Ms S P D Vennela

IN THE COURT OF THE XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT AT: HYDERABAD

DATED :THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012

PRESENT: MISS.S.P.D.VENNELA., B.A,LL.B.,M.H.R.M.,

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

OS.2329 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

Smt. E.Sushila, W/o. Sri E.Veeraiah, Aged: 75 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.5-1-91,Chapel Road Abids, Hyderabad-500 001

...Plaintiff

A N D Sri A.M.Vatcha, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, aged: about 65 years, R/o.5-1-91, Chapel Road, Abids, Hyderabad – 500 001

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 03.01.2012 before this court for final hearing in the presence of Sri Shyam S. Agrawal, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri

M.Papa Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining defendant, his men, relatives, friends, family members, henchmen, the person claiming through or under the defendant and all others from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property admeasuring 500 square yards forming part of the property bearing municipal No.5-9-91 situated at Chapel Road, Abids Hyderabad. The costs of the suit be awarded.

2.The brief averments of plaint as follows:- 2OS.2329 of 2007

The case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of all the that portion of the property admeasuring 500 square yards forming part of the property bearing municipal No.5-9-91, situated at Chapal Road, Abids Hyderabad. The plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule of the property for the past about 50 years without there being any kind of interference. Initially the entire property bearing municipal No.5-9-91, situated at Chapal Road,

Hyderabad, admeasuring about 3600 square yards their municipal

Nos.132 and B-9-91, belongs to Smt. Bhiku Bai and others. The plaintiff along with her husband Sri Veeraiah was initially employed by the said

Smt. Bhiku Bai and they were given a small room in the corner of the bungalow for their stay. About 20 years back from now Smt. Bhiku Bai expired and all her family members migrated to London. The plaintiff occupied four rooms in the corner of large extent of the property i.e., the suit property and has been residing therein along with her family members. The plaintiff and her family members were registered as the occupants of the property with the Electoral Rolls and other government records. Initially the plaintiff and her family members were allowed to stay in a room in the corner of the property of about 5 decades ago by their owners, subsequently they have occupied the larger portion of the property. In view of their continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful possession and enjoyment for a long period of time to the knowledge of one and all, they have perfected their title by adverse possession also. Defendant is a stranger to the suit property and he has no manner of right or title over the same or in respect of the entire property. The defendant claiming to be a distant relative of the original owner of the property, came to the suit 3OS.2329 of 2007 property and occupied the main building . After some time of his settling in the main building, started troubling the plaintiff and her family members . On 22.09.2005 the defendant made an attempt to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. One Sri Shadaspa along with some hefty personalities stating to be the representatives of the defendant visited the suit property and asked the plaintiff and her family members to vacate the same voluntarily. The said persons threatened that on the failure of the plaintiff and her family members to vacate the same on their own, they would throw away all the household articles and would forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property.

3.On 23.09.2005, plaintiff lodged a complaint with the police, Abids,

Hyderabad, who visited the place and on seeing the police, the anti social elements vanished from the site. On 05.05.2005 when all the other family members of the plaintiff has gone out, the defendant entered into the suit property of the plaintiff, initially discussed with the plaintiff about the property and later under threat of causing physical harm to her, he forcibly obtained thumb impression of the plaintiff on some papers including some blank papers. Thereafter one Sri Mazdaya called the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff and her daughter-in-law with dire consequences if they do not vacate the property immediately. On 06.10.2005 plaintiff again lodged a complaint with the police, Abids. The police again visited the place, enquired about the incident but the defendant refused to come out the house and answered from the window stating that he had not obtained any thumb impression of the plaintiff on any papers. The police again warned the defendant. After this visit of the 4OS.2329 of 2007 police, there was no untoward incident for quite a long time. In the month of March 2007, several persons visiting the property, going around it and enquiring about the property from the neighbours also. Thereafter, some unsocial elements started visiting the suit property and threatening the plaintiff and her family members to vacate the same. On 16.03.2007 and 17.03.2007 the said persons visited the property stating that they had come to an understating with the defendant for purchase of the property.

The said persons also threatened that on the failure of the plaintiff and her family members to vacate the place, they would put an end to the lives of all of them. There are no reasons for the defendant and his men to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property under any circumstances. Plaintiff again visited the police station to lodge complaint against the defendant and also sought for protection, but the police refused to extend any help. Plaintiff insisted the police authorities at least receive their complaint, then they received it without giving any acknowledgment. Hence the present suit.

4.Defendant filed written statement. The brief averments of written statement as fallows.

Defendant filed written statement stating that originally the property bearing No.5-9-91 totally admeasuring 1856 sq.mts with old municipal

No.B-1-91 belognes to Mr. D.P Moos, who was survived by Mr. Jahangir

D.Moos and others. Smt. Bhiku Bai was one of the legal heirs of late D.P.

Moos, who was given life interest to reside in the said property in her lifetime. The possession of the plaintiff was permissive only to the extent of a room in her occupation. As she was working with the family she was permitted to reside in the said room as a servant. Under the registered 5OS.2329 of 2007 deed of family settlement dt:13.05.1956, the property was specifically settled in favour of Mr. Khursheed F Moos, subject to the right of residence of Smt. Bhiku Bai . In the circumstances Smt Bhiku Bai was permitted to reside in the house in her lifetime. Mr. Khursheed F.Moos has sold the said propety in fvour of Mr.B.Vishweshwar Reddy in the year 1975 itself, subject to the right of residence of Smt. Bhiku Bai during her lifetime. As such Smt. Bhiku Bai along with the defendant continued to stay in the said house. Defendant was assisting to Smt.Bhiku Bai therfore he was permitted to stay in the main building by Mr.B.Vishweshwer Reddy i.e., actual owner of the same. Defendant was requested by Mr.B.Vishweshwar

