nos.2 & 5.

>> 5 of 15<< OS No.193/2013

4..As per the written statement of defendants No.2 & 5, while admitting about the ownership of the property by their late father Mohammed Ahmed Ali and admitting the death of their mother Rabbani Begum, also admitted that a meeting was held for effecting the partition in the month September, October 2012 at the time when defendant No.6 visited India.

5..These defendants also admitted that, defendants No.3 & 4 are in possession of the suit schedule property and they are not aware of present possession by the plaintiff pertaining to the two rooms. They denied that, they caused hurdles to the process of partition. They shown their intention that, the property shall be divided and all the co-sharers get their respective shares as mentioned in para No.12 of the plaint. These defendants while admitting the issuance of the legal notice by the plaintiff, submitted that, they wanted to resolve the matter amicably, but for some or other reason, the plaintiff filed the suit. They pleaded ignorance of sending legal notice to the defendant No.1 through defendant No.6 and about the e-mails send by defendant No.1 & 6. They admitted that, the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property is in possession of the defendants No.3 & 4 as pleaded by the plaintiff. By saying so, they pleaded to decree the suit by putting all the co-sharers in their respective shares in the suit schedule property in the interest of the justice.

6..According to the written statement filed by the defendants No.3 & 4, the defendant No.1 never resided in the address shown in the cause title, but he is a citizen of Pakisthan, who gave up the citizenship of India and they pleaded that the plaintiff shall report to strict proof that he is the brother of defendants.

7..According to these defendants, their father expired on 20.04.1978 and it is defendant No.3 who shouldered the responsibility of maintaining the family. It is their claim that, they are in possession of the suit schedule property, who had taken

>> 6 of 15<< OS No.193/2013

care of their mother Rabbani Begum, who expired on 20.04.2008. These defendants submitted that, plaintiff never resided in the suit schedule property and denied that the suit schedule property when purchased was having RCC structure. They submitted that, defendants No.3 and 4 constructed the portion of the property for their residence, RCC and remaining portion left upon and they have taken care of other portion of the suit schedule property with their funds, otherwise it would have been decay due to the non repairs over such long period of time. As per these defendants, their father died in the year 1978 & after lapse of 30 years their mother died on 20.04.2008 due to Cancer and the defendants No.3 & 4 taken care of their mother prolonged illness and no other defendants bothered.

8..The defendants No.3 & 4 contended that, defendant No.1 opted Pakisthani

Citizenship and other defendants lived on their accord, but it is the defendant No.3, who was conscious of his responsibility, arranged for the education of defendant

No.6 helped him to secured the job in Gulf, while he was working in KSA and as he rendered service to the family and his mother, his mother Rabbani Begum orally gifted her share in the property in favour of defendant No.3 in the presence of

Mohammed Akthar Ali and her brother on 01.01.2007 and handedover the undivided share in the property to the defendant No.3 and since then defendant No.3 is in occupation of the share of his mother as absolute owner & possessor of the property.

9..The defendant No.3 averred that, the defendant No.1 who is a Pakisthani citizen during his last visit to India orally gifted his undivided share in favour of defendant No.4 in the presence of defendant No.3 and a family friend Mir Liaqat Ali

Khan and since then the defendant No.4 is the owner and possessor of the portion

>> 7 of 15<< OS No.193/2013

orally gifted by the defendant No.1. Hence, it does not lying them in the mouth of plaintiff to claim that he is the joint owner and possessor of the property.

10..Since the defendants No.3 & 4 only helped the family at the time of crisis, since the father of defendants died when they were young and as they are the persons who pulled their resource for the arrangement of marriages, other defendants did not ask for the partition of the suit schedule property. Likewise, defendant No.3 brought up defendant No.6, got arranged to secure a job as such he also did not ask for the partition.

11..These defendants denied that they are creating obstruction in the partition of the suit schedule property. According to them, the plaintiff is not at all co-sharer of the suit schedule property, as such he need not worry about others. He denied about the meeting held at the time of visit of defendant No.6 to India. As per their version, they put a suggestion before elders that the portions in their occupation be leftover and the defendants be allowed to sell the remaining portion of the suit schedule property, which was not acceptable to them. But it was a desire of the defendants to completely dispose of the suit schedule property, but the defendants No.3 & 4 are having sentimentally attached to the suit schedule property, they did not want to sell.

They also denied about the meeting held on 21.10.2012 and also denied about the possession of the plaintiff over the two rooms of the suit schedule property.

12..The defendants No.3 & 4 while admitting possession over the suit schedule property and also admitted that they have been under construction and renovation of the suit schedule of the property. As per their version, the calculation for the partition shown is incorrect. Since their mother during her lifetime orally gifted her undivided share in favour of defendant No.3 and defendant No.1 orally gifted his share in favour of defendant No.4. They while denying about the meeting held on

>> 8 of 15<< OS No.193/2013

21.10.2012 also denied about the issuance of the legal notices by the plaintiff. As per their version, the mode of service of notice to the defendants No.2, 5 & 7 is not proper and defendant No.6 who married Moroccan girl in Gulf does not have any interest in the share available to him. So, the suit is liable to be dismissed for anomalies committed by the plaintiff in the interest of the justice.

13..As per these defendants, there is no cause of action to file the suit and the suit is not properly valued and the plaintiff is not at all entitled for the 2/13th share out of total extent of 350.41 Sq.yards of the suit schedule property. By saying so, these defendants pleaded to dismiss the suit.

14..To settle the suit, this court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree?

2. To what relief?

15..In order to prove their case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, got marked Exs.A1 to A17 and defendant No.4 examined himself as DW1 while defendant No.2 examined himself as DW2 and defendant No.6 examined himself as

DW3 and got marked Ex.B1.

16..Heard both the counsels for the plaintiff as well the defendants.

17..Issue No.1:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree?

On perusal of evidence affidavit of PW1, it is noticed that, it is nothing but replica of his plaint. It is apt to discuss about the evidence of DW2 and DW3 also along with evidence of PW1, since PW1, DW2 & DW3 i.e., defendants No.2 on behalf of the defendants No.6 & 7 and also defendant No.6 and on his own accord as

DW3 deposed the evidence in favour of the plaintiff. In the suit of partition except

>> 9 of 15<< OS No.193/2013

defendants No.3 & 4, the plaintiff and other defendants are sailing in the same boat.

According to the plaintiff, defendants No.2, 5 to 7 the suit schedule property was purchased by their father, which consists of ground floor having seven rooms with

RCC and ACC Roof which consists of 2 halls, 2 kitchens, 2 bathrooms & open space. Their father passed away and later their mother also passed away on 20.04.2008, which is not in controversy.

18..It is the version of defendants No.3 & 4 through evidence of DW1/defendant

No.4, that it is defendant No.3 who taken care of entire family after the death of their father and it is themselves i.e., defendants No.3 & 4, who taken care of their mother till her death, as such the defendant No.1 orally gifted his share to the defendant No.4 while their mother Rabbani Begum orally gifted away her share in favour of the defendant No.3, which was refuted by the plaintiff and DW2 & DW3.

Even in the cross examination also the plaintiff, defendants No.2, 5 to 7 are affirmed with regard to the partition of the property and as per PW1 cross examination by defendants No.2, 5 to 7 also, it is defendant No.6, who performed marriage of defendant No.7, it is defendant No.1 who financially assisted the family including the plaintiff, defendants No.3 & 4 and as defendant No.6 taken care of others including their mother. The defendant No.1 relinquished his share in favour of the defendant No.6. However, said gift under Ex.B1 which was marked through DW3 has come into light during the pendency of the suit. The suit was filed in the year 2013 while defendant No.1 relinquished his share to defendant No.6 as per Ex.B1 was in 01.02.2015. Let Ex.B1 be put aside for a while, though defendants No.3 & 4 cross examined PW1, nothing has been elicited except that defendant No.1 not served with summons properly. However, defendant No.1 died and LRs were

>> 10 of 15<< OS No.193/2013

brought on record as defendants Nos.8 to 10 and they also remained exparte inspite of paper publication is given.

19..PW1 denied a suggestion that, defendant No.1 orally gifted away his share to defendant No.4 in the presence of defendant No.3 and one Mir Liaqat Ali Khan.