Reddy to contine to look after the property after the death of Smt. Bhiku

Bai. Mr.B.Vishweshwar Reddy occupied part of the main house and in the other part the defendant has been residing . Whereas the servant quarters were ocucupied by the respective servants including the plaintiff . At no point of time there was any such intention of creating any such rights in favour of others including the plaintiff . Plaitniff was inducted as a servant and has continued to receive regular salary from the defendant for the work done in the house as such the possession of the plaintiff and her alleged family members has always been permissive and no further. Mere occupation of the said room cannot make the plaintiff to be the absolute owner of the same especially when at no point of time there was any such assertion of adverse title or claim on the part of the plantiff or anybody else. Plaintiff is very well aware about the rights of Mr.B.Vishweshwar

Reddy, the actual owner of the property. Plaintiff has been receiving a sum of Rs. 100/- per month as on date and continued to receive the salary from the defendant. Admitteldy plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit 6OS.2329 of 2007 schedule property and she has no right over the same. A permissive possessor is never entiltled for injunction against the rightful owner or representative of the rightful owner i.e., the defendnat, hence he prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.My learned predecessor has framed the fallowing issues for trail.

1. Whether the plaintiff is in permissive possession of the suit schedule property, with the permission of the defendant, as alleged by the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintif is entitled to grant perpectual injunction as prayed for?

4. What relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of the case?

6.To substantiate the contentions of the palintiff, her son as GPA holder examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A13. Ex.A1 is the pass book of M/s. Union Bank of India, dt: 06.09.1981. Ex.A2 is the appointment letter of the plaitniff's son dt: 02.11.1988. Ex.A3 is the wedding invitatin Card, dt: 10.08.1989. Ex.A4 is the Ration card.Ex.A5 is the conduct certificate issued by Cherma's Extension, dt:16.09.1998.

Ex.A6 is the application for allotment land, dt:14.05.2005. Ex.A7 is the complaint made to Abids police station, dt:23.09.2005. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of entry of electoral roll, dt: 11.05.2007. Ex.A10 is the

Electrical bill payment receipts (two). Ex.A11 is the Arogyasree Card.

Ex.A12 is the Encumbrance certificate. Ex.A13 is the Encumbrance certificate, dt: 01.01.1981.

7OS.2329 of 2007

7.On behalf of defendant, he himself examined as Dw1 and got marked

Ex.B1 to B12. Ex.B1 is the original telephone bill. Ex.B2 is the original receipt towards property tax payment. Ex.B3 is the original electricity bills.Ex.B4 is the electricity payment bill. Ex.B5 is the electricity bill. Ex.B6 is the payment receipt of electricity bill. Ex.B7 is the rough sketch plain (subject to objection). Ex.B8 is the certified copy of family settlement deed,

dt:13-7-1956. Ex.B9 is the certified copy of rectification/conformation deed

dt:28-9-2007. Ex.B10 is the original receipt for payment of property tax for

the period 1-4-2009 to 31-3-2010. Ex.B11 is the original demand notice.

Ex.B12 is the original receipt for payment of property tax for the period 1- 4-2009 to 31-3-2010.

8.Heard arguments of learned counsels appearing on behalf of both parties. Perused the material on record and written arguments submitted on behalf of both parties.

9.Issue No.1:

1.Whether the plaintiff is in permissive possession of the suit schedule property, with the permission of the defendant, as alleged by the defendant?

The case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of suit schedule property for the past about 50 years without there being any kind of interference. Plaintiff along with her husband Sri

Veeraiah was initially employed by the Smt. Bhiku Bai and they were given a small room in the corner of the bungalow for their stay. Initially the plaintiff and her family members were allowed to stay in a room in the corner of the property about 5 decades ago by their owners, subsequently they have occupied the larger portion of the property i.e suit property. In 8OS.2329 of 2007 view of the continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and her family members over the suit schedule property for a long period of time to the knowledge of one and all, they have perfected their title by adverse possession also. Defendant is a stranger to the suit property and he has no manner of right or title over the same or in respect of the entire property, but he is trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

10.Defendant filed written statement stating that the possession of the plaintiff was permissive only to the extent of a room in her occupation, as she was working with the family of Smt.Bhiku Bai, she was permitted to reside in the said room as a servant. Plaitniff was inducted as a servant and has continued to receive regular salary from the defendant for the work done in the house, as such the possession of the plaintiff and her alleged family members has always been permissive and no further. Mere occupation of the said room cannot make the plaintiff to be the absolute owner of the same especially when at no point of time there was any such assertion of adverse title or claim on the part of the plantiff or anybody else.

11. A person who claims title by adverse possession must show by clear and unequivocal evidence that his possession was adverse to the real owner. It is well setteled law that when possession commences in a permissive character it does not become adverse unless by some positive overt act. In the present case admittedly possession of the plaintiff commences in a permissive character. Plaintiff did not produced any evidence, except Ex.A1 to A13, to show that her possession was adverse to the real owner. Ex.A1 to A13 does not establishes that the possession of 9OS.2329 of 2007 the plaintiff was adverse to the real owner. These documents only establishes that the plaintiff is in the possession of property. Mere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissive possession into adverse possession. The learned counsel for defendant submitted the fallowing citation:

AIR 1995 Supreme Court 73

Thakur Kishan Singh(dead) Vs Aravind Kumar

Held that “ As regards adverse possession, it was not disputed even by the trial court that the appellant entered into possession over the land in dispute under a licence from the respondent for purpose of brick-kiln. The possession thus initially being permissive, the burden was heavy on the appellant to establish that it became adverse. A possession of a co-owner or of a licensee or of an agent or a permissive possession to become adverse must be established by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of real owner. Mere possession for howsoever length of time does not result in converting the permissive possession into adverse possession.”

As per the above discussion and citation it can be said that plaintiff is in permissive possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly this issue is answered infavour of defendant against plaintiff.

12. Issue No.2 snd 3:

2. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintif is entitled to grant perpectual injunction as prayed for?

As per the above discussion in the issue No.1 palintiff is in permissive possession of suit schedule property. A permissive possession is a lawful possession. The contention of the defendant is that a permissive possessor is never entiltled for injunction against the rightful owner. To support this contention the learned counsel for defendant submitted the fallowing citation.

10OS.2329 of 2007 1990(2) ALT 358

Balineni Sivoni Devi Vs Boddula Kommaiah and another

Held that “ A combined harmoneous reading of

Sections 38 and 41 of Specific Relief Act leaves no doubt in my mind that a person in permissive possession of the land is not entitled to any injunction against the true owner.”

As per the above citation it is no doubt a permissive possessor of the property is not entitled to any injunction against the true owner. But in the present case on hand admittedly defendant is not the real owner of the suit schedule property. Therfore the above citation is not applicable to present case.

13.Another contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff did not enter into witness box to prove the case set up by her and on behalf of plaintiff her son examined as Pw1 as such the case of the plaintiff can not be looked into. To support this contention the learned counsel for defendant subitted the fallowing citation.

2004 (3) ALT 665 (D.B)

Indian Bank, Chittoor Vs V.R.Venkataraman and others

Held that “presumption has to be drawn under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into witness box to prove the case set up by him”.

In the present case on hand on behalf of plaintiff, her son examined as Pw1 as her GPA holder . The facts in the above case and the facts of the present case on hand is different, hence the above citation is not applicable to this case.

14.Dw1 admitted in his cross examination that “ it is true that the plaintiff and her children have been staying in the suit schedule property 11OS.2329 of 2007 since 35 to 40 years. Either myself or Biku Bai, or Vishweswar Reddy are not issued any notice to the plaintiff or to her children to vacate the suit schedule property”. Admittedly plaintiff is in the possession of the suit schedule property. As per setteled law a tress passer also cannot be evicted without fallowing due process of law. As discussed above plaintiff is the permissive possessor of the suit schedule property , hence she cannot be evicted without fallowing due process of law.

In view of the above discussion it is held that the plaintiff is in the lawful possession of the suit property and she is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. Accordingly these two issues are answered infavour of the plaintiff against defendant.

15.Issue No.4:

To what relief?

In view of the holding in issues No.2 and 3, the suit is decreed with costs.

In the result suit is decreed with costs restraining defendant, his men, relatives, friends, family members, henchmen, persons claiming through or under the defendant and all others from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, except with due process of law.

Typed to my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of January,2012.

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

12OS.2329 of 2007

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Pw1: E.Mallesh Dw1: A.M.Vatcha

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Pass book of M/s. Union Bank of India, dt: 06.09.1981.

Ex.A2:Appointment letter of the plaintiff's son dt: 02.11.1988.

Ex.A3:Wedding invitation card, dt; 10.08.1989.

Ex.A4:The Ration card.

Ex.A5: Conduct certificate issued by Chermas Extension, dt: 16.09.1998.

Ex.A6:Application for allotment of land dt: 14.05.2005.

Ex.A7:Complaint made to Abids Police station, dt: 23.09.2005.

Ex.A8:Complaint made to the police, dt: 06.10.2005.

Ex.A9:Certified copy of entry of electoral roll, dt: 11.05.2007.

Ex.A10: Electrical bill payment receipts ( two).

Ex.A11: Arogyasree Card.

Ex.A12: Encumbrance certificate.

Ex.A13: Encumbrance certificate, dt:01.01.1981.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

Ex.B1 : Original telephone bill. Ex.B2 : Original receipt towards property tax payment. Ex.B3 : Original electricity bills. Ex.B4 : Electricity payment bill. Ex.B5 : Electricity bill. Ex.B6 : Payment receipt of electricity bill. Ex.B7 : Rough sketch plain (subject to objection). Ex.B8 : Certified copy of family settlement deed, dt:13-7-1956. Ex.B9: Certified copy of rectification/conformation deed dt:28-9-2007. Ex.B10:Original receipt for payment of property tax for the period 1-4-2009 to 31-3-2010. Ex.B11 : Original demand notice. Ex.B12 : Original receipt for payment of property tax for the period 1-4-2009 to 31-3-2010.

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT: HYDERABAD

DATED:THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012

PRESENT:MISS. S.P.D. VENNELA., B.A.,LL.B., M.H.R.M.,

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S.NO. 1925 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

1. Smt. C.Meenakhshamma, W/o. Late Sri C.Vinayak Sagar, Aged: 48 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.20-1-681, Puranapool, Hyderabad.

2. Kum. C.V.Shravanthi Sagar, D/o. Late Sri C.Vinayak Sagar, Aged: 22 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.20-1-681, Puranapool, Hyderabad.

3. Master C.V. Vikram Sai Sagar, S/o. Late Sri C.Vinayak Sagar, Aged: 17 years, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.20-1-681, Puranapool, Hyderabad.

The Plaintiff No.3 being minor in Represented by his natural mother Plaintiff No.1 Smt. C.Meenakhamma.