Even defendant No.4 has also set up the same case that defendant No.1 gifted away his share of the property to defendant No.4 in the presence of defendant No.4 and one Mir Liaqat Ali Khan, but he neither examined defendant No.3 nor command said Mir Liaqat Ali Khan on his behalf to prove the said oral gift. Simply taking a plea that defendant No.1 has orally gifted away his property to the defendant No.4 cannot be said to have proved, but it must be proved before the Court by way of examining the witness in whose presence said oral gift was made by the defendant

No.1 to defendant No.4. Though defendant No.4 examined himself as DW1, as stated there is no single proof placed by the defendant No.4 before the Court to prove such oral gift. Even DW1 admitted at the time of cross examination that, he has not placed any documentary evidence with regard to oral gift said to have made by made by defendant No.1 in his favour. DW3 admitted that her mother used to get pension after death of his father who used to work as municipal commissioner in

Bijapur in Karnataka State and their mother received the death benefits of their father. However denied that marriage of defendant No.5 was performed by defendant No.1.

20..DW3 crucial admission has been given that, during the lifetime of their mother, negotiations started with regard to the suit schedule property, but said meeting failed to achieve any result and no meetings were held. He admitted that, at the time of cross examination made by the plaintiff that he is ready for the partition, if he get 12 ft., road facing towards his share in the suit schedule property. He also

>> 11 of 15<< OS No.193/2013

admitted that, he agreed for the partition of the suit schedule property, so the matter was referred to mediation.

21..Though defendant No.3 by way of his written statement, claimed that their mother Rabbani Begum orally gifted her share to him, since he taken care of his mother, who died with her Stomach Cancer; said oral gift is not proved by way of either examining himself as witness or examining the witness who were presented at the time of said oral gift. Defendant No.3 though through his written statement stated that their mother gifted away the property in the presence of Mir Liaqat Ali

Khan, who is their family friend, defendant No.3 himself not examined as a witness he has not chosen to come into the witness box and as also not examined said Liaqat

Ali Khan in whose presence their mother said to have orally gifted her share.

Besides this, a muslim women cannot gift away her entire share of the property, but can only gift 1/3rd out of her entire property. So the contention taken by defendant

No.3 through his written statement or through evidence of defendant No.4 as DW1 cannot be looked into and hence the oral gift said to have given to the defendant

No.3 by their mother is not at all said to have proved.

22..Remaining evidence of DW2 & DW3; they are sailing with the plaintiff in all aspects. Though they were cross examined by defendants No.3 & 4 counsel, nothing has been elicited to prove the oral gifts said to have made in favour of defendant

No.3 by their mother or defendant No.4 by defendant No.1. Because defendant No.3 got marked Ex.B1 i.e., memorandum of oral gift (Hiba), which said to have given on 01.02.2015. Though it cannot be looked into, since it was emerged during the pendency of the suit, said to have orally gifted away to his share of property to defendant No.6 i.e., DW3, wherein he clearly mention that, he never gifted away his share to defendant No.4. He stated that, the claim taken by defendants No.3 & 4

>> 12 of 15<< OS No.193/2013

that, his share was orally gifted to defendant No.4 is untrue and and false. Above all it is for the defendants No.3 & 4 to prove independently about the oral gifts said to have made by their mother and elder brother defendant No.1, but they failed to prove the same. DW2 & DW3 both of them supported the plaintiff in all aspects and clearly mentioned even in their cross examination that it is defendants No.3 & 4, who created hurdles for the partition and a crucial admission given by DW2 is that defendant No.6 has opted for the establishment of optical business of defendant

No.3 and admitted a suggestion that the defendant No.4 went abroad in the year 1996 and came back to India in the year 2000. Which assumes no much importance.

Infact it goes backs to the case of the defendants No.3 & 4 that they have taken care of their mother, who expired in the year 2008. When defendants No.3 & 4 went to abroad in the respective years, who taken care of their mother is not answered by either by plaintiff or defendants.

23..The crucial suggestion given by defendants No.3 & 4 counsel to DW2 is that in the year 2007 with the advise of their mother, they gave a paper publication for selling the suit schedule property, which falsifies their own case. Because as per defendants No.3 & 4, their mother orally gifted her share in the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3. When such gift was made? on which date? In which year? and in which month? is not proved by defendants No.3 or 4. If really such share of property was orally gifted, then why defendant No.3 has not proved the same by way of examining their family friend Liaqat Ali Khan is a question, which was not answered by defendant No.3 by entering into the witness box. He did not choose to enter into the witness box to prove his own contentions.

>> 13 of 15<< OS No.193/2013

24..Therefore, in the light of the above discussions, this court concluded the following things:

1.No partition occurred pertaining to the suit schedule property.

2.Though defendant No.3 taken a plea that, their mother gifted away her share to him orally, he failed to prove such oral gift.

3.Though defendant No.4 taken plea that, defendant No.1 gifted his share to him, he has also failed to prove the same.

4.Though defendants No.3 & 4 taken plea that, defendant No.3 has taken care of their mother, who died in the year 2008 with

Stomach Cancer, DW1 and other witnesses also admitted that defendants.3 & 4 went abroad for some years till 1999, which falsifies their own statement and during that period, who taken care of their mother is not proved.

5.It is a suggestion given by defendant No.4 counsel to DW3 that, during the lifetime of their mother, one attempt was made to sell away the property with consent of their mother.

6.Under the muslim law, muslim women cannot orally gifted away their entire share, but can only gift 1/3rd share out of her entire property and if really intents to gift away her entire share, she has to take consent of the people to whom the property goes, if she dies, but that plea has not taken by defendants No.3 & 4, which falsifies the oral gift said to have given by their mother to defendant No.3.

7.The defendant No.3 failed to examine himself as a witness and prove his contentions. On the other hand plaintiff as PW1, defendant No.2 as DW2, defendant No.6 as DW3 who are sailing in one boat has clearly proved that the suit schedule property is existing for the partition among all the brothers and sisters as per

Shariah law.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

>> 14 of 15<< OS No.193/2013

25..Issue No.2:

To what relief?

In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs and plaintiff, defendants No.1, 3, 4 & 6 are entitled for 2/13th share, defendants No.2, 5 & 7 are entitled for 1/13th share over the suit schedule property. Since the defendant No.1 died and defendants No.8 to 10 are the legal heirs of defendant No.1, defendants

No.8 to 10 are entitle for 2/13th share jointly, which belongs to defendant No.1.

Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court, on this the 1 st day of April, 2021.

XVII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC XVIII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Mohammed Azhar AliDW1: Mohammed Athar Ali

DW2: Kaneez Fathim Shaheen

DW3: Mohammed Afsar Ali

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1:Copy of sale deed No.1852/1968 (in Urdu). Ex.A2:Original English Translation of sale deed No.1852/1968. Ex.A3:Original death certificate of Sri Mohd Ahmed Ali, father of plaintiff. Ex.A4:Original death certificate of Smt Rabbani Begum, mother of plaintiff. Ex.A5:Original electricity bill of plaintiff in proof of residence. Ex.A6:Copy of legal notice with endorsement of defendants No.2, 5 to 7 acknowledgment the receipt of notice. Ex.A7:Registered receipt of defendants No.3 & 4.

>> 15 of 15<< OS No.193/2013

Ex.A8:Acknowledgment card of defendant No.3. Ex.A9:Acknowledgment card of defendant No.4. Ex.A10:Copy of aadhar card. Ex.A11:Copy of ration/household card of plaintiff. Ex.A12:Original EC application form, with an endorsement of SRO Azampura in respect of fir incident occurred on 03.06.1969. Ex.A13:Original EC for the period 04.06.1969 to 31.12.1977. Ex.A14:Original EC for the period 01.04.1978 to 30.01.2013. Ex.A15:Original copy of e-mail message, having no objection for partition. Ex.A16:Original copy of e-mail message, having no objection for partition. Ex.A17:Original market value certificate of suit schedule property.

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1:Original gift deed of oral Hiba dt.01.02.2015.

XVII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC XVIII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : 

CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SMT. P. SRIVANI,

XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

DATED, THIS THE 29 th DAY OF APRIL, 2022

O.S.NO.1346 OF 2014

Between: M. Saritha, D/o. Late B.M. Ravinder Kumar, aged about 35 years, Occ: Housewife, (Divorced lady), R/o.H.No.16­9­680, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad. …Plaintiff

AND

1. B. M. Satya Pavan Prasad, S/o. Late B.M. Ravinder Kumar, aged about 35 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o.H.No.16­9­680, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad.

2. Smt. P. Shashi Rekha, W/o. P. Mallesh Goud, aged about 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.10­1­235, Chintal Basti, Hyderabad.

3. Smt. J. Sudhamani, W/o. Pavan Kumar, aged about 42 years, Occ: Housewife,

R/o. R.T.C. Colony, Medchal. ...Defendants

This suit is coming on 24.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Manik Prabhu Goud, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Smt. N. Annapurna, Advocate for the defendant No.1, defendant No.2 remained ex parte and suit against defendant No.3 is abated 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 :

This suit is for partition and separate possession.