… Plaintiffs

A N D

1.The Tahsildar, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad District

2. All concerned.

… Defendants This suit is coming on 20.1.2012 before this court for final disposal in the presence of A.Chandra Prakash, Advocate for the plaintiffs, defendants called absent, remained set exparte and the matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

2OS.No.1925/2011 This suit is filed for declaration to declare the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as the legal heirs of the deceased C.Vinayak Sagar and award the costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Late Sri C.Vinayak Sagar who died on 27.12.2009 leaving behind the plaintiffs No.1 to 3. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of deceased Sri. C.vinayak Sagar, plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the children. During the life time of Late Sri C.Vinayak Sagar, he has become a member of the Voltas Electrolux Housing Cooperative

Society and got allotted a house site admeasuring 150 square yards in Sy.No. 279 & 280 in Miyapur Village under the Municipal limits of G.H.M.C Hyderabad. Husband of plaintiff No.1 died on 27.12.2009 due to illness. Plaintiff No.1 being illiterate could not take step to incorporate her name in the records of Voltas and

Electrolux Housing Cooperative Society. When the plaintiff No.1 approached the concerned officials of the society, they have insisted for Legal Heir Certificate. Then the plaintiff No.1 approached the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer at Bahadurpura, who rejected the request and said that the Civil Court is the authority for issue the Legal Heir Certificate and directed them to approach competent

Court. Hence the suit.

3.Summon served on defendant No.1, called absent remained set exparte. Paper publication filed to all concerned, no objections are received from any one.

4.In order to prove the suit claim plaintiff No.1 herself examined as Pw-1 and got marked Ex.A1 and A2.

5. Heard arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

3OS.No.1925/2011

6. “Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for?”

7. POINT:

The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the only legal heirs of late C.Vinayak Sagar, during his life time he has become a member of the Voltas Electrolux Housing Cooperative Society and got allotted a house site admeasuring 150 square yards in Sy.No.

279 & 280 in Miyapur Village under the Municipal limits of

G.H.M.C Hyderabad. Husband of plaintiff No.1 died on 27.12.2009 due to illness. The plaintiff No.1 being illiterate could not take step to incorporate her name in the records of Voltas and Electrolux

Housing Cooperative Society. When the plaintiff No.1 approached the concerned officials of the society, they have insisted for Legal

Heir Certificate. Then the plaintiff No.1 approached the concerned

Mandal Revenue Officer at Bahadurpura, who rejected the request and said that the Civil Court is the authority for issue the Legal

Heir Certificate and directed them to approach competent Court.

8. Plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late C.Vinayak Sagar. Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with the declaration of status or right. For the convenience here with reproducing the Section 34.

Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right:- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that 4OS.No.1925/2011 he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such sit ask for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.”

As per the above provision any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right.

9. In the present case plaintiffs did not explained who denied her right or status. Admittedly defendant No.1 is not the competent authority to grant Legal heir certificate. But mere refusing to grant

Legal heir certificate will not arise cause of action for this suit.

10. Admittedly no schedule of property has been attached to the plaint. In V.Hanya Naik and others v. M.Krishna Reddy and others 2009 (6) ALT 221, Hon'ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh held at para 7 of the judgment as follows:

“From this, it becomes clear that they prayed for a mere declaratory relief, it is relevant to mention that, neither any schedule was attached to the plaint, nor any individual was cited as defendant. It was not a petition under the Indian Succession Act. It is just un- understandable as to how the trial Court numbered the suit, though no defendants were shown in it. In para 5 of the plaint, the petitioners clearly stated that the necessity for them to file the suit has arisen on account of the fact that their claim was not being accepted 5OS.No.1925/2011 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chevalla, in respect of the lands held by Rasiya. it was also mentioned that Rasiya left an estate. In this background the petitioners were under obligation to mention the particulars of the estate, as regards which, the succession was claimed, and to implead the individuals or officials, who disputed their right to succeed to the estate of late Rasiya. On both the counts, the plaint was silent.”

11. In the present suit also the plaintiffs, except seeking declaration as the legal heir of late C.Vinayak Sagar, they has neither attached to the plaint any schedule of the property.

12.It has been further observed in the above referred decision at paras 8 and 9 as under:- “The suit was notionally valued at Rs.3,000/-, and the trial Court has generously accepted that, without any further verification. Assuming that the suit was not defective either as regards the mentioning the property, or as to the presence of the parties against whom the relief is claimed, a serious legal infirmity was glaring on the face of it. The petitioners did not claim any relief ancillary or subsidiary to the one of declaration. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act reads as under:

Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right:- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the 6OS.No.1925/2011 plaintiff need not in such sit ask for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so”.

From a perusal of the proviso, it becomes clear that no Court shall grant the mere relief of declaration, if the plaintiff, being in a position to claim other relief; did not pray for it. Even a vague idea about this provision would have persuaded the trial Court to refuse numbering of the suit. As pointed out at the threshold, the sky rocketing of prices of land has manifested its effect in various fields, including the approach of the Courts, in deviation of the settled norm.”

13. In the present case also, the plaintiffs did not seek any further relief except seeking the relief of declaration though they are in a position to claim the other relief and as discussed above no schedule of property was mentioned in the plaint. Hence, as per the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, and as discussed above there is no cause of action to file this suit, therefore this

Court cannot grant the relief of mere declaration.

14. In view of the above decision in V.Hanya Naik and others vs. M.Krishna Reddy and others 2009 (6) ALT 221 since the plaintiffs has not attached any schedule of property to the plaint and as they failed to seek any further relief though they are in a position to seek for the same than the relief of mere declaration, and there is no cause of action to file the present suit, this court 7OS.No.1925/2011 cannot grant the relief of declaration as prayed for and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

15. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 24th day of January, 2012.

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW-1: C.Meenakshamma -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A1: Death Certificate of Late Sri C.Vinayak Sagar, dated: 29.12.2009. Ex.A2: The Ration Card.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

-NIL –

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT AT: HYDERABAD

DATED :THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012

PRESENT: MISS.S.P.D.VENNELA., B.A,LL.B.,M.H.R.M.,

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

OS.450 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

Smt.P.Manemma, W/o.P.Babaiah Mudiraj, Aged: about 51 years, Occ: Household, R/o.18-2-118/A, Falkunama Station Road, Hyderabad, A.P

...Plaintiff

A N D

1. Sri Gandi Swamy, S/o. Not known to Plaintiff, Aged: about 50 years, Occ: Government Service, R/o.H.No.18-2-138/6/7 Falkunama, Hyderabad.

2. Sri S.Bushi Reddy, S/o. S.Aagi Reddy, Aged: about 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o.18-2-360, Falkunama, Hyderabad.

...Defendants

This suit is coming on 05.01.2012 before this court for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Jagdishwar Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri

A.Manik Prabhu Goud, Advocate for the defendant No. 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining defendants, their family members, agents, assignees, and all those claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner and award the costs of the suit.

2OS.450 of 2011

2.The brief averments of plaint as follows:-

The case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the house property bearing No.19-4-2/1, situated at

Falaknuma, Hyderabad, admeasuring 300 square yards. Plaintiff purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed bearing

No.5995/1982 dated: 13.08.1982 and ever since she has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the same. The suit property consists of old house and open area. Plaintiff is in occupation of the house portion and the open portion was let out for doing bamboo business . The house portion being old and without maintenance for long, became dilapidated and fell down during the last rainy season. Thus, only the tenant is now doing business in the open space. Plaintiff has been paying taxes regularly. Some persons are trying to occupy the property of the plaintiff by threatening the tenant. On enquiry it was revealed that the defendants are out to grab the property. On 09.02.2011 the defendants tried to enter the suit property and lay some wares. On being informed, the plaintiff rushed to the place along with her acquaintances and stopped illegality. Again on 13.02.2011 taking advantage of the fact the same being a holiday and the business of the tenant is not open, defendants tried to occupy the suit property. Plaintiff having came to know of the same, rushed to the spot and avoided any untowards incident. Plaintiff reprobated the matter to the police, they informed her that the issue is one of civil nature and they would not intervene in the matter. Hence suit.

3. Defendants filed written statement. The brief averments of written statement as fallows.

3OS.450 of 2011

Defendants filed written statement denying the material allegations.

Further defendants contended that the schedule property belogns to the temple namely Sri Mallikarjunaswamy Devastanam, and the plaintiff also knows the same fact. To grab the said temple land plaintiff created the false and fabricated documents and filed this present suit. Plaintiff herself stated in her plaint in para No.1 that one portion was rented out to some bomboo business, but the said bomboo business man namely A.Narasaiah is the tenant of the Sri Krishana Bala Baktha Samjam which is registed committee, and the committee is protecting the land of the temple since 1983. The said committee was entered a rental agreement with the said business man and the said committee is collecting the rent form the said tenant. Since decades the schedule property is in the custody of the temple Namely Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam and the said devasthanam was identified by the Government of Andha Pradesh and published in A.P Gazette Vide Rc.No.J3/60475/97 at Phalakunuma,

Hyderabad. Being the member of said temple, defendant No.1 resisted the plaintiff to protect the schedule property but not in pesonal status. Plaintiff has to file the suit against the temple committee , but with malafilde intention she has not filed the suit against the temple committee, due to that the suit itself is devoide of merits and on the basis of mis joinder of parties the plaint itself liable to be dismissed. Hence defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings the fallowing issues are framed.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

4OS.450 of 2011

2. To what relief ?

5. To substantiate the contentions of the palintiff, herself examined as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-6. i.e., Ex.A1 is the orignal sale deed, dt:

13.08.1982. Ex.A2 is the original of Assessment notice dt;19.09.1997.

Ex.A3 is the original Tax receipt, dt:21.09.1997. Ex.A4 is the original Tax receipt for the year 2008-09. Ex.A5 is the original tax receipt for the year 2009-10. Ex.A6 is the orginal tax receipt for the year 2010-11. On behalf of plaintiff one Sama Madhusudan Reddy examined as Pw2 and

M.Devendar examined as Pw3.

6. On behalf defendants, defendant No.1 examined as Dw1 and got marked Ex.B1 i.e., authorisation letter. On behalf defendants one

A.Narasaiah is examined as Dw2.

7.Heard arguments of learned counsels appearing on behalf of both parties. Perused the material on record.

8.Issue No.1:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

The case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit property. Plaintiff let out the suit property for doing bamboo business, but the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Defendants denied this fact and further contended that the suit property belongs to the Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy

Devasthanam, and one A.Narasaiah is the tenant of the Sri Krishana Bala

Baktha Samjam which is registed committee, and the committee is protecting the land of the temple since 1983. The said committee was 5OS.450 of 2011 entered rental agreement with the said business man and the said committee is collecting the rent form the said tenant.

9.To establish the case plaintiff herserlf examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A6. On behalf of plaintiff, pw2 and pw3 are examined.

Pw2 and Pw3 supported the case of plaintiff. PW1 to 3 are cross examined by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants, but nothing is elicited to discredit their evidence and insupport of defendants case.

Defendants taken a plea that the suit property belongs to the Sri

Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, and one A.Narasaiah is the tenant of the Sri Krishana Bala Baktha Samjam which is registed committee, and the committee is protecting the land of the temple since 1983. A.Narasaiah examined as Dw2, he himself admitted in his cross examination that “ I have not filed any document to show that I am doing bamboo stick business in the suit schedule property”. Defendants did not produced any documentary evidence to support thier contentions.

10.Defendants taken a plea that the suit schedule property belongs to the Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, hence plaintiff has to file the suit against temple committee, but with malafided intention he did not filed the suit against the temple committee, as such the suit devoid of merits on the basis of mis-joinder of parties to the suit. Admittedly defendants did not produced any evidence before the court to establish that the suit schedule property belongs to the Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, therefore the plea of defendants that the suit is devoid of merits on the basis of mis-joinder of parties is baseless.