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.2 of 17

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

B.M. Ravinder Kumar, the father of the plaintiff and defendants, during his life time, was a Government employee and he acquired the suit schedule property i.e., the house bearing No.16­9­680, admeasuring 362.87 Sq. yards under registered gift settlement deed document No.721/1985. The father of the plaintiff and defendants, performed the marriage of all defendants, except the plaintiff. She was a divorced lady, residing with her parents in the suit schedule property.

3.On 26.10.1996, B.M. Ravinder Kumar passed away leaving the plaintiff and defendants as his legal heirs, besides their mother. After death of B.M.

Ravinder Kumar, defendant No.1 got employement under compassionate ground with the consent of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3. After death of B.M. Ravinder Kumar, the plaintiff and defendants became the owners of the suit schedule property.

4.Defendant No.1 after getting employment, totally neglected the plaintiff and their mother who was suffering with health ailments and the plaintiff who is a divorced lady. Both the plaintiff and her mother were living life on the mercy of pension of the plaintiff mother to the tune of Rs.3000/­ per month

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.3 of 17

which is not sufficient.

5.During life time of B.M. Ravinder Kumar, he let out the suit schedule property to different tenants and used to fetch rents of Rs.10,000/­ per month, but the same is enjoying by the defendant No.1 alone with the collusion with other defendants No.2 and 3. Though the plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to share the rents as she is facing lot of hardship for livelihood, defendant No.1 postponed on one pretext or the other.

6.While the matter stood like this, the plaintiff got second marriage with one person and started residing with him at Shivalayam Street, Vijayawada, temporarily by keeping her belongings in one room portion of the suit schedule property. Unfortunately, the plaintiff husband met with an accident and his leg was amputated and not in position to maintain the plaintiff.

7.During the life time of their mother, the plaintiff and defendants were residing in the suit schedule property under mercy of pension amount and inspite of several request made, defendant No.1 did not pay anything for their maintenance and refused to give the rents. Further more, defendant No.1 harassed their mother and ultimately their mother passed away leaving behind

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.4 of 17

the plaintiff and defendants as her sole legal heirs. During the life time of their mother, she filed a suit for partition pertaining to the suit schedule property and as defendant No.1 did not come forward to share the suit schedule property to an extent of 1/4th share, inspite of demand, filed the suit. By saying so, the plaintiff prayed for partition of the suit schedule property into four equal shares and to allot one share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds and put her in possession and for costs.

8.Summons held sufficient to the defendants. Defendant No.1 filed written statement after serving of summons, defendant No.2 remained ex parte and defendant No.3 died before serving of summons and no steps were taken by the plaintiff and hence the suit against the defendant No.3 was abated.

9.As per the written statement of defendant No.1, he while admitting the relationship with the plaintiff and other defendants, their father B.M. Ravinder

Kumar and their mother denied that their father performed the marriage of all his sisters. According to him, he also contributed from his side at the time of performing marriages and according to his version, plaintiff is a divorcee and performed second marriage in the year 2008 March and after the second marriage, the plaintiff mostly used to stay with their mother.

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.5 of 17

10.Defendant No.1 while admitting that their father passed away on 26.10.1986 and that he got a job under compassionate ground, denied that the plaintiff and other defendants gave consent and then only he got an employment. According to him, by that time, his all sisters were already married and then only he got marriage and he is residing with the suit schedule property.

11.When the defendant No.1 also denied that after his marriage, he totally neglected his mother. He denied that his mother was suffering with health problems and he did not help that plaintiff and their mother, as such they lead mercy life with meager amount of Rs.3000/­ pension per month. Defendant

No.1 while admitting that during the life of their mother, they were tenants in the suit schedule property, submitted that plaintiff used to collect the rents and pension of their mother. This defendant also denied that during the life of their father, the rents were fetching Rs.10,000/­ per month and he is enjoying the same by colluding with other defendants.

12.The defendant No.1 submitted that plaintiff performed second marriage in the month of March 2008 which was arranged marriage by defendants No.2 and 3, while so the plaintiff mentioned their father name in the cause title and

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.6 of 17

mentioned herself as a divorcee is residing in the suit schedule property which clearly shows her intention that she is trying to get the sympathy and intended to usurp the property. As per his version, plaintiff after getting second marriage, she is living in Vijayawada with her husband and occupied one room with her belongings in the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 also submitted that after the second marriage of the plaintiff, their mother fell sick and he is the person who looked after their mother and their mother passed away on 21.04.2013, upon which he performed all rights and rituals of the mother. The defendant while denying that the plaintiff husband met with an accident, as such he was not able to maintain the plaintiff, submitted that plaintiff has not mentioned her husband name either in the cause title or body portion of the plaint which clearly shows that the plaintiff came to the Court with unclean hands.

13.Defendant No.1 submitted that plaintiff is well known that there were no tenants since long time in the suit schedule property as the suit schedule property is in a dilapidated condition and plaintiff used to harass him and his wife and put them separately, gave a complaint before HRC No.1620/2010

dated 26.02.2010 on their mother’s name against himself which was closed and

infact their mother was bed ridden by that time and she was illiterate who do

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.7 of 17

not have knowledge with regard to the Human Rights Commission.

14.Defendant No.1 also contended that plaintiff filed partition suit vide

O.S.No.2284/2007 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad, wherein he filed the written statement which suit was dismissed and infact during the life time of their mother, their mother mortgaged the part of the suit schedule property to the third parties and then their mother and the plaintiff took huge amounts from the mortgagee in whose custody the original documents are there and knowing all these facts, the plaintiff claiming 1/4th share to an extent of 362.37 Sq. yards and as such the plaintiff is not entitled for any claim. It is the version of the defendant No.1 that plaintiff never demanded for partition and infact the plaintiff has no good terms with himself and the plaintiff is trying to harass him.

15.The defendant No.1 while contending that the suit has no cause of action and the suit is nothing but resjudicata in view of O.S.No.2284/2007, pleaded to dismiss the suit.

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.8 of 17

16.In order to settle the suit, this Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4 th share of suit schedule property as prayed for?

2. If so, to What relief?

17.In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1, did not choose to mark any documents on her behalf, while cross­examining PW1,

DW1 got marked Ex.B1. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1, got marked Exs.B2 to B18. Defendant also examined one E. Balu as

DW2 and did not choose to mark any documents through him.

18.Heard both the counsel for the plaintiff as well as the defendant No.1.

19.ISSUE No.1: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4 th share of suit schedule property as prayed for?”

Perused the evidence of PW1, DW1, DW2. The suit is for partition of the suit schedule property i.e., House bearing No.16­9­680, admeasuring 362.87

Sq. yards. It is admitted fact by both parties that the suit schedule property was acquired by their father late B.M. Ravinder Kumar under registered gift settlement deed document No.721/1985 and it is also an admitted fact that

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.9 of 17

B.M. Ravinder Kumar passed away on 26.10.1986, leaving behind plaintiff and defendants as his legal heirs, besides their mother. The mother of the plaintiff and defendants also passed away prior to the filing of the suit.

20.It is the version of the plaintiff that after death of their father, defendant

No.1 got employment under compassionate ground with their consent and he totally neglected her and their mother who suffered from the health problems and she used to reside in the schedule property with the mercy of the pension of their mother at the rate of Rs.3,000/­ per month which was not sufficient and it is the defendant No.1 who let out the property to different tenants and used to enjoy the rents of Rs.10,000/­ per month, in collusion with the other defendants No.2 and 3 and later she got second marriage with one person and started residing in Vijayawada temporarily by keeping her belongings in one portion of the suit schedule property and as refused for the partition, she filed the suit. The defendant defence is that he has looked after his mother who died on 21.04.2013 and he is the person who has performed all the rights and rituals of their mother and it is the plaintiff who taken huge amounts from the mortgagee done by their mother during her life time and still the documents were in the custody of mortgagee and knowing the same, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming 1/4th share. The defendant though cross­examined PW1 and tried

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.10 of 17

to elicit his defence from the mouth of PW1, failed to get elicit anything except that their mother used to collect the rents after death of their father which doesnot bear any importance for the partition.

21.The defendant tried to elicit from the mouth of PW1 that plaintiff tried to elicit and succeeded that plaintiff was alleged in the school that she committed theft of Rs.20,000/­, but said facts were not pleaded by him in his written statement or in his evidence affidavit which is a new fact brought into light and however the plaintiff stated that said amount was paid by their elder sister, but not defendant No.1.