11.Plaintiff produced registered sale deed dt:13-8-1982 which is marked as Ex.A1, it shows that the plaintiff purchased the suit property under this 6OS.450 of 2011 document. Ex.A2 to A4 i.e propoerty tax receipts which are establishes the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Pw2 and Pw3 also deposed evidence that on 9-2-2011 and 13-2-2011 defendants tried to occupy the suit property. Therefore it can be said that the defendants are tried to interfer in the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property with out any right. Plaintiff filed the present suit for perpetual injunction for which she has to establish her right over the schedule property and interference or voilation of her right by some persons. As discussed above plaintiff established her right over the suit schedule property and violation of her right by the defendants through documentary evidence as well as oral evidence, therefore she is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for.

In view of the above discussion it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. Accordingly this issue is answered infavour of the plaintiff against defendants.

12. Issue No.2

2. To what relief?

In view of the holding in issue No.1 suit is decreed with costs.

In the result suit is decreed with costs restraining defendants, their family members, agents, assignees, and all those claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Prepared, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of January,2012.

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

7OS.450 of 2011

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :FOR DEFENDANTS:

Pw1: P.ManemmaDw1: Gandhi Swamy Pw2: Sama Madhusudhan ReddyDw2: A.Narsaiah Pw3: M.Devender

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Original sale deed, dt: 13.08.1982.

Ex.A2:Original Assessment notice dt: 19.09.1997.

Ex.A3:Original Tax receipt, dt: 21.09.1997

Ex.A4:Original Tax receipt for the year 2008-09.

Ex.A5: Original Tax receipt for the year 2009-10

Ex.A6:Original Tax receipt or the year 2010-11

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1: Authorisation letter.

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT AT: HYDERABAD

DATED :THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012

PRESENT: MISS.S.P.D.VENNELA., B.A,LL.B.,M.H.R.M.,

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

OS.450 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

Smt.P.Manemma, W/o.P.Babaiah Mudiraj, Aged: about 51 years, Occ: Household, R/o.18-2-118/A, Falkunama Station Road, Hyderabad, A.P

...Plaintiff

A N D

1. Sri Gandi Swamy, S/o. Not known to Plaintiff, Aged: about 50 years, Occ: Government Service, R/o.H.No.18-2-138/6/7 Falkunama, Hyderabad.

2. Sri S.Bushi Reddy, S/o. S.Aagi Reddy, Aged: about 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o.18-2-360, Falkunama, Hyderabad.

...Defendants

This suit is coming on 05.01.2012 before this court for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Jagdishwar Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri

A.Manik Prabhu Goud, Advocate for the defendant No. 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining defendants, their family members, agents, assignees, and all those claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner and award the costs of the suit.

2OS.450 of 2011

2.The brief averments of plaint as follows:-

The case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the house property bearing No.19-4-2/1, situated at

Falaknuma, Hyderabad, admeasuring 300 square yards. Plaintiff purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed bearing

No.5995/1982 dated: 13.08.1982 and ever since she has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the same. The suit property consists of old house and open area. Plaintiff is in occupation of the house portion and the open portion was let out for doing bamboo business . The house portion being old and without maintenance for long, became dilapidated and fell down during the last rainy season. Thus, only the tenant is now doing business in the open space. Plaintiff has been paying taxes regularly. Some persons are trying to occupy the property of the plaintiff by threatening the tenant. On enquiry it was revealed that the defendants are out to grab the property. On 09.02.2011 the defendants tried to enter the suit property and lay some wares. On being informed, the plaintiff rushed to the place along with her acquaintances and stopped illegality. Again on 13.02.2011 taking advantage of the fact the same being a holiday and the business of the tenant is not open, defendants tried to occupy the suit property. Plaintiff having came to know of the same, rushed to the spot and avoided any untowards incident. Plaintiff reprobated the matter to the police, they informed her that the issue is one of civil nature and they would not intervene in the matter. Hence suit.

3. Defendants filed written statement. The brief averments of written statement as fallows.

3OS.450 of 2011

Defendants filed written statement denying the material allegations.

Further defendants contended that the schedule property belogns to the temple namely Sri Mallikarjunaswamy Devastanam, and the plaintiff also knows the same fact. To grab the said temple land plaintiff created the false and fabricated documents and filed this present suit. Plaintiff herself stated in her plaint in para No.1 that one portion was rented out to some bomboo business, but the said bomboo business man namely A.Narasaiah is the tenant of the Sri Krishana Bala Baktha Samjam which is registed committee, and the committee is protecting the land of the temple since 1983. The said committee was entered a rental agreement with the said business man and the said committee is collecting the rent form the said tenant. Since decades the schedule property is in the custody of the temple Namely Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam and the said devasthanam was identified by the Government of Andha Pradesh and published in A.P Gazette Vide Rc.No.J3/60475/97 at Phalakunuma,

Hyderabad. Being the member of said temple, defendant No.1 resisted the plaintiff to protect the schedule property but not in pesonal status. Plaintiff has to file the suit against the temple committee , but with malafilde intention she has not filed the suit against the temple committee, due to that the suit itself is devoide of merits and on the basis of mis joinder of parties the plaint itself liable to be dismissed. Hence defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings the fallowing issues are framed.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

4OS.450 of 2011

2. To what relief ?

5. To substantiate the contentions of the palintiff, herself examined as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-6. i.e., Ex.A1 is the orignal sale deed, dt:

13.08.1982. Ex.A2 is the original of Assessment notice dt;19.09.1997.

Ex.A3 is the original Tax receipt, dt:21.09.1997. Ex.A4 is the original Tax receipt for the year 2008-09. Ex.A5 is the original tax receipt for the year 2009-10. Ex.A6 is the orginal tax receipt for the year 2010-11. On behalf of plaintiff one Sama Madhusudan Reddy examined as Pw2 and

M.Devendar examined as Pw3.

6. On behalf defendants, defendant No.1 examined as Dw1 and got marked Ex.B1 i.e., authorisation letter. On behalf defendants one

A.Narasaiah is examined as Dw2.

7.Heard arguments of learned counsels appearing on behalf of both parties. Perused the material on record.

8.Issue No.1:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

The case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit property. Plaintiff let out the suit property for doing bamboo business, but the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Defendants denied this fact and further contended that the suit property belongs to the Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy

Devasthanam, and one A.Narasaiah is the tenant of the Sri Krishana Bala

Baktha Samjam which is registed committee, and the committee is protecting the land of the temple since 1983. The said committee was 5OS.450 of 2011 entered rental agreement with the said business man and the said committee is collecting the rent form the said tenant.

9.To establish the case plaintiff herserlf examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A6. On behalf of plaintiff, pw2 and pw3 are examined.

Pw2 and Pw3 supported the case of plaintiff. PW1 to 3 are cross examined by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants, but nothing is elicited to discredit their evidence and insupport of defendants case.

Defendants taken a plea that the suit property belongs to the Sri

Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, and one A.Narasaiah is the tenant of the Sri Krishana Bala Baktha Samjam which is registed committee, and the committee is protecting the land of the temple since 1983. A.Narasaiah examined as Dw2, he himself admitted in his cross examination that “ I have not filed any document to show that I am doing bamboo stick business in the suit schedule property”. Defendants did not produced any documentary evidence to support thier contentions.

10.Defendants taken a plea that the suit schedule property belongs to the Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, hence plaintiff has to file the suit against temple committee, but with malafided intention he did not filed the suit against the temple committee, as such the suit devoid of merits on the basis of mis-joinder of parties to the suit. Admittedly defendants did not produced any evidence before the court to establish that the suit schedule property belongs to the Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, therefore the plea of defendants that the suit is devoid of merits on the basis of mis-joinder of parties is baseless.

11.Plaintiff produced registered sale deed dt:13-8-1982 which is marked as Ex.A1, it shows that the plaintiff purchased the suit property under this 6OS.450 of 2011 document. Ex.A2 to A4 i.e propoerty tax receipts which are establishes the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Pw2 and Pw3 also deposed evidence that on 9-2-2011 and 13-2-2011 defendants tried to occupy the suit property. Therefore it can be said that the defendants are tried to interfer in the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property with out any right. Plaintiff filed the present suit for perpetual injunction for which she has to establish her right over the schedule property and interference or voilation of her right by some persons. As discussed above plaintiff established her right over the suit schedule property and violation of her right by the defendants through documentary evidence as well as oral evidence, therefore she is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for.

In view of the above discussion it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. Accordingly this issue is answered infavour of the plaintiff against defendants.

12. Issue No.2

2. To what relief?

In view of the holding in issue No.1 suit is decreed with costs.

In the result suit is decreed with costs restraining defendants, their family members, agents, assignees, and all those claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Prepared, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of January,2012.

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

7OS.450 of 2011

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :FOR DEFENDANTS:

Pw1: P.ManemmaDw1: Gandhi Swamy Pw2: Sama Madhusudhan ReddyDw2: A.Narsaiah Pw3: M.Devender

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Original sale deed, dt: 13.08.1982.

Ex.A2:Original Assessment notice dt: 19.09.1997.

Ex.A3:Original Tax receipt, dt: 21.09.1997

Ex.A4:Original Tax receipt for the year 2008-09.

Ex.A5: Original Tax receipt for the year 2009-10

Ex.A6:Original Tax receipt or the year 2010-11

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1: Authorisation letter.

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT AT: HYDERABAD.

DATED: THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012.

PRESENT: MISS.S.P.D.VENNELA., B.A,LL.B.,M.H.R.M.,

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

OS. No.2627 of 2007

BETWEEN:

Mrs. Akthar Begum, W/o. Late Dr.Quadiruddin Khan, aged: about 75 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. United States of America Represented by GPA holder Shri Quameruddin Ali Khan, S/o Late Shri Sabith Ali Khan, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Private Service , R/o Plot No.170, First Floor, Kamalapuri Colony,Hyderabad. … Plaintiff

A N D

1. Dr.Ahmed Waliullah, (died) per L.Rs

2. Mrs.Amutur Rafe Ateka, W/o late Dr.Ahmed Walliullah, Aged: 35 years,

3. Mrs.Amatul Basheer Bushra, D/o. late Dr.Ahmed Walliullah, Aged: 29 years,

4. Mrs.Amatun Nafe Naseha, D/o.late Dr.Ahmed Walliullah, Aged:27 years,

5. Mohammed Mutiullah Mahir, S/o. late Dr.Ahmed Walliullah, Aged: 20 years

All R/o. 16-7-335/1, Azampura, Hyderabad.