22.It is also elicited by defendant No.1 that plaintiff has not paid the electricity bill for Meter No.2562 and plaintiff doesnot know about the payment of Rs.20,000/­ to the electricity department and about removal of electricity connection. If at all the defendant No.1 intended to collect said electricity amount paid by him, then he would have filed the counter claim pertaining to the rents otherwise pertaining to the electricity bill paid by him, but there is no such efforts made by the defendant No.1. The suit is for the partition only and hence those admissions are not going to help the defendant No.1.

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.11 of 17

23.Though it is the defence of the defendant No.1 that his mother mortgaged the suit schedule property and plaintiff took huge amounts from the mortgagee, Exs.B16 to B18 goes to show that the mortgagee was done by defendant No.1, but not their mother and in such deeds Exs.B16 to B18, it is clearly mentioned that it is for the purpose of defendant No.1 who pledged the documents and obtained the loan, as such the version of defendant No.1 is highly un­believable and as earlier stated, if at all he has to get some money from the plaintiff, he ought to have file the counter claim, but no such efforts made by the defendant No.1. For all those reasons the partition cannot be stopped.

24.The defendant No.1 also relied on another important document i.e.,

Ex.B7 i.e., declaration dated 19.12.1997 under which the plaintiff, defendants, their mother late Saraswati alias Anusya gave a declaration that they have no objection for mutating the property in the name of the defendant No.1. As per the Transfer of Property Act, any property that is worth more than Rs.100/­ can be transferred only by way of registered document. With regard to relinquishment of the share also, it has to be done under registered document and the declarations relied by defendant No.1 is denied by plaintiff. It is the version of the PW1 that she did not know the contents while signing the

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.12 of 17

document, it was signed at the instance of their mother and when once document contents were denied by PW1, then it is for the defendant No.1 who has to prove the document Ex.B7. So as to make the Court to believe that PW1, other defendants relinquished their shares. However as earlier stated, relinquishment can be done by way of Relinquishment deed which was duly registered under Registration Act.

25.The defendant No.1 though stated many things by way of cross­ examining PW1 that one Krishna Murthy came forward to accept the offer of the sale of the suit schedule property, so as to release the title deeds of the suit schedule property by paying money to Maniamma, the plaintiff denied and defendant No.1 did not examined said Krishna Murthy, so as to say that said

Krishna Murthy got released the title deeds and moreover, depositing of the title deed and obtaining the loan was not done by the plaintiff, but the documents speaks by itself that the mortgage was done by defendant No.1.

26.Defendant No.1 though got marked Ex.B1 and gave a suggestion that

PW1 took money from Krishna Murthy on different dates totalling to

Rs.2,63,500/­ witness denied and stated that her mother might have taken the money and she simply signed at the instance of their mother and now also it is

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.13 of 17

the burden lies on the defendant No.1 to prove the same and Ex.B1 is not going to prove anything unless there is a evidence placed before the Court by the defendant No.1 either by examining Krishna Murthy or by proving the circumstances in taking of Rs.2,63,500/­ by the plaintiff and all these defences are not hurdle for the partition. As earlier stated, it is for the defendant No.1 to claim the amounts by way of counter claim what all indebited if at all to him, but cannot stop the partition for those reasons. However those reasons or the defence are not proved by the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 though examined himself as DW1 and got marked as many documents as Exs.B2 to

B18, the crucial documents are Exs.B7, B16 to B18 which were denied by the plaintiff and were not proved by the defendant No.1. Exs.B8 to B10 are the original receipts and they are also not binding on the plaintiff as they are not proving that the plaintiff is not entitled for the partition.

27.Though defendant No.1 tried to prove before this Court that the plaintiff came to the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the fact of her second marriage, plaintiff clearly mentioned in her plaint about her divorce and about her second marriage also and about her placing the articles in the suit schedule property portion and staying at Vijayawada. So, it cannot be said that the plaintiff came to the Court with unclean hands.

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.14 of 17

28.Admittedly there was a partition suit filed by the mother of the plaintiff and defendants which was dismissed, as such it assumes no importance to the present suit on hand, as it was not dismissed on merits and no material placed

before this Court with regard to said aspect. The defendant No.1 himself

informed to the Court that the plaintiff insisted their mother to give complaint against him in Women Rights Commission and thereby got marked Ex.B15 the office copy of complaint dated 26.02.2010, wherein it is mentioned by their mother that defendant No.1 thrown away from the room on 12.12.2010, upon which her neighbours and well wishers sent her to her daughters house and it is the mother of the plaintiff and defendants who performed the second marriage of plaintiff and defendant No.1 did not take any responsibility which

Exhibit itself is running against the defendant No.1 and infact is giving strength to the plaintiff version.

29.Though defendant No.1 examined one E. Balu the third party who was a old tenant in the suit schedule property stated that their family was having five goddess temples, managed by them during the life of Anusuya the mother of the plaintiff and defendants and said Anusuya used to give some amount to perform Pooja’s in temple whenever she received pension and he came to know about the mortgaged of the property through Anusuya for purpose of daughters

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.15 of 17

and grand children who frequently used to stay for some days and pension was not sufficient for their needs.

30.DW2 also stated that he was informed by Anusuya a day before her death that she wished that he has to release the mortgage property for the sake of her only son, since her daughters are well settled with their families and it is the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 who not allowed their mother to talk with defendant No.1, as such defendant No.1 living separately with his family in the said house. But evidence of DW2 cannot be considered as he is only third person who is not witness to any of the fact stated by him and as per the version of DW2, all the information was given by Anusuya during her life time.

He is no where acted as any witness to any documents or any fact and hence his evidence is not going to help defendant No.1.

31.In the light of evidence of PW1 coupled with all the documents got marked by the defendant No.1 i.e., Exs.B1 to B18, this Court is of opinion that plaintiff proved her claim for her share. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 failed to disprove that the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule property and failed to prove his all defences. Hence in the opinion of the Court, the plaintiff is entitled for her 1/4th share in the suit schedule

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.16 of 17

property, while defendants No.1 to 3 are entitled for 1/4th share each.

Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

32.ISSUE No.2: “If so, to what relief?”

In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed and hereby declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share, defendants No.1 to 3 are entitled for 1/4th share each in the suit schedule property and for the separate possession. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2022).

XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: PW1: Smt. M. Saritha DW1: Sri B.M. Satya Pavan Prasad DW2: Sri E. Balu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: NIL

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.17 of 17

FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1 : Ruled page having details of money to sum of Rs.2,63,500/­. 

Ex.B2 : Original Gift Settlement Deed document No.721/1985 dated 04.02.1985.

Ex.B3 : Original Death Certificate of B.M. Ravinder Kumar.

Ex.B4 : Original Death Certificate of Saraswathi alias Ansuya.

Ex.B5 : Original Legal Heir Certificate dated 09.02.1987.

Ex.B6 : Original Mutation Certificate dated 22.12.1997.

Ex.B7 : Original Declaration dated 19.12.1997.

Ex.B8 : Original receipt dated 24.06.2004 for Rs.10,000/­.

Ex.B9 : Original receipt dated 19.07.2004 for Rs.80,000/­.

Ex.B10 : Original receipt dated 21.08.2004 for Rs.17,000/­.

Ex.B11 : Clearance certificate issued by electricity department with no date.

Ex.B12 : Original receipt dated 14.06.2017 for Rs.2,35,000/­.

Ex.B13 : Memorandum of Understanding in original dated 21.06.2017.

Ex.B14 : Original receipts of handing over list of documents dated 21.06.2017.

Ex.B15 : Office copy of complaint dated 26.02.2010 addressed by plaintiff’s mother to the A.P. State Human Rights Commission.

Ex.B16 : Unregistered document dated 06.06.2001.

Ex.B17 : Unregistered document dated 08.08.2002.

Ex.B18 : Unregistered document dated 28.06.2005. 

XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

O.S.No.1346 of 2014Page No.18 of 17

IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : 

CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SMT. P. SRIVANI,

XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

DATED, THIS THE 16 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

O.S.No.160 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

1. Miss Swathi, D/o. Rajan Singh aged about 20 years, Occ: Student

2. Baby Pooja, D/o. Rajan Singh aged about 13 years, Occ: Minor

3. Baby Sonu, D/o. Rajan Singh aged about 9 years, Occ: Minor

4. Master Sainath Singh, S/o. Rajan Singh aged about 7 years, Occ: Minor

Sl.No.2 to 4 being Minors represented by their mother and Natural Guardian Smt. Renuka, W/o. Rajan Singh, aged about 41 years, Occ: Household. All R/o.H.No.13­2­267/A/139, Shivlal Nagar,

Rahimpura, Hyderabad. ...Plaintiffs

AND

1. Brij Mohan Singh, S/o. Late Sonu Singh, aged about 51 years, Occ: Business

2. Rajan Singh, S/o. Late Sonu Singh, aged about 46 years, Occ: Business

3. Smt. Sunitha Bai, W/o. Late Tuljaram Singh, aged about 49 years, Occ: Household

4. Sunil Singh, S/o. Late Tuljaram Singh, aged about 29 years, Occ: Business

5. Sunaina Bai, D/o. Late Tuljaram Singh, aged about 26 years, Occ: household

6. Naveen Singh, S/o. Late Tuljaram Singh, aged about 24 years, Occ: Business

O.S.No.160 of 2009Page No.2

7. Anil Singh, S/o. Late Tuljaram Singh, aged about 22 years, Occ: Business (Sl. No. Defendants No.1 to 7 R/o.H.No.14­11­59, Jinsi Chowraha, Mangalghat, Hyderabad.)

8. Smt. Kiran Bai, D/o. Late Sonu Singh, W/o. Sunder Singh, aged about 44 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.13­1­371/A/47, Baba Balakdas Mutt, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

9. Smt. Lajwanthi Bai, D/o. Late Sonu Singh, W/o. Sheetal Singh, aged about 42 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.13­1­806/4, Andhra Colony, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

10. Smt. Meena Bai, D/o. Late Sonu Singh, W/o. Baldev Singh, aged about 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.12­01­325/7, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.

11. Smt. Sandhya Bai, D/o. Late Sonu Singh, W/o. Mahender Singh, aged about 38 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.13­1­371/A/47 Baba Balakdas Mutt, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

12. Smt. Lakshmi Bai, D/o. Late Sonu Singh, W/o.Brij Raj Singh, aged about 34 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.13­2­394, Raheempura Jhanda, Hyderabad. 

13. Smt. Anuradha Bai, D/o. Late Sonu Singh, W/o. Ganesh Singh, aged about 33 years, Occ: Household, H.No.13­1­806, Andhra Colony, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

14. Smt. Renuka Bai alias Renu Bai, W/o. Late Brij Mohan Singh, aged 48 years, Occ: Housewife

15. Smt. Rakhi, D/o. Late Brij Mohan Singh, aged 29 years, Occ: Housewife

16. Smt. Shalu, D/o. Late Brij Mohan Singh, aged 26 years, Occ: Housewife,

Sl.No.14 to 16 are R/o.H.No.14­11­59, Jinsi Chowraha, Mangalghat, Hyderabad. 

(Defendants No.14 to 16 are added as defendants

as per orders passed in I.A.No.276/2016, dated 29.08.2016) ...Defendants

O.S.No.160 of 2009Page No.3

This suit coming on 16.08.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mohd. Abdul Sathar Khan, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Defendants No.1 and 2 died and Sri Dinesh Srivastava, Advocate for the defendants No.3 to 7, 14 to 16 and Sri S. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for the defendants No.8 to 13 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 is suit filed for partition and separate possession.

2.The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:

Originally late Sonu Singh, S/o. Kishan Singh Sahab was the original owner and possessor of all that house along with titled mulgies in premises bearing

Municipal Nos.14­11­554 to 556 (14­11­56 to 61) located on an area about 379.86

Sq. yards situated at Mangalghat, Hyderabad (herein called as suit schedule property). He purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document

No.1222/1963, dated 10.12.1963 from one Smt. Viqarunnisa Begum who purchased the property from Syed Abdul Raheem under registered sale deed bearing document

No.460/1962 dated 26.05.1962.

3.The said Sonu Singh died intestate on 23.04.1978 and wife of Sonu Singh i.e.,

Smt. Ratan Bai also died in the year 2008. Late Sonu Singh and his wife were blessed with three sons i.e., defendant No.1, defendant No.2 and one Tuljaram Singh who is the husband of defendant No.3 and father of defendants No.4 to 7, six daughters i.e., defendants No.8 to 13.

4.It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the daughters and sons of defendant

No.2 and after death of Sonu Singh and his wife, all the defendants including him became legal heirs to succeed the suit schedule property and being the children of defendant No.2 they are also having share in the undivided suit schedule property.

5.As per the version of the plaintiffs, after the death of Sonu Singh, the suit schedule property are being enjoyed by the parties as per their convenience and no

O.S.No.160 of 2009Page No.4

partition effected. But in the year 2000, the father of the plaintiffs i.e., defendant

No.2 involved in a rape case which was registered as in Crime No.127/2000 under section 376 of I.P.C of Begumpet Police Station and he was convicted. Due to said problem and due to harassment made by the other legal heirs of late Sonu Singh, the mother of plaintiffs along with her children are residing separately.

6.Plaintiffs further submitted that the father of the plaintiffs and all the plaintiff together entitled to 1/9th share in the suit schedule property. Their father i.e., defendant No.2 completely neglected to maintain them and their mother. So their mother approached the defendants several times and demanded for partition of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and to allot 4/45th share to the plaintiffs and 1/45th share to the defendant No.2, but the defendants particularly defendant

No.1 dragged the matter on one pretext or the other. They believed the promises of the defendants, but as on filing of the suit the defendants failed to give their share.

On 04.12.2008, the plaintiffs approached the defendants and demanded for partition of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds, but the plaintiffs father and defendants in collusion with each other failed to respond them. Again they waited couple of weeks, approached the defendants on 18.01.2009, and demanded for partition of the schedule property in the presence of community elders who were advised the defendants to go for partition by metes and bounds, but the defendants did not heed their advice. Instead, the defendants with a malafide intention with an ulterior motives refused for partition. They came to know that defendants are trying to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties. Having no other option plaintiffs filed the suit. By saying so, plaintiffs pleaded to decree the suit preliminarily and partition the suit schedule property into 45 equal shares and to allot 1/45th share to each of the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and defendant No.2, 1/9th share to the defendant No.1, 1/45th share each of the defendants No.3 to 7 and 1/9th share

O.S.No.160 of 2009Page No.5

to each of defendants No.8 to 13 and for separate possession, for appointment of an

Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit schedule property by metes and bounds .

7.Summons held sufficient to the defendants. Defendant No.1 filed written statement. Defendant No.1 died while pending the suit and defendants No.14 to 16 were added as per legal representative as per order passed in I.A.No.276 of 2016

dated 29.08.2016. Defendants No.2 to 7 adopted the written statement of defendant

No.1.(Defendant No.2 also died, however, the plaintiffs are the LRs of defendant

No.2). Defendant No.12 filed written statement separately, defendants No.8 to 11,13 adopted the written statement of defendant No.12. 

8.As per the written statement of defendants No.1 which is adopted by defendants No.14 to 16, they having admitted the ownership of Sonu Singh and his vendors, vendors vendor ownership over the suit schedule property, also admitted about the legal heirs of Sonu Singh as stated by the plaintiffs. But according to these defendants, defendants No.2 to 13 has released 9/10th share each in half of the schedule property totally ad­measuring 190 Sq. yards out of 379.86 Sq. yards in favour of defendant No.1, after receiving the valuable consideration under registered release deed vide document No.1889/05 dated 14.12.2005 and since then the defendant No.1 is enjoying the property as absolute owner and possessor to the exclusion of one and all to the extent of 190 Sq. yards.

9.These defendants denied that the father of the plaintiffs and plaintiff are entitled to 1/9th share in the suit schedule property. In the light of release deed executed in favour of the defendants, the father of the plaintiffs is only entitled to 1/9th share in the remaining half property to the extent of 190 Sq. yards and the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the partition during the life time of their father i.e.

defendant No.2 herein. These defendants denied that defendant No.2 completely neglected to maintain the plaintiffs and their mother and the plaintiffs along with

O.S.No.160 of 2009Page No.6

their mother approached the defendants for partition of the schedule property, but as per these defendants, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek the partition because they are not class­I legal heirs of Sonu Singh.

10.These defendants admitted that suit schedule property is an ancestral property, however as the defendant No.2 along with other defendants has already released 9/10th share each in half of the property in favour of these defendants, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the suit claim.

11.These defendant contended that there is no cause of action at all, since the plaintiffs are not at all in joint possession of the suit property, the Court fee paid is also not correct. By saying so, they pleaded to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

12.As per the written statement filed by the defendant No.12 which was adopted by defendants No.8 to 11, 13. They also admitted the ownership of late Sonu Singh and about his vendors, vendors vendor ownership over the suit schedule property and they also admitted about the legal heirship of sons and daughters of late Sonu

Singh i.e. the plaintiffs and the defendants. These defendants also admitted about the involvement of the defendant No.2 in rape case and conviction faced by the defendant No.2. It is the version of these defendants that defendant No.1 used to manage all the affairs of the suit schedule property and used to collect rents from the tenants, used to give due share amount to the defendants. Defendant No.12 further submitted that he used to bare the expenditure incurred for the maintenance of the suit schedule property.

13. It is the version of these defendants that defendant No.1 in the year 2005 approached defendant No.12 and requested to execute GPA over the suit schedule property and informed defendant No.12 that the GPA is necessary to safeguard the interest of the defendant No.12 over the suit schedule property. As per the request of the defendant No.1 and in good faith on defendant No.1, defendant No.12 along

O.S.No.160 of 2009Page No.7

with defendants No.8 to 11, 13 executed registered document in favour of defendant

No.1 to manage the affairs of the suit schedule property, and after seeing written statement filed by the defendant No.1, defendant No.12 came to know that the defendant No.1 fraudulently got registered release deed dated 14.12.2005 on pretext of obtaining GPA with malafide intention and with an oblique motive to grab the legitimate rights of defendant No.12 over the suit schedule property and so defendant No.12 reserve her right to take appropriate legal action to cancel the release deed and as per her version no partition occurred.

14.Defendant No.12 and other defendants submitted that defendant No.12 has got 1/9th share over the suit schedule property and he never opposed for partition.

So, the allegation made by the plaintiffs that he in collusion with defendants No.1 and 2 and partition is refused and thereby prayed to partition the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and to allot 1/9th share over the suit schedule property to him.

15.In order to settle the suit, this Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek partition during the life of their father i.e. defendant No.2?

2. Whether the defendants No.2 to 13 gave up their 9/10 th share each in half of the suit schedule property, ad­measuring 190 Sq. yards under a registered release deed vide document No.1889/05, dated 14.12.2005?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession?

4. Whether the Court fee paid is insufficient?

5. To what relief?

16.In order to substantiate their case, the plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW1, got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and also examined one Vinod Singh, the third party as

PW2. On the other hand the defendant No.4 examined himself as DW1, got marked

O.S.No.160 of 2009Page No.8

Exs.B1 and B2. Defendant No.10 examined hereself as DW2.

17.Heard the counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants.

18.ISSUE NO.1: “ Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek partition during the life of their father i.e. defendant No.2?”

The plaintiffs are none other than the children of defendant No.2 herein and defendant No.2 died pending the suit. As per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India i.e., “Uttam vs. Sowbhagya Singh reported in AIR 2016 SC 1169”, the grandson born after death of male Hindu cannot maintain suit for partition, but as per recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India i.e. Danamma @ Suman

Surpur v. Amar & Others, the property inherited by male member from his father, after death of his father will become the joint family property. However, since defendant No.2 died while suit is pending, the plaintiffs got revived their right for partition. Admittedly the defendants did not resist the suit for partition. When perused cross­examination of PW1, it is noticed that the defendants gave a suggestion that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition to an extent of 190 Sq. yards, but not for 380 Sq. yards which itself shows that the defendants admitted that plaintiffs are having share in the suit schedule property. When the plaintiffs are having the share in the suit schedule property, no law bars them for partition. Hence this issue is anwered in favour of plaintiffs.

19.ISSUE NO.2: “ Whether the defendants No.2 to 13 gave up their 9/10 th

share each in half of the suit schedule property, ad­measuring 190 Sq. yards

under a registered release deed vide document No.1889/05, dated 14.12.2005?”

It is admitted fact by both parties that plaintiffs father i.e., defendant No.2 herein (who died pending the suit), his mother, defendants No.2 to 13 executed the release deed pertaining to the 190 Sq. yards of suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1(defendant No.1 died during pendency of the suit, defendants No.14

O.S.No.160 of 2009Page No.9

to 16 added as L.Rs). Through DW1, defendants got marked said release deed as

Ex.B1 which was admitted by PW1 at the time of cross­examination.

20.The extent of entire property owned by paternal grand father of the plaintiffs is shown as 379.86 Sq. yards which was also admitted by the defendants herein, within which 190 Sq. yards of property out of 379.86 Sq. yards was transferred by the wife of Sonu Singh and the father of plaintiffs i.e., defendant No.2, defendants

No.3 to 13 since relinquished their share under release deed Ex.B1 document in favour of defendant No.1. Therefore the property remained for partition is only 189.86 Sq. yards. So, the evidence of PW1, DW1 is proving that father of plaintiffs i.e., defendant No.2, grandmother of plaintiffs i.e., wife of Sonu Singh, defendants

No.3 to 13 executed a release deed in favour of defendant No.1 under Ex.B1.

Accordingly, this issue is answered.

21.ISSUE NO.3: “ Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession?”

It is the defence and evidence of DW1 and DW2 that in 189.86 Sq. yards of joint family property, the L.Rs of defendant No.1 i.e., defendants No.14 to 16, defendants No.3, 5, 8 to 13 executed a relinquishment deed relinquishing their share under Ex.B2 document in favour of defendants No.4, 6 and 7, but the plaintiffs submitted before the Court in their evidence in the cross­examination of PW1 that they had no knowledge about Ex.B2 document. However, said release deed was executed while the suit is pending before the Court and moreover neither the plaintiffs nor their father i.e., defendant No.2 is party to that Ex.B2 document. So, in the opinion of the Court, said release deed is not binding on the plaintiffs to an extent of their shares. Coming to the evidence of PW2, he is a third party to the suit and he knows nothing about an extent of the property, nature of the property and he never saw the document and accordingly he admitted the same in his cross­

O.S.No.160 of 2009Page No.10

examination. Hence his evidence is discarded.

22.Though the counsel for the plaintiffs gave a suggestion to DW1 that Ex.B1 was got executed by defendant No.2 under the guise of intoxication, said suggestion was denied and no probability was shown by the plaintiffs to prove the same to the suit.

Hence Ex.B1 was binding on the plaintiffs and regarding Ex.B2, DW1 clearly admitted in his cross­examination that the plaintiffs had no knowledge and both

DW1 and DW2 admitted that Ex.B2 release deed was executed while the suit is pending. Hence Ex.B2 is not at all binding on the plaintiffs. Beside this, DW1 and

DW2 admitted that the plaintiffs are having right over the suit schedule property to the extent of their shares.

23.In the light of evidence of PW1, DW1 and DW2 and plaintiffs under Ex.A1 document proved that their grand father was owner and possessor of 379.86 Sq.

yards. However as PW1 admitted Ex.B1 release deed was executed by their father, the partition can be done only for the property available i.e., 189.86 Sq. yards. For 189.86 Sq. yards, there are nine branches, since wife of Sonu Singh is also died.

Therefore defendants No.1, 8 to 13 each, plaintiffs No.1 to 4 along with their mother ( who was not shown as party to the suit) being the legal heirs of defendant No.2 together as one branch, defendants No.3 to 7 being the wife and children of late

Tuljaram the brother of defendant No.1, defendants No.1, 2 each; defendants No.8 to 13 all together as one branch get equal share. Therefore, each branch get 21.09

Sq. yards i.e., 1/9th share.

24.Accordingly, plaintiffs being the legal heirs of defendant No.2, one of the son of late Sonu Singh together get 21.09 Sq. yards. However, Ex.B2, the release deed which was executed without the concurrence of plaintiffs or their father, releasors and releasee can work out their equities at appropriate stage or during final decree under Ex.B2. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

O.S.No.160 of 2009Page No.11

25.ISSUE NO.4: “ Whether the Court fee paid is insufficient?”

Perused the prayer portion, the suit is filed for partition and separate possession showing the suit schedule property to an extent of 379.86 Sq. yards and para 9 of plaint is showing the Court fee and the suit valuation. Though at the time of cross­examination of PW1 admitted that they are residing separately from the defendants, it does not mean that the plaintiffs are not in joint possession of the suit schedule property, because they are the co­sharers having joint ownership over the joint family property. Hence in the opinion of this Court, the Court fees is properly valued.

26.ISSUE NO.5: “ To what relief?”

In the result, the suit is partly preliminarily decreed, allotting 1/9th share together to the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 to an extent of 21.09 Sq. yards while allotting 1/9th share to each branch of defendants No.1, 8 to 13, 21.09 Sq. yards together to defendants No.3 to 7 being the legal heirs of late Tuljaram one of the son of late

Sonu Singh.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16th day of September, 2019).

 XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: PW1: Miss Swathi PW2: Vinod Singh

FOR DEFENDANTS: DW1 : Sunil Singh DW2 : Smt. Meena Bai

O.S.No.160 of 2009Page No.12

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.1222/63 along with English true translation dated 10.12.1963. Ex.A2 : Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.460/62 along with English true translation dated 26.05.1962. Ex.A3 : Certified copy of FIR No.127/2000 of PS Begumpet U/S.376 R/w 511 IPC 

dated 17.04.2000.

Ex.A4 : Certified copy of Remand Dairy in FIR No.127/2000 of PS Begumpet U/S.376 R/w 511 IPC dated 18.04.2000. Ex.A5 : Original EC No.225/09 dated 23.01.2009. Ex.A6 : Original Market Value certificate dated 23.01.2009.

FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1 : Certified copy of registered release deed vide document No.1889/2005 dated 14.12.2005. Ex.B2 : Certified copy of registered release deed vide document No.3125/2018 dated 30.08.2018.

XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : 

CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SMT. P. SRIVANI,

XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

DATED, THIS THE 29 th DAY OF APRIL, 2022

I.A.NO.142 OF 2022

IN

O.S.NO.842 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

1. Samala Venkata Laxmi Bai, W/o. Late S. Yadagiri, aged 80 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.2­41/A, Behind Chaitanyapuri Petrol Pump, Sai Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

2. Samala Ramprakash, S/o. Late S. Yadagiri, aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2­41/A, Behind Chaitanyapuri Petrol Pump, Sai Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 

3. Samala Vinod Kumar, S/o. Late S. Yadagiri, aged about 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.5­5­604, Chintalkunta Checkpost, Chintalkunta, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

4. Samala Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Late S. Yadagiri, aged about 56 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.11­14­89, Plot No.60, Haripuri Colony, R.K. Puram, Kothapet, Hyderabad.

5. Samala Venkata Ramana @ Vasu, S/o. Late S. Yadagiri, aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.2­76, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad. ….Petitioners/plaintiffs

AND

I.A.No.142 of 2022 in O.S.No.842 of 2016Page No.2 of 10

1. Late Suraj Kiran, S/o. Late Tara Chand, aged 68 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.10­1­671, A C Guards, Hyderabad (Case abated).

2. P. Soudhamini, W/o. Dr. P. Vijaykumar, aged 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2­2­18/65/1, Shivam Road, D.D. Colony, Hyderabad. ….Respondents/Defendants

This Petition is coming on 11.04.2022 before me for final hearing in presence of V. Anoop Kumar, Counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri Sagarika Loya, Counsel for the respondent/defendant No.2 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

This is an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, praying to permit them to amend the plaint.

2.The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs in brief is as follows:

At the time of filing of the case, the plaintiff No.5 GPA holder was Sri

S. Hanumantha Rao and their Advocate Sri B. Papa Rao Goud were their, but both of them expired and the plaint copy consists of the House number in the suit which is not at all mentioned at any time and it is the un­understood as to how mistake was crept in and at whose mistake it was arose and if there were any instructions from the plaintiffs pertaining to mentioning of the house number, then they would have handed over any municipal tax bills which is not at all done by the advocate

I.A.No.142 of 2022 in O.S.No.842 of 2016Page No.3 of 10

Mr. Moreso and he has also mentioned that there was another suit vide

O.S.No.558/2016 pending on the file IV Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District and there

also a clerical mistake occurred that the case was pending in the Ranga Reddy

District, where the jurisdiction of the property is in Hyderabad, then how could it was mentioned as Ranga Reddy is unknown. So by considering that house number might have been mentioned by late Advocate as a clerical mistake, they filed a present application to carried out the amendment as follows: Plaint page No.2,

Para No.2 “It is submitted that late Yadagiri purchased the plot No.1,2 & 13 with

House No.10­5­4/A, admeasuring 2600 Sq. yards in Sy.No.27 and 128 situated at

Mallepally Village, Masabtank, Asifnagar Mandal, Urban, Hyderabad District” may be changed to “It is submitted that late Yadagiri purchased the Plot No.1,2 & 13 admeasuring 2600 Sq. yards, situated at Mallepally Village, Masabtank, Asifnagar

Mandal, Urban, Hyderabad District”. Similarly in Page No.6 “Schedule of the

Property, All that the Plot No.1,2 & 13 with House No.10­5­4/A, admeasuring 2600

Sq. Yards in Sy.No.27 and 128 sitauted at Mallepally Village, Masabtank, Asifnagar

Mandal, Urban, Hyderabad District” may be changed to Schedule of the Property All that the Plot No.1,2 & 13, admeasuring 2600 Sq. yards, situated at Mallepally

Village, Masabtank, Asifnagar Mandal, Urban, Hyderabad District” in the light of above stated circumstances and in the interest of justice.

I.A.No.142 of 2022 in O.S.No.842 of 2016Page No.4 of 10

3.Notice given to the respondents/defendants. Respondent/defendant No.2 filed counter and thereby vehemently contended and argued that the petition that is filed for amendment of the plaint to remove the municipal number of the suit schedule property at the stage of chief and cross of DW2 cannot be allowed and when there are five plaintiffs and one advocate who had been handling the suit since more than last five and half years, could have pointed out the alleged mistake crept in the plaint at earliest stage and the petitioners/plaintiffs cannot allege the previous counsel that he made series of mistakes and thereby hide under the guise to correct their own wrongs which clearly shows that the petitioners/plaintiffs are suppressing the real facts with malafide intentions.

4.The respondents/defendants contended that removing the door number of the suit schedule property at the fag end of the proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law which lead to start the proceedings afresh basing on the amendments and moreover the petition cannot be allowed after filing their written statement and strong objections raised by them in the written statement and after evidence and by removing the house number, the petitioners/plaintiffs are intending to keep the Court in dark about the actual schedule of the property and thereby creating huge ambiguity as to what they are actually seeking injunction for.

I.A.No.142 of 2022 in O.S.No.842 of 2016Page No.5 of 10

5.The respondent/defendant submitted that they have filed an application to appoint Advocate Commissioner for ascertaining the physical whereabouts of the property and if said petition is allowed, can get the clarity which would end up reaching a five storied building, but not the open land as claimed by the petitioners/plaintiffs and realizing the consequences, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present application to remove the house number.

6.The respondent/defendant contended that the petitioners/plaintiffs came to the Court with the unclean hands, realizing that Advocate Commissioner would put the real facts before the Court after physical verification, filed the application and by saying so, the respondent/defendant No.2 prayed to dismiss the application.

7.Heard both the counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and the respondent/defendant.

8.Perused the citation relied by the respondent/defendant.

9.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the amendment sought for by the petitioners/plaintiffs can be allowed or not?”

I.A.No.142 of 2022 in O.S.No.842 of 2016Page No.6 of 10

10.Perused the petition, counter, plaint and the written statement, all the proceedings till the date. Admittedly the suit is for the perpetual injunction praying to restrain the respondent/defendant from interfering with possession of the suit schedule property of the petitioners/plaintiffs and the stage of the suit is that already the evidence on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs was completed and is coming for the examination in chief and cross of DW1 and at that stage, the respondent/defendant filed an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for noting down the physical features vide I.A.No139/2022. The amendment sought for by the petitioners/plaintiffs is to remove the house number from the body portion as well as the suit schedule property portion. The suit schedule portion in the plaint at Page No.6 reads as follows: “All that the Plot No.1, 2 & 13 with House No.10­5­4/A, admeasuring 2600 Sq. yards in Sy.No.27 and 128 situated at Mallepally Village, Masabtank, Asifnagar Mandal, Urban, Hyderabad District and bounded by:

North : Plot No.13 & 14

South : 40`­0” feet Wide Road,

East : 30` feet Wide Road

West : Plot No.3

Among this suit schedule property portion, the petitioners/plaintiffs is intended to remove the H.No.10­5­4/A and even from the body portion of the plaint also, the

I.A.No.142 of 2022 in O.S.No.842 of 2016Page No.7 of 10 plaintiff intended to remove the House Number. As earlier stated, already the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs was completed and the plaintiff got marked

Exs.A1 to A5, while so, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and already got marked Exs.B1 to B9 and the plaintiff also got marked through the cross of DW1 as

Exs.A6 to A8. So when defence was taken by the defendant in the written statement about the House Number and when defendant has completed their cross­examination basing on the plaint, suit schedule property door Number and got marked some documents, when the plaintiff also got marked some document on their behalf stating that the property is having the H.No.10­5­4/A belongs to them, coming to the Court at this stage after six years of filing of the suit to remove the Door Number from the suit schedule property and the body portion of the plaint cannot be considered. Especially when it is the defence of the defendant that the plaintiff is claiming their property(defendants property) by showing the defendants property in the suit schedule of the plaint. Further more, it is not the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking for the amendment of the plaint that they remove the

Door Number of the suit schedule property mentioned in the plaint and thereby replace with other Door Number, but they are simply asking to remove the Door

Number and they are not furnishing any other Door Number and which would lead to the ambiguity pertaining to the location of the suit schedule property and such amendments cannot be allowed.

I.A.No.142 of 2022 in O.S.No.842 of 2016Page No.8 of 10

11.The respondent/defendant relied on citation i.e., “Revajeetu Builders &

Developers vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Others, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in Civil Appeal No.6921/2009 which arose out of SLP (c)

No.1552/2007” was pleased to held that the amendment of the pleadings cannot be allowed, so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or change the nature of the claim and while referring to the pleading English decisions on the point, Bachelor, J. stated that the amendments can be allowed in two conditions:

1) of not working injustice to the other side and

2) of being necessary for purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

And also held that such amendment can be allowed only if no prejudice or injustice caused to other side that was held in Suraj Prakash Bhasin vs. Raj Rani Bhasin &

Others and thereby dismissed the Civil Appeal. In the present case on hand also, the amendment sought for by way of removing the House Number, infact will put the Court in ambiguity with regard to the exact location of the suit schedule property rather necessary to decide real controversy, it would become complicates to decide the issue. Hence the citation relied on is followed.

12.The counsel for the respondent/defendant also relied on “Ajendraprasadji

N. Pande & Another vs. Swami Keshaprakeshdasji N. & Others in Civil Appeal

I.A.No.142 of 2022 in O.S.No.842 of 2016Page No.9 of 10

No. 5667/2006 which arose out of SLP (c) No.12738/2006”, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India was pleased to held by referring Order VI Rule 17 that no application for amendment shall be allowed after trial has commenced, unless the

Court comes to conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Here in the present case on hand also, the Court observed that the petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs after completion of DW1 cross­examination and there is no due diligence proved by the petitioners/plaintiffs for not seeking for the amendment prior to the commencement of trial, that too for filing application after six years of filing the suit and after three years of framing the issues and after completion of DW1 cross­ examination. 

13.In the light of above discussions, this Court is of opinion that this is not a fit petition to be allowed.

14.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2022).

XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

I.A.No.142 of 2022 in O.S.No.842 of 2016Page No.10 of 10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

...NIL…

XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : 

CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SMT. P. SRIVANI,

XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

DATED, THIS THE 11 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

O.S.No.152 OF 2017

BETWEEN: M/s. ICICI Bank Limited, A banking Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Vadodara and various branches across the Country and one of its branch is situated at Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Represented by its Authorized Signatory and Power of Attorney holder, Chandra Shaker BAS, S/o. B. Kanna Babu,

aged 37 years, Occ: Debt Manager/Unit Manager, R/o. Hyderabad. ...Plaintiff

AND

1. Vivek Singh, S/o. Sandhya Singh, aged about 29 years, R/o.H.No.2­2­16/2, Flat No.202, Krishna Vihar Apartments, DD Colony, Opp. Reliance, Hyderabad – 500 044.

2. Mrs. Sandhya Singh, D/o. Chteppal Singh, aged about 55 years, R/o.H.No.2­2­16/2, Flat No.202, Krishna Vihar Apartments,

DD Colony, Opp. Reliance, Hyderabad – 500 044. ...Defendants

This suit coming on 21.08.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.V. Kini, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants remained ex­parte 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 is a suit filed for recovery of money.

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

The plaintiff bank is a Banking Company incorporated under the provisions of Banking Company Act, 1970 and carrying the Banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 having its Head Office at Vadodara and

O.S.NO.152 of 2017Page No.2

one of the branch at Khairathabad. The Banking Company represented by its G.P.A

Holder.

3.During the course of its business, on approached by the defendants No.1 and 2, the plaintiff bank sanctioned vehicle loan to the defendants of Rs.12,13,560/­ vide preliminary credit facility application dated 19.11.2013 and after availing the loan, the defendants submitted the credit application, fulfilled all the requirements, agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 equal monthly installments at the rate of Rs.25,858/­ per installment, having agreed to pay interest at the rate of 10.50% per annum and also agreed that in case of late payment, they will pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum and thereby issued an acknowledgment.

4.On request by the defendants, the plaintiff bank disbursed the loan amount in the name of the defendants vide loan Account No.LAHYD00027237453. After availing the loan, the defendants purchased “XUV 500/W6” bearing Registration

No.TS09EB 0549, hypothecated the said vehicle with the plaintiff bank towards security for the loan and executed Unattested Deed of Hypothecation, Irrevocable

Power of attorney and Memorandum dated 19.11.2013.

5.The defendants were very irregular in payment of the loan installment and violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. Instpite of repeated remainders and demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendants did not repay the loan amount. Hence the plaintiff bank issued a legal notice to the defendants dated 16.12.2016. However the defendants failed to pay the due of Rs.6,99,612.56 Ps as on 18.11.2016. Hence the suit. By saying so, the plaintiff bank prayed to decree the suit against the defendants, directing the defendants to pay Rs.6,99,612.56 Ps with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and for costs.

O.S.NO.152 of 2017Page No.3

6.Summons held sufficient to the defendants and the defendants remained ex parte.

7.In order to substantiate their case, the plaintiff bank examined their Manager,

Sri Yogesh Pepriyea as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 and reported no further evidence. Hence, plaintiff side evidence was closed.

8.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff bank.

9.Now the point for consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

10.ISSUE NO.1: “ Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?”

Perused the evidence affidavit of PW1 and it is nothing but the replica of his plaint. According to PW1, the defendants approached their bank for availing vehicle loan and upon application, their bank sanctioned the loan, upon which the defendants executed a preliminary credit application. Exs.A2 & A3 are preliminary credit facility application forms of defendants No.1 and 2. Upon request of the defendants, the plaintiff bank disbursed the loan amount to the defendants loan account on which the defendants executed credit application. Ex.A4 is credit facility application.

11.It is further case of the PW1 that the defendants who availed the loan of

Rs.12,13,560/­ has purchased “XUV 500/W6” through loan account

No.LAHYD00027237453, executed acknowledgment and hypothecated the purchased vehicle to the plaintiff and having agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 equated monthly installments at the rate of 10.50% per annum and in delay of repayment of loan amount at the rate of 24% per annum and became irregular in repayment of the loan and fell due of Rs.6,99,612.56 Ps. Ex.A5 is acknowledgment

O.S.NO.152 of 2017Page No.4

which is proving that defendants received the loan amount. Ex.A6 Unattested

Hypothecation deed.

12.As the defendants fell due and did not respond to the remainders of the plaintiff bank, the plaintiff bank issued a legal notice. Exs.A8 and A9 office copy of loan recall notice, Ex.A10 statement of account of the loan account are clearly proving the liability of the defendants to the plaintiff bank. Hence the evidence of

PW1 which remained unrebutted is clearly proving the claim of the plaintiff bank.

Hence this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank.

13.ISSUE NO.2: “ To what relief?”

In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, and directing the defendants No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.6,99,612.56 Ps (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Six

Hundred And Twelve And Fifty Six Paise Only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% per annum from the date of decree till the realization.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 11th day of September, 2019).

XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS: PW1: Mr. Yogesh PepriyeaEx parte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Notarized GPA, dated 18.10.2017. Ex.A2 : Original preliminary credit facility application form of D1, dated 19.11.2013. Ex.A3 : Original preliminary credit facility application form of D2, dated 19.11.2013. Ex.A4 : Original Credit application form, dated 19.11.2013. Ex.A5 : Original Most Important Information Acknowledgment Form, dated 19.11.2013.

O.S.NO.152 of 2017Page No.5

Ex.A6 : Original Unattested hypothecation deed dated 19.112013. Ex.A7 : Original Irrevocable Power of Attorney, dated 19.11.2013. Ex.A8 : Office copy of the loan recall notice to the defendant No.1, dated 16.12.2016. Ex.A9 : Office copy of the loan recall notice to the defendant No.2, dated 16.12.2016. Ex.A10 : Certified copy of statement of account along with certificate under section 2A, B and 2C of Bankers Book of Evidence Act.

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

XVII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.