(Defendants No.2 to 5 added as per order in

I.A.No.85 of 2010 dt:23-6-2010)

...Defendants

This suit is coming on 4.1.2012 before this court for final hearing in the presence of Sri. B.Vijayasen Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri

M.M.Firdos, Advocate for the defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered fallowing:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed (a) for eviction of defendant from suit schedule property and deliver actual vacant and physical possession to the plaintiff. (b) for recovery of property tax Rs.l2,600/- with interest @ 18% per annum till 2 OS.No.2627/07 realization. (c) for mense profits at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of suit till realization and award the costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint as fallows:

The contention of plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner of suit schedule property. Defendant has obtained the suit schedule property on lease from the plaintiff under registered lease deed bearing document No. 466.02 dated 18-2-2002 on initial monthly rent of Rs.4,500/- per month excluding electricity, property taxes and maintenance charges which was later enhanced and at that time the same at determination of lease was Rs.4750/- per month. The registered lease deed was executed for a period of 5 years commencing from 1st March 2002 and expired on 28-2-2007 by efflux time. The lessor did not extend the lease. In view of their being no extension of lease, the lease expired and determined on 28-2-2007. Defendant failed to vacate the suit property, hence plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant under section 106 of T.P. Act on 10-3-2001 calling him to vacate the premises within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and also demanded mense profits at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. The said legal notice was received by defendant. The defendant under terms of registered lease under obligation to pay the municipal tax @ Rs.4200/- per annuam. But the defendant paid the municipal tax for initial period of 2 years and failed to pay the same from the past 3 years. The total amount due is Rs.12,600/-.

Defendant is not entitled for continuing in the suit property . The plaintiff has claimed Rs.10,000/- per month as mense profits from the defendant. Hence the suit.

3 OS.No.2627/07

3.Defendant filed written statement. 1st defendant died during the trial and his legal representatives added as Defendants No.2 to 5.

Defendants No.2 to 5 also adopted the written statement filed by 1st defendant. Brief facts of written statement as fallows:

Defendant admitted the ownership of the plaintiff and the tenancy with the plaintiff. Defendant also admitted the execution of registered lease deed dt:18-2-2002, present quantum of rent and legal notice issued by plaintiff under section 106 of T.P. Act. Defendant denied all other allegations made in the plaint, further he contended that tenancy was duly and mutually extended by another term of one year. It was the practice of the plaintiff that upon receipt of the property bill from Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, she used to forward the same to the defendant and he used to remit the same and forward the receipt to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not forward the bills of the MCH to the defendant , which the amount claimed by the plaintiff. Defendant sent the rent through account payee cheque to the plaintiff for the month of March, 2007. The cheque was not cashed. Defendant in discharge of his obligation remitted the rent through postal money order, but the same was returned. An amount of Rs.1 lakh was deposited with the plaintiff as security deposit, free of interest, which has not been mentioned by the plaintiff at all. There is no termination of tenancy. Hence defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings my learned predecessor has framed the fallowing issues for trail.

4 OS.No.2627/07

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the eviction of the defendants from suit schedule property and delivery of possession of the same to her ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any amount claimed in the suit towards property tax ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits as prayed for?

4. What relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case?

5.To substantiate the case, on behalf of plaintiff, Pw1 filed chief affidavit and Ex.A1 to A5 are marked, but inspite of several adjournments the defendants neither chosen to cross examine the

Pw1 nor produced any evidence on their behalf, hence their right to cross examination is forfeited and their evidence is closed.

6.Heard arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff. Defendants did not chosen to submit arguments, hence their arguments treated as heard. Perused the material on record.

7.Issue No.1:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the eviction of the defendants from suit schedule property and delivery of possession of the same to her ?

During the course of trail the learned counsel for defendants filed a memo stating that the defendants vacated the suit property and keys of the suit property received by the plaintiff. The same was confirmed by the plaintiff. In view of the defendants vacated and handed over the suit property to the plaintiff this issue became infractuous. Accordingly this issue is answered.

5 OS.No.2627/07

8. Issue No.2:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any amount claimed in the suit towards property tax ?

The contention of the plaintiff is that as per the terms of registered lease agreement the defendants are under obligation to pay the property tax to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad @ Rs.

4,200/- per annum . The defendants paid the same for initial period of 2 years and failed to pay the same from the past 3 years, hence, the total amount due towards municipal tax is Rs.12,600/- . Defendants filed written statement stating that it was the practice of the plaintiff that upon receipt of the property bill from Municipal Corporation of

Hyderabad, she used to forward the same to the defendant and he used to remit the same and forward the receipt to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not forward the bill of the MCH at all to the defendant , which the amount claimed by the plaintiff. So it can be said that admittedly defendants did not paid the property tax, which they has to pay as claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs. 12,600/- towards property tax to the plaintiff.

In view of the above above discussion it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for an amount of Rs. 12,600/- towards property tax from the defendants as prayed for. Accordingly this issue is answered infavour of plaintiff against defendants.

9.Issue No.3

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits as prayed for?

6 OS.No.2627/07

Plaintiff is claiming mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of the suit till realization. The relief of mesne profits has to be ascertain on separate application. The relief of mesne profits left open to be determined on a separate application Under Order 20

Rule 12 of Civil Procedure code. Therefore this issue is answered accordingly.

10.Issue No. 4 :

4. What relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitle to in the facts and circumstances of the case?

In view of the holding in the above issues the suit is partly decreed with costs.

In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs as fallows:

1. the relief of eviction of the defendants from the suit property became infractuous since defendants are vacated the suit property during the course of trail.

2. directing the defendants to pay an amount of Rs. 12,600/- towards property tax to the plaintiff.

3.the reliefs of future damages is left open to be determined on a separate application under Order 20 Rule 12 of Civil Procedure

Code.

Prepared, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of January, 2012.

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

7 OS.No.2627/07

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For plaintiffFor Defendants:

Pw1: Quameruddin Ali Khan Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Certified copy of registered lease deed bearing document No.466/2002 Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice Ex.A3: Original Postal receipt dt:10-3-2007 Ex.A4: Original letter issued by postal departments in proof of service of legal notice to the defendant. Ex.A5: Certified copy of General Power of Attorney bearing document No.71/2000

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

–NIL -

XX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD