Smt S Swathi Reddy

IN THE COURT OF THE XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: 

CITY CIVIL COURT:HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 24 th DAY OF JUNE, 2016.

 PRESENT: SMT.S.SWATHI REDDY,

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC XXI JUNIOR CIIVL JUDGE

OS No.2007 of 2005

Between:

1.Saleha Begum (died ) per Lrs.

2.Md. Yousufuddin Mansoor S/o Mohd. Moinuddin, Aged 57 years, Occ: Advocate

3. Md.Shamsuddin Khalid S/o.Md.Yousufuddin Mansoor, Aged:30 Years, Occ:Advocate

4. Atiya Begum W/o. M.K.M. Khan, Aged:29 Years, Occ:Advocate

5. Nazia Begum D/o.Md.Yousufuddin Mansoor Aged:27 years, Occ:Advocate

6. Humera Begum D/o.Md.Yousufuddin Mansoor Aged:25 years, Occ:Advocate 

7. Sumera Begum D/o.Md.Yousufuddin Mansoor Aged:25 years, Occ:Advocate

 All are residents of Lawyers House 19­2­203/K, Ranmastpura, Opp.Zoopark, Hyderabad (Plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 added as per order in I.A.No.586/2011 dt.20.1.2012)

..Plaintiffs

AND

1. Md.Basheeruddin S/o.S.M.Minuddin, aged 65 years, Occ:Business, R/o.11­5­148, Red Hills, Hyderabad.

2. Md.Muneeruddin S/o.S.M.Moinuddin Aged:58 years, Occ:Business, R/o.F.No.8, Lucky Apartments, 11­4­622, Bazaar Ghat, Hyderabad.

>> 2 << OS 2007/2005

3. Md.Zaheeruddin S/o.S.M.Moinuddin, Aged:54 years, Occ:Business, R/o.9­4­133/A/13, Opp:Masjid­E­Mahmood Qadri,Chabra Enclave, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad.

4.Md.Naseeruddin S/o. S.M.Moinuddin, Aged:50 years, Occ:Business, R/o.6­3­609/7, Flat No.104, Iind Floor, Royal Courts Apartments, Anandnagar, Khairathabad, Hyderabad.

5. Mansoora Begum W/o. Ahmedulla Baig, Aged:68 years, Occ:Household, R/o.101, Ground Floor, Ashiana Apartments, Beside Nilofer Hospital, Hyderabad.

6. Mahmooda Begum W/o.Khaja Abdul Hameed Ansari, Aged:65 years, Occ:Household R/o.12­2­831/15/1, Ground Floor, Muradnagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

7. Mubaraka Begum W/o.Md.Aziz Khan, Aged:68 years, Occ:Household, R/o.11­2­727, Habeebnagar, Mallepally, Hyderabad.

8. Nasera Begum W/o. Shamsuddin, Aged:52 years, Occ:Household R/o.11­5­148, Red Hills, Hyderabad.

9. Naeema Begum W/o.Maqsood Ahmed Shark, Aged:51 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.11­5­148, RedHills, Hyderabad.

10. Md.Basheer S/o. Md. Ismail, Age:58 years, Occu:Business, R/o.8­2­541/1/2/3, Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

11. Md.Zubair S/o. Md.Ismail, Age:48 years, Occu:Business, R/o.18­13­140, Bandlaguda, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad027

12. Md.Suhail S/o.Md.Ismail, Age:45 years, Occu:Business, R/o.11­3­643, New Mallepally, Hyderabad.

13. Razia Begum W/o.Abdul Samad Age:60 years, Occ:Business, R/o.11­3­640, New Mallepally, Hyderabad.

>> 3 << OS 2007/2005

14. Bushra Begum W/o Nusratulla Ghory, Age:58 years, Occu:Business, R/o.11­3­659, New Mallepally, Hyderabad.

15. Sajida Begum W/o.B.M.Basharat, Age:48 years, Occu:Business, R/o.11­3­658, New Mallepally, Hyderabad

16. Amtul Muneer Begum W/o. Rasheed Ahmed, Age:70 years, Occu:Household

17. Saeed Ahmed S/o. Rasheed Ahmed, Age:54 years, Occu:Business

18. Waseem Ahmed S/o.Rasheed Ahmed, Age:48years, Occu:Business

19. Nazeer Ahmed S/o.Rasheed Ahmed, Age:42 years, Occu:Business

20. Zameer Ahmed S/o. Rasheed Ahmed, Age:40 years, Occu:Buisiness

21. Amatul Baseer @ Bibi Maa W/o.Mansoor Ahmed, Age:47 years, Occu:Household

22. Asma Nikhat W/o.Ahmed Ghory, Age:40 years, Occu:Household (Defendant Nos.16 to 22 are R/o.2­4­72/97, Baitul Rasheed, Parama Reddy Hills, Upparpally,

Rajendernagar, Ranga Reddy District) ..Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s. B. Dhananjaya, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri L.V.Radhakrishna Murthy, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

>> 4 << OS 2007/2005

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by plaintiffs for Declaration Under Section 26 

Read with Order 7 R1 of CPC (a) To declare that the Deed of 

Dissolution of Partnership dated:14.11.1969 is forged, fabricated and concocted document and the same is illegal, null & void and unenforceable in law and not binding on the plaintiff. (b) To declare that the affidavits of Mahmood Ahmed dated: 25.10.1985 and 27.12.1985 are forged, fabricated and concocted documents and the same are illegal, null and void and unenforceable in law and not binding on the plaintiff ( c ) To declare that, the Agreement 

dated:21.10.1985 forged, fabricated and concocted documents and the 

same are illegal, null and void and unenforceable in law and not binding on the plaintiff. (d) To declare that the Partnership Deed 

dated:3.04.1992 forged, fabricated and concocted document and the 

same is illegal, null & void and is unenforceabe in law and not binding on the plaintiff and (e) To award costs of the suit.

2..The averments of the plaint as stated by the plaintiff are that the grand father of the plaintiff No.1 Mohd Hussain @ Ostad had five sons viz., S.M. Moinuddin, Mohd. Ismail, Mohd. Azam, Mahmood Ahmed and Rasheed Ahmed. The plaintiff No.1 is daughter of Mahmood 

Ahmed. The defendant Nos. 1 to 9 are legal heirs of late 

S.M.Moinuddin, defendant Nos.10 to 15 are legal heirs of Mohd. Ismail and defendant Nos.16 to 22 are legal heirs of Rasheed Ahmed. It is contended that the grand father of the plaintiff No.1 and the defendants i.e., Mohd. Hussain @ Ostad started Beedi business in the year 1930, under the name and style of “Azam Jadi Beedi”. In the year 1946 the said beedi business was registered under Trade Marks Act namely, 

>> 5 << OS 2007/2005

“Azam Jadi Beedi” and the business description was S.M.Moinuddin, 

Mohd. Azam Chitakunta for beedi katta bearing Registration 

No.117778. Subsequently, it was again registered in the year 1949 by name 'Azam Beedi' under the Trade description S.M.Moinuddin Mohd. 

Azam brothers Chintakunta vide Registration (No.316 HYD) New 

No.391045 for beedi katta's bundle and in the register all the brothers viz, 1.S.M.Moinuddin, 2. Mohd. Ismail 3. Mohd.Azam, 4. Mohmood 

Ahmed and 5.Rasheed Ahmed were shown as Joint Proprietors in the same. Subsequently, one of the brother, namely, Mohd Azam died on 23.04.1954 where upon his name was removed and in the Register only the remaining four brothers were shown as Joint Proprietors. The business was started by Mohd. Hussain @ Ostad and it was registered in the name of his sons. It is said that all the sons of Mohd.Hussain @ 

Ostad died, the date of deaths and their legal representatives are given:

(A) S.M. Moinuddin died on 24.12.1991, defendant Nos. 1 to 9 (B) Md.Ismail died on 11.03.1995, defendant Nos.10 to 15 ( C ) Md.Azam died on 23.04.1954 ( D) Mahmood Ahmed, died on 6.12.1992 plaintiff (E) Rasheed Ahmed, died on 5.10.1972, defendant Nos.16 to 22

After the death of the father of the plaintiff No.1 disputes arose between the parties herein, as the plaintiff No.1 has demanded for partition of the properties and business, to which the parties herein and the Uncle of the plaintiff No.1 Mohd. Ismail refused for the same. In those circumstances, the plaintiff No.1 has filed suit for partition vide 

O.S.No.1025/1993 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, 

at Hyderabad which was subsequently withdrawn and transferred to VI 

Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, where the suit is still 

pending. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 in collusion with the other 

>> 6 << OS 2007/2005

defendants have coerced the plaintiff No.1 to withdraw the above said suit, as the plaintiff No.1 has not withdrawn the suit due to which, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have initiated criminal and civil proceedings against the husband of the plai9ntiff No.1 vide CC.N o.117/1998 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad CC.No.246/2001 on the file of JFMC, Shadnagar, and O.S.No.88/2001 on the file of XIV 

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad with a malafide 

intention to harass the plaintiff No.1 for withdrawal of the aforesaid partition suit. The criminal case CC.No. 246/2001 upon contest was dismissed and the husband of the plaintiff No.l was acquitted. The suit 

OS.No.88/2001 and CCNo.117/1998 are still pending. It is said that 

the defendants in CC.No.117/1998 and CC.No.246/2001 have specifically said that the beedi business under the name and style of 

Azam Jadi Beedi was owned and possessed by their father 

S.M.Moinuddin and he was the proprietor of Trade Mark of the above said business. Upon his death the same has been devolved upon them and they have succeeded to it, thus, they are proprietors of the said 

Trade Mark and due to infringement of their right by the husband of plaintiff No.1 criminal proceedings were initiated. It is pertinent to mention here that, the plaintiff No.1 had filed an application for interim injunction in the partition suit vide IA.No.1023/1993 in 

O.S.No.1025/1993, in the said application the mother of the defendant 

Nos.1 to 9 on her behalf and on their behalf had filed counter affidavit, wherein, she has specifically stated that, “ the father of the petitioner retired taking his share which is evidenced by an Agreement 

dated:21.10.85 and affidavit sworn by him on the even date”. Thus, it is 

the case of the defendant Nos. 1 to 9 and other defendants that the father of the plaintiff No.1 was a partner and proprietor of the trade mark and he retired from the said business by executing an Agreement 

>> 7 << OS 2007/2005

dated:25.10.1985 and also affidavit dt.25.10.1985. The said Agreement 

and affidavits were not filed in the suit or in the criminal proceeding, as such the plaintiff No.1 has filed application vide IA.No.361/1995 for production of the documents and the said application was allowed. 

Inspite of the said orders, the respondents have not produced the documents. Thereafter the Hon'ble Court has passed order 

dated:28.4.1995 in IA.No.361/95 for drawing inference against the 

execution and existence of the said documents and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have filed suit vide OS.No.88/01 for injunction basing upon the alleged trade mark certificate, wherein, their names were reflected as proprietors and which was obtained by them by playing fraud upon the authority. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 have for the first time in the said suit alleged that, the father of the plaintiff No.1 and his brothers retired from the partnership firm by executing Deed of Dissolution of 

Partnership on 14.11.1969 and have obtained the said certificate by filing the alleged Deed of Dissolution of Partnership dt.14.11.1969 and affidavit dt.27.12.1985 alleged to have been executed by the father of the plaintiff No.1. In view of the aforesaid documents, it was said that, the plaintiff No.1 has no right in the business and that, they being proprietors of the business are entitled to continue the business and that the acts of plaintiff No.1 and her husband amounts to infringement of their right, therefore, the said suit was filed. It is not out of place to mention here that, the alleged execution Deed of Dissolution of 

Partnership Firm dated:14.11.1969 and that of the affidavit 

dated:27.12.1985 was never pleaded in the criminal proceedings vide 

CC.No.117/1998 and CC.No.246/2001 nor in the suit 

O.S.No.1025/1993 which manifestly proves that the said documents are 

fabricated one. A perusal of the certificate goes to show that apart from the affidavits of the parties herein, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have filed 

>> 8 << OS 2007/2005

deed of Deed of Dissolution of Partnership on 14.11.1969 affidavits dt.21.10.1985 and 27.12.1985. That, during the pendency of suit 

O.S.No.88/2001, the plaintiff No.1 has filed IA.No.163/2003 for stay of 

proceedings in the suit on the premise that, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have obtained the certificate by playing fraud upon the Trade Mark 

Registry, by filing forged and concocted documents. The said application was allowed and it was held that, prima facie case of fraud was made out and that the Court has directed the plaintiff to approach 

Appellate Authority constituted under the amended Act. Aggrieved by the same the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 preferred Revision before the High 

Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide CRP.No.4371/2003 and the said revision was dismissed confirming the orders passed in IA.No.163/03. T the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have obtained the certificate by playing forged upon the authority and relying upon forged and concocted documents. 

Pursuant to the said orders the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 has filed application for rectification of the certificate before the Intellectual 

Property Appellate Board, at Chennai,videO.R.A.No.12/04/TM/CH and 

O.R.A.No.16/04/TM/CH and the same are pending and the Deed of 

Dissolution of Partnership dt.14.11.1969 and the affidavit 

dated:27.12.1985 are forged documents, brought into existence for 

purpose of obtaining the certificate and to deprive the right of the plaintiff No.1 in the said business and the properties. 

 It is pertinent to mention here that, during the pendency of partition suit, the plaintiff No.1 has issued a notice dated:3.9.97 to defendant Nos. 1 to 4, to which a reply was issued by them on 21.9.97, in the said reply it has been stated that “your client's father was partner and joint owner of Azam Jadi Be3edi till 1970 only. Thereafter, all the sons of late Mohd. Hussain @ Ostad had divided (orally) the business and started doing separately”. Further, it was stated that it is true to 

>> 9 << OS 2007/2005

state that, your client's father Late Mahmood Ahmed was in joint business along with his client's father in partnership concern till 1970 only”. A perusal of the said notice clearly establishes that, the alleged 

Deed of Dissolution of Partnership Firm is a forged one. In the said reply it was also stated that, “His clients instruct that, their client's father relinquished his right in the above said business of the Trade Mark after the agreement dt.21­1085 by filing affidavit before the Registrar of the 

Trade Mark. The said statement goe4s to show that the father of the plaintiff No.1 has alleged to have relinquished his right in the firm and executed affidavit on the said date. As stated above, the said affidavit dt.21.10.1985 and the agreement dated:21.10.1985 have not been produced in the court inspite of the orders passed in IA.No.361/95, and the said court has passed orders in the said application for drawing adverse inference about the execution of the said document. That apart, a perusal of the certificate obtained by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 goes to show that, the affidavit dt.21.10.1985 has not been filed. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the Agreement and affidavits dt.21.10.1985 is fabricated. The Uncle of the plaintiff No.1 Mohd.Ismail, who is also a partner in the Azam Jadi Beedi business has filed his written statement in O.S.No.1025/1993 and also counter affidavit in the injunction application I.A.No.1023/1993, in the written statement and counter affidavits he has not mentioned about the dissolution of partnership deed dt.14.11.1969, affidavit of Mahmood Ahmed dt.27.12.1985, and non mentioning of the same by a co­ proprietor/partner itself goes to show that the same are fabricated one, had he executed the dissolution of partnership deed he would have definitely mentioned the same in his written statement and counter of the partition suit O.S.No.1025/1993. The defendant Nos.10 to 15 herein are legal representatives of Md. Ismail also filed their written statements 

>> 10 << OS 2007/2005

and counter affidavit in IA.No.349/2002, in the said pleadings there is no mention of the said document and affidavits, and the same is silent about the same, which are totally silent about dissolution of partnership 

dated:14.11.1969 affidavit of Mahmood Ahmed dt.27.12.1985 proves 

that these are forged documents they have been filed before the 

Registrar of Trade Mark Mumbai to deprive the legitimate rights of the plaintiff No.1. The legal representatives of late Rasheed Ahmed who are arrayed as defendant Nos.12 to 18 in partition suit in 

O.S.No.1025/1993 they have also filed their counter affidavit in 

I.A.No.1023/1993 and I.A.No.349/2002 and written statement in the said suit they have not pleaded about the alleged dissolution of partnership deed dt.14.11.1969 affidavit of Mahmood Ahmed dt.27.12.1985 which manifestly clear that the said documents are forged and fabricated one and created after thought in the year 2000 only, and they had given false affidavits before the Trade marks authority Mumbai, to deprive the legitimate rights of the plaintiff No.1. 

It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff No.1 is subject harassment by the defendants since, 1993, i.e., after filing of the partition suit O.S.No.1025/93 continuously to withdraw the partition suit on their terms. Defendants and others are creating forged and fabricated documents whenever they required and filing before the authorities to harass the plaintiff No.1. That the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in collusion with the other defendants have been taking different stands about the relinquishment of the right by the father of the plaintiff No.1 and about the documents executed by father of the plaintiff No.1. The same is evident from the following pleadings taken by the defendant 

Nos.1 to 4 in different cases and the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 having alleged about the Deed of Dissolution dated:14.11.1969 have not filed the same in the suit O.S.No.88/2001 or in the criminal proceedings 

>> 11 << OS 2007/2005

initiated against the husband of the plaintiff No.1. It is not out of place to mention here that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have filed suit against the plaintiff No.1 and her husband plaintiff No.2 before the Madras High 

Court, vide O.S.No.418/2004 and for the first time the alleged deed of dissolution of partnership dt.14.11.1969 and affidavit dated:27.12.1985 were filed in the said suit and the said documents were served on the plaintiff No.1 on 24.5.2004 along with the notice in the said suit. The plaintiff No.1 for the first time has come to know about the alleged deed of dissolution of partnership, affidavit dt.27.12.1985, when the same was served on her.

It is further stated that a perusal of the contents of the alleged 

Deed of Dissolution goes to show that the consideration towards goodwill paid to all the brothers of S.M.Moinuddin is Rs.6,00,000/­ but, the contents in para of counter shows that, the consideration of the goodwill paid to the other partners is Rs.4,50,000/­ which is per se contradictory and clearly goes to show that, the alleged Deed of 

Dissolution is a fabricated one and the same cannot be taken into consideration. That apart, it has been alleged that, the partners have decided to give up their right, title and interest in the business, on 15.11.1969 having decided the same on 15.11.1969 by no stretch of imagination they could not have executed a document on 14.11.1969 of a decision which has been taken on 15.11.1969. The defendants specifically submitted that, no document was ever executed much less the Deed of Dissolution on 14.11.1969 by the father of the defendant 

No.1 herein. The defendants deny all the other allegations in Para under reply which has not been replied. A perusal of alleged Deed of 

Dissolution of Partnership dated:14.11.1969, was attested before the notary on the said date. The alleged notary was one Mr.Laxman Rao 

>> 12 << OS 2007/2005

Kalchalker. It is not o9ut of place to mention here that the said 

Mr.LOaxman Rao Karchalkar, Advocate, Hyderabad was appointed as 

Notary by the Government through G.O.Rt.No.1022, Revenue (U) 

Department dt.5.5.1979, with effect from 3.5.1979. Further the plaintiff 

No.1 after coming to know about the forged documents, has applied for the information about the notary before the Commissioner and I.G. of 

R&S, A.P., Hyderabad, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Registration and 

Stamps Department. It was informed to the plaintiff No.1 by letter 

dated:22.1.2005. That no advocate by name Laxman Rao Kalchalker 

was appointed as notary and that Sri Laxman Rao Karchalkar was appointed in the year 1979. In view of the same the alleged Deed of 

Dissolution of Partnership dated:14.11.1969 could not have been executed before the said Mr.Laxman Rao Karchalkar. This fact itself goes to show that, the alleged Deed of Dissolution of Partnership dt.14.11.1969 is a forged, fabricated and concocted document and brought into existence subsequently with a malafide intention to get the 

Trade Mark Certificates, from the competent authority. The plaintiffs further contended that the Notarial stamps in the Deed of Dissolution of 

Partnership dated:14.11.1969 are of the year 2000. The notarial stamps during the year 1969 were different. It is contended that the defendant 

Nos.1 to 4 in the Para No.4 of the plaint in C.S.No.418/2004 have alleged that on 15.11.1969 three of the joint owners of the Registered 

Trade Mark decided to give up their right, title and interest in the firm along with the goodwill of the firm in favour of late S.M.Moinuddin. 

Having alleged that the joint owners have decided to give away their right on 15.11.1969, by no stretch of imagination it can be conceived and contended that a Deed of Dissolution was executed on 14.11.1969 giving away the rights to late S.M.Moinuddin, which was decided on 15.11.1969. In view of the same, the allegation that a Partnership was 

>> 13 << OS 2007/2005

dissolved on 14.11.1969 is false. When Mahmood Ahmed executed the dissolution deed dt.14.11.1969 the question of executing the agreement dt.21.10.1985 affidavit dt.25.10.85 and an affidavit dt.27.12.1985 does not arise, as it amounts to taking the share twice. This itself establishes that these documents are forged and fabricated documents. It is said that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed the suit OS.No.88/2001 on the file of 

XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad in the individual capacity in the said suit the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have pleaded that they are the proprietors of the beedi business. It is pertinent to mention here that, during the pendency of the said suit an application was filed vide IA.No.1000/2001 for interim injunction. The said application was dismissed aggrieved by the same. The defendant 

Nos.1 to 4 preferred appeal vide CMA.No.2114/2001 and the same was also dismissed. The Hon'ble High Court, while dismissing the above said appeal has held that, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have alleged that, the business is of partnership firm and the Partnership Firm was not made party to the suit thereby directed the defendant Nos.1 to 4 herein to make the Partnership Firm as party to the suit along with the plaintiff 

No.1. In those circumstances, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have impleaded the partnership Firm as one of the parties to the said suit along with the plaintiff No.1 herein. It is not out of place to mention here that, even though the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have pleaded about the alleged partnership deed dt.3.4.1992 the same is not filed in the said suit. As stated supra, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed suit in Madras High Court vide C.S.No.418/2004 and the Partnership Firm is arrayed as one of the plaintiffs in the said suit. The plaintiff No.1 has filed her written statement in the said suit, wherein, she had disputed that the alleged partnership firm is not in existence and no documents have been filed to prove the same. Inspite of the said fact, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have 

>> 14 << OS 2007/2005

not filed the alleged Partnership Deed dated:3.4.1992 in any of the suits, which clearly establishes the fact that, no partnership firm under the name and style of S.M.Moinuddin Mohammed Azam was in existence and that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are its partners. Further, the plaintiff contended that, in the partition suit vide OS.No.1025/1993 and in criminal proceedings CCNo.117/98 and CC.No.246/2001, the aspect the said alleged partnership deed dt.3.4.92 was mentioned. That apart, in the above said criminal proceedings, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have made statements U/s.161 of Cr.P.C and also deposed, wherein they did not mention about they being partners of the alleged partnership firm and the factum of execution of the document and existence of the firm. On the other hand it has been stated and deposed that, they are carrying on business individually. The above said facts clearly establishes that, there is no partnership firm by name 

S.M.Moinuddin Mohammed Aazam beedi factory, and also Azam Beedi 

Factory is in existence and that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are partners therein and it proves beyond reasonable doubt that, the alleged partnership deed dt.3.4.1992 as a fabricated, concocted document and the same has been brought­up into existence to defeat the rights of the plaintiff and to procure the certificate under the Trade Marks Act. The plaintiff contended that, at the risk of repetition the various pleadings and change of stance of the defendants is state hereunder:

1993: Counter of the mother of respondent No.1, contended that, the father of the respondent No.1 has taken away his share evidenced by Agreement Dated:21.10.1985 and affidavit of even date.

1995:The respondent No.1 filed as application 

I.A.No.361/1995 in O.S.No.1025/1993 for production of aforesaid documents, the said application was allowed and the Court has directed 

>> 15 << OS 2007/2005

the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 to produce the said documents, but the same has not been filed.

1997:Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 have given reply on 21.09.1997, it is stated that the father of the respondent No.1 was partner till 1970, and have abandoned the plea of taken share by executing Agreement and affidavit dt.21.10.1985.

2001: In suit OS.No.88/2001 for the first time made plea of 

Dissolution of firm in on 14.11.1969, without filing the same.

2002:The petitioner in IA.No.349/2002 have alleged in their counter that the father of the respondent No.1 has executed an Affidavit dt.27.12.1985, this aspect was never pleaded by the petitioners in any of earlier proceedings.

It is further stated that the above said facts clearly establishes that, the Deed of Dissolution of Partnership, Affidavits (Two) alleged to have been executed by the father of the plaintiff. Agreements and the alleged 

Partnership Deed dated:3.4.1992 are forged, fabricated, and brought up documents brought into existence with a malafide intention to procure the certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks and to deprive and defeat the right of the plaintiff in the said business and properties. The plaintiff is not bound by the aforesaid documents which are forged, fabricated, concocted and brought up documents brought into existence, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to sue the defendants in that regard and the aforesaid documents being forged, fabricated, concocted and brought up documents brought into existence are liable to be declared as illegal, nonest, unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

>> 16 << OS 2007/2005

3..In contrary the written statement filed by the defendant that this 

Court has to see as a preliminary issue whether the suit is barred by limitation. Apart from that whether this Court is having jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration to declare that the dissolution of partnership deed dt.14.11.1969, the affidavit of 

Mohamood Ahmed dt.25.10.85 and 27.12.1985, the agreement dt.21.10.1985 and partnership deed dated:3.4.1992 are forged and concocted documents and the same are illegal, null & void and unenforceable in law and not binding on the plaintiff. That as per 

Article 56 of the Limitation Act, the present suit is barred by limitation. 

The language of Article 56 of the Limitation Act is very much clear that the limitations starts from date of knowledge of the document, but not from the date of possession of the documents by the plaintiff. In the present suit admittedly the plaintiff had knowledge of the documents in the year 1995 itself. As per para 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff herself filed an IA.361/1995 in OS.No.1025/1993 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge, 

City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking a direction against this defendant for production of the documents. Hence, the plaintiff has knowledge in the year 1995. But the plaintiff cleverly did not disclose anything in respect of limitation in the present suit however, in the cause of action para it is alleged as the cause of action arose on 24.5.2004 when the plaintiff was served with the documents along with notice in 

C.S.No.418/2004 pending before Madras High Court. In fact, the 

plaintiff also in receipt of those documents in the year 1995 itself, otherwise, the plaintiff cannot plead in the year 1995 itself stating that the said documents are forged one. It is contended that the plaintiff sought the declaration of the documents which are referred in Trade 

Mark Certificates issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The plaintiff had already made an appeal to the Appellate Board under Section 91 

>> 17 << OS 2007/2005

(1) of the Trade Marks Act in pursuance of the A.P.High Court Orders passed in CRP.No.4371/2003 and the same is pending, hence in view of 

Sec.93 of the Trade Marks Act this Court is not having jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit also has to be dismissed for mis­joinder of parties. 

The plaintiff failed to give reasons for making the defendants 5 to 22 as parties to the instant suit without any pleadings regarding defendants 5 to 22. It is said that Mohd Hussain had five sons. But at the same time he had 2 daughters. The plaintiff deliberately did not disclose in the plaint. It is false to say that the grand father of plaintiff and the defendants i.e., Mohd. Hussain @ Ostad started Beedi business in the year 1930 under the name and style of “Azam Jadi Beedi”. It is stated that the father of defendants 1 to 9 i.e., S.M.Moinuddin established the 

Azam Jadi Beedi Business in the year 1930 as a sole proprietor with his own funds. Subsequently the same was registered in the year 1946 and 1949 with the “TRADE MARK AUTHORITY' and the Trade Mark 

Authority allotted the “Trade Mark Registration Numbers 117778 for 

Katta and 391045 for Bundle (20 Kattas). It is absolutely false to say that the brothers of S.M.Moinuddin were shown as joint proprietors in the said business. In reply to the said allegation, it is stated that S.M.Moinuddin and his brothers constituted a partnership firm for doing the Azam Jadi Beedi Business, hence, the brothers of 

S.M.Moinuddin also shown as joint proprietors for Azam Jadi Beedi 

Business. It is relevant to state that the said Partnership firm was dissolved in the year 1969 as per dissolution deed dated:14.11.1969. 

Therefore, it is false to say that the Azam Jadi Beedi Business was started by Mohd.Hussain @ Ostad and it was registered in the name of his sons. As the relationship between the parties are correct. It is false to say that after the death of the father of the plaintiff, disputes arose between the parties, as the plaintiff demanded for partition of the 

>> 18 << OS 2007/2005

properties and business, to which the parties herein and the Uncle of the plaintiff Mohd. Ismail refused for the same. In reply to the said allegation, it is stated that the father of the plaintiff is aware that he is not entitled for anything; hence he has not demanded anything. After the death of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herein filed a false suit O.S.No.1025/1993 before the II Senior Civil Judge, CCC., 

Hyderabad and later it has been transferred to VI Senior Civil Judge, 

CCC., Hyderabad and the same is pending. The defendants 1 to 4 in collusion with the other defendants have coerced and harassed the plaintiff to withdraw OS.No.1025/1993, as the plaintiff has not withdrawn the suit due to which the defendants 1 to 4 have initiated criminal and civil proceedings against the husband of the plaintiff. It is already stated that the father of defendants 1 to 9 had established the 

Azam Jadi Beedi Business as a sole proprietor and subsequently he made his brothers as partners to the said business, however the said partnership was dissolved on 14.11.1969 and subsequently, 

Mr.S.M.Moinuddin did Azam Jadi Beedi Business as sole proprietor till his death. After his death, the defendants 1 to 4 have filed necessary applications before the Trade Mark Authority to bring the L.R's of 

S.M.Moinuddin. The Trade Mark Authority after fulfilling the formalities as contemplated in the said Act, incorporated the names of defendants 1 to 4 and to that effect, the certificates have been issued. Basing on the said certificates, the defendants 1 to 4 alone have exclusive right to use the name and Trade Mark of Azam Jadi Beedi Business. However, the husband of the plaintiff herein using the Trade Mark of Azam Jadi 

Beedi, hence, there was no option for the defendants 1 to 4 except for filing civil and criminal cases against him. It is contended that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in CC.No.117/1998 and CC.No.246/2001 have stated that the beedi business under the name and style of Azam Jadi 

>> 19 << OS 2007/2005

Beedi was owned and possessed by their father S.M.Moinuddin and he was the proprietor of Trade Mark of the above said business. It is also a fact upon the death of S.M.Moinuddin the defendants 1 to 4 made application to the Trade Marks Authority as per the prescribed form for issuance of Trade Mark Certificates for Azam Jadi Beedi Business and as per the act after completion of all the formalities, the Trade Mark 

Authority had issued certificates in favour of defendants 1 to 4. The defendants 1 to 4 succeed to the above said business by operation of law, but not by virtue of succession. This defendant at any point of time never said that the father of the plaintiff took share in the year 1985. In fact the father of the defendants 1 to 9 allowed the father of the plaintiff to do Azam Jadi Beedi business in restricted area for which there was an agreement dt.21.10.1985. On 25.10.1985, the father of the plaintiff also made it clear that he had taken his share long back. The father of the defendant continued to be the proprietor of Azam Jadi Beedi Business till his death.

It is further contended that the defendants 1 to 4 have stated in 

O.S.No.88/2001 that the father of the plaintiff had retired from the 

partnership by executing a deed of Dissolution of Partnership dt.14.11.1969. The defendants also taken a plea in the said suit that the plaintiff has no right to do the Azam Jadi Beedi Business as her name does not reflect in the certificate issued by the Trade Mark Authority. 

Therefore, in the absence of any certificate from the competent authority, it is not open for any person to do any business of Trade Mark much less Azam Jadi Beedi Business. That the defendants 1 to 4 have not pleaded in C.C.No.117/1998 in respect of dissolution of partnership deed dt.14.11.1969 as it was irrelevant there is no estoppel or waiver on the defendants 1 to 4 to take such stand in OS.No.88/2001 and it does 

>> 20 << OS 2007/2005

not mean the said documents are forged or fabricated. In fact the dissolution of partnership deed dt.14.11.1969 and the affidavit dt.27.12.1985 are genuine. The plaintiff had filed IA.No.163/2003 in 

OS.No.88/2001 for stay of proceedings of suit on the ground that the 

defendants 1 to 4 herein have obtained the certificates by playing fraud upon the Trade Mark Registry and the said application was allowed. In reply to the said allegation, it is stated that the plaintiff herein filed 

IA.No.163/2003 in OS.No.88/01 Under Section 111 of Trade and 

Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 to stall the proceedings on the ground that the plaintiff and the second defendant in OS.88/2001 has taken a plea in her written statement that the documents referred in the above said certificates are not genuine Section 111 of the Trade and 

Merchandise Marks Act states that any defendants challenges the varacity of certificates issued by the competent authority in their written statement the courts should frame an issue to that effect and stall the proceedings of the said suit and direct the defendant to approach the appellate authority by granting 90 days time to challenge the veracity of the said certificates, since the Civil Court are barred in deciding the said allegation. As the plaintiff herein taken the said plea in 

O.S.No.88/2001, the Hon'ble Judge by framing an additional issue 

directed the plaintiff to approach the Intellectual Property Appellate 

Board for her grievance. Accordingly, the plaintiff had approached the 

Intellectual Property Appellate Board for rectification of the Trade Mark certificate by including the name of the plaintiff herein in the place of her father i.e., Mahmood Ahmed and the said case is pending. In fact that there is no observation by any of the courts with regard to the genuinely of the documents in challenged in the instant suit. It is a fact in pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble High High Court of A.P. In 

CRP.No.4371/2003, the plaintiff herein approached the Hon'ble 

>> 21 << OS 2007/2005

Intellectual Property Appellate Board and the same is numbered as 

O.R.A.12 and 16/04/TM/CH and pending for consideration. It is contended that it is false to say that the deed of Dissolution of 

Partnership dt.14.11.1969 and the affidavit dt.27.12.1985 are forged and fabricated documents, brought into existence for purpose of obtaining the certificates and also to deprive the right of the plaintiff in the said business and properties. In reply to the said allegation it is said that the deed of Dissolution of partnership and the affidavit dt.27.12.1985 are genuine . It is a fact that the plaintiff got issued a notice dt.3.9.1997 and the defendants 1 to 4 got issued a reply. This defendant does not remember the contents of the said notice as well as the reply notice. Even according to the dissolution of the partnership deed, the father of the plaintiff was having share in Azam Jadi Beedi business till 14.11.1969 which means almost end of 1969, hence the defendant's counsel might have written like that. Nothing wrong in saying so as there is no specific date mentioned in the said reply notice. 

Therefore, it does not mean that the deed of dissolution of partnership 

dated:14.11.1969 is a forged one. The other allegations basing on the 

imaginary and the same cannot be considered. The language in this para cannot be treated as pleading for a simple reason that the plaintiff herself giving a finding that she has proved the documents beyond reasonable doubt. The said finding has to be given by the court, but not by the plaintiff.

It is further contended that it is false to say Mohd.Ismail is a partner in Azam Jadi Beedi Business. In reply to the said allegation, it is stated that Mohd Ismail was the partner of Azam Jadi Beedi Business. 

Mr.Mohd. Ismail might have not mentioned in his written statement in 

O.S.No.1025/1993 in respect of Dissolution of Partnership and also in 

>> 22 << OS 2007/2005

respect of the affidavit of Mahmood Ahmed, it does not mean that the said deed can be treated as forged one. Assuming for a movement, if the dissolution deed of partnership is not genuine, the legal heirs of 

Mohd.Ismail, and Rasheed Ahmed would have claimed the rights in 

Azam Jadi Beedi Business. The plaintiff did not have any right in Azam 

Jadi Beedi Business. The defendants 12 to 18 in partition suit 

OS.No.1025/1993 might have not taken a plea in respect of the 

dissolution deed of partnership dt.14.11.1965 and also in respect of affidavit dt.27.12.1985. But it does not mean that the dissolution deed of partnership is a forged one. Really that be the case, the legal heirs of 

Rasheed Ahmed would have filed a case against defendants 1 to 4 herein for share in Azam Jadi Beedi Business. If the probabilities taken into consideration, all the defendants stating that the dissolution of partnership dt.14.11.1969 is genuine, the plaintiff alone says it is not a genuine, goes to say that the deed of dissolution of partnership dt.14.11.1969 is a genuine one. Apart from that there is no demand for partition of Azam Jadi Beedi Business by any of the defendants against defendant Nos. 1 to 4. It is said that the defendants 1 to 4 have not filed in OS.88/01, the deed of dissolution of partnership dt.14.11.1969 for a simple reason the whole case is based on the certificates issued by the competent authority. The Original deed of Dissolution of Partnership dt.14.11.1969 was filed before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Hence, these defendants need not file the dissolution of partnership deed. The plaintiff in receipt of the dissolution of partnership deed dt.14.11.1969 and the affidavit dt.27.12.1985 in C.S.No.418/2004 on 24.05.2004. 

The plaintiff had received the documents much early and only to take shelter before this Court wrongly pleading in her pleadings. In the earlier occasion, the plaintiff filed interlocutory applications in different courts and took a plea that the documents under challenge before this 

>> 23 << OS 2007/2005

Court is forged and fabricated. Really had the plaintiff was not in receipt of the suit documents which are under challenge before this Court, question of filing interlocutory applications and taking stand that those documents are forged and fabricated one does not arise at all. It is said that the plaintiff failed to state in whose counter shows and which defendant has taken a plea that the consideration of good will paid to the other partnership is Rs.4,50,000/­. The pleadings are vague, hence cannot be answered and at the same time this defendant also unable to understand against which defendant the allegation made in para 13 of the plaint. It is contended that the perusal of deed of dissolution of partnership dt.14.11.1969 was attested before the notary by one 

Laxman Rao Kalchalkar. That Laxman Rao Karchalkar, Advocate, 

Hyderabad was appointed as notary by the Government through 

G.O.Rt.No.1022 Revenue (U) Department dt.5.5.1979, with effect from 3.5.1979. When there is a renewal for any Notary, a separate 

G.O.Rt.No. Will be given. It is false to say that after coming to know the forged documents, the plaintiff has applied for the information about the notary before the Commission er and I.G. of R & S, A.P., Hyderabad, 

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Registration and Stamps Department. It is also false to say that the plaintiff was informed by letter 

dated:22.1.2005 that no Advocate by name Laxman Rao Kalchalker was 

appointed as notary and that Sri Laxman Rao Karchalkar was appointed in the year 1979. In reply to the said allegation, it is stated that the plaintiff never applied for the information about the notary before the 

Commissioner and I.G of R & S, A.P., Hyderabad, therefore, question of giving information by the said authority to the plaintiff odes not arise at all. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the said allegation. That the notorial stamps on the deed of Dissolution of partnership dt.14.11.1969 are of the year 2000, but not that of year 1969. It is stated that the 

>> 24 << OS 2007/2005

dissolution of partnership deed was given by the father of defendants 1 to 9 and they persumed to be genuine. The plaintiff approached this 

Court with a plea that the said document is a forged one, hence burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the said documents are forged and fabricated documents.

It is further contended that the defendants 1 to 4 have taken a plea in C.S.No.418/2004 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in para No.4 of the plaint on 15.11.1969 three of the joint owners of the Registered Trade Mark decided to give up their right, title and interest in the firm along with goodwill of the firm in favour of 

S.M.Moinuddin. Though they intended to give up on 15.11.1969, they executed the dissolution of partnership on 14.11.1969. In reply to the said allegation, it is stated that in the deed of Dissolution it is mentioned that the parties therein decided to take their respective shares on 14.11.1969 and to that effect they executed a deed of Dissolution of 

Partnership and at the same time there is a mention in the said deed that the said deed of Dissolution of Partnership will come into effect from 15.11.1969. Hence, it cannot be presumed that the dissolution of partnership deed is a forged one. It is a fact that the father of the plaintiff entered into agreement on 21.10.1985 with the father of defendants 1 to 9 and Nasir Ahmed and Nissar Ahmed in respect of the above said business to particular areas and also executed another affidavit on 25.10.1985 stating about the past transaction, it does not amounts to taking the share twice. In fact, after receipt of the share by the plaintiff's father, he does not have any right in Azam Jadi Beedi 

Business and he never sold without any permission by the father of the defendants 1 to 9. The father of the defendants 1 to 9 can do the business through out India. The father of the defendants 1 to 9 entered 

>> 25 << OS 2007/2005

into agreement with the father of the plaintiff and Nasir Ahmed and 

Nisar Ahmed permitting them to sell the Azam Jadi Beedi Business in the areas of Tandur Taluq, R.R.District, A.P., Vikarabad Taluq, 

R.R.District, A.P. And Sadar Gulburgh District, Karnataka. Subsequently, the father of the plaintiff gave an affidavit on 25.10.1985 indicatng that he has taken his share long back and the father of the defendants 1 to 9 alone is the proprietor of Registered Trade Mark 316 . In fact the said affidavit was given to the Trade Mark Authority to delete his name. 

None of these two documents shows that the father of the defendants 1 to 9 paid his share second time. The defendants 1 to 4 have filed 

OS.No.88/01 on the file of XIV ACJ., CCC., Hyderabad. In reply to the 

said allegation, it is stated that the defendants 1 to 4 have filed suit 

OS.No.88/01 on the file of II A.C.J. C.C.C, Hyderabad, but not before 

XIV A.C.J. It is also a fact that the defendants 1 to 4 have filed 

IA.No.1000/2001 for Interim Injunction and the said application was 

dismissed. Subsequently, defendants 1 to 4 herein preferred 

CMA.2114/2001 and the same was dismissed. The plaintiff does not 

have any right to question the existence or non existence of the partnership firm of the defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiff had not instituted any suit in respect of the said allegation. If the defendants 1 to 4 herein fail to file any documentary evidence in respect of that suit, the result will be based on the pleading, evidence and documents. The other allegations are nothing but repetition and no specific denial is required as it was already answered. If the documents are not produced in pursuance of the orders passed in I.A.No.361/95 in 

OS.No.1025/1993, it is not open for the plaintiff to seek any grievance 

before this Court. There is no relevancy in respect of the said allegation. 

The deed of dissolution of partnership, affidavits (Two) executed by the father of the plaintiff, agreements and partnership deed dt.3.4.1992 are 

>> 26 << OS 2007/2005

forged, fabricated and concocted and brought into existence with a malafide intention to procure the certificate from the Registrar of Trade 

Marks and also to deprive and defeat the right of the plaintiff in the said business. The above referred documents in this para are true and genuine and the plaintiff has no right in the said business and no right in the properties. The cause of action for filing of suit and more particularly has arisen on 24.5.04 when the plaintiff was served with the documents along with the notice in C.S.No.418/2004 pending before the Madras High Court. The cause of action is still subsisting. That the above suit is instituted for declaration to declare certain documents as forged one and the same is not binding on the plaintiff. The cause of action starts for filing of the suit from the date of the document or from the date of knowledge of the documents. As per the pleadings of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had knowledge of the suit documents in the year 1995 itself and the same stand has taken in IA.No.361/1995 in 

O.S.No.1025/1993, therefore, the cause of action started in the year 

1995 itself and the same is not subsisting. Apart from that the plaintiff also filed written statement in the year 2001 itself in OS.No.88/2001 and taken a stand that the suit documents are forged one. Therefore, in all probabilities that the suit is barred by limitation and no cause of action is subsisting. The plaintiff has wrongly valued the same, and directed to pay correct court fee and with correct provision of law. The amount also mentioned in the dissolution of partnership deed, but the plaintiff cannot value notionally. Similarly, the partnership deed dt.3.4.1992. The suit itself is not maintainable inview of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. That there is no consequential relief, hence the suit has to be dismissed in limini and with exemplary costs.

4..The averments in the written arguments who filed by the defendants 1 to 4 are: that the substance of the plaint is that Azam Jadi 

>> 27 << OS 2007/2005

Beedi business was started by plaintiff's grand father Mohd. Hussain @ 

Ostad in the year 1930. In the year 1946 the said business was registered under Trade and Merchandise Act namely “Azam Jadi Beedi” and the business description was S.M.Moinuddin, Mohd Azam 

Chitaku8nta for Beedi Katta registration No.117778. Subsequently it was again registered in the year 1949 by name “Azam Beedi” under the 

Trade description “S.M.Moinuddin, Mohd.Azam brothers Chintakunta vide registration (No.316 HYD) New NO.391045 for Beedi Katta's bundle and in the register all the brothers Viz (1) S.M. Moinuddin (2) 

Mohd.Ismail (3) Mohd.Azam (4) Mahmood Ahmed and (5) Rasheed 

Ahmed were shown as joint Proprietors. Subsequently, one of the brothers namely Mohd.Azam died on 23.4.1954 and his name was removed from Register and only the remaining four brothers were shown as Joint Proprietors. After the death of the plaintiff's father 

Mahmood Ahmed, the disputes arose between the parties. as the plaintiff demanded for partition the uncle of the plaintiff Mohd.Ismail refused for the same. Then plaintiff filed O.S.No.1025/1993 for partition. The defendants 1 to 4 in collusion with other defendants coerced and harassed the plaintiff to withdraw the partition suit and the plaintiff has not withdrawn, the defendants 1 to 4 have initiated civil and criminal cases against the husband of the plaintiff vide 

CC.No.117/1998, CC.No.246/2001 and O.S.No.88/2001. Plaintiff 

further pleaded that the mother of the defendants 1 to 9 filed counter in 

IA.1023/93 in OS.1025/93 stating that the father of the plaintiff retired 

from Partnership by taking his share by an Agreement dt.21.10.1985 and sworn affidavit. The said Agreement and affidavit were not filed in the suit or in the criminal proceeding as such the plaintiff filed 

IA.361/95 for production of documents and the said application was 

allowed. Inspite of the direction, the defendants failed to produce and 

>> 28 << OS 2007/2005

the court in its order dt.28.4.1995 drawn inference against the execution and existence of the said documents. The defendants 1 to 4 herein filed O.S.No.88/2001 for Injunction based on the Trade Mark 

Certificate in which the defendants have first time pleased that father of the plaintiff and his brothers retired from Partnership firm by executing 

Deed of Dissolution of Partnership dt.14.11.1969 and also pleaded that the father of the plaintiff also executed affidavit dt.27.12.1985. The defendants never pleaded in respect of Deed of Dissolution and affidavit dt.27.12.1985 in criminal proceedings which manifestly proves that the said documents are fabricated one. The plaintiff further pleaded that the plaintiff herein filed IA.No.163/2003 in OS.88/2001 for stay of proceedings in the suit on the premise that the defendants 1 to 4 have obtained the Certificate by playing fraud upon the Trade Mark Registry by filing forged, fabricated and concocted documents. The said application was allowed and prima facie show that the said documents are forged and fabricated. The plaintiff further pleaded that during the pendency of partition suit, the plaintiff has issued a notice dt.3.9.1997 to the defendants 1 to 4 to which a reply was got issued on 21.09.97, in the said reply it has been stated that the father of the plaintiff was partner and joint owner of Azam Jadi Beedi till 1970. In the said reply notice further stated that the father of the plaintiff relinqushed his right in the above business of the Trade Mark after the agreement dt.21.10.1985. All these issues clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Agreement and affidavit dt.21.10.1985 is forged and fabricated. The Uncle of the plaintiff Mohd.Ismail who is a partner in Azam Jadi Beedi business has filed his written statement in 

O.S.No.1025/93 and also counter in IA.No.1023/93 has not mentioned 

about dissolution deed dt.14.11.1969 and affidavit dt.27.12.1985. Non­ mention of the same by co­proprietor/partner itself goes to show that 

>> 29 << OS 2007/2005

the same are fabricated one. The plaintiff further pleaded that the legal representative of Rasheed Ahmed who are arrayed as defendants 12 to 18 in O.S.1025/93 have filed their WS and counter in IA.1023/93 and 

IA.349/02 in which they have not pleaded about dissolution deed 

dt.14.11.1969, affidavit of Mahamood Ahmed dt.27.12.1985 which manifestly clear that the said documents are forged and fabricated one and created after thought in the year 2000 only. The defendants 1 to 4 have filed the Deed of Dissolution and affidavit dt.27.12.1985 first time in C.S.No.418/2004 before Madras High Court and served on the plaintiff on 24.5.2004. The dissolution deed dt.14.11.1969 was notarized my Mr.Laxman Rao Kalchalker. However, Mr.Laxman Rao 

Karchalkar, Advocate, Hyderabad was appointed as Notary by 

Government through G.O.Rt.No.1022 dt.5.5.79 w.e.f. 3­3­79 where as the alleged Dissolution Deed was executed on 14.11.1969 goes to show that the dissolution deed is a forged, fabricated document. The defendants 1 to 4 have filed their written statement and contested the same. Based on pleadings this Court has framed Issues and PW1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff. As the defendants have nothing to establish before this Court that too when they could demolish the case of the plaintiff there is no necessity of giving evidence on behalf of defendants as such the defendants 1 to 4 have not let in any evidence.

The defendants seeking the dismissal of the suit on the following points:

A) The instant suit of declaration has filed without consequential relief and the same was also admitted by the PW­1 in his cross examination dt.5.2.2007. The plaintiff also filed an interlocutory application seeking Injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 using the Trade Mark Certificate in doing business for Azam Jadi Beedi. Based on this it is very clear that the plaintiff was capable of seeking 

>> 30 << OS 2007/2005

consequential relief, failed to plead the same as such bare declaration suit is not maintainable. The defendants 1 to 4 are relying upon the judgment reported in 2012 (8) SCC 148 Para 57. It is a settled principle in law that “plead first and lead next”. In the instant case though the plaintiff has pleaded so many allegations, to prove the same failed to enter into the witness box as such an inference can be drawn against the plaintiff. These defendants are relying upon the Judgment reported in 2005 (2) SCC 217 at Para 15 and another Judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441 Para 16.

On behalf of plaintiff the PW­1 was examined and also during cross examination dt.25.1.2007 stated that he has deposed on behalf of plaintiff. At the time of arguments, the counsel for the plaintiff relied upon section 120 of Evidence Act and stated that the husband can give evidence on behalf of wife and wife can give evidence on behalf of husband. However, the purport of Section 120 of Evidence Act is that the wife can be the competent witness against or in favour of her husband and husband also be the competent witness against or in her favour of his wife. However, it does not mean that the husband can give evidence on behalf of his wife or the wife can give evidence on behalf of her husband. In India, there is no substitution law and none of the provisions of Indian Evidence Act recognises substation of parties. 

Therefore, the evidence given by PW1 on behalf of the plaintiff cannot be considered at all.

The instant suit is hoelessly barred by limitation in view of Article 56 of the Limitation Act. These defendants are relying upon the judgment reported in 2014(14) SCC 254 in Para 7 another Judgement in respect of multiple cause of action, the courts have held the period of limitation begun to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. On that principle the defendants are relying upon Judgment 

>> 31 << OS 2007/2005

reported in 2011 (9) SCC 126 Para 30. 

As per the pleadings of the plaintiff and also the documents that are marked clearly establishes that the plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged fraud, fabricated of Exs.A1 to A4 in the year 1999 itself. In 

Ex.A6 reply notice dt.21.09.1997 given on behalf of defendants 1 to 4 in para 5 clearly indicates that the father of the plaintiff has relinquished his rights and the same is evident from his agreement dt.21.10.85. Then the plaintiff ought to have filed suit on or before 20­09­2000. However, the instant suit is filed in the year 2005 as such it is hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiff herein filed IA.1023/95 in 

O.S.NO.1023/93 in which the respondent No.1 Mohd.Ismail filed 

counter which is marked as Ex.A­11 dt.12.11.1993 in which para No.4 

(d) in page­3 categorically pleaded that the father of the plaintiff has taken his share from Azam Jadi Beedi and the same is evident from agreement dt.21.10.1985 and an affidavit dt.25.10.1985. When the said plea was taken on 12.11.1993, the plaintiff ought to have filed suit on or before 11.11.1996. However, the instant suit is filed in the year 2005. 

Hence, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiff herein made a petition before the Registrar or Trade Marks on 21.5.2001 which is marked as Ex.A­17 and Ex.A­18 in which the plaintiff has pleased in respect of Ex.A­2 and Ex.A­3 stating that those documents are forged. Therefore, the plaintiff has knowledge about Ex.A­2 and Ex.A3 by 21.5.01 itself therefore, the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for declaration in respect of Exs.A2 & Ex.A3 on or before 20­05­04 but the instant suit is filed in the year 2005 as such the present suit is barred by limitation. The respondents 2 to 6 and 8 to 11 have filed counter in 

IA.1023/93 in OS.1025/93 dt.3­10­93 and the same was marked as 

Ex.A22 in which a plea was taken in para 4 (d) of the counter that the father of the plaintiff retired by taking his share in Ajam Jadi Beedi and 

>> 32 << OS 2007/2005

the same is evident by an agreement dt.21.10.1985. When the said plea was taken by the defendants in counter on 3.10.93, the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit in respect of agreement dt.21.10.1985 on or before 2.10.1996. However, the present suit is filed in the year 2005, hence the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff has issued notice under Order 

XI Rule (16) of CPC dt.20­4­01 which was marked as Ex.A26 to the defendants 1 to 4 herein to produce Exs.A1 to A4. Which means that the plaintiff has knowledge about the documents Ex.A1 to A4 by 20­04­01 itself. Hence, the plaintiff is supposed to file the instant suit on or before 19­4­04. However, the present suit is filed in the year 2005 as such the present suit is barred by limitation act. Leaving apart the above referred documents, the PW1 himself admitted in his cross examination dt.5.2.07 that the plaintiff first time came to know regarding Ex.A1 in the year 2001. Therefore, the plaintiff should have filed before the suit by end of 2004. However, the instant suit is filed in the year 2005. Hence by virtue of admission of PW­1 the suit is barred by limitation. The PW­1 in his cross examination dt.5.2.2007 volunteered that the plaintiff has approached the Trade Mark authority in the year 1997 under Ex.A16 and made a statement that the defendants are trying to obtain trade mark certificate by forging the documents. This statement of PW1 indicates that the plaintiff is aware in respect of the documents that were executed by her father and the defendants are filing before the 

Trade Mark Authority. However, it appears that the plaintiff has tried not to issue any certificate in favour of the defendants as such made such statement that defendants are trying to forge the documents. This statement clearly proves that the documents filed by the defendants 

before the Trade Mark Authority are genuine. If really the Ex.A1 is not 

genuine, why the legal heirs of other partners have not made any claim in respect of Azam Jadi Beedi business. Except the plaintiff, no other 

>> 33 << OS 2007/2005

legal heirs of the parties of Ex.A1 have not made any claim. The plaintiff has not specifically pleaded what is basis to say that Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are forged and fabricated ones. The plaintiff ought to have filed the admitted signatures of her father so as to compare the signatures of her father on Exs.A1 to A3. At least this Court would have compared the signatures as per Section 73 of Evidence Act. The defendants would have filed an application under Section 45 of Evidence Act. The plaintiff deliberately not filed the admitted signature of her father. The whole case of the plaintiff is that the defendants have not stated in their previous litigation in respect of Exs.A1 to A4 as such those documents are forged. Just because the defendants have not pleaded in the previous case, it does not mean that those documents will automatically be declared as forged and fabricated. In fact, in respect of Ex.A1 to 

Ex.A4 were stated by the defendants wherever it is required and the same already stated above. After the arguments of the defendants, the plaintiff counsel argued in reply arguments stating that as per Ex.A­40 there were 5 partners and Mohammed Basheeruddin became one of partners in place of Mohd Azam. However, as per Ex.A1 dissolution deed there were only 4 partners which means the partnership is not dissolved. Ex.A40 is entered between the then partners were on 30­06­ 1954. Subsequently Basheeruddin retired from the partnership by executing a retirement deed dt.30­11­1956. However, the plaintiff deliberately not filed the said retirement deed dt.30­11­1956. Hence, in 

Ex.A1 dissolution deed of partnership took place in pursuance of 

Partnership deed dt.30­11­1956, but not in pursuance of partnership deed dt.30­06­1954. Hence, in view of this, the Ex.A1 is a genuine one and it was dissolved correctly in pursuance of partnership deed dt.30­ 11­1956. Further the counsel for the plaintiff has not argued anything about how the suit is barred by limitation. He has also not argued 

>> 34 << OS 2007/2005

anything about the citation relied upon the defendants and also not said anything about the Section 120 of Evidence Act. When there is no answer from the plaintiff for the judgments and provision of law relied upon by the defendants, this Court come to the conclusion that there is no case for the plaintiff.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and also the judgments of the Apex Court of India and also the plaintiff failed to enter into the witness box as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5..With the above rival pleading of both the parties the following issues are framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaring the deed of dissolution of partnership dated 14.11.1969 affidavit dated 27.12.1985 and 21.10.1985 partnership deed 03.04.1992 are void, fabricated and not binding in the plaintiff?

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

3. Whether this court is having Jurisdiction to try the suit?

4. To what relief?

6.On behalf of the plaintiffs P.W.1 examined and he got marked 

Exs. A1 to A41. On behalf of the defendant, examined and got marked Exs. B1 to B4. 

7.. ISSUE Nos.2

Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

The plaintiff filed this suit for declaration to declare the following 5 documents as forged, fabricated, concocted, illegal, null and void, un enforcible in law and not binding on the plaintiff documents ( 1 ). a deed of dissolution of partner ship dated 14.11.1969 (2) affidavits of 

>> 35 << OS 2007/2005

Mahmood Ahmed dated 25.10.1985. (3) and 27.12.1985 (4) an agreement dated 21.10.1985 (5)the partnership deed dated 03.04.1992. The learned counsels for the plaintiff contended that the grand father of the plaintiff by name Md. Hussain alias Ustaad was running the Beedi business under the name and style of Azam Jadi beedi business registered under the Trade Marks Act and on his demise it was succeeded by his sons namely SM. Moinudin, Md. Ismail, Md. 

Azam, Mahmood Ahmed and Rasheed Ahmed. The claim of the plaintiff is that the defendants obtained trade mark certificates in their favour by, eliminating the plaintiff on the forged and fabricated documents. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff herein is the daughter of 

Mahmood Ahmed who is, one of the sons of Md. Hussain alias ustaad. 

As per the contention of the plaintiff he received the copies of documents in question on 24.05.2004 in C.S. 418/2004 along with the suit summons and filed the present suit within 3 years from the date of receipt of copies of documents in question where as the defendants taken a plea that a suit for declaration should be field within the period 3 years form the date of knowledge as per Art. 56 of the limitation Act and the plaintiff got knowledge about the execution of documents in question, in the year 1995, it self and therefore the suit is barred by limitation. Hence before going to discuss about the documents in question, it is just and necessary to decide whether the present suit is filed within the period of limitation. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff initially filed a suit vide OS. 1025/1993 on the file of II nd Sr. Civil 

Judge CCC Hyderabad and it was subsequently transferred to the VI th 

senior Civil Judge Hyderabad, for partition against the D1 to D.4 , D6 to 

D.9, D16 to D.19, D.21 and others. Ex.A21 is supporting the contention of the plaintiff regarding filing of suit OS. 1025/1993 for partition claiming her share through her father. The plaintiff contended 

>> 36 << OS 2007/2005

that the defendants herein denied the right of the plaintiff in the Azam 

Jadi Beedi Business by way of filing written statement in OS. 

1025/1993. Now the question for consideration is whether the defendants herein mentioned about the alleged execution documents in question, in their written statement in OS. 1025/1993 by denying the right of the plaintiff . Ex.A9 is the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1 there in OS. 1025/1993. Ex.A10 is the written statement filed by the defendant No. 31 there in O.S. 1025/1993. On careful perusal of Ex.A9 it is observed that the right of the plaintiff herein in the business and inheritance of her share is denied . But there is no reference of documents in question in Ex.A9 and A.10. Therefore it is clear that there is no chance for the plaintiff, herein to have knowledge about the existence of documents in question by reading written statements under Exs. A9 and A10.

8. Ex.A11 is the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 therein In I.A. 1023/1993 in OS. 1025/1993. on careful reading of the averments made in the counter under Ex.A11, it is observed that there is a mentioning in page No. 3 as “ that the father of the plaintiff herein had retired from the said business by taking his share which is evidenced by documents of agreement dated 21.10.1985 and an affidavit dated 25.10.1985. But there is no mentioning regarding other two documents in question in the counter under Ex.A11. It is clear that there is a reference of agreement dated 21.10.1985 and an affidavit 

dated 25.10.1985 only in the counter under Ex.A11 . But Ex.A11 is not 

showing that the said documents agreement dated 21.10.1985 and affidavit dated 25.10.1985 were filed along with the said counter. At the same time there is no evidence before the court to establish that the copies two documents in question mentioned under Ex.A11 was 

>> 37 << OS 2007/2005

supplied to the plaintiff herein in the year 1993 it self . There is no mentioning or reference of the other documents deed of dissolution of partnership dated 14.11.1969 , affidavit of Mahmood Ahmed dated 27.12.1985 and the partnership deed dated 03.04.1992 in Ex. A11, to believe that the plaintiff herein got knowledge about the existence of all documents in the year 1993 it self.

9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendants 1 to 4 filed CC 117/1998 on the filed IXth metropolitan 

magistrate Hyderabad against the husband of the plaintiff herein. 

Ex.A7 is the CC of complaint in C.C. 117/1998. But in the said complaint, there is no reference of all the documents in question. 

Therefore there is no chance of receiving the documents in question by the plaintiff herein or her husband in CC 117/1998. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendants 1 to 4 also filed the criminal case CC 246/2001 against the husband of the plaintiff and others under sections 420,488, IPC and Sec. 51 R/w section 63 of Copy 

Rights Act and the said complaint was dismissed by acquitting the husband of the plaintiff herein. P.W.1 deposed that none of the documents in question were filed or supplied to him in CC 246/2001. 

Ex.A8 is the judgment in CC 246/2001 dated 30.10.2003. On careful perusal of Ex.A8 it is observed that none of the documents in question are exhibited in the said CC 246/2001 and the husband of the plaintiff herein ( P.W.1) was acquitted . Ex.A8 is supporting the contention of the plaintiff. Therefore there is no possibility for the plaintiff herein to receive the copy of document in question in CC 246/2001. it is further contended by the plaintiff that the defendants 1 to 4 filed a suit OS. 

88/2001 for injunction basing on the Trade Mark Certificate fraudulently obtained by them basing on the forged and fabricated 

>> 38 << OS 2007/2005

documents in question. Ex.A25 is the copy of the plaint in OS. 88/2001. 

No doubt the defendants 1 to 4 herein referred the documents dissolution of partnership deed dated 14.11.1969 and the partnership deed dated 03.04.1992 in their plaint in OS. 88/2001. But the list of documents shown in the 6th page of Ex.A.25 is not showing that the two documents dissolution of deed dated 14.11.1969 and the partnership deed dated 03.04.1992 were filed by the defendants 1 to 4 herein in that suit OS. 88/2001. Therefore there is no possibility for the plaintiff herein for the perusal of documents or for receiving the said documents by her. It is significant note that the plaintiff herein taken a plea that the husband of the plaintiff ( P.W.1) issued a notice to the counsel for the defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. 88/2001 for the production of documents. 

Ex.A26 is supporting the contention of the plaintiff. Ex.A26 is showing that the husband of the plaintiff issued a notice to the counsel for defendants 1 to 4 for the production of dissolution of partnership deed 

dated 14.11.1969, affidavit of Mahmood Ahmed dated 27.12.1985 and 

the partnership deed dated 03.04.1992 Ex.A28 is also showing that the husband of the plaintiff filed I.A. 1370/2002 in OS. 88/2001 for production of documents in question and the same was closed by the 

Hon'ble 14th ACJ CCC Hyderabad on 27.09.2002 with a finding that “ 

the respondent herein is not having those documents in this custody and they are with the Trade Marks Authority. Therefore it is clear the at the documents in question were not produced before the court in OS. 

88/2001 even not produced even on the orders of the court. It shows that he plaintiff not received the documents in question in OS. 88/2001 also.

10.The plaintiff has taken a plea that she filed a petition vide I.A. 

361/1995 in IA. 1023/1993 in OS. 1025/1993 for production of the 

>> 39 << OS 2007/2005

documents, in question. Ex.A38 is an evidence to prove that the plaintiff herein made efforts for production of the documents in question from the defendants through court of law. The counter in I.A. 349/2002 in 

OS. 1025/1993 under para No.4 is showing that the original dissolution 

of partnership deed dated 14.11.1969 was submitted before the trade marks registration authority. Ex.A39 a counter filed by the defendants in that petition is showing that the original affidavit dated 27.12.1985 was also placed before the Trade Mark Registration. The defendants herein simply taken a plea that the plaintiff is having knowledge about the documents in question in the year1995 it self and that the instant suit is hoelessly barred by limitation in view of Article 56 of the 

Limitation Act. These defendants are relying upon the judgment reported in Suresh Kumar Dagla v. Sarwan ( 2014(14) SCC 254 in 

Para 7) wherein it is held that:

“ The first respondent has not disputed the fact that he had already 

instituted a case alleging therein that the appellant inter alia cheated him 

while purchasing the said land which was rejected on 30.09.1993. From 

the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the first respondent had knowledge

about the sale deed and as back as in the month of September 1993.

From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the suit was barred by

limitation and thereby the first respondent cannot derive any benefit it 

terms of Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code,1959.

For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the order dated 12.09.2012 

passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Civil Revision No.120 

of 2012; order dated 23.06.2012 passed by the 4 th Civil Judge, Class 1, 

Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.53­A of 2011, allow the application filed by the 

appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC and dismiss 

the suit as barred by limitation. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid 

observation. No costs.”

>> 40 << OS 2007/2005

But the facts of the above case are contradictory to the present case as such they are not applicable to the present case.

Another Judgment in respect of multiple cause of action, the courts have held the period of limitation begun to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. On that principle the defendants are relying upon Judgment reported in Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd., v. Union of 

India (2011 (9) SCC 126 Para 30) wherein it is held that: 

“While enacting Article 58 of the 1963 Act, the legislature has

designedly made a departure from the language of Article 120 of the 1908 

Act. The word “first” has been used between the words “sue” and

“Accrued”. This would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of

action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the 

right to sue first accrues. To put it differently, successive violation of the 

right will not give rise to fresh cause and the suit will be liable to be

dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the day 

when the right to sue first accrued”

However the above case law is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

As per the pleadings of the plaintiff and also the documents that are marked clearly establishes that the plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged fraud, fabricated of Exs.A1 to A4 in the year 1999 itself. In 

Ex.A6 reply notice dt.21.09.1997 given on behalf of defendants 1 to 4 in para 5 clearly indicates that the father of the plaintiff has relinquished his rights and the same is evident from his agreement dt.21.10.85. Then the plaintiff ought to have filed suit on or before 20­09­2000. However, the instant suit is filed in the year 2005 as such it is hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiff herein filed IA.1023/95 in 

O.S.NO.1023/93 in which the respondent No.1 Mohd.Ismail filed 

>> 41 << OS 2007/2005

counter which is marked as Ex.A­11 dt.12.11.1993 in which para No.4 

(d) in page­3 categorically pleaded that the father of the plaintiff has taken his share from Azam Jadi Beedi and the same is evident from agreement dt.21.10.1985 and an affidavit dt.25.10.1985. When the said plea was taken on 12.11.1993, the plaintiff ought to have filed suit on or before 11.11.1996. However, the instant suit is filed in the year 2005. Hence, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiff herein made a petition before the Registrar or Trade Marks on 21.5.2001 which is marked as Ex.A­17 and Ex.A­18 in which the plaintiff has pleased in respect of Ex.A­2 and Ex.A­3 stating that those documents are forged. Therefore, the plaintiff has knowledge about 

Ex.A­2 and Ex.A3 by 21.5.01 itself therefore, the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for declaration in respect of Exs.A2 & Ex.A3 on or before 20­05­04 but the instant suit is filed in the year 2005 as such the present suit is barred by limitation. 

The respondents 2 to 6 and 8 to 11 have filed counter in 

IA.1023/93 in OS.1025/93 dt.3­10­93 and the same was marked as 

Ex.A22 in which a plea was taken in para 4 (d) of the counter that the father of the plaintiff retired by taking his share in Ajam Jadi Beedi and the same is evident by an agreement dt.21.10.1985. When the said plea was taken by the defendants in counter on 3.10.93, the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit in respect of agreement dt.21.10.1985 on or before 2.10.1996. However, the present suit is filed in the year 2005, hence the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff has issued notice under Order 

XI Rule (16) of CPC dt.20­4­01 which was marked as Ex.A26 to the defendants 1 to 4 herein to produce Exs.A1 to A4. Which means that the plaintiff has knowledge about the documents Ex.A1 to A4 by 20­04­01 itself. Hence, the plaintiff is supposed to file the instant suit on or before 19­4­04. However, the present suit is filed in the year 2005 as such the 

>> 42 << OS 2007/2005

present suit is barred by limitation act. Leaving apart the above referred documents, the PW1 himself admitted in his cross examination dt.5.2.07 that the plaintiff first time came to know regarding Ex.A1 in the year 2001. Therefore, the plaintiff should have filed before the suit by end of 2004. However, the instant suit is filed in the year 2005. 

Hence by virtue of admission of PW­1 the suit is barred by limitation. 

But never chosen to place any evidence either oral or documentary to established the same. P.W.1 deposed he filed a receipt dated 07.03.2005 issued by the trade mark registry number for Rs. 5,00/­

P.W1 further deposed that he deposited the amount for obtaining certified copies of Exs. A1 to A5. But no certified copies were issued by the trade mark authorities. Ex.A37 a receipt dated 07.03.2005 is supporting the contention of the plaintiff for making efforts to get the certified copies from trade mark authorities. In view of evidence of 

P.W.1 and the documents Ex.A7 to A11, Exs. A16 to A19 Exs. A25 to 

A27 and Ex.A38, it is believed that though the defendants taken the plea basing on the documents in question, they did not produced the documents before any court in any legal proceedings or supplied its copies to plaintiff.

Ex.A16 is the letter given to the registrar of trade mark by the plaintiff herein mentioning that the defendants herein opposed for renewal of the registration by ignoring the name of the plaintiff herein basing on the forged documents. The plaintiff thorough Ex.A16 dated 12.03.1999 requested the registrar of trade mark to sought for the legal heirs of late proprietor SM. Moinuddin (father of the defendants herein ) before granting renewal. Ex.A17 is a petition filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 22 herein before the registrar of trade mark Mumbai to take cognizance of the said petitions and to cancel the order dated 26.02.2001.

>> 43 << OS 2007/2005

The plaintiff further contended that the defendants 1 to 4 herein field s suit against the plaintiff herein and her husband before the 

Hon'ble Madras High Court vide CS. No. 418/2004 in which they 

received summons from the court along with copies of documents. 

P.W.1 deposed that he was supplied with the copies of documents in question only on 25.04.2004 along with the summons In CS. 418/2004. 

Ex.A23 is the plaint in CS. 418/2004 filed before the Hon'ble High Court 

Madras,. On careful perusal of Ex.A23 it is observed that the defendants 1 to 4 herein listed out the documents in question the plaint of CS. 418/2004. The defendants in the written statement admitted that the defendants 1 to 4 filed CS. 418/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Since the defendants failed to establish the copies of documents in question referred by them long back in the year 1995 were supplied to the plaintiff herein effect an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is believed that the plaintiff inspite of best efforts received the copies of documents only in the year 2004. This is a suit for declaration. 

Therefore the suit for declaration cannot be filed to declare any specific documents as null and void without filing the said document before the court, simply basing on the reference made by the others. Before going to give a finding on the point of limitation it is just and necessary to have a look at ” Article 56 of the limitation Act. 1963 which says that a suit for declaration to declare the forgery of an instrument issue or registered has to be filed within 3 years from the date, when the issue or registration becomes known to the plaintiff. “ No doubt the plaintiff herein came to know about the execution of the two documents in question in 1995 on receipt of counter under Ex.A11, she has received the documents only in the year 2004. The plaintiff has placed sufficient evidence to believe she made best efforts through court for the getting 

>> 44 << OS 2007/2005

the documents in question form the defendants since from 1993. 

Therefore having no fault on the plaintiff, she cannot be estoped from filing the suit within in 3 years from the date of receiving the documents on 25.04.2004. A suit for declaration cannot be filed simply basing on the allegations made by other side, unless it has been verified properly and placed before the court. On the other hand the court also cannot pass the decree for declaration when the document is not placed before the court. It is difficult for the court of declare any document has forged or null and void when the document is not before the court

Mere mentioning that the written statement or the counter, alleging that some documents are executed without producing the same 

before the court is not a time to commence the period of limitation to 

file a suit for declaration. Mere mentioning of existence of the documents in the written statement or in counter, in a complaint without any thing being place before the court, obtaining the declaration is not proper The words known mentioned in Sec. 56 of the limitation Act means having full knowledge about the execution of the documents. In the present suit that the defendants herein simply referred the documents in question by way of counter and notices in the year 1993. It does not mean that the plaintiff herein got full knowledge about the execution of the documents in question simply by reading counter under Ex.A11 To have the full knowledge one has go through the contents and recitals of the entire documents. One cannot get full knowledge only by seeing the reference regarding the execution of the documents unless and until gone through personally. Therefore it is believed that the plaintiffs got complete knowledge about the execution of documents in question only after going through the same. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is believed that the plaintiff rightly filed the suit within 3 years from the date of having full knowledge about the 

>> 45 << OS 2007/2005

execution of the documents in question on receipt of same in C.S. 

418/2004 on 25.04.2004 to plaintiff “. Hence Issue No.2 decided in favour of plaintiff. 

12..ISSUE NO.1: 

The plea of the plaintiffs is that they have filed a suit for declaration to declare that the suit documents i.e., (1) Dissolution of 

Partnership dated:14­11­1969 (2) Deed of Partnership dated:3­4­1992 (3) Agreement dated:21­10­1995 (4) Affidavit of Mahmood Ahmed 

dated:25­10­1985 and (5)Affidavit of Mahmood Ahmed dated:27­12­

1985, are forged, created and fabricated documents null and void and are not binding upon the plaintiff and unenforceable by law.

Dissolution of Partnership dated:14­11­1969 (Ex.A1) the document is forged document created in the year 2000 only. The notary advocate before whom the document was attested is Laxman Rao 

Kalchalker, according to record of notary office there is no notary advocate on such name whatever record available in the notary office is of Laxman Rao Karchalkar, Advocate who is appointed as notary by the government through G.O.Rt.No.1022 Revenue (U) Department dated:5­ 5­1979 with effect from 3­5­1979 which is evident from the letter 

No.NR/23135/2004 dated:22­1­2005 issued by Commissioner and I.G. 

of R&S, A.P., Hyderabad for government of Andhra Pradesh 

Registration and Stamps Department. That letter is marked as Ex.A29. 

It is pertinent to mention here that on the Dissolution of Partnership 

dated:14­11­1969 from the seal of the notary advocate the name of 

notary advocate appears with double “L” whereas in the notary office record the name of notary advocate is with appears with single “L”. 

From this it is crystal clear that the said Dissolution of Partnership is a created and forged document. Whereas Laxman Rao Karchalkar 

>> 46 << OS 2007/2005

advocate appointed in the year 1979 and according to document there is attestation of Notary advocate is on 14­11­1969, how he can attest the documents as notary 10 years prior to his appointment as notary advocate. From this it is clear that the Dissolution of Partnership 

dated:14­11­1969 is a created and forged document. Moreover, 

whatever notary stamps affixed on the dissolution of partnership dt.14­ 11­1969 is of the year 2000 whatever notary stamps prevailed in those days i.e., in the year 1969, that are totally different. Moreover this 

Dissolution of Partnership is not according to the Sec.72 of the 

Partnership Act. Whatever partnership dissolved according to this document i.e., Dissolution of Partnership dated:14­11­1969 that partnership deed is dated:30­11­1956 what is this partnership deed nobody knows who are the partners to this partnership deed nobody knows and what are the terms and conditions of this partnership deed nobody knows and this partnership is not referred anywhere in any proceedings anywhere by any one in the light of the day whatever beedi business is under registration No.117778 and 391045 is under partnership deed dated:30­06­1954 regarding this partnership deed a reference is given in Ex.A12 and in Ex.A14 (i.e., Trade Mark 

Certificates) from the above facts it is crystal clear that the above said 

Dissolution of Partnership dated:14­11­1969 is forged and created one. 

It is pertinent to mention here that since the year 1993 lot of correspondence taken place in between the plaintiffs and defendants herein by way of court proceedings i.e., Partition suit 

OS.No.1025/1993, Criminal cases i.e., CC.117/1998, CC.No.246/2001, 

Central Excise department proceedings in the year 1998 in all these proceedings there is no whisper about the dissolution of Partnership 

dated:14­11­1969 (Ex.A1), affidavit of Mahmood Ahmed dated:27­12­

1985 (Ex.A3) and Partnership Deed dated:3­4­1992 (Ex.A5). It is 

>> 47 << OS 2007/2005

further submitted that the Partnership Deed dated:3­4­1992 (Ex.A5)  the document is fabricated document created in the year 2000 only regarding this document there is no whisper in earlier proceedings taken place in between the parties. This document is on six stamp papers of Rs.50/­ each, and on three stamp papers stamp vendors seal is visible in that seal it appears that Renewal No.5/93 it means stamp vendor license was renewed in the year 1993 and renewal number was allotted in the year 1993 when number was allotted in the year 1993 how can he sell the stamps in the year 1992 by affixing his seal on it, this clearly establishes that these are tempered stamp papers which clearly establishes that this document is fabricated document created to defeat partition suit claim that is why date 3­4­1992 is mentioned on it. 

As the partition suit is of the year 1993. Moreover whatever notary attested on it that notary advocate is not available in the record of notary office. Whatever available in the notary record i.e., Laxman Rao 

Karchalkar advocate (with single ”L” name who was appointed as notary on 5­5­1979 but on this document seal is of double “L” in name which is evident from Ex.A29. On the other hand on this document two different notary advocates attested it, why defendant Nos. 1 to 4 knows very well and the Affidavit of Mahmood Ahmed dated:27­12­ 1985 (Ex.A3): This document is forged document. This document was not referred by any wherein in any proceedings prior to 2000. For the first time it was filed before Registrar of Trade Marks Authority Mumbai in the year 2000. It is on the stamp paper of Rs.5/­. There is no name of stamp vendor on this stamp and there is no license number of stamp vendor on this stamp and there is no notary register number, entry number and page number of notary register. All this clearly establishes that this document is forged document. Moreover this was notarized two times first time before Notary V.Pandharinath and second time 

>> 48 << OS 2007/2005

before Kantam Nandaiah why it was attested before two notary 

advocates for two times. In this document deponent address has been shown as R/o. Chinna Chintakunta, Atmakur, Tq.Mahaboobnagar 

District and notary attested is at Hyderabad. From all the above it is crystal clear that this document is forged and fabricated document. All these above three documents are created with a malafide intention to deprive the legitimate rights of the plaintiffs herein involved in 

Partition suit. Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 are also forged documents on the face of it. It is well settled law that a forged instrument cannot acquire the force of a genuine document simply because the three years allowed by the article of the limitation act have expired hence that instrument cannot become valid and legally enforceable by reason of the lapse of time and at the time of filing of the suit, the suit registering official has raised the objection of limitation and the suit was returned after clarifying the same before the Bench the Hon'ble Judge after satisfying by the clarification made by plaintiff's counsel registered the suit. The plaintiff's No.1 husband was examined as PW1 on her behalf defendant counsel has raised objection to that effect and put objectionable questions in that regard, all those objections are against the law and procedure. Plaintiff is relying on decision reported in 2005 AIHC page 2865 (Andhra Pradesh High Court) and on a decision reported in 1997 

AIHC Page 1956 (Madras High Court). It is contended that only the defendant No.3 has filed his written statement in this case and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 7 and 9 adopted the same by filing Memo. 

In this written statement the main plea has taken by defendant No.3 is that the suit is barred by limitation by stating that plaintiff is having knowledge about these suit documents in the year 1995 which is evident from the affidavit of IA.No.361/1995 in O.S.No.1025/1993 (kindly see page 13 of written statement bottom 5 lines). The plaintiff 

>> 49 << OS 2007/2005

herein filed the I.A.No.361/1995 and got it marked as Ex.A38, in that 

I.A. There is no mentioned about the suit documents kindly have a look on the contents of affidavit of IA.No.361/1995 and its petition prayer whatever documents mentioned in it is that totally different documents, so question of raising objection about cause of action and limitation cannot and does not arise and also not tenable in the eye of law. No defendant came forward to give evidence in the witness box to establish the averments mentioned in their written statement as per Judgment passed by the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441(1) and followed by the Supreme Court in case reported in 2012 (5) ALT 345, mere pleadings without any evidence has no value and that when a party does not appear into the witness box, averments made by such party have no value therefore mere averments is of no use and the 

Court in its earlier Judgment correctly made observation about the limitation and cause of action in its Judgment, which cannot be interfered in the interest of justice, moreover the defendant has taken different and self contradictory pleas about the existence of the documents. It is further contended that all the defendants herein first time used these three documents i.e., Dissolution of Partnership 

dated:14­11­1969, affidavit of Mahmood Ahmed dated:27­12­1985 and 

Partnership deed dated:3­4­1992 out of five documents on 8­9­2000 which is evident from Ex.A14 and Ex.A15 without giving any notice to plaintiff No.1 herein and by suppressing the real facts i.e., facts of pendency of Partition suit OS.No.1025/1993 and making misrepresentation and playing fraud upon the registrar of Trade Marks 

Authority Mumbai obtained Trade Mark certificate of Azam Jadi Beedi in the name of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 herein. It is further contended that the LR's of other co­owners by name LR's of Md.Ismail, LR's of 

Rasheed Ahmed also filed their joint affidavits by making false 

>> 50 << OS 2007/2005

statement in support of defendant Nos.1 to 4 herein behind the back of plaintiff No.1 herein. Surprisingly all the defendants failed to file the affidavits of alleged LR's of late Mahmood Ahmed i.e., two sons and three daughters from this also it is clear that they are not the sons and daughters of late Mahmood Ahmed. Non filing of the affidavits of the alleged two sons and three daughters of late Mahmood Ahmed clearly establishes that they are not the legal heirs of Mahmood Ahmed. 

Though they are bringing them as LR's of Mahmood Ahmed in other proceedings. From the above facts it is crystal clear that the Exs.A1 to 

Ex.A5 documents are forged and fabricated documents created with a malafide intention to deprive the legitimate rights of the plaintiffs herein involved in the partition suit scheduled properties and in beedi businesses, movable and immovable properties.

13..The defendant contended that the instant suit of declaration has filed without consequential relief and the same was also admitted by the 

PW­1 in his cross examination dt.5.2.2007. The plaintiff also filed an interlocutory application seeking Injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 using the Trade Mark Certificate in doing business for Azam Jadi 

Beedi. Based on this it is very clear that the plaintiff was capable of seeking consequential relief, failed to plead the same as such bare declaration suit is not maintainable. The defendants 1 to 4 are relying upon the judgment reported in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and 

Another ( 2012 (8) SCC 148 Para 57) wherein it is held that:

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The section provides that courts have discretion as to declaration of status or right, however, it carves out an exception that a court shall not make any such declaration of status or right where the complaint, being able to seek further relief that a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. IN Ram Saran v. Ganga Devi this 

>> 51 << OS 2007/2005

court had categorically held that the suit seeking for declaration of title of

ownership but where possession is not sought, is hit by the proviso of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963(hereinafter called “the Specific Relief Act”) and, thus, 

not maintainable. IN Vinay Krishna v. Keshava Chandra this court dealt with a 

similar issue where the plaintiff was not in exclusive possession of property and had filed a suit seeking declaration of title of ownership. Similar view has been reiterated observing that the suit was not maintainable, if barred by the proviso of 

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. (see also Gian Kaue v. Ranghubir Singh).

In view of the above, the law becomes crystal clear that it is not permissible to claim the relief of declaration without seeking consequential relief”.

 It is a settled principle in law that “plead first and lead next”. In the instant case though the plaintiff has pleaded so many allegations, to prove the same failed to enter into the witness box as such an inference can be drawn against the plaintiff. These defendants are relying upon the Judgment reported in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Ban 

Ltd. (2005 (2) SCC 217 at Para 15) wherein it is held that:

“ Apart from what has been stated, this court in the case of Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao observed at SCC pp.583­84, para 17 that: Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross­examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct...”

And another Judgment reported in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another ( AIR 1999 SC 1441 Para 16 ) wherein it is held that:

“ Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states 

his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the 

other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct 

as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the 

Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbaksha Singh v. Gurdial 

Singh, AIR 1927 PC 230. This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa 

Singh v. Ajaipal Singh.AIR 1930 Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in 

>> 52 << OS 2007/2005

Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh, AIR 

1931 Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High court i Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter 

v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat, AIR 1970 Madh Para 225, also followed the 

Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (AIR 1927 PC230) 

(supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath, Air 1971 

Allahabad 29 held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it 

would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly a Division Bench 

of the Punjab and Harayana High Court in Bhagwan Das v. Bhishan Chand AIR 

1974 Punj ad Har 7, drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act

against a party who did not enter into the witness box”.

On behalf of plaintiff the PW­1 was examined and also during cross examination dt.25.1.2007 stated that he has deposed on behalf of plaintiff. At the time of arguments, the counsel for the plaintiff relied upon section 120 of Evidence Act and stated that the husband can give evidence on behalf of wife and wife can give evidence on behalf of husband. However, the purport of Section 120 of Evidence Act is that the wife can be the competent witness against or in favour of her husband and husband also be the competent witness against or in her favour of his wife. However, it does not mean that the husband can give evidence on behalf of his wife or the wife can give evidence on behalf of her husband. In India, there is no substitution law and none of the provisions of Indian Evidence Act recognises substation of parties. 

Therefore, the evidence given by PW1 on behalf of the plaintiff cannot be considered at all. The PW­1 in his cross examination dt.5.2.2007 volunteered that the plaintiff has approached the Trade Mark authority in the year 1997 under Ex.A16 and made a statement that the defendants are trying to obtain trade mark certificate by forging the documents. This statement of PW1 indicates that the plaintiff is aware in respect of the documents that were executed by her father and the defendants are filing before the Trade Mark Authority. However, it 

>> 53 << OS 2007/2005

appears that the plaintiff has tried not to issue any certificate in favour of the defendants as such made such statement that defendants are trying to forge the documents. This statement clearly proves that the documents filed by the defendants before the Trade Mark Authority are genuine. If really the Ex.A1 is not genuine, why the legal heirs of other partners have not made any claim in respect of Azam Jadi Beedi business. Except the plaintiff, no other legal heirs of the parties of Ex.A1 have not made any claim. The plaintiff has not specifically pleaded what is basis to say that Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are forged and fabricated ones. 

The plaintiff ought to have filed the admitted signatures of her father so as to compare the signatures of her father on Exs.A1 to A3. At least this 

Court would have compared the signatures as per Section 73 of 

Evidence Act. The defendants would have filed an application under 

Section 45 of Evidence Act. The plaintiff deliberately not filed the admitted signature of her father. The whole case of the plaintiff is that the defendants have not stated in their previous litigation in respect of 

Exs.A1 to A4 as such those documents are forged. Just because the defendants have not pleaded in the previous case, it does not mean that those documents will automatically be declared as forged and fabricated. In fact, in respect of Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were stated by the defendants wherever it is required and the same already stated above.

After the arguments of the defendants, the plaintiff counsel argued in reply arguments stating that as per Ex.A­40 there were 5 partners and 

Mohammed Basheeruddin became one of partners in place of Mohd 

Azam. However, as per Ex.A1 dissolution deed there were only 4 partners which means the partnership is not dissolved. Ex.A40 is entered between the then partners were on 30­06­1954. Subsequently 

Basheeruddin retired from the partnership by executing a retirement deed dt.30­11­1956. However, the plaintiff deliberately not filed the 

>> 54 << OS 2007/2005

said retirement deed dt.30­11­1956. Hence, in Ex.A1 dissolution deed of partnership took place in pursuance of Partnership deed dt.30­11­1956, but not in pursuance of partnership deed dt.30­06­1954. Hence, in view of this, the Ex.A1 is a genuine one and it was dissolved correctly in pursuance of partnership deed dt.30­11­1956.

Before deciding on the dispute pertaining to documents, it is 

pertinent here to give findings whether PW1, husband of the plaintiff can give evidence before the court on behalf of the plaintiff. As held in the judgment Vidhyadhar v. Mankikrao and another ( AIR 1999 SC 1441 Para 16 ) filed by plaintiff, the apex court held that husband can speak and give evidence on behalf of his wife as such the evidence of defendant, PW1 cannot be washed away and accordingly the plea of the defendant that plaintiff has not stepped into witness box cannot be considered. 

14..In contrary the defendant has not entered into witness box to establish his version in written statement and has not come forward for cross examination as such the case laws are applicable to the case of the defendant. Now coming to the fact of declaration, as per the contention of the plaintiff the grand father of the plaintiff by name Md. 

Hussain Ahmed alias ustaad had 5 sons namely SM. Moinuddin Md. 

Ismail , Md. Azam , Mahmood Ahmed and Rasheed Ahmed. It is further contended that on the death of grand father by name Md. Hussain Alias 

Ustad is 5 sons became joint proprietors of the Azam Jadi Beedi 

Business. The contested defendant No.3 admitted the relation ship between the late Ahmed Hussain alias ustad and his 5 sons as named by the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff she is the daughter of Mahmood 

Ahmed who is one of the sons of the son of Md. Hussain alias ustaad. 

The admitted family pedigree ( genealogical tree ) as follows:

Md. Hussain @ Ustaad ( grand father of the plaintiff ) 

>> 55 << OS 2007/2005

( Sons ) Lr's

1. Sm. Moiunuddin. Defendant No. 1 to 9

2. Md. Isamil Defendant No.10 to 15

3. Md. Azam. __________

4. Mahmood Ahmed Plaintiff herein.

5. Rasheed Ahmed Defendant No. 16 to 22 

Initially the plaintiff filed OS. 1025/1993 against some of the defendants under the partition, and separate possession of 2/10th share in the properties of a grand father and for rendition of accounts. In the said suit OS. 1025/1993, the defendants filed the written statement denying share of the plaintiff herein. Ex.A9 is the written statement filed by the defendant no. 1 herein and Ex.A10 is the written statement filed by the defendant No. 31 there in. It is admitted in the 6th page of written statement under Ex.A9 that the plaintiff is only entitled to the estate belonging to her father late. Mahmood Ahmed along with Naseer 

Ahemed Nusrath begum, Sabera begum, Nisar Ahmed and Tahera begum including the Beedi business under the name and style of 92 mark Beedi and white Azam. The defendant filed their counter in I.A. 

1023/1993 in OS. 1025/1993 referring the documents agreement 

dated 21.10.1985 and affidavit dated 25.10.1985. it is clear that there 

is no reference for the remaining 3 documents dissolution of partnership 

dated 14.11.1969 , affidavit dated 27.12.1985 and the partnership deed 

dated 03.04.1992 in Ex.A11. However the plaintiff is seeking 

declaration stating that he was served with the documents in question along with the summons in CS. 418/2004 and filed the present suit to declare them as forged, null and void and not binding on the plaint. The first document Ex. A1. Is the deed of dissolution partnership dated 14.11.1969. Though the defendants referred the documents agreement 

dated 21.10.1985 and affidavit of Mahmood Ahmed dated 25.10.1985 

>> 56 << OS 2007/2005

long back in the year 1993 they did not referred about Ex.A1, in any of the written statement or counter in OS. 1025/1993. If really the document Ex.A1 in question was executed in the year 1969 it self, it should be a referred in the written statement Ex. A9 as well as in the counter Ex.A11. But there is no such reference. The defendants not given any explanation for non mentioning of the first document Ex.A1 in question in the initial proceedings in OS. 1025/1993. Therefore an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants.

15.Admittedly defendants 1 to 4 filed CC. 117/1998 on the file of metropolitan magistrate Hyderabad against the husband of the plaintiff. 

Ex.A7 is the complaint by D.1 to D.4 herein in CC. 117/1998. But the defendants 1 to 4 simply mentioned that the husband of the plaintiff fraudulently and dishonestly encashed the business good will without referring the documents in question. There is no mentioning under 

Ex.A7 regarding execution of the dissolution of partnership deed dated 14.11.1969. Admittedly the defendants 1 to 4 also filed CC. 246/2001 against the husband of the plaintiff under Sec. 420,488 IPC and Sec. 

R/W. 53 of the copy rights Act. Ex.A8 is a copy of judgment in CC. 

246/2001. After reading the contents of Ex.A8, it is observed that none of the 5 documents in question are exhibited in CC. 246/2001. If really the father of the plaintiff, herein was retired voluntarily from the business by executing an agreement dated 21.10.1985 by giving affidavits dated 25.10.1985 and 27.12.1985, they ought to have refer the same in the previous proceedings . At the same time there is no reference regarding 1st document Ex.A1, also in CC. 246/2001 and it was not exhibited. Ex.A8 is also showing that the complaint field by the defendants 1 to 4 was dismissed and the husband of the plaintiff herein was acquitted in CC. 246/2001 .

>> 57 << OS 2007/2005

16.The plaintiff contended that the defendants 1 to 4 also field OS. 

88/2001 on the file of XIV ACJ CCC Hyderabad and it is still pending. 

The defendant No.3 admitted in his written statement, that the defendants 1 to 4 herein filed OS. 88/2001. Therefore there is no controversy regarding pendency of OS. 88/2001 between the parties it is significant note that the defendant No.3 specifically admitted in his written statement that they did not filed the deed of dissolution of partnership dated 14.11.1969 in OS. 88/2001 since the original deed is 

before the registrar of Trade Marks. The defendants mentioned in the 

counter affidavit in I.A. 1023/1993 that the father of the plaintiff was retired from the business by execution an agreement dated 21.10.1985 and by giving the affidavits dated 25.10.1985 and 27.12.1985 where as the defendants contended that after the voluntary retirement of the father of the plaintiff, the other brothers executed dissolution of partnership of deed dated 14.11.1969 by existing partners. If the father of the plaintiff was retired in the year 1985, how the partnership was dissolved earlier, in the year 1969, by the other brothers. Therefore an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants herein. If there is mentioning regarding the subsequently executed documents of 1985 by way of reply in OS. 1025/1993, what prevented them from mentioning about the Ex.A1 dissolution of partnership deed dated 14.11.1969. If really the partnership was dissolved on 14.11.1969, the question of executing the agreement dated 21.10.1985 and the affidavits dated 25.10.1985 and 27.12.1985 does not arise.

17.The plaintiff taken a plea that the defendants 1 to 4 filed I.A. 

1000/2001 for temporary injunction and the said application was dismissed by the Hon'ble 14th ACJ CCC Hyderabad. P.W.1 deposed that 

>> 58 << OS 2007/2005

a petition vide I.A. 1000/2001 was dismissed with a finding that the plaintiff herein is a co­sharer of the business.Ex.A27 is the certified copy of the order in I.A. 1000/2001 in OS. 88/2001 showing the petition for temporary injunction filed by the defendants 1 to 4 was dismissed and defendants 1 to 4 preferred an appeal vide CMA 2114/2001 and the same was also dismissed. The Hon'ble High Court vide dismissing the appeal given a finding that “ the plaintiffs there in ( Defendants 1 to 4 ) not made the partnership firm as a party to the suit and directed to make the partnership firm as party. It is significant note that the defendants 1 to 4 herein though pleaded about the alleged partnership deed they did not made the partnership firm as a party to the suit. Exs. 

A12 to A.15 are trade mark certificates for which the plaintiff herein raising objection on the ground that he said certificates were issued basing on the false and fabricated documents by the registrar of the 

Trade Mark. At the same time the plaintiff issued letters under Exs. A16 to A19 to the registrar of Trade Mark requesting to stop the renewal. 

Ex.A29 is the letter issued by govt. AP registration and stamps department to the husband of the plaintiff herein informing Sri. Laxman 

Rao Kalchalkar was appointed as a notary by the Government through out GORT No. 1022, Revenue ( U ) department dated 05.05.1979 w.e.f 03.05.1979. The plaintiff contended that the dissolution of partnership deed dated 14.11.1969 was alleged to have attested before the notary by name Mr. Laxman Rao Kalchalkar who was not a notary by that time. 

P.W.1 deposed that the plaintiff applied for the information about the notary before commissioner and IG o f R and S, AP Hyderabad registration and stamps department. Ex.A29 is supporting the contention of the plaintiff mentioning that the person Sri. Lakshman 

Rao Kalchalker Advocate was appointed as a notary w.e.f. 03.05.1979. 

Therefore it is clear that the above named person was not the notary by 

>> 59 << OS 2007/2005

the date of execution of alleged a dissolution of partnership deed under 

Ex. A1. The defendants failed to establish that the person Lakshman Rao 

Karchalker was the notary by the date of execution of Ex.A1. Therefore execution of Ex.A1 is creating doubt. 

18.The plaintiff filed all the 5 documents Exs. A1 to A5 in question to declare them as forged , null and void and not binding on the plaints. At the same time the plaintiff also placed evidence to believe that the made efforts for getting the documents since from 1993 and could not get it in spite of his best efforts. It is also established by the plaintiff that D1 to 

D4 filed CS. 418/2004 and plaintiff get the documents in question. At the same time the plaintiff also made correspondence with the registrar of trade marks to stop the renewal of the trade mark certificates. If for a movement of time we believe that the affidavit Ex.A2 of Mahmood 

Ahmed dated 25.10.1985 and dated27.12.1985 along with the agreement dated 21.10.1985 were executed in the year 1985, the question of execution of discontinuation partnership deed dated 14.11.1969 does not took place earlier in the year 1969. If we believe that the Ex.A1 a deed of dissolution of partnership was execute in the year 1969, the question of executing agreement under Ex.A4 and the affidavits under Exs. A2 and A3 in the year 1985 after the dissolution does not arise and having no value. It is admitted fact that the business of the Mohammed. Hussian alias ustaad was inherited ion his death by 5 sons including the father of the plaintiff herein. Therefore in order to execute a partnership deed dated 03.04.1992 under Ex.A5 there should be a dissolution of earlier partnership. But the defendants never chosen to place any evidence either oral or documentary to establish that the earlier partnership was dissolved rightly and executed a fresh partnership deed dated 03.04.1992 under Ex.A5. Lastly at the end of 

>> 60 << OS 2007/2005

cross examination of P.W.1 the defendant placed postal covers addressed to D1 to D4. The 1st postal cover Ex. B1 with the blank white papers alleging that the plaintiffs send only white papers to D.1 and they came to know after opening the said cover. The other 3 covers are sealed covers produced before the court, and the defendants requested the court to open the said 3 covers in the open court. Accordingly all the 3 covers addressed to D2 to D4 were opened in the open court and found printed papers in them. It is recorded during cross examination of 

P.W.1 that all the 3 sealed covers are opened in the open court in the presence of counsels & parties and found that all the 3 covers Exs. B2 to 

B4 contains the printed papers consist of 11 pages which is the application form. The registrar of trade mark Mumbai. Therefore it appears that the defendants made the false allegations against the plaintiff saying that the plaintiff addressed the said covers to D1 to D4 by putting blank papers. The plaintiffs by examining her husband P.W.1 and by filing ample of documents Exs. A1 to A41 established that Exs. 

A1 to A4 was not executed by her father and Ex.A5 was created by eliminating the share of a father fraudulently. There fore it is believed that Exs. A1 to A5 are not binding on the plaintiff herein. Accordingly this issue also decided in favour of the plaintiff. 

19..Issue NO.3:

The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to declare the Exs. A1 to 

A5 are null and void before this court in Hyderabad where as the defendants taken a plea of jurisdiction contending that the plaintiff filed 

I.A. 163/2003 in OS.88/2001 in Section III of trade and merchandise marks Act 1958 to stall the proceedings, It is contended by the learned counsel for defendant No.3 that the court has directed to approach the appellate authority within 90 days to the challenge the veracity of the 

>> 61 << OS 2007/2005

certificates and accordingly the plaintiff approached the board for her grievance before intellectual property appellate board for rectification of trade mark certificate by including the plaintiff herein and the said case is pending. It is further contended by the learned counsel for defendants that as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in 

CRP No. 4371/2003 the plaintiff herein approached the Hon'ble 

intellectual property appellate board and the same is numbered as ORA 12 and 16/04/TM/CM/CH and it is pending for consideration. It is also contended that CS. No. 418/2004 is pending before the Hon'ble Madras 

High Court. Basing on the above said contentions the defendants taken a plea of jurisdiction. But as per the contention of the plaintiff CS. 

418/2004 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. 

Admittedly the initial suit OS. 1025/1993 filed by the plaintiff for partition, OS.88/2001 filed by the defendant against the husband of the plaintiff for injunction, CC 117/1998 filed by the defendant against the husband of the plaintiff and CS.418/2004and pending on different courts. But in all the proceedings, the documents Exs. A1 to A5 in question are disputed by the plaintiff herein. There is no other suit pending for the declaration of the Exs. A1 to A5 as null and void. 

Therefore it is clear no other suit for the same relief is filed or pending 

before any court. Hence the plaintiff is not estoped from filing the suit 

for declaration before this court. All the documents Exs. A1 to A5 are showing that they were executed within the jurisdiction of this court. 

Pendency of the suit C.S. 418/2004 before the Hon'ble High court of 

Madras does not takes away the jurisdiction of this court from entertaining the suit for declaration In view of the aforesaid discussion it is believed this court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 

>> 62 << OS 2007/2005

20..ISSUE NO.4:

In the result suit is decreed by declaring the documents 1) Deed of dissolution of partnership dated 14.11.1969 2) affidavit of Mahmood 

Ahmed dated 25.10.1985 3) affidavit of Mahmood Ahmed dated 27.12.1985. 4) agreement dated 21.10.1985 and 5) partnership deed 

dated 03.04.1992 are forged, fabricated null and void, un enforcible and 

not binding on the plaintiffs. Both the parties shall bare their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th DAY OF JUNE, 2016.

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: P.W. 1:Md. Yousufuddin Mansoor D.W.1: NONe

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1: C.C. of Dissolution of partnership deed dt.14.11.1969. Ex.A.2: C.C. of Affidavit of Late Mahmood. Ahmed dt.25.10.1985. Ex.A.3:C.C. of affidavit of Late Mahmood Ahmed dt. 27.12.1985. Ex.A.4 :C.C. of agreement dated 21.10.1985. Ex.A.5 : C.C. of partnership deed dated 03.04.1992. Ex.A.6 : C.C. of Reply dated 21.09.1997. Ex.A.7 : C.C. of complaint in CC No. 117/1998. Ex.A.8 : C.C. of Judgment in CC No. 246/2001 dt.13.10.2003. Ex.A.9 : C.C. of written Statement in OS.1025/1993 of D.1 Ex.A.10 : C.C. of Written statement of D.1 in OS.1025/93.

>> 63 << OS 2007/2005

Ex.A.11 : C.C. of Counter affidavit of R1 in IA.1023/93. Ex.A.12 : C.C. of Trade Mark certificate. Ex.A.13 : C.C. of Trade Mark certificate. Ex.A.14 : C.C. of certificate issues by Trade Mark registration along with annexure. Ex.A.15 : C.C. of certificate along with annexure. Ex.A.16 : C.C. of letter Complaint given by the plaintiff to the registration. Ex.A.17 : C.C. of the partition by the plaintiff before registration of Trade Mark dt. 21.05.2001. Ex.A.18 : C.C. of the petition filed by the plaintiff before the registration of Trade Mark. Ex.A.19 :C.C. of the Application filed by the plaintiff before the registration. Ex.A.20 : C.C. of order passed by IA.163/2003 in OS.88/2001 on the file of the XIV ACJ C.C.C. Hyd. Ex.A.21 :Certificate copy of the plaint in OS. 1025/1993 on the file in 

II ACJ.

Ex.A.22 : C.C. of Counter affidavit in R2 in IA.1023/1993 in OS. 1025/1983. Ex.A.23 : C.C. of plaint O.S. 418/2004 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Ex.A.24 : C.C. of partnership Certificate. Ex.A.25 : C.C. of plaint in OS.88/2001. Ex.A.26 : Served copy of Notice to produce of document dated 19.04.2001 in OS.88/2001. Ex.A.27 :C.C. of order in I.A. 1000/2001 in OS.88/2001. Ex.A.28 :C.C. of order passed in IA.1370/2002 In OS.88/01. Ex.A.29 : Letter issued by Govt. of A.P. registration and Stamps department Commissioner. Ex.A30 : Order in I.A.213/2002 in OS.88/2001 dated 03.04.2004. Ex.A.31 :Reminder dated 04.04.2005 to the Registrar of Trade Mark Mumbai. Ex.A.32 : Registered Postal receipt dated 04.04.2005. Ex.A.33 : Acknowledgment dated 12.04.2005. Ex.A.34 : C.C. of order dated 24.02.2006 in M.P. In ORANo.12 and 16 of 2004 in TM/CH. Ex.A.35 : Letter dated 28.06.2007. Ex.A.36 : Postal Cover. Ex.A.37 : Receipt dated 07.03.2005. Ex.A.38 :C.C. of I.a.361/1995 in OS.1025/1993. Ex.A.39 : Counter Affidavit of defendant No.3 Md. Zaheeruddin. Ex.A.40 :C.C. of partnership certificate dated 01.10.1999.

>> 64 << OS 2007/2005

Ex.A.41 :Original Cover In which Saleha Begum plaintiff herein receive the documents on 24.05.2004 from the Advocate of D1 to D4.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B.1 : Opened cover addressed to D1. Ex.B.2 to B4 : Covers addressed to D2 to D.4. 

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: 

CITY CIVIL COURT:HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 15 th DAY OF JUNE, 2016.

PRESENT: SMT.S.SWATHI REDDY,

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC XXI JUNIOR CIIVL JUDGE

OS No.7631 of 2007

Between:

1. B.Raja Vinay Chandra S/o Late B.Ramchandra Chary, aged 14 years.

2. Sri Vidya D/o. Late B.Ramchandra Chary, aged about 12 years

3. Anand Sai, S/o Late B.Ramchandra Chary,aged about: 11 years

4. B.Nagaraja Mani W/o. Late B. Ramachandra Chary, Age:42 years (All the minors represented by Natural Mother and Guardian B.Nagarajamani, W/o.Late B.Ramchandra Chary, aged about 40 years, and all residents of 1­1­213, Viveknagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad) 

..Plaintiffs

A N D

K.Jayashree, W/o. K.Subramanyam, aged about:52 years,R/o.1­8­526, Jatkar Bhavan, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad.

… Defendant

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Madhava Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri S.Balchand, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

>> 2 << OS 7631/2007

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by plaintiffs for Perpetual Injunction against the defendant, her family members, agents, servants, restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of all that room Nos.1,2 & 7 in premises No.1­1­213, consisting of 3 rooms with common passage marked in Green colour in the annexed plan, situated at Viveknagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, without following the due process of law and costs.

2..The averments of the plaint are that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are minors and are legal representatives of late B. Ramchandra Chary. The 

Grand mother of plaintiffs Smt. B.Saraswathi W/o.B.Dharmalinga Chary was the original owner of entire premises bearing No.1­1­213, 

Viveknagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, admeasuring 672 sq.yds. The 

Grand mother of the plaintiffs expired in the year 1983. During her life time Grand mother of the plaintiffs executed a registered will registered as document No.29/1981 dt.10.10.1981. The Certified copy of the will is filed. The grand mother of the plaintiffs bequeathed the residential portion admeasuring 300 sq.yds. to the father of the plaintiffs along with shop bearing Nos.1, 2 and shop No.9 & 11 bearings premises No.1­ 1­213, As per the registered Will the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of all that Residential portion bearing No.1­1­213 consisting of 3 rooms 

>> 3 << OS 7631/2007

bearing Nos.1, 2 & 7. The plaintiffs being the minors school going children are looked after by Natural guardian and mother 

Smt.B.Nagarajamani. It is contended that the defendant is the sister of late B.Ramchandra Chary, who was the father of the plaintiffs. The defendant and her family members have no right of any nature in the suit schedule property. The defendant with an intention to grab the property is attempting to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and their mother in respect of suit schedule property. On 15th and 16th May'2007 and on 20.11.07 the defendant and her family came to the plaintiffs and threatened with dire consequences to vacate the portion and the defendant is also claiming right in the suit schedule property even though the defendant has no right of any nature and further contended that in the event of defendant succeeds in her illegal attempts the plaintiffs being the minors the and the widow mother will be put to irreparable loss. The value of the suit schedule property was increased. The defendant is trying to grab the property to cause loss to the plaintiffs. There is a prima facie in favour of the plaintiffs and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant and her family members restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property. The defendant their family 

>> 4 << OS 7631/2007

members, agents servants, are liable to be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are also entitled for interim injunction restraining the defendant, her family members, agents, servants, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property. Hence the suit.

3..In contrary the written statement filed by the defendant that the plaintiffs have come to the court with unclean hands. On the ground of suppression of material facts the suit of plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that without impleading the family members of the defendant, plaintiffs want to seek relief against them from this 

Court under the guise of filing suit against this defendant. Defendant contended that such a course is not available to the plaintiffs and in reply to paragraph No.1 of the plaint the defendant denies that the age of the plaintiffs as shown in the cause title is correct. Plaintiffs represented by their natural guardian have not filed any record to show and establish the correct age of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are called upon to file the birth certificates and authenticated school records as per law of each of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 to prove their respective ages. The defendant contended that her age in the cause title of the plaint is incorrect. She contended that she is 55 years old and not 52 years as 

>> 5 << OS 7631/2007

shown by the plaintiffs in the cause title of the plaint. Plaintiffs are hereby called upon to make necessary amendment to the cause title. 

The defendant contended that plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are the only legal representatives of late B. Ramachandra Chary and stated that 

B.Ramachandra Chary died on 7.2.2006 and it is said that Late 

B.Ramachandra Chary through his first wife Smt.Jyothi had one daughter by name Dhatrishree and after the death of Smt. Jyothi, late 

B.Ramachandra Chary married B.Nagaraja Mani, plaintiff No.4 and through her plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 were born. Defendant contended that 

Dhatrishree being one of the legal heir of late B. Ramachandra Chary is proper party to the suit. For non­joinder of Dhatrishree the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Defendant further contended that 

B. Saraswathi was the absolute owner and possessor of property bearing 

Municipal No.1­1­213 measuring 672 sq.yards situated at Chikkadpally, 

Hyderabad. She is the eldest daughter of B.Dharmalinga Chary and Smt. 

B.Saraswathi and contended that B.Siddhartha and B.Chandra Sekhar are her natural brothers. Apart from B.Siddhartha and B.Chandra 

Sekhar the defendant had another brother by name B. Ramachandra 

Chary. Defendant contended that her mother during her life time has executed a registered will bearing document No.29/1981 registered in the office of the Sub­Registrar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad bequeathing her properties infavour of her husband by name Dharmalingachari and 

>> 6 << OS 7631/2007

her four children i.e., defendant herein, B.Siddhartha, B.Chandrasekhar and B.Ramachandra Chari. Along with the said registered will a sketch plan was also enclosed giving details of the bequest made therein. 

Defendant contended that in terms of the said will in property bearing 

Municipal No.1­1­213, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, her mother has bequeathed room No.1 measuring 10 x 12 feet in favour of Dharmalinga 

Chari and it was also stated in the will that after his demise the said room shall go to B.Ramachandra Chari. Likewise, room No.2 measuring 10 x 10 feet and room No.7 measuring 10x10.6 feet was given to 

B.Ramachandra Chari. Defendant contended that room No.3 measuring 10x12 feet and room No.8 measuring 12 x 16 feet was bequeathed to 

B.Chandrasekhar. Defendant contended that room No.4 measuring 10 x 14 feet and room No.5 measuring 10 x 10 feet and room No.6 measuring 10 x 8 feet was bequeathed to B.Siddhartha. Defendant submitted that there is a stair case by side of room No.7 and another stair case by the side of room Nos.1 and 2 and it is further submitted that her mother also bequeathed shop Nos.1 and 2 to late Ramachandra 

Chari, Shop Nos.3 and 4 to B.Chandrasekhar and shop Nos.5 and 6 to 

B.Siddhartha and shop No.7 to the defendant. Likewise, defendant's mother bequeathed three small shops bearing 8,9 & 10 and out house behind those shops along with open space in favour of defendants father B. Dharmalinga Chari. Subsequent to the execution of the will by 

>> 7 << OS 7631/2007

Smt.B.Saraswathi, she has executed registered gift deed bearing document No.550/1982, registered in Book No.1, Volume No.27 at pages 354 to 357, registered in the Office of the Sub­Registrar, 

Chikkadapally on 15.5.1982. The plaintiff stated that in the said gift deed B. Saraswathi has conveyed 'all that first floor (ground floor terrace) together with all rights, liberty, privileges, easements and appurtenances whatsoever to the said premises belonging or in anywhere appertaining or usually held or occupied therewith or reputed to belong or appurtenances thereto to the defendant. The gift deed made clear that defendant can exercise all the rights over the well situated in the premises by fixing electric pump to draw water to the premises that the defendant is likely to construct on the first floor and even on the overhead tank. The gift deed further made it clear that the defendant has every right and liberty to use the stair cases, which already exist to reach the first floor. The defendant had accepted the said gift. The defendant stated that in view of the transfer of right by registered gift deed subsequent to the will, plaintiffs, B. Siddhartha and 

B. Chandra Sekhar will not have any right, title or interest over the terrace portion as referred above. The defendant states to reach the stair case from the entrance of the house property, the way is from the open area in the common areas meant for usage by the defendant, plaintiffs, B. Sidharatha and B.Chandrasekhar. The said common area is 

>> 8 << OS 7631/2007

appurtenant to the property gifted to the defendant and defendant shall have equal right for its usage and also have undivided share in the land meant for common area. The usage of the said common area is an absolute necessity for enjoyment of this defendant's property. 

Defendant contended that Smt. B. Saraswathi mother of the defendant died on 15.2.1983 and on her death the bequest made by her in her registered will came in force subject to the gift deed. Defendant stated that B.Dharmalingachari, her father was enjoying the property bequeathed to him by his wife under the said registered will. The defendant stated that her father B. Dharmalingachari died on 25.10.1987. The defendant stated that her father was rightful owner for the usufruct/income from constructions on the said area during his life i.e., the three small shops bearing No.8, 9 and 10 and out­house behind those shops along with open space. Defendant stated that her mother B. 

Saraswathi in the registered will did not make any provision for the succession of the property which the father was enjoying. The defendant contended that in the absence of any provision and any further bequest or any further direction in the registered will, shop 

Nos.8, 9 and 10 and the outhouse behind the shops in property covered by Municipal No.1­1­213, situated at Chikkadapally, Hyderabad, devolved upon the defendant, B. Siddhartha, husband of plaintiff No.4 and B. Chandrasekhar equally i.e., each having 1/4th share. The 

>> 9 << OS 7631/2007

defendant stated that since B. Siddhartha and others have denied defendant's share in the above property, defendant was constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.1854/2007 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The defendant denies that grand mother of the plaintiffs bequeathed residential portion measuring 300 sq.yds. To the father of the plaintiffs. 

Infact B. Saraswati was not the grandmother of plaintiff No.4. 

Defendant contended that on plain reading of the will executed by B. 

Saraswati, it describes only allotment of rooms, shops and no where in the said will any allotment of land area to any beneficiary is stated or referred to. Defendant contended that plaintiffs are not the beneficiaries under the said will. Infact husband of plaintiff No.4 B. 

Ramchandrachary was one of the beneficiaries and after his death plaintiffs and Dhatrishree have succeeded to his property they being the 

first class heirs of B. Ramachandrachary, under Hindu Succession Act. 

Defendant denies that as per the will, plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the residential portion covered by municipal No.1­1­213 consisting of three rooms bearing numbers 1, 2 & 7. Defendant contended that plaintiff's Nos.1 to 3 are under care and custody of plaintiff No.4. 

Defendant denied that defendant and her family members have no right of any nature in the suit schedule property. Defendant contended that very vaguely plaintiffs have referred to family members of the defendant 

>> 10 << OS 7631/2007

without giving their particulars. Apart from that the family members of the defendant are not being made as party to the suit and without they being they made as party defendants, plaintiffs cannot seek relief against them. Defendant contended that malafide attitude of the plaintiffs is clearly reflecting from the pleadings in the suit. Infact suit schedule property consists of Room Nos.1, 2, 7 with common passage. 

The suit schedule of the property as referred in the plaint describes that a plan is annexed and the suit schedule property is shown in green colour. Defendant contended that she has not been served with any copy of plan as referred by the plaintiffs and defendant reserves her right to file additional written statement as and when the plaintiffs furnish true copy of the plan submitted by them before this Court along with the plaint. Defendant denied that she and her family members have no right of any nature in the suit schedule property. Infact defendant has every right in the common areas apart from easement rights. Defendant submitted that to reach the stair case from the entrance of the house property, the way is from the open area in the common areas meant for usage by the defendant, plaintiffs, 

B.Siddhartha and B. Chandrasekhar. The said common area is appurtenant to the property gifted to the defendant and defendant shall have equal right for its usage and also have undivided share in the land meant for common area. Defendant is one of the co­owner in the said 

>> 11 << OS 7631/2007

common passage area and as one of the owner she cannot be injucted by way of injunction by another owner. Defendant denies that she is interfering with possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property with an intention to grab the same. That all these allegations are made by the plaintiffs to gain sympathy from this Court. In fact plaintiff No.4 on 8.10.2008 taking advantage of defendant's absence from the premises bearing Municipal No.1­1­213, situated at 

Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, and to deprive the rights of the defendant in respect of the terrace portion has dumped bricks, sand, cement on the terrace portion with an intention to raise constructions. Defendant contended that keeping in view the holidays for Dasshera, plaintiff No.4 malafidely and illegally have engaged mason and other labours and have started raising construction on the terrace premises bearing 

Municipal No.1­1­213, situated at Chikkadpally hastily. Defendant contended that on 9.10.08 when she asked plaintiff No.4 and another to stop construction work plaintiff No.4 has openly said that it is open to the defendant to take whatever action she likes in her discretion and threatened defendant not to interfere. Defendant stated that on 9.10.2008 being Dasshera, Municipal corporation office was closed. 

Defendant said that on 10.10.2008 she lodged a complaint with the 

Municipal authorities but the officials of the corporation who are under influence of plaintiffs have not taken any action against the illegal 

>> 12 << OS 7631/2007

construction work. Defendant stated that to protect her rights and interest in the property, she was constrained to file O.S.No.3538/2008 on the file of Tenth Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the plaintiff No.4 and another and the said suit is pending for adjudication. Defendant submitted that plaintiff No.4 has made a false statement before the Hon'ble Court in I.A.No.384/2008 in the said suit that there was no construction activity as on the date of filing of suit and subsequently but continued with the said construction. Plaintiff delayed the proceedings of IA.No.384/08 and submitted a photo of the brick structure but before any plastering and flooring was done. The recent photos exemplify the deceptive practices of the plaintiffs to alienate rights of the defendant. The plaintiff No.4 also claimed that the brick structure was recent in IA.No.383/2008 but subsequently claimed that structure was existing long back with an intent to grab the property. Defendants contended that the plaintiffs are seeking injunction on the common areas which is required to access the terrace portion with an intention to dispossess this defendant. Defendant stated that malafidely plaintiff No.4 in collusion with MCH has filed suit against the M.C.H. in O.S.No.3690/2008 on the file of VI Junior Civil 

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the said suit defendant has filed 

impleading petition to implead her in the said suit as her rights are being affected and the said I.A is pending adjudication. Defendant 

>> 13 << OS 7631/2007

denied that defendant and her family members came to the plaintiffs on 15.5.2006 corrected to 15.5.2007 and 16.5.2006 corrected to 15.5.2007 and 20.11.2007 and threatened with dire consequences to vacate the portion. Infact defendant never came to the suit property on the said dates. It appears that plaintiff No.4 with an malafide intention to file suit against the defendant got prepared the plaint in June, 2006 but has not filed the same in 2006 instead after making necessary handwritten corrections have added fresh date of 20.11.2007 and has filed suit. 

Defendant contended that if really there was any interference, plaintiffs would not kept quite in year 2006 and would not filed suit in year 2007. 

All allegations made in paragraphs under reply are baseless and at the cost of repetition defendant contended that she has every right in the common area and a co­owner cannot injuct other co­owner by filing suit for injunction. The plaintiffs have prima­facie case and balance of convenience is in their favour. Defendant contended that plaintiffs have not spelt of irreparable loss being caused to them as plaintiffs are aware that they will not suffer any loss. On the other hand defendant will be put to irreparable loss as her valuable rights in the property will be taken away if any orders of injunction are passed by this Court. Defendant denied that plaintiffs are entitled for relief of perpetual injunction and temporary injunction against the defendant. 

Defendant is advised to submit that one co­owner is not entitled to seek 

>> 14 << OS 7631/2007

injunction against another co­owner. At the cost of repetition defendant contended that she has every right in the common areas. Defendant contended that no suit is pending between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of the alleged cause of action as referred in the suit and submitted that plaintiffs have no cause to file the suit against the defendant on the dates as mentioned therein. Infact defendant and her family members did not go to the suit property on the said dates and have never threatened the plaintiffs and defendant contended that plaintiffs have come to this Court with unclean hands and are seeking reliefs to which they are not entitled to. Defendant said that the plaint copy served upon her contains blanks with regard to valuation of the suit. Defendant reserves her right to file additional written statement as and when plaintiffs serve upon her true copy of the plaint. In reply to prayer portion of the plaint defendant contended that plaintiffs are not entitled to seek any relief as sought by them and the suit is liable to be dismissed. Defendant denied all other adverse allegations made in the plaint which are neither specifically admitted nor denied and the plaintiffs are put to strict proof thereof. Therefore she prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.. After filing of the written statement the defendant filed additional written statement along with counter claim and conntended that apart from the terrace area in House No.1­1­213, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, 

>> 15 << OS 7631/2007

she has every right in the common areas apart from the easement rights. 

And that her mother B.Saraswathi has executed a registered Gift deed bearing document No.550 of 1982 registered in the office of the Sub­

Registrar, Chikkadpally, on 15.5.1982 conveying all that First Floor (Ground Floor terrace) together with all rights, liberty, privileges, easements and appurtenances whatsoever to the said premises belonging or in any where appertaining are usually held or occupied there with or reputed to belong or appurtenances whatsoever to the said premises belonging or in any where appertaining are usually held or occupied there with or reputed to belong or appurtenances thereto to the defendant. The said gift deed made clear that the defendant has every right and liberty to use the staircase which already exists to reach the first floor. Defendant contended that in view of transfer of right by her mother in her favour as referred above subsequent to the execution of the WILL, plaintiffs and other legal heirs of B. Ramachandrachari, 

B.Siddhartha and B.Chandrasekhar cannot restrain her from using the staircases to reach the property given to her in the gift and also the common areas. She contended that to reach the staircase from the entrance of the house property, the way is from the open area on the south­western side meant for usage by her, legal heirs of 

B.Ramachandrachari, B.Siddhartha and B.Chandrasekhar . The said common areas is appurtenant to the property gifted to the defendant 

>> 16 << OS 7631/2007

and she has equal rights for its usage and also has undivided share in the land meant for common area. Defendant contended that the common area is more fully delineated in red colour in the plan. 

Defendant contended that subsequent to filing of the suit, the plaintiffs are systematically grabbing property belonging to other co­owners and another legal heir of B.Ramachandrachari. She stated that subsequent to filing of this suit, the plaintiffs, particularly plaintiff No.4 has forcefully occupied and raised two rooms on the ground floor terrace belonging to this defendant in October, 2008 and she submitted that plaintiffs are continuously encroaching on common passages belonging to all co­owners by raising illegal structures adjacent to portion inherited by B.Ramachandrachari who is husband of plaintiff No.4. 

Defendant submitted that plaintiffs raised the illegal constructions such as doors, grill gates and walls in the common passages with malafied intention to block this defendant from accessing the terrace and that encroachment by the plaintiffs in the common areas has led co­owners to file complaints with GHMC and has resulted in institution of suits against the plaintiffs. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs are also denying the share in property to Dhatrisri who is daughter of 

B.Ramachandrachari through this first wife B.Jyothi causing her to file a partition suit O.S.No.1977/2008 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, 

City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Defendant further submitted that the 

>> 17 << OS 7631/2007

encroachment actions of the plaintiffs along with other acts such as denial of share to Dhatrisri, daughter of B. Ramachandrachari, clearly shows the malafied intentions of the plaintiffs to grab the property. 

Defendant contended that plaintiffs are not only grabbing others property but are causing harassment by falsely accusing others of grabbing the property. Defendant contended that plaintiffs filed this suit on a fabricated cause of action to prevent this defendant from entering the property with the malafied intention to raise illegal construction on the terrace belonging to this defendant and plaintiffs back in 2007 itself, hoed to get ad­interim injunction against this defendant restraining her from accessing the terrace, thereby allowing them to uninterruptedly proceed with their illegal construction. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs having knowledge of the gift deed at the time of filing of the suit have suppressed this material fact and sought injunction on common passages required to access the terrace. She further contended that the plaintiff No.4 filed objection with GHMC asking them not to grant permission to this defendant for construction or any modifications in the property covered by municipal No.1­1­213 on 22­11­2007. 

Defendant contended that the plaintiffs on a concocted cause of action, filed this suit on 22.11.2007 seeking injunction against this defendant by including the common passages to prevent this defendant from accessing the terrace. Defendant contended that the objection letter to 

>> 18 << OS 7631/2007

GHMC and this suit were filed on the same date of 22.11.2007. 

Defendant contended that plaintiffs, having knowledge of the terrace gift deed have trespassed and forcefully occupied a portion of the ground floor terrace by raising an illegal construction. Defendant contended B.Ramachandrachari and plaintiff No.4 have acknowledged the terrace gift deed way back in 1997 and also by means of several letters and have suppressed this information before this Court and she was forced to file O.S.No.3538/2008 which has been renumbered as 

O.S.No.2111/2012 on file of the Hon'ble Vth Senior Civil Judge, City 

Civil Court, for recovery and perpetual injunction against the plaintiff 

No.4 for the illegal terrace construction. Defendant further contended that the plaintiffs are litigants who file false, frivolous and vexatious suits employing various type of fraudulent tactics such as, fabricating cause of action, filing false affidavits to mislead the Courts, and contended that after filing a complaint with GHMC and continuous follow up, that GHMC issue notice under HMC 452 for illegal construction of two AC sheet rooms on first floor to plaintiff No.4 on 15.10.2008. Defendant contended that plaintiff No.4 filed counters in 

I.A. In O.S.No.3538/2008 on 14.8.2008 referencing contents of the gift deed. Subsequently six days later, plaintiff No.4 filed suit 

O.S.No.3690/2008 against GHMC seeking injunction against demolition 

of the illegal structures. Defendant contended that plaintiff No.4, 

>> 19 << OS 7631/2007

having knowledge of terrace gift deed suppressed information about the same and falsely filed suit O.S.3690/2008 on the file of VI Junior Civil 

Court. In fact plaintiffs falsely claimed they are the owners of the terrace to mislead the Hon'ble VI Junior Civil Judge. Defendant contended that O.S.No.3690/2008 was filed only 5 days after receiving notice under HMC 452 or 6 days after filing counters in O.S.3538/2008 on the exact same suit property. In fact, in the suit O.S.3690/2008, plaintiff No.4 successfully obtained interim injunction against GHMC preventing them from demolishing the illegal structures by filing false affidavit and defendant contended that the plaintiff No.4 suppressed information about terrace gift deed and also suppressed information about suit O.S.No.3538/2008 on exact same property in 

O.S.No.3690/2008 and she got impleaded in the suit and the Hon'ble VI 

Junior Civil Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit O.S.No.3690/2008 on 12.3.2013. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs have wrongfully occupied 324 sq.ft. of the terrace and have been successful till date in holding on to the illegal gains since October, 2008 by abusing the process of the courts causing irreparable injury to this defendant. 

Defendant contended that the plaintiffs having knowledge of the terrace gift deed have suppressed information about terrace gift deed before this Court. In fact plaintiffs deposed on 7.7.09 before this Court that she is unaware of the terrace gift deed. In fact plaintiffs more particularly 

>> 20 << OS 7631/2007

plaintiff No.4 has knowledge of execution and registration of gift deed by B.Saraswathi in favour of the defendant way back on 15.2.1997 when plaintiff No.4 has counter signed the affidavit signed by her late husband. On 14.10.2008, plaintiff No.1 filed counters in I.A.383/2008 in O.S.No.3538/2008 challenging the contents of the gift deed. 

Subsequently a year later, on 7.7.09 plaintiff No.4 falsely deposed 

before this Court that she did not know if Smt.Saraswathi executed a 

gift deed in favour of defendant conveying rights on the terrace and ground floor and that she has not seen the gift deed so far. After being reminded of her counters filed in I.A.383/2008 showing her knowledge of the gift deed, she changed her stance, and on 15.6.2010 she deposed in O.S.3690/08 that she came to know about the gift settlement deed only in the month of October, 2008 after the defendant herein made complaint to Municipal Corporation. Defendant stated that plaintiff 

No.4 filed a false affidavit in O.S.No.1353/2010 that she knew about the gift deed in October, 2007 after the suit O.S.No.1854/2007 was filed, which is clearly inconsistent and contradictory to several of her previous statements given under oath,. Defendant contended that plaintiffs admittedly having knowledge of the gift deed at the time of filing of this suit have intentionally suppressed this material facts before this Court and have sought injunction against this defendant on the common passages which is required to access the terrace to make 

>> 21 << OS 7631/2007

unlawful gains and deliberately cause irreparable loss and injury to this defendant. This defendant contended that plaintiffs have committed fraud before this Court with respect to knowledge of the gift deed by suppressing true and material facts about the same and prayed that this 

Court framed an issue of whether plaintiffs have committed fraud and perjury on the knowledge of terrace gift deed. In suit O.S.7631/2007 was prepared in 2006 and filed in 2007 with malafied intention of the plaintiffs to restrain this defendant from entering the property. 

Defendant contended that the malafied intentions are becoming apparent based on subsequent actions taken by the plaintiffs after filing this suit. This defendant said that Plaintiff No.4 has written a letter to this defendant on 15.8.1998. In this letter, the plaintiff describes a malafied plan concocted by Smt. Nagamani who is another co­owner, to seek false injunction against this defendant restraining her from entering the property. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs are using a similar approach in this suit O.S.7631/2007. This defendant contended that the suit OS.7631/2007 was filed on a false cause of action concocted for the purpose of filing the suit to prevent his defendant from entering the property. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs have deceitfully sought injunction on Rooms 1, 2 & 7 along with common passages which are required to access the terrace while suppressing information about the terrace gift deed thereby committing 

>> 22 << OS 7631/2007

fraud on this Court. Defendant contended that plaintiff have all the time harboured ill intentions to grab the property by forceful occupation and encroachment of common areas. Defendant contended that the malafied intentions of filing this suit are becoming more apparent based on subsequent and continuing actions being taken by the plaintiffs. 

Defendant submitted that the plaintiffs hoped to obtain interim injunction in this suit against this defendant on a concocted cause of action while seeking relief on common passages to allow plaintiffs to carry on with their illegal activities under the guise of an injunction. 

Defendant contended that the illegal activities being carried out the plaintiffs subsequent to filing of this suit itself evidences the malafied intentions of the plaintiffs in filing this suit. Defendant contended that recently, the plaintiffs in order to obstruct her to reach her property, have created obstructions by fixing doors and iron grill gates in the common areas leading towards the staircase. Defendant further submitted that plaintiffs are further blocking the common passages with personal items. Defendant submitted that the plaintiffs are not allowing defendant to use the staircase to reach her property by closing the door and grill gates and locking the same. Defendant contended that inspite of her repeated requests to the plaintiffs to remove the doors and grill gates, and personal items from the common areas, the plaintiffs have not acceded to the defendant's request and are restraining the 

>> 23 << OS 7631/2007

defendant from using the common passage leading to the staircase. 

Defendant further contended that the plaintiffs have made illegal constructions in the common areas. Apart from the illegal constructions in the common area, out of two staircases to reach the first floor, the staircase on entering of the house property adjacent to room Nos.1 and 2 were partially demolished by the plaintiffs. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs have illegally constructed a bathroom on the ground floor in the space obtained by the partial demolition of the staircase. 

Defendant contented that the construction of the bathroom is illegal and should be demolished at the plaintiffs cost. Defendant contended that the demolition of the staircase adjacent to room Nos. 1 and 2 is unauthorized and should be restored at the plaintiffs cost. 

Defendant contended that plaintiffs have attempted to raise an illegal construction in the open space at the entrance to the house property covered by Municipal No.1­1­213 at south­west corner. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs are illegally using the common areas for personal and business use in spite of objections from all co­owners. 

Defendant contended that she filed a complaint to GHMC on 4.6.2010 objecting to illegal construction by plaintiffs. Defendant contended that on 4.6.2010 another co­owner, Nagamani submitted a complaint to 

GHMC objecting to illegal construction being raised by plaintiffs in the common areas. Defendant submitted that the officials of GHMC in 

>> 24 << OS 7631/2007

collusion with plaintiffs have not taken any action. Defendant submitted another co­owner was forced to institute a suit against the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from raising illegal constructions in the common areas. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs continue to encroach on common areas causing loss and injury to all co­owners. 

Defendant contended that the plaintiffs must be restrained from changing the nature of common areas as detailed in the schedule of the property and misusing the same for their personal or business use. The plaintiffs have illegally constructed a wall in the common passage adjacent to Room Nos.2 and 3 thereby creating obstruction to the defendant to use the common areas and reach the outhouse portion in the property. Defendant submitted that the construction of the wall is illegal and should be demolished. Illegal constructions of the bathroom, wall and also the doors and iron grill gates are to be removed and demolished. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs cannot restrain the defendant from enjoying the common areas conferred upon her by her mother in the gift deed executed in her favour. Defendant contended that in view of the subsequent developments, and the illegal activity done by the plaintiffs, a need has arisen for the defendant to seek relief of perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs from interfering with the defendant's rights in common areas against the plaintiffs. Apart from that in view of the malafide intention and conduct of the plaintiffs, they 

>> 25 << OS 7631/2007

are to be restrained by way of perpetual injunction from changing the nature of the common areas and misusing the common areas. 

Defendant contended that in view of the illegal construction made by the plaintiffs in the common area, defendant is entitled to seek relief of mandatory injunction against the plaintiffs directing them to remove the doors, iron grill gates, bathroom, wall and other constructions done in the common areas. Apart from that a direction is also to be given by way of mandatory injunction to the plaintiffs to restore the staircase adjacent to room Nos.1 and 2 to its original position. The cause of action for the plaintiffs claim and the defendant's claim are different and arising at different times, they can be tried together as they involve common questions of law and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 

Defendant submitted that cause of action is continuing and defendant submitted that if the subsequent events that are taken place in the property are not brought to the notice of this Court, it would be improper on the part of the parties and the parties shall fail to render assistance to the Court for disposing of the matter. Defendant prayed to allow the counter claim as hereunder (a) To pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs including their legal representatives, their employees, henchmen, agents, friends, servants or anyone claiming rights through the plaintiffs, etc., from changing the nature of the common areas as detailed in the schedule of the property and 

>> 26 << OS 7631/2007

misusing the same for their personal or business purpose. (b) To pass order of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs including their legal representatives, their employees, henchmen, agents, friends, servants or anyone claiming rights through the plaintiffs, etc., from obstructing, interfering with the possession of the defendant in the common areas as detailed in the schedule of the property (c ) To pass 

Mandatory injunction by directing the plaintiffs to remove the doors, iron grill gates, walls, rooms from the common area and restore the staircase to its original position as detailed in the schedule of the property (d) Direct the plaintiffs to pay cost of the counter claim. 

5..The rejoinder filed by the plaintiffs is that the defendant has no right in the terrace of the house No.1­1­213, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. 

The defendant was never in possession of the terrace and common area from the date of her marriage. The plaintiff had no knowledge about the alleged gift deed. The defendant also did not disclose the execution of the gift deed to any one. The alleged gift deed was not acted upon till today. The plaintiff came to know about the gift deed, when the defendant filed O.S.No.1854/2007 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, 

Hyderabad only after receiving the plaint copy in October, 2007. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.1353/2010 for cancellation of the gift deed on the file of X Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and the same is pending. The 

>> 27 << OS 7631/2007

defendant has no right in the terrace nor in common area. The defendant filed O.S.2111/12 (O.S.3538/08 old) on the file of the V 

Senior Civil Judge for recovery of possession of the terrace against this 

plaintiff and the same is pending. It goes to show that the defendant is not in possession of the terrace. Without possession she is not entitled for any relief. The alleged gift is not valid and not acted upon and liable to be cancelled. When the defendant is not in possession of the terrace. 

The question of rights in common area does not arise. The plaintiffs are systematically grabbing property to the co­owners is absolutely false. 

The plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of late B.Ramachandrachary. The allegations that after filing the suit the plaintiff No.4 has forcefully occupied and raised two rooms on the terrace is absolutely false. The plaintiffs are in possession of the terrace from the beginning. The plaintiffs raised a temporary Tin shed on the Terrace long back but not in October, 2008. The allegation that the plaintiffs are encroaching on the common passage belonging to other co­owners by raising illegal structures is absolutely false. The defendant is not a co­owner and other brothers have not made any complaints. The allegation that the plaintiffs raised illegal constructions such as doors grills gates and walls in common passage is absolutely false and baseless. The defendant is not in possession of the terrace. The right in common passage does not exists. The plaintiffs do not know who is Dhatrisri and she is not the 

>> 28 << OS 7631/2007

daughter of B.Ramachandrachary. There was no first wife to 

B.Ramachandrachary. The defendant to grab the property of the plaintiffs got filed O.S.No.1977/2008 for partition by one Dhatrisri making false claims. The allegation that this plaintiffs are threatening the defendant is absolutely false. The other adverse allegations are categorically denied and false. 

It is further stated that the plaintiffs filed this suit on a fabricated cause of action to prevent the defendant from entering into the property is false. The defendant has not right in the property. The Tin shed on the terrace was constructed long back. The plaintiffs have no knowledge about the alleged gift deed. The allegation that the plaintiffs forcibly occupied the terrace by raising illegal structures is absolutely false. The allegation that Sri B.Ramchandrachary and plaintiff No.4 have acknowledge the terrace gift deed way back in 1997 and in several letters is absolutely false. The plaintiff No.4 and her husband have not signed any letter and affidavit. The defendant to grab the property might have forged the signature and fabricated the document for the purpose of this case. The plaintiff No.4 reserved her rights to file criminal case against the defendant for forgery. The defendant filed 

O.S.3538/2008 on the file of XXI Junior Court for injunction and 

I.A.No.353/2008 for interim injunction. The said I.A. Was dismissed on 

>> 29 << OS 7631/2007

merits on the ground that the defendant is not in possession of the terrace. The defendant subsequently amended the plaint in 

O.S.3538/2008 for recovery of possession and the case was re­

numbered as O.S.No.2111/2012 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge and the same is pending. The plaintiff No.4 is the mother of the plaintiff 1 to 3 who are the minors and school going children and are not litigants. 

The defendant who is the sister of the Husband of the plaintiff No.4 with an intention to grab the property making false claims. The plaintiff 

No.4 is a widow along with three children without support of any male member. The defendant taking advantage of the situation is harassing the plaintiffs to grab the property. The defendant made complaints to 

GHMC against the plaintiffs only to harass. The plaintiff has filed 

OS.3690/08 for injunction against GHMC. The plaintiffs are the 

absolute owners and possessors of ground and first floor of the suit premises. The plaintiffs are abusing processes of law is false. The plaintiffs are in possession of the entire terrace but not only 324 sq.ft. 

The other adverse allegations are categorically denied. That the plaintiffs have committed fraud on this Court by suppressing true facts if false. These plaintiffs have no knowledge about the execution of the Gift 

Deed till the defendant filed OS.1864/07 for partition. The plaintiff 

No.4 did not sign any affidavit along with her husband on 15.2.1997. 

The defendant might have forged the signature of the plaintiff and her 

>> 30 << OS 7631/2007

husband. The plaintiff No.4 deposed falsely is denied. The allegation that the plaintiffs have knowledge about the gift deed at the time of filing this suit is absolutely false. The allegation that the plaintiffs have committed fraud on this Court by suppressing true facts if false. These plaintiffs have no knowledge about the execution of the Gift Deed till the defendant filed OS.1864/07 for partition. The plaintiff No.4 did not sign any affidavit along with her husband on 15.2.1997. The defendant might have forged the signature of the plaintiff and her husband. The plaintiff No.4 deposed falsely is denied. The allegation that the plaintiffs have knowledge about the gift deed at the time of filing this suit is absolutely false. The plaintiffs are poor having no proper income for the expenditure for filing case to be accumulate hence the suit was prepared in 2006 and filed in 2007. The defendant with an intention to grab the property of the plaintiff started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and hence the present suit was filed. The plaintiff No.4 has not written any letter dated:15.8.98. The defendant was never in possession of the terrace so the question of using common passage does not arise. There are not illegal activities carried by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have created obstructions by fixing doors and grills in the common area is absolutely false and denied. The defendant filed suit for recovery of possession of the terrace and the same is pending. When the defendant is not in possession the question of common passage does 

>> 31 << OS 7631/2007

not arise. The defendant has no right of any nature in the suit property. 

The allegation that the plaintiffs have made illegal constructions in the common area is false and denied. The allegation that the house property adjacent to Room Nos. and 2 was partially demolished by the plaintiff is false and denied. There is no construction of bath room in the ground floor. The allegation that the plaintiffs have attempted to raise illegal structure in open space at the entrance is absolutely false. On the south west corner there was shop No.11 which was allotted to husband of the plaintiff No.4. The shop No.11 was occupied by Dhobi and he was evicted and the shop was demolished. That open space exclusively belongs to plaintiffs. That open space of shop No.11 area is not a common area and it is exclusive owned by the plaintiffs who are in absolute possession. There is no encroachment in the common area by the plaintiffs. The defendant is not entitled for any relief against the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the Hon'ble XXI Junior Civil Judge in 

IA.353/08 in OS.3538/08 has dismissed because the defendant was not 

in possession of the terrace. As long as the suit for recovery of possession filed by the defendant is pending the defendant is not entitled for any relief against the plaintiffs. The defendant has to file a separate suit seeking different relief's but not in the present suit which was filed in 2007. No cause of action arose against the plaintiffs at any point of time. That without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiffs they 

>> 32 << OS 7631/2007

submitted that the relief claimed by the defendant is not properly valued . Hence prayed to decree the suit filed by the plaintiffs and dismiss the counter claim filed by the defendant with exemplary costs.

6..Heard.

7..With the above rival pleading of both the parties the following issues are framed:

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

2. Whether the defendant is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of perpetual injunction ?

4. To what relief ?

8.On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and got marked the documents Exs.A1 & Ex.A2 and Ex.B13 to B32.

9..On behalf of defendants DW1 & DW2 are examined and got marked the documents Exs.B1 to B12 & Ex.B33 to B40.

10.. ISSUE Nos.1

The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff 1 to 4 are the only legal heirs of late B Ramachandra Chary, the mother of late B 

Ramachandra Chary late B Saraswati was the owner of entire premises 

>> 33 << OS 7631/2007

bearing No. 1­1­213, admeasuring 672 Sq yards, the grandmother of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 expired in the year 1983, during her life time she executed a Regd. Will doc No.29/1981, dt.10.10.1981 and she bequeathed the residential portion admeasuring 300 Sq yards to his son i.e. father of the plaintiff No 1 to 3 and also bequeathed shop Nos1,2 and Shop 9 and 11 in the premises No 1­1­213, as per the Regd Will the plaintiffs are absolute owners after the death of late B Ramachandra 

Chary as his legal heirs. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant is the sister of late B Ramachandra 

Chary, the defendant and her family members have no right of any nature in the suit property. The defendant with an intention to grab the property was attempting to interfere with peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the suit premises. On 15th & 16th May, 2007 and 20.11.2007 the defendant and her family members came to plaintiffs and threatened with dire consequences to vacate the house. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of terrace of he house since morethan 20 years. In the event of defendant succeeds in her illegal attempts the plaintiffs being minors and the plaintiff No 4 being widow. 

If the defendant succeed her illegal acts the plaintiff put to irreparable loss and sufferance. The defendant filed a false suit in OS 

No.3538/2008 on the file of this court for injunction against the plaintiffs and attempted to misguide the Court for interim injunction. 

>> 34 << OS 7631/2007

The Hon'ble court was pleased to dismiss the injunction petition observing that the defendant is not in possession of the property.

The plaintiff constructed a tin shed in the terrace for better accommodation for the children. The plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant and her family members, agents, servants, relatives restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs suit schedule property.

In order to substantiate her version she examined herself as PW1 and reiterated the facts of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 & A2. Ex.A1 is certified copy of WILL dt.10.10.1981, Ex.A2 is letter to MCH dt.22.11.2007.

In contrary the counsel for the defendant submitted that She is the eldest daughter of B.Dharmalinga Chary and Smt. B.Saraswathi,her mother during her life time has executed a registered will bearing document No.29/1981 registered in the office of the Sub­Registrar, 

Chikkadpally, Hyderabad bequeathing her properties infavour of her husband by name Dharmalingachari and her four children i.e., defendant herein, B.Siddhartha, B.Chandrasekhar and B.Ramachandra 

Chari. Along with the said registered will a sketch plan was also enclosed giving details of the bequest made therein. Defendant contended that in terms of the said will in property bearing Municipal 

No.1­1­213, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, her mother has bequeathed 

>> 35 << OS 7631/2007

room No.1 measuring 10 x 12 feet in favour of Dharmalinga Chari and it was also stated in the will that after his demise the said room shall go to B.Ramachandra Chari. Likewise, room No.2 measuring 10 x 10 feet and room No.7 measuring 10x10.6 feet was given to B.Ramachandra 

Chari. Defendant contended that room No.3 measuring 10x12 feet and room No.8 measuring 12 x 16 feet was bequeathed to B.Chandrasekhar. 

Defendant contended that room No.4 measuring 10 x 14 feet and room 

No.5 measuring 10 x 10 feet and room No.6 measuring 10 x 8 feet was bequeathed to B.Siddhartha. Defendant submitted that there is a stair case by side of room No.7 and another stair case by the side of room 

Nos.1 and 2 and it is further submitted that her mother also bequeathed shop Nos.1 and 2 to late Ramachandra Chari, Shop Nos.3 and 4 to 

B.Chandrasekhar and shop Nos.5 and 6 to B.Siddhartha and shop No.7 to the defendant. Likewise, defendant's mother bequeathed three small shops bearing 8,9 & 10 and out house behind those shops along with open space in favour of defendants father B. Dharmalinga Chari. 

Subsequent to the execution of the will by Smt.B.Saraswathi, she has executed registered gift deed bearing document No.550/1982, registered in Book No.1, Volume No.27 at pages 354 to 357, registered in the Office of the Sub­Registrar, Chikkadapally on 15.5.1982. The plaintiff stated that in the said gift deed B. Saraswathi has conveyed 'all that first floor (ground floor terrace) together with all rights, liberty, 

>> 36 << OS 7631/2007

privileges, easements and appurtenances whatsoever to the said premises belonging or in anywhere appertaining or usually held or occupied therewith or reputed to belong or appurtenances thereto to the defendant. The gift deed made clear that defendant can exercise all the rights over the well situated in the premises by fixing electric pump to draw water to the premises that the defendant is likely to construct on the first floor and even on the overhead tank. The gift deed further made it clear that the defendant has every right and liberty to use the stair cases, which already exist to reach the first floor. The defendant had accepted the said gift. The defendant stated that in view of the transfer of right by registered gift deed subsequent to the will, plaintiffs, B. Siddhartha and B. Chandra Sekhar will not have any right, title or interest over the terrace portion as referred above. The defendant states to reach the stair case from the entrance of the house property, the way is from the open area in the common areas meant for usage by the defendant, plaintiffs, B. Sidharatha and B.Chandrasekhar. 

The said common area is appurtenant to the property gifted to the defendant and defendant shall have equal right for its usage and also have undivided share in the land meant for common area. The usage of the said common area is an absolute necessity for enjoyment of this defendant's property. Defendant contended that Smt. B. Saraswathi mother of the defendant died on 15.2.1983 and on her death the 

>> 37 << OS 7631/2007

bequest made by her in her registered will came in force subject to the gift deed. Defendant stated that B.Dharmalingachari, her father was enjoying the property bequeathed to him by his wife under the said registered will. The defendant stated that her father B. 

Dharmalingachari died on 25.10.1987. The defendant stated that her father was rightful owner for the usufruct/income from constructions on the said area during his life i.e., the three small shops bearing No.8, 9 and 10 and out­house behind those shops along with open space. 

Defendant stated that her mother B. Saraswathi in the registered will did not make any provision for the succession of the property which the father was enjoying. The defendant contended that in the absence of any provision and any further bequest or any further direction in the registered will, shop Nos.8, 9 and 10 and the outhouse behind the shops in property covered by Municipal No.1­1­213, situated at Chikkadapally, 

Hyderabad, devolved upon the defendant, B. Siddhartha, husband of plaintiff No.4 and B. Chandrasekhar equally i.e., each having 1/4th share. The defendant stated that since B. Siddhartha and others have denied defendant's share in the above property, defendant was constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession in 

O.S.No.1854/2007 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil 

Court, Hyderabad. Infact suit schedule property consists of Room 

Nos.1, 2, 7 with common passage. The suit schedule of the property as 

>> 38 << OS 7631/2007

referred in the plaint describes that a plan is annexed and the suit schedule property is shown in green colour. Defendant contended that she has not been served with any copy of plan as referred by the plaintiffs and defendant reserves her right to file additional written statement as and when the plaintiffs furnish true copy of the plan submitted by them before this Court along with the plaint. Defendant denied that she and her family members have no right of any nature in the suit schedule property. Infact defendant has every right in the common areas apart from easement rights. Defendant submitted that to reach the stair case from the entrance of the house property, the way is from the open area in the common areas meant for usage by the defendant, plaintiffs, B.Siddhartha and B. Chandrasekhar. The said common area is appurtenant to the property gifted to the defendant and defendant shall have equal right for its usage and also have undivided share in the land meant for common area. Defendant is one of the co­ owner in the said common passage area and as one of the owner she cannot be injucted by way of injunction by another owner. Defendant denies that she is interfering with possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property with an intention to grab the same. That all these allegations are made by the plaintiffs to gain sympathy from this Court.

 Defendant denied that defendant and her family members came to the plaintiffs on 15.5.2006 corrected to 15.5.2007 and 16.5.2006 

>> 39 << OS 7631/2007

corrected to 15.5.2007 and 20.11.2007 and threatened with dire consequences to vacate the portion. Infact defendant never came to the suit property on the said dates. It appears that plaintiff No.4 with an malafide intention to file suit against the defendant got prepared the plaint in June, 2006 but has not filed the same in 2006 instead after making necessary handwritten corrections have added fresh date of 20.11.2007 and has filed suit. Defendant contended that if really there was any interference, plaintiffs would not kept quite in year 2006 and would not filed suit in year 2007. 

In support of her contention she examined herself as DW1 and reiterated the facts of the written statement and got marked Ex.B1 to 

B40 and DW2 was also examined on her behalf who stated that the defendant contended that apart from the terrace area in House No.1­1­ 213, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, she has every right in the common areas apart from the easement rights. And that her mother B.Saraswathi has executed a registered Gift deed bearing document No.550 of 1982 registered in the office of the Sub­Registrar, Chikkadpally, on 15.5.1982 conveying all that First Floor (Ground Floor terrace) together with all rights, liberty, privileges, easements and appurtenances whatsoever to the said premises belonging or in any where appertaining are usually held or occupied there with or reputed to belong or appurtenances whatsoever to the said premises belonging or in any where appertaining 

>> 40 << OS 7631/2007

are usually held or occupied there with or reputed to belong or appurtenances thereto to the defendant. The said gift deed made clear that the defendant has every right and liberty to use the staircase which already exists to reach the first floor. Defendant contended that in view of transfer of right by her mother in her favour as referred above subsequent to the execution of the WILL, plaintiffs and other legal heirs of B. Ramachandrachari, B.Siddhartha and B.Chandrasekhar cannot restrain her from using the staircases to reach the property given to her in the gift and also the common areas. She contended that to reach the staircase from the entrance of the house property, the way is from the open area on the south­western side meant for usage by her, legal heirs of B.Ramachandrachari, B.Siddhartha and B.Chandrasekhar . The said common areas is appurtenant to the property gifted to the defendant and she has equal rights for its usage and also has undivided share in the land meant for common area. Defendant contended that the common area is more fully delineated in red colour in the plan. 

Defendant contended that subsequent to filing of the suit, the plaintiffs are systematically grabbing property belonging to other co­owners and another legal heir of B.Ramachandrachari. She stated that subsequent to filing of this suit, the plaintiffs, particularly plaintiff No.4 has forcefully occupied and raised two rooms on the ground floor terrace belonging to this defendant in October, 2008 and she submitted that 

>> 41 << OS 7631/2007

plaintiffs are continuously encroaching on common passages belonging to all co­owners by raising illegal structures adjacent to portion inherited by B.Ramachandrachari who is husband of plaintiff No.4. 

Defendant submitted that plaintiffs raised the illegal constructions such as doors, grill gates and walls in the common passages with malafied intention to block this defendant from accessing the terrace and that encroachment by the plaintiffs in the common areas has led co­owners to file complaints with GHMC and has resulted in institution of suits against the plaintiffs. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs are also denying the share in property to Dhatrisri who is daughter of 

B.Ramachandrachari through this first wife B.Jyothi causing her to file a partition suit O.S.No.1977/2008 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, 

City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Defendant further submitted that the encroachment actions of the plaintiffs along with other acts such as denial of share to Dhatrisri, daughter of B. Ramachandrachari, clearly shows the malafied intentions of the plaintiffs to grab the property. 

Defendant contended that plaintiffs are not only grabbing others property but are causing harassment by falsely accusing others of grabbing the property. Defendant contended that plaintiffs filed this suit on a fabricated cause of action to prevent this defendant from entering the property with the malafied intention to raise illegal construction on the terrace belonging to this defendant and plaintiffs back in 2007 itself, 

>> 42 << OS 7631/2007

hoed to get ad­interim injunction against this defendant restraining her from accessing the terrace, thereby allowing them to uninterruptedly proceed with their illegal construction. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs having knowledge of the gift deed at the time of filing of the suit have suppressed this material fact and sought injunction on common passages required to access the terrace. She further contended that the plaintiff No.4 filed objection with GHMC asking them not to grant permission to this defendant for construction or any modifications in the property covered by municipal No.1­1­213 on 22­11­2007. 

Defendant contended that the plaintiffs on a concocted cause of action, filed this suit on 22.11.2007 seeking injunction against this defendant by including the common passages to prevent this defendant from accessing the terrace. Defendant contended that the objection letter to 

GHMC and this suit were filed on the same date of 22.11.2007. 

Defendant contended that plaintiffs, having knowledge of the terrace gift deed have trespassed and forcefully occupied a portion of the ground floor terrace by raising an illegal construction. Defendant contended B.Ramachandrachari and plaintiff No.4 have acknowledged the terrace gift deed way back in 1997 and also by means of several letters and have suppressed this information before this Court and she was forced to file O.S.No.3538/2008 which has been renumbered as 

O.S.No.2111/2012 on file of the Hon'ble V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil 

>> 43 << OS 7631/2007

Court, for recovery and perpetual injunction against the plaintiff No.4 for the illegal terrace construction. Defendant further contended that the plaintiffs are litigants who file false, frivolous and vexatious suits employing various type of fraudulent tactics such as, fabricating cause of action, filing false affidavits to mislead the Courts, and contended that after filing a complaint with GHMC and continuous follow up, that 

GHMC issue notice under HMC 452 for illegal construction of two AC sheet rooms on first floor to plaintiff No.4 on 15.10.2008. Defendant contended that plaintiff No.4 filed counters in I.A. In O.S.No.3538/2008 on 14.8.2008 referencing contents of the gift deed. Subsequently six days later, plaintiff No.4 filed suit O.S.No.3690/2008 against GHMC seeking injunction against demolition of the illegal structures. 

Defendant contended that plaintiff No.4, having knowledge of terrace gift deed suppressed information about the same and falsely filed suit 

O.S.3690/2008 on the file of VI Junior Civil Court. In fact plaintiffs 

falsely claimed they are the owners of the terrace to mislead the 

Hon'ble VI Junior Civil Judge. Defendant contended that 

O.S.No.3690/2008 was filed only 5 days after receiving notice under 

HMC 452 or 6 days after filing counters in O.S.3538/2008 on the exact same suit property. In fact, in the suit O.S.3690/2008, plaintiff No.4 successfully obtained interim injunction against GHMC preventing them from demolishing the illegal structures by filing false affidavit and 

>> 44 << OS 7631/2007

defendant contended that the plaintiff No.4 suppressed information about terrace gift deed and also suppressed information about suit 

O.S.No.3538/2008 on exact same property in O.S.No.3690/2008 and 

she got impleaded in the suit and the Hon'ble VI Junior Civil Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit O.S.No.3690/2008 on 12.3.2013. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs have wrongfully occupied 324 sq.ft. of the terrace and have been successful till date in holding on to the illegal gains since October, 2008 by abusing the process of the courts causing irreparable injury to this defendant. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs having knowledge of the terrace gift deed have suppressed information about terrace gift deed before this Court. In fact plaintiffs deposed on 7.7.09 before this Court that she is unaware of the terrace gift deed. In fact plaintiffs more particularly plaintiff No.4 has knowledge of execution and registration of gift deed by B.Saraswathi in favour of the defendant way back on 15.2.1997 when plaintiff No.4 has counter signed the affidavit signed by her late husband. On 14.10.2008, plaintiff No.1 filed counters in I.A.383/2008 in 

O.S.No.3538/2008 challenging the contents of the gift deed. 

Subsequently a year later, on 7.7.09 plaintiff No.4 falsely deposed 

before this Court that she did not know if Smt.Saraswathi executed a 

gift deed in favour of defendant conveying rights on the terrace and ground floor and that she has not seen the gift deed so far. After being 

>> 45 << OS 7631/2007

reminded of her counters filed in I.A.383/2008 showing her knowledge of the gift deed, she changed her stance, and on 15.6.2010 she deposed in O.S.3690/08 that she came to know about the gift settlement deed only in the month of October, 2008 after the defendant herein made complaint to Municipal Corporation. Defendant stated that plaintiff 

No.4 filed a false affidavit in O.S.No.1353/2010 that she knew about the gift deed in October, 2007 after the suit O.S.No.1854/2007 was filed, which is clearly inconsistent and contradictory to several of her previous statements given under oath,. Defendant contended that plaintiffs admittedly having knowledge of the gift deed at the time of filing of this suit have intentionally suppressed this material facts before this Court and have sought injunction against this defendant on the common passages which is required to access the terrace to make unlawful gains and deliberately cause irreparable loss and injury to this defendant. This defendant contended that plaintiffs have committed fraud before this Court with respect to knowledge of the gift deed by suppressing true and material facts about the same and on relied on 

Ex.B33 is GPA executed by DW1 in favour of DW2, Ex.B34 is Birth certificate of Raja Vinay Chand, Ex.B35 is Birth certificate of Srividya, 

Ex.B36 is Plan showing illegal constructions in common passage of ground floor of suit premises made by plaintiffs, Ex.B37 is CC of affidavit by B Ramachandra Chary dt.15.02.1997, Ex.B38 CC of letter 

>> 46 << OS 7631/2007

from B Nagaraja Mani to DW1, Ex.B39 Notice issued to B Nagaramani by B Nagamani dt.4.6.2010 along with postal cover, Ex.B40 is 

Photographs Nos 7 along with CD and during cross examination of PW1 defendants got marked Ex.B14 to B32, Ex.B14 to B16 are the photographs, Ex.B17 is photograph showing stair case, Ex.B18 is photograph showing room in first floor, Ex.B19 to B 32 are the photographs. 

On considering the rival contention and on perusal of record with respect to the present issue the court is of opinion that on verification of 

Ex.A1 which is admitted by defendant also, the court finds that 

Smt. B.Saraswathi while executing the said Will has made following arrangements stating that she has one house bearing No.1­1­213 and 7 big shops and 4 small shops and one outhouse bearing No.1­1­213/A within the limits of Corporation of Hyderabad, Chikkadapally and also residential plot measuring 3600 sq.yds. at Lothukunta Alwal town, 

Ranga Reddy District. While making arrangements she allotted the residential building bearing municipal No.1­1­213 with 8 rooms plots 1 to 8, room No.1 10 x 12 should be taken by her husband Sri 

B.Dharmalinga chary after his demise it should go to B.Ramachandra 

Chary (father of the plaintiffs 1 to 3) and room No.2 10x10 and room 

No.7 10x10 should be taken by her third son B.Ramachandra Chary ((father of the plaintiffs 1 to 3) and room No.3 10x12 and room No.8 

>> 47 << OS 7631/2007

12x16 should be taken by his second son B.Chandra Sekhar and room 

No.4 10x 14. room No.5 10x10 and room No.6 10x8 should be taken by her eldest son B.Siddartha. The staircase by the side of room No.7 and the bathroom below it and the open space should go to B.Ramachandra chary and be used by him the Varandah flanked by room No.8, 4 and 6 be commonly used by two sons B.Siddartha and Chandrasekhar, the staircase by the side of rooms 1 and 2 be used by Ramachandra Chary, 

Chandrasekhar and Dharmalinga Chary and the room below the staircase go to Ramachandra Chary when staircase is constructed for the first floor Room under the staircase should be taken by 

Ramachandra chary the space adjacent to the rooms 4 and 5 towards east and west out of the house should go to B.Siddartha. The right of usage of passage surrounding the house and right of usage as well as adjacent to the shop will be with all the three sons and husband. (2) in respect of the shop mentioned shop No.1 and shop No.2 should go to 

B.Ramchandra chary, shop No.3 and 4 to B.Chandrasekhar shop No.5 and 6 should go to Siddartha and shop No.7 should go to 

Smt.K.Jayasree i.e., defendant herein and all the above said arrangements of the above said property should be enjoyed by all the heirs absolutely with full rights of ownership. Further, it is mentioned in the said Will that B.Dharmalinga Chary will be rightful owner as per usufruct rent etc., income from the constructions on the said area shall 

>> 48 << OS 7631/2007

be enjoyed by him till the end of his life. The above arrangements under Ex.A1 is also not disputed by the defendant herein. Further when we looked into Ex.B1 gift deed dated:7.5.1982 it is seen that 

Smt.B.Saraswathi has executed the said gift deed in favour of defendant gifting the open terrace on the first floor which is approximately 175 sq.yds. Together with all rights and liberty, privileges, easements and appurtenances of the said premises, apart from the right to use the staircases which are already existing to reach the first floor. So as seen from the above two documents it is pertinent to see that 

Smt.B.Saraswathi while making arrangement had allotted the properties to his children very clearly by giving absolute ownership rights over the respective allotted properties, so that as per the said arrangement of 

Ex.A1, the plaintiff's father was allotted with room Nos.2 and 7 originally and after the demise of her husband Mr.Dharmalinga chary the room No.1 was also should come to the share of late Ramachandra 

Chary, as such being the legal heirs of Mr.Ramachandra chary plaintiffs are enjoying the above said properties including the passage rights through staircases. The suit being for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff has to come to the court with clean hands. But in the present suit the plaintiff failed to disclose about the WILL Deed Ex.B1 either in the pleadings or in her chief affidavit or cross examination. It is pertinent here to note that PW1 admitted during her cross examination 

>> 49 << OS 7631/2007

dt.10.12.2013 that “ it is true in OS No.3690/08 I have given 

evidence stating that I came to know of gift deed of defendant in the 

month of October,2008 when she lodged a complaint before 

municipality. On 07.07.2009 when I gave evidence before this court 

in the present suit, I deposed that I am not aware of the gift deed 

and I have not seen the gift deed so far.”

On considering the above version of PW1 during cross examination, it is clear that PW1 has deposed false and is well aware about the gift deed Ex.B1 in favour of defendant. In addition to that when the defendant is gifted with terrace rights the defendant being co­ owner has right to use common passage to reach the terrace. Further it is clearly mentioned in Registered Gift deed Ex.B1 dt.07.05.1982 that “ 

the donor further convenants with the donee that the donee can 

exercise all the rights over the well situated in the premises by fixing 

an electric pump set to draw water to the premises that the donee is 

likely to construct on the first floor and even the overhead tank. The 

donor further covenants with the donee that the donee has every 

right and liberty to use the staircases which are already existing tor 

each the first floor.”

So when the defendant has right over terrace, the plaintiff by way injunction cannot stop defendant from using terrace. Moreover, though plaintiff pleaded that defendant interfered in her possession over suit 

>> 50 << OS 7631/2007

schedule property, there is no oral or documentary evidence with respect to above aspect. In view of the above discussion the court comes to conclusion that when PW1 herself admitted that there is registered gift deed in favour of defendant and plaintiff has suppressed several material facts before the court including the plan and the documents are admitted by her during cross examination and as there is no proof to show that defendant are interfering with her possession either over the suit schedule property or common passage, the plaintiff is not entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for and the issue is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

8..ISSUE No.2

The case of the defendant is that suit O.S.7631/2007 was prepared in 2006 and filed in 2007 with malafied intention of the plaintiffs to restrain this defendant from entering the property. 

Defendant contended that the malafied intentions are becoming apparent based on subsequent actions taken by the plaintiffs after filing this suit. This defendant said that Plaintiff No.4 has written a letter to this defendant on 15.8.1998. In this letter, the plaintiff describes a malafied plan concocted by Smt. Nagamani who is another co­owner, to seek false injunction against this defendant restraining her from entering the property. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs are using a similar approach in this suit O.S.7631/2007. This defendant 

>> 51 << OS 7631/2007

contended that the suit OS.7631/2007 was filed on a false cause of action concocted for the purpose of filing the suit to prevent his defendant from entering the property. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs have deceitfully sought injunction on Rooms 1, 2 & 7 along with common passages which are required to access the terrace while suppressing information about the terrace gift deed thereby committing fraud on this Court. Defendant contended that plaintiff have all the time harboured ill intentions to grab the property by forceful occupation and encroachment of common areas. Defendant contended that the malafied intentions of filing this suit are becoming more apparent based on subsequent and continuing actions being taken by the plaintiffs. 

Defendant submitted that the plaintiffs hoped to obtain interim injunction in this suit against this defendant on a concocted cause of action while seeking relief on common passages to allow plaintiffs to carry on with their illegal activities under the guise of an injunction. 

Defendant contended that the illegal activities being carried out the plaintiffs subsequent to filing of this suit itself evidences the malafied intentions of the plaintiffs in filing this suit. Defendant contended that recently, the plaintiffs in order to obstruct her to reach her property, have created obstructions by fixing doors and iron grill gates in the common areas leading towards the staircase. Defendant further submitted that plaintiffs are further blocking the common passages with 

>> 52 << OS 7631/2007

personal items. Defendant submitted that the plaintiffs are not allowing defendant to use the staircase to reach her property by claosing the door and grill gates and locking the same. Defendant contended that inspite of her repeated requests to the plaintiffs to remove the doors and grill gates, and personal items from the common areas, the plaintiffs have not acceded to the defendant's request and are restraining the defendant from using the common passage leading to the staircase. 

Defendant further contended that the plaintiffs have made illegal constructions in the common areas. Apart from the illegal constructions in the common area, out of two staircases to reach the first floor, the staircase on entering of the house property adjacent to room Nos.1 and 2 was partially demolished by the plaintiffs. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs have illegally constructed a bathroom on the ground floor in the space obtained by the partial demolition of the staircase. 

Defendant contented that the construction of the bathroom is illegal and should be demolished at the plaintiffs cost. Defendant contended that the demolition of the staircase adjacent to room Nos. 1 and 2 is unauthorized and should be restored at the plaintiffs cost. 

Defendant contended that plaintiffs have attempted to raise an illegal construction in the open space at the entrance to the house property covered by Municipal No.1­1­213 at south­west corner. 

>> 53 << OS 7631/2007

Defendant contended that the plaintiffs are illegally using the common areas for personal and business use in spite of objections from all co­owners. Defendant contended that she filed a complaint to 

GHMC on 4.6.2010 objecting to illegal construction by plaintiffs. 

Defendant contended that on 4.6.2010 another co­owner, Nagamani submitted a complaint to GHMC objecting to illegal construction being raised by plaintiffs in the common areas. Defendant submitted that the officials of GHMC in collusion with plaintiffs have not taken any action. 

Defendant submitted another co­owner was forced to institute a suit against the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from raising illegal constructions in the common areas. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs continue to encroach on common areas causing loss and injury to all co­owners. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs must be restrained from changing the nature of common areas as detailed in the schedule of the property and misusing the same for their personal or business use.

In order to substantiate her version she examined DW2 on her behalf who deposed that suit O.S.7631/2007 was prepared in 2006 and filed in 2007 with malafied intention of the plaintiffs to restrain this defendant from entering the property. Defendant contended that the malafied intentions are becoming apparent based on subsequent actions taken by the plaintiffs after filing this suit. This defendant said that 

>> 54 << OS 7631/2007

Plaintiff No.4 has written a letter to this defendant on 15.8.1998. In this letter, the plaintiff describes a malafied plan concocted by Smt. 

Nagamani who is another co­owner, to seek false injunction against this defendant restraining her from entering the property. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs are using a similar approach in this suit 

O.S.7631/2007. This defendant contended that the suit OS.7631/2007 

was filed on a false cause of action concocted for the purpose of filing the suit to prevent his defendant from entering the property. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs have deceitfully sought injunction on 

Rooms 1, 2 & 7 along with common passages which are required to access the terrace while suppressing information about the terrace gift deed thereby committing fraud on this Court. Defendant contended that plaintiff have all the time harboured ill intentions to grab the property by forceful occupation and encroachment of common areas. Defendant contended that the malafied intentions of filing this suit are becoming more apparent based on subsequent and continuing actions being taken by the plaintiffs. Defendant submitted that the plaintiffs hoped to obtain interim injunction in this suit against this defendant on a concocted cause of action while seeking relief on common passages to allow plaintiffs to carry on with their illegal activities under the guise of an injunction. Defendant contended that the illegal activities being carried out the plaintiffs subsequent to filing of this suit itself evidences the 

>> 55 << OS 7631/2007

malafied intentions of the plaintiffs in filing this suit. Defendant contended that recently, the plaintiffs in order to obstruct her to reach her property, have created obstructions by fixing doors and iron grill gates in the common areas leading towards the staircase. Defendant further submitted that plaintiffs are further blocking the common passages with personal items. Defendant submitted that the plaintiffs are not allowing defendant to use the staircase to reach her property by closing the door and grill gates and locking the same. Defendant contended that inspite of her repeated requests to the plaintiffs to remove the doors and grill gates, and personal items from the common areas, the plaintiffs have not acceded to the defendant's request and are restraining the defendant from using the common passage leading to the staircase. Defendant further contended that the plaintiffs have made illegal constructions in the common areas. Apart from the illegal constructions in the common area, out of two staircases to reach the first floor, the staircase on entering of the house property adjacent to room Nos.1 and 2 was partially demolished by the plaintiffs. 

Defendant contended that the plaintiffs have illegally constructed a bathroom on the ground floor in the space obtained by the partial demolition of the staircase. Defendant contented that the construction of the bathroom is illegal and should be demolished at the plaintiffs cost. Defendant contended that the demolition of the staircase adjacent 

>> 56 << OS 7631/2007

to room Nos. 1 and 2 is unauthorized and should be restored at the plaintiffs cost. Plaintiffs have attempted to raise an illegal construction in the open space at the entrance to the house property covered by 

Municipal No.1­1­213 at south­west corner. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs are illegally using the common areas for personal and business use in spite of objections from all co­owners. Defendant contended that she filed a complaint to GHMC on 4.6.2010 objecting to illegal construction by plaintiffs. Defendant contended that on 4.6.2010 another co­owner, Nagamani submitted a complaint to GHMC objecting to illegal construction being raised by plaintiffs in the common areas. 

Defendant submitted that the officials of GHMC in collusion with plaintiffs have not taken any action. Defendant submitted another co­ owner was forced to institute a suit against the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from raising illegal constructions in the common areas. 

Defendant contended that the plaintiffs continue to encroach on common areas causing loss and injury to all co­owners. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs must be restrained from changing the nature of common areas as detailed in the schedule of the property and misusing the same for their personal or business use.

In contrary the counsel for the plaintiff submitted that there is no such interference by plaintiff and further stated that the plaintiffs filed this suit on a fabricated cause of action to prevent the defendant from 

>> 57 << OS 7631/2007

entering into the property is false. The defendant has not right in the property. The Tin shed on the terrace was constructed long back. The plaintiffs have no knowledge about the alleged gift deed. The allegation that the plaintiffs forcibly occupied the terrace by raising illegal structures is absolutely false. The allegation that Sri 

B.Ramchandrachary and plaintiff No.4 have acknowledge the terrace gift deed way back in 1997 and in several letters is absolutely false. The plaintiff No.4 and her husband have not signed any letter and affidavit. 

The defendant to grab the property might have forged the signature and fabricated the document for the purpose of this case. The plaintiff No.4 reserved her rights to file criminal case against the defendant for forgery. The defendant filed O.S.3538/2008 on the file of XXI Junior 

Court for injunction and I.A.No.353/2008 for interim injunction. The said I.A. Was dismissed on merits on the ground that the defendant is not in possession of the terrace. The defendant subsequently amended the plaint in O.S.3538/2008 for recovery of possession and the case was re­numbered as O.S.No.2111/2012 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge and the same is pending. The plaintiff No.4 is the mother of the plaintiff 1 to 3 who are the minors and school going children and are not litigants. The defendant who is the sister of the Husband of the plaintiff No.4 with an intention to grab the property making false claims. The plaintiff No.4 is a widow along with three children without 

>> 58 << OS 7631/2007

support of any male member. The defendant taking advantage of the situation is harassing the plaintiffs to grab the property. The defendant made complaints to GHMC against the plaintiffs only to harass. The plaintiff has filed OS.3690/08 for injunction against GHMC. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of ground and first floor of the suit premises. The plaintiffs are abusing processes of law is false. The plaintiffs are in possession of the entire terrace but not only 324 sq.ft. The other adverse allegations are categorically denied. That the plaintiffs have committed fraud on this Court by suppressing true facts if false. These plaintiffs have no knowledge about the execution of the Gift Deed till the defendant filed OS.1864/07 for partition. The plaintiff No.4 did not sign any affidavit along with her husband on 15.2.1997. The defendant might have forged the signature of the plaintiff and her husband. The plaintiff No.4 deposed falsely is denied. 

The allegation that the plaintiffs have knowledge about the gift deed at the time of filing this suit is absolutely false. The allegation that the plaintiffs have committed fraud on this Court by suppressing true facts if false. These plaintiffs have no knowledge about the execution of the Gift 

Deed till the defendant filed OS. No.1864/07 for partition. The plaintiff 

No.4 did not sign any affidavit along with her husband on 15.2.1997. 

The defendant might have forged the signature of the plaintiff and her husband. The plaintiff No.4 deposed falsely is denied. The allegation 

>> 59 << OS 7631/2007

that the plaintiffs have knowledge about the gift deed at the time of filing this suit is absolutely false. The plaintiffs are poor having no proper income for the expenditure for filing case to be accumulate hence the suit was prepared in 2006 and filed in 2007. The defendant with an intention to grab the property of the plaintiff started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and hence the present suit was filed. 

The plaintiff No.4 has not written any letter dated:15.8.98. The defendant was never in possession of the terrace so the question of using common passage does not arise. There are not illegal activities carried by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have created obstructions by fixing doors and grills in the common area is absolutely false and denied. The defendant filed suit for recovery of possession of the terrace and the same is pending. When the defendant is not in possession the question of common passage does not arise. The defendant has no right of any nature in the suit property. The allegation that the plaintiffs have made illegal constructions in the common area is false and denied. 

The allegation that the house property adjacent to Room Nos. and 2 was partially demolished by the plaintiff is false and denied. There is no construction of bath room in the ground floor. The allegation that the plaintiffs have attempted to raise illegal structure in open space at the entrance is absolutely false. On the south west corner there was shop 

No.11 which was allotted to husband of the plaintiff No.4. The shop 

>> 60 << OS 7631/2007

No.11 was occupied by Dhobi and he was evicted and the shop was demolished. That open space exclusively belongs to plaintiffs. That open space of shop No.11 area is not a common area and it is exclusive owned by the plaintiffs who are in absolute possession. There is no encroachment in the common area by the plaintiffs. The defendant is not entitled for any relief against the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the 

Hon'ble XXI Junior Civil Judge in IA.353/08 in OS.3538/08 has 

dismissed because the defendant was not in possession of the terrace. As long as the suit for recovery of possession filed by the defendant is pending the defendant is not entitled for any relief against the plaintiffs. 

The defendant has to file a separate suit seeking different relief's but not in the present suit which was filed in 2007. No cause of action arose against the plaintiffs at any point of time.

On considering the submission of either side, the court is of opinion that as on date as there is no judgment/decree denying the title of defendant with respect to terrace rights, the defendant are having rights over the terrace as per the Registered Gift deed Ex.B1. However the plea of the defendant is that plaintiff are restraining them from using their rights and creating obstructions in common passage. 

However, the point pertinent here to note is that, presently though the defendants are not in actual physical possession of property the 

>> 61 << OS 7631/2007

possession of open plots/lands is followed by title. One cannot expect a person holding rights of open plot/land to stay there without construction. The defendant in the present suit are also declared to be in constructive possession of property as per the rights conferred to them in Ex.B1. In order to reach their property, they have to use common passage, the right in which is given to them in Ex.B1.

In the above circumstances the plaintiff cannot stop them from enjoying their property by creating hurdles. The version of the plaintiff in the rejoinder that defendant have no rights in terrace itself shows that she is interfering in the right of defendant with respect to ownership/possession of the terrace rights. In addition to that PW1 herself admitted that “ It is true that I mentioned in the pleadings 

that the defendant and her family members have no right int he suit 

schedule property.” and that in the objection letter I got not 

mentioned that the gift deed was executed in favour of defendant for 

the terrace area and I asked the defendant to not to enter into the 

terrace and I prevented the defendant from entering into the terrace 

area.”

In view of her objection it is clear that she is obstructing the defendant from entering their property, as such the defendant shall be protected by law and they are entitled for equitable relief of injunction.

The plea of the plaintiff is that the Hon'ble XXI Junior Civil Judge 

>> 62 << OS 7631/2007

in IA.353/08 in OS.3538/08 has dismissed because the defendant was not in possession of the terrace. As long as the suit for recovery of possession filed by the defendant is pending the defendant is not entitled for any relief against the plaintiffs. The defendant has to file a separate suit seeking different relief's but not in the present suit which was filed in 2007, and no cause of action arose against the plaintiffs at any point of time. The above version of plaintiff is not tenable as the above order is only in interlocutory application and not trial and further the present counter claim is only with respect to the interfering with the right of defendant to reach terrace. Accordingly the order in IA 

No.353/2008 do not act as resjudicata to the present suit. Hence in view of above observations the court concludes that the admission of 

PW1 establish that there is interference by PW1, and the documents and photographs filed by defendant clearly establish that defendant are having title over terrace rights followed by constructive possession as per Ex.B1 and as per Ex.B36 they have to use common passage to reach terrace, so they are entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff from charging the nature of the common areas as detailed in the schedule of the property and from obstructing, interfering with the possession of the defendant in the common areas and the issue is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

>> 63 << OS 7631/2007

11..Issue No.3

The case of the defendant is that the plaintiffs have illegally constructed a wall in the common passage adjacent to Room Nos.2 and 3 thereby creating obstruction to the defendant to use the common areas and reach the outhouse portion in the property. Defendant submitted that the construction of the wall is illegal and should be demolished. Illegal constructions of the bathroom, wall and also the doors and iron grill gates are to be removed and demolished. Defendant contended that the plaintiffs cannot restrain the defendant from enjoying the common areas conferred upon her by her mother in the gift deed executed in her favour. Defendant contended that in view of the subsequent developments, and the illegal activity done by the plaintiffs, a need has arisen for the defendant to seek relief of perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs from interfering with the defendant's rights in common areas against the plaintiffs. Apart from that in view of the malafide intention and conduct of the plaintiffs, they are to be restrained by way of perpetual injunction from changing the nature of the common areas and misusing the common areas. Defendant contended that in view of the illegal construction made by the plaintiffs in the common area, defendant is entitled to seek relief of mandatory injunction against the plaintiffs directing them to remove the doors, iron grill gates, bathroom, wall and other constructions done in the common 

>> 64 << OS 7631/2007

areas. Apart from that a direction is also to be given by way of mandatory injunction to the plaintiffs to restore the staircase adjacent to room Nos.1 and 2 to its original position. The cause of action for the plaintiffs claim and the defendant's claim are different and arising at different times, they can be tried together as they involve common questions of law and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Defendant submitted that cause of action is continuing and defendant submitted that if the subsequent events that are taken place in the property are not brought to the notice of this Court, it would be improper on the part of the parties and the parties shall fail to render assistance to the Court for disposing of the matter. 

In order to substantiate her version DW2 examined who deposed that the plaintiffs are changing the nature of common passages by raising walls, doors and grill gates and illegally constructed a wall int he common passage marked as C6 in Ex.B13 to the east of Rooms 2 and 3 thereby creating obstruction to the defendant to use the common areas and reach the out house portion in the property. The construction of the wall in common passage C6 is illegal and should be demolished. 

The plaintiff has also installed doors and grill gates in C4 and C5 that need to be removed at plaintiffs costs. The illegal constructions of the bathroom wall and also the doors and iron grill gates are to be removed and demolished. Plaintiffs cannot restrain the defendant from enjoying 

>> 65 << OS 7631/2007

the common areas conferred upon her by her mother in the gift deed executed in her favour. In view of the subsequent developments and the illegal activity done by the plaintiffs a need has arised for the defendant to seek relief of perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs from interfering with her rights in common areas against the plaintiffs. 

Apart from that in view of the malafide intention and conduct of the plaintiffs, they are to be restrained by way of perpetual injunction from changing the nature of the common areas and misusing the common areas. In view of the illegal construction made by the plaintiffs in the common area, the defendant is entitled to seek relief of mandatory injunction against the plaintiffs directing them to remove the bathroom, wall, doors, iron grill gates, and other constructions done in the common areas. Apart from that a direction is also to be given by way of mandatory injunction to the plaintiffs to restore the staircase adjacent to room No 1 & 2 to its original position and DW1 reiterated the facts in written statement.

In order to establish the claim they got marked Ex.B1 to B12 and 

Ex.B33 to B40. Ex.B33 is GPA executed by DW1 in favour of DW2, 

Ex.B34 is Birth certificate of Raja Vinay Chand, Ex.B35 is Birth certificate of Srividya, Ex.B36 is Plan showing illegal constructions in common passage of ground floor of suit premises made by plaintiffs, 

Ex.B37 is CC of affidavit by B Ramachandra Chary dt.15.02.1997, 

>> 66 << OS 7631/2007

Ex.B38 CC of letter from B Nagaraja Mani to DW1, Ex.B39 Notice issued to B Nagaramani by B Nagamani dt.4.6.2010 along with postal cover, 

Ex.B40 is Photographs Nos 7 along with CD and during cross examination of PW1 defendants got marked Ex.B14 to B32, Ex.B14 to 

B16 are the photographs, Ex.B17 is photograph showing stair case, 

Ex.B18 is photograph showing room in first floor, Ex.B19 to B 32 are the photographs. 

In contrary the counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiffs filed this suit on a fabricated cause of action to prevent the defendant from entering into the property is false. The defendant has not right in the property. The Tin shed on the terrace was constructed long back. The plaintiffs have no knowledge about the alleged gift deed. 

The allegation that the plaintiffs forcibly occupied the terrace by raising illegal structures is absolutely false. The allegation that Sri 

B.Ramchandrachary and plaintiff No.4 have acknowledge the terrace gift deed way back in 1997 and in several letters is absolutely false. The plaintiff No.4 and her husband have not signed any letter and affidavit. 

The defendant to grab the property might have forged the signature and fabricated the document for the purpose of this case. The plaintiff No.4 reserved her rights to file criminal case against the defendant for forgery. The defendant filed O.S.3538/2008 on the file of XXI Junior 

Court for injunction and I.A.No.353/2008 for interim injunction. The 

>> 67 << OS 7631/2007

said I.A. Was dismissed on merits on the ground that the defendant is not in possession of the terrace. The defendant subsequently amended the plaint in O.S.3538/2008 for recovery of possession and the case was re­numbered as O.S.No.2111/2012 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge and the same is pending. The plaintiff No.4 is the mother of the plaintiff 1 to 3 who are the minors and school going children and are not litigants. The defendant who is the sister of the Husband of the plaintiff No.4 with an intention to grab the property making false claims. The plaintiff No.4 is a widow along with three children without support of any male member. The defendant taking advantage of the situation is harassing the plaintiffs to grab the property. The defendant made complaints to GHMC against the plaintiffs only to harass. The plaintiff has filed OS.3690/08 for injunction against GHMC. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of ground and first floor of the suit premises. The plaintiffs are abusing processes of law is false. The plaintiffs are in possession of the entire terrace but not only 324 sq.ft. The other adverse allegations are categorically denied. That the plaintiffs have committed fraud on this Court by suppressing true facts is false. These plaintiffs have no knowledge about the execution of the Gift Deed till the defendant filed OS.1864/07 for partition. The plaintiff No.4 did not sign any affidavit along with her husband on 15.2.1997. The defendant might have forged the signature of the 

>> 68 << OS 7631/2007

plaintiff and her husband. The plaintiffs are poor having no proper income for the expenditure for filing case to be accumulate hence the suit was prepared in 2006 and filed in 2007. The defendant with an intention to grab the property of the plaintiff started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and hence the present suit was filed. The plaintiff No.4 has not written any letter dated:15.8.98. The defendant was never in possession of the terrace so the question of using common passage does not arise. There are not illegal activities carried by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have created obstructions by fixing doors and grills in the common area is absolutely false and denied. The defendant filed suit for recovery of possession of the terrace and the same is pending. When the defendant is not in possession the question of common passage does not arise. The defendant has no right of any nature in the suit property. The allegation that the plaintiffs have made illegal constructions in the common area is false and denied. The allegation that the house property adjacent to Room Nos. and 2 was partially demolished by the plaintiff is false and denied. There is no construction of bath room in the ground floor. The allegation that the plaintiffs have attempted to raise illegal structure in open space at the entrance is absolutely false. On the south west corner there was shop 

No.11 which was allotted to husband of the plaintiff No.4. The shop 

No.11 was occupied by Dhobi and he was evicted and the shop was 

>> 69 << OS 7631/2007

demolished. That open space exclusively belongs to plaintiffs. That open space of shop No.11 area is not a common area and it is exclusive owned by the plaintiffs who are in absolute possession. There is no encroachment in the common area by the plaintiffs. The defendant is not entitled for any relief against the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the 

Hon'ble XXI Junior Civil Judge in IA.353/08 in OS.3538/08 has 

dismissed because the defendant was not in possession of the terrace. As long as the suit for recovery of possession filed by the defendant is pending the defendant is not entitled for any relief against the plaintiffs. 

The defendant has to file a separate suit seeking different relief's but not in the present suit which was filed in 2007. No cause of action arose against the plaintiffs at any point of time.

On considering the rival contention and on thorough scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence on record the court is of opinion that there are erection of doors, iron grill gates, walls rooms in the common area as admitted by PW1 during cross examination and as per the photographs filed by the defendant. However except oral testimony of defendant there is no other evidence to show that the same are constructed by the plaintiff herself. The pW1 denied all the suggestions given by the counsel for defendant. In the above circumstances, in the absence of evidence that the acts are done by plaintiff, merely basing on photographs, there cannot be an order of mandatory injunction 

>> 70 << OS 7631/2007

directing the plaintiff to remove the doors,iron grill gates, rooms from the common areas and restore the stair case to its original position in the suit schedule property.

In addition to that the mandatory injunction is not an counter claim for a suit of perpetual injunction by plaintiff and is different cause of action. Hence in view of lack of proper evidence, the defendant failed to establish his claim as such the issue is answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.

12..Issue No 4:

In view of the findings in Issue Nos 1 to 3, in the result the suit of plaintiff is hereby dismissed and counter claim of defendant is partly allowed granting perpetual injunction restraining the the plaintiff from changing the nature of common areas as detailed in the schedule of the property and from obstructing, interfering with the possession of the defendants in the common areas. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15 th DAY OF JUNE, 2016.

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1: B NagarajamaniDW1: K Jayashree

DW2:B Viswanatham

>> 71 << OS 7631/2007

DOCUMENTS MARKEDFOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of WILL dt.10.10.1981 Ex.A2 : Letter to MCH dt.2.11.2007 Ex.A3 & A4 : Sketch plans

Ex.B13 to B32 are marked through PW1:

Ex.B13 to Ex.B32 are photographs.

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

Ex.B1 : Certified copy of Gift deed dt.07.05.1982

Ex.B2 to B12 are photographs.

Ex.B33 :GPA executed by DW1 in favour of DW2, 

Ex.B34 : Birth certificate of Raja Vinay Chand, 

Ex.B35 :Birth certificate of Srividya, 

Ex.B36 :Plan showing illegal constructions in common passage of ground floor of suit premises made by plaintiffs, 

Ex.B37 :CC of affidavit by B Ramachandra Chary dt.15.02.1997, 

Ex.B38 :CC of letter from B Nagaraja Mani to DW1, 

Ex.B39 :Notice issued to B Nagaramani by B Nagamani dt.4.6.2010 along with postal cover, 

Ex.B40:Photographs Nos 7 along with CD 

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

 IN THE COURT OF THE X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: 

CITY CIVIL COURT:HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 1 st DAY OF JUNE, 2016.

PRESENT: Smt.S.Swathi Reddy,

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

OS No.390 of 2011

Between: M/s Kapadia Industries a Partnership Firm duly represented by its Managing Partner Sushil Dhirajlal Kapadia S/o late Dhirajlal Kapadia, Occ: Business, Lessor of Plot NO 7/3 H No.1­9­1124, Azambad Industrial Area, Azambad, Hyderabad.

.. Plaintiff

AND

1. K Yogender Goud, S/o Dayanand, Aged 43 years, Occ: Business

2. K Mahender Goud, S/o Dayanand, Aged 45 years, Occ: Pvt. Service

3. K Narender Goud, S/o Dayanand, Aged 57 years, Occ: Business

4. K Shashikala, D/o Dayanand, Aged 53 years, Occ: Housewife

All are R/o H No.1­9­1124, Azamabad, Hyderabad.

5. M/s Tirupathi Metal Industries Rep by its Proprietor Pradeep Kumar Gaglani S/o Bhaichand Gaglani R/o 5­3­101, Jeera Secunderabad. . . Defendants

This suit coming on 06.04.2016 before me for final disposal, in presence of Sri V Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff, and of Sri M S Chandraiah, Advocate for defendant 1 to 4, and of Sri K Aravind Goud, Advocate for the defendant No 5 and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:

>> 2 << OS 390/2011

J U D G E M E N T

The plaintiff filed a suit to vacate the defendants and their men from suit schedule property and hand over the same to the plaintiff, which is in the premises of H No.1­9­1124, Plot NO7/3, Azamabad, 

Hyderabad.

2..The averments of the plaint as stated by the plaintiff are that the plaintiff taken the land admeasuring 1­163 Acs bearing plot No.7/3, municipal No.1­9­1124, Azamabad Industrial area, Hyderabad – 5000020 on lease for 99 years from the State Government of A.P., 

Hyderabad on 22nd day of June, 1965 for the purpose of erecting a factory for the manufacture of Ice with its bye­products and cold storage used in Ice Industry and to carry on business and other buildings required in connection with the goods for the purpose of the said business. The plaintiff sub­leased a part of above said land ie open land and Shed with backside of rooms admeasuring 40' x 30' to M/s 

Tirupathi Metal Industries ( D5 ) with the permission of the 

Government of Andhra Pradesh and Commerce Dept., Memo 

No.1104/IF­Cell/75­1, dated 17­10­1975. The plaintiff and Defendant 

No.5 entered into an agreement dated 9­4­1974d which is as follows : ­

a) The plaintiff permitted the defendant No.5 to use the aforesaid premises for a period of one year as per the lease deed.

>> 3 << OS 390/2011

b) The said premises shall at all times during the continuance of this Agreement be and remain absolute property and in sole possession of plaintiff ( Licensor ). The Agreement shall not be constructed as creating any right, interest or tenancy in favor of defendant No.5 ( licensee ) in respect of the said premises. 

C ) During the said period, the defendant No.5 is permitted to store Aluminium Sheets and Utensils and also to use the said premises for the storing of Aluminium Utensils and all other matters connected with or incidental to the business of Aluminium sheets and Utensils. 

d) During the said period, defendant No.5 shall pay Rs.301/­ per month commencing from 1­4­1974 as Licensee fee to the plaintiff. 

e) The plaintiff shall permit the entry of Hand­Trolley, Bullock­Cart, Lorry and other means of transport into the compound of the said premises for the purposes of bringing raw materials from Rail and Road and at the same time permitting the defendant No.5 ( licensee ) to dispatch the finished products by the aforementioned means of transport to various marketing centers from the said premises. 

f) The plaintiff shall permit the proprietor ( D5 ) their employees, representatives, workmen and customers to enter into the aforesaid portion of the premises at all times for carrying on business in the said premises.

g) Defendant No.5 shall obtain connection of Electricity and water supply and all expenses for consumption of Electricity of Water shall be borne by Defendant No.5 and in no case, the plaintiff is not liable to bear or pay the said charges. 

h) The repairs and maintenance of the premises will be occurred by the Defendant No.5.

I) In case of any disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant No.5 in respect of Interpretation, Contract or Performance of any of them or conditions of the Licensee, the same shall be referred to the Arbitration ( Two advocates one chosen by each party ) whose decision shall be final and conclusive and not open to challenge or review. 

j) The defendant No.5 hereby agrees with the plaintiff that in the course of conducting the operations of the said business, the defendant No.5 shall not commit any alterations without the content of the plaintiff or cause any damage to the aforesaid premises and will try to maintain the premises in good conditions.

k) The defendant No.5 hereby convenants with the plaintiff that he will not use the said premises for any other purpose other than the purposes aforesaid and connected with its defendant No.5 business and that if the defendant No.5 ceases to do so, will be entitled to revoke the licence.

l)The plaintiff hereby convenants with the defendant No.5 that as long as the defendant No.5 performs and observes the terms and conditions herein before contained, the plaintiff will not in any way hinder him in the use and enjoyment of the said premises and of the license herein above contained. 

m)The schedule referred to herein, and any alteration thereto from time to time, will always be deemed to be the part of this agreement. 

>> 4 << OS 390/2011

It is submitted that the Defendant No.1 to 4 alleged that they are so called employees of Defendant No.5 illegally occupied the 

Rooms for their residence without the permission of the plaintiff and it is given to Defendant No.5 for the purpose of Storage of material etc. 

As per the Agreement between plaintiff and Defendant No.5 as and when the Defendant No.5 vacate the said premises, Defendant NO.5 should remove all stocks, materials, furniture, fixtures, electric connections etc which was brought into the premises and handover the premises to the plaintiff without any dispute. It is further submitted that the Defendant No.1 to 4 illegally occupied the said rooms without any agreement from the plaintiff and the defendant No.5 closed down the Industry in the year 2002 and it is primary duty of defendant No.5 to vacate the premises with all his men and material by handing over the said premises and sheds which is taken on sub­lease. But the defendant No.1 to 4 who are alleged that they were the men of defendant No.5 started living in the said sub­leased premises even­ though the defendant No.5 closed down and vacated the premises in terms of agreement in which Defendant No.1 to 4 are not living any right, still occupied and reside in the said scheduled property illegally. 

The ( D1 to D4 ) applied for Ration card, driving licence, voter identity card, bank account, opening, telephone connection with the address of the plaintiff and possessed without the knowledge of the plaintiff. 

>> 5 << OS 390/2011

The defendants No.1 to 4 filed a suit against the plaintiff and other partners for claim of perpetual injunction for the suit scheduled property in the court of Hon'ble 10th Junior Civil Judge, City 

Civil Court, Hyderabad with OS No.3665/2007 alleging in the plaint that they are the employees of defendant No.5 ( M/s Tirupati Metal 

Industries ) and occupied he premises with sheds / rooms for their residence and obtained by filing a suit for Perpetual Injunction restraining the plaintiff and his men from evicting the defendants No.1 to 4 except as per “ due process of law “. Because of Apprehension that they will be vacated forcibly the defendant's filed the above suit for perpetual injunction and succeeded and the plaintiffs have given sub­ lease to defendant No.5 ( M/s Tirupathi Metal Industries ) only for their manufacture and storage of goods and as per Agreement in the sub­ lease the plaintiffs allowed the employees etc to work in the industry only but not allowed their employees to reside or illegally occupy the premises and rooms. The so called employees not entitled to reside in the premises when the said Industry called (M/s Tirupathi Metal 

Industry ( Defendant No.5 ) closed down in the year 2002 and it is the responsibility and bounden duty to handover the premises and rooms as per Agreement agreed by both the plaintiffs and Defendant No.5. The defendant No.1 to 4 are not entitled to reside in the suit schedule property land therefore the plaintiffs is seeking Eviction by “ due process 

>> 6 << OS 390/2011

of law “ as the defendants No.1 to 4 are not entitled to stay in the suit schedule property of premises, even though the defendants No.1 to 4 filed OS No.3665 of 2007 which was decreed on 10­12­2007 by the 

Hon'ble 10th Junior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad. The Hon'ble Court 

decreed the suit. But the plaintiff is now filing this suit for Eviction by due process of law. The present suit is filed for evicting all the defendants No.1 to 4 by due process of law as they are not entitled to reside in the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that 

Defendant No.5 who entered into an agreement with the plaintiff is terminated and inspite of giving notice to vacate as per the provisions contained in the lease deed, the defendant No.5 is reluctant to vacate, even though he has closed down his business in the year 2002 and finally vacated. But defendants No.1 to 4 are still residing in the said suit schedule property for whom the present suit is filed for eviction. 

Hence the suit.

3.. In contrary the written statement filed by the defendant Nos 1 to 4, in the above suit as framed and filed by the plaintiff is highly misconceived, vexatious, frivolous and the same is not maintainable either upon the facts of the case or upon law and as such is liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs. This defendants submit that the above suit is bad for non joinder and mis­joinder of necessary 

>> 7 << OS 390/2011

parties and as such the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. There is privity of contract between plaintiff and these defendants as such plaintiff cannot maintain the above suit against him. On this ground alone the above suit is liable to be dismissed as against them. 

The defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein were the employees of defendant No.5 and the defendant No.4 is the sister of defendant Nos.1 to 3. The defendants herein submit that the defendants No.1 and 2 joined the 

Defendant No.5 in the year 1975 and defendant No.3 in the year 1982. 

The defendants herein submit that in as much as they are the employees of the defendant No.5 provided quarter to them and since then they are residing in the suit schedule property and are running small scale industry. While so, the Govt. of A.P amended the Azamabad Industrial 

Area ( Termination & Regulation of Leases ) Act, 2000 on 7­3­2002 by 

G.O.Ms.No.87, Industries and Commerce ( IF­Cell ) 20­2­2002 wherein they have submitted the rules. As per the said amendment the lease holders or the occupants can apply for a fresh lease with effect from approved date and renewal thereof or he can apply for free hold rights by praying a price equivalent to 75% of the market value. If the said lease holders or occupants have been using the premises for Industrial purpose. The defendants further submit, the defendant No.5 who is carrying out the Industrial activities in the said premises ( suit schedule property ) had applied for freehold rights vide his application dt.16­6­

>> 8 << OS 390/2011

2008 to the competent authority and Commissioner of Industries A.P., for grant of freehold or fresh lease in R/o. Plot No.713, MCH No.1­9­ 1124 of Azamabad Industrial Area, Hyderabad and the same is pending consideration with the governments. The defendants further submit that they came to know the plaintiff also applied for freehold right in respect of suit schedule property and the same is pending consideration. 

The defendants further submit that the defendant No.3 applied under 

Right to Information Act to know whether the plaintiff herein has been carrying out any Industrial activities on the said premises from the following offices : 

1.Divisional Engineer, Elec. OP., Azamabad Division, APCPDCL, Hyderabad. 2.Employees State Insurance Corporation and 3.Government of Andhra Pradesh of factories.

And the said office has stated that no such industrial activities is carried out by the plaintiff in the said premises. 

The defendants herein submit that the employees of the plaintiff having threatened the defendants with dire consequences and asked them to vacate the suit schedule premises. The defendant herein filed 

OS 3665/2007 on the file of this Hon'ble Court for perpetual injunction 

against the plaintiff herein and others from interfering with the peaceful possession of the premises bearing Municipal No.1­9­1124, at 

Azamabad, Hyderabad which is the subject matter of present suit. The 

>> 9 << OS 390/2011

defendants submit that the plaintiff appeared through his counsel did not choose to file written statement as such the plaintiff herein was set exparte in OS 3665/2007 and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass exparte decree. The defendants submit that the plaintiff is not having any right to evict the defendants herein when the application of defendant No.5 for grant of lease/freehold right is pending before the concerned authorities which was applied by defendant on 16­8­2008 as per amendment made in Section 4 of the Azamabad Industrial Area ( Termination & Regulation of Leases ) Act, 2000 ( Act No.1 of 2000) (GOMS No.87 Industries and Commerce ) (IFCED). The defendants deny that they illegally occupied the rooms for their residence claimed to be employees of defendant No.5 without the permission and agreement with the plaintiff and other allegations in para under reply the defendant No.1 to 4 herein deny the same for want of knowledge and the plaintiff herein is put to strict proof of the same. The defendant 

No.1 to 4 herein deny that defendant No.5 closed the industries in the year 2002 as such it is the primary duty of defendant No.5 to vacate the premises with all his men and material by handing over the said premises and sheds and that the defendant No.1 to 4 herein are not vacating the suit schedule premises even though Defendant No.5 vacated the premises in terms of the agreement and that these defendants are not having any right to occupy the said land and reside 

>> 10 << OS 390/2011

in the said property this defendants deny the same and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The defendant submits that Def. No.5 is running the industry in occupation of the schedule property. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 herein submit that all the above allegations are baseless and made for the purpose of the present suit. This defendant further submits that Def. No.5 has already applied to competent authority and Commissioner of Industries, A.P seeking for fresh lease hold or free hold rights as per the G.O.Ms No.100 dated 7­3­2002 notification published in Eenadu and Deccan Chronicle vide their letter 

dated 16­06­2008 and the same is pending consideration with the 

Government. The Defendant No.5 herein did not vacate the suit schedule premises till date and the defendants 1 to 4 herein are in possession of the said premises and the employees of defendant No.5. 

The defendants 1 to 4 herein deny that they are not entitled to reside in the suit schedule premises and that lease of defendant No.5 with the plaintiff is terminated and that inspite of giving notice to vacate as per the contents in lease deed defendant No.5 is reluctant to vacate though he closed his business in the year 2002 and finally vacated and the plaintiff herein is put to strict proof of the same. The defendant No.1 to 4 herein submits that the above allegations made by the plaintiff are without basis and there is no iota of truth. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 herein submits carrying out his business activities from the said premises itself 

>> 11 << OS 390/2011

and further he has also applied to the competent authorities for fresh lease and freehold rights and the same is pending adjudication. As such the allegations made by the plaintiff are false. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him in the present suit and the above suit is also not maintainable and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 

4..In contrary the written statement filed by the defendant No 5 the above suit as framed and filed by the plaintiff is highly misconceived, vexatious, frivolous and the same is not maintainable either upon the facts of the case or upon law and as such is liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs. This defendants submit that the above suit is bad for non joinder and mis­joinder of necessary parties and as such the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The plaintiff concern was not a registered partnership firm as on the date of filing of the suit, as such the above suit is framed and filed by the plaintiff is hit by section 69 ( 2 ) of the Indian Partnership Act. In case of any dispute between the licensor and the licensee not open to challenge.

Therefore, the dispute between plaintiff and defendant has to necessarily go before Arbitrators as specified in the clause supra and as such the above suit is not maintainable and this defendant with utmost respect submit that this court cannot adjudicate the matter in view of 

>> 12 << OS 390/2011

the Arbitration clause and this Hon'ble Court at the most can refer the parties to arbitration. Without prejudice to the above, this defendant submits that the above suit is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of parties. The contents of the plaint are nothing but replication of recitals of agreement between plaintiff and defendant No.5. Defendant No.1 to 4 are his employees and it is incorrect to state that defendants 1 to 4 have illegally occupied the rooms for their residence which was given to 

Defendant No.5 for the purpose of storage of material. This defendant denies all other allegations contained in the para. The written statement that this defendant closed down the industry in the year 2002 and that it is the primary duty of Defendant No.5 to vacate the premises with all his men and material by handing over the said premises and sheds which is taken on sub­lease and that Def. No.1 to 4 who are the men of 

Def. No.5 started living in the said sub­lease premises even though 

Def.No.5 closed down and vacated the premises in terms of agreement and that defs 1 to 4 are not having any right to occupy and reside in the said land legally. The defendant denies the same and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. This defendant submits that the plaintiff is making the above allegations knowing fully well that the same are false to his knowledge with a malafide intention to prejudice the mind of the Hon'ble Court. This defendant submits that he is still running defendant No.5 industry. The Def. No.1 to 4 who are the employees of 

>> 13 << OS 390/2011

this defendant and as such he does not wish to traverse the said allegations. The scheduled property was given on sub­lease to this defendant for running industry and in the course of running the industry Def. No.5 is permitted Def. No.1 to 4 to reside in the premises in the course of their employment and the same does not amount to any illegally. The agreement of the plaintiff that def. 5 is terminated and inspite of giving notice to vacate as the provisions contained in lease deed the def. No.5 is reluctant to vacate even though he has closed down his business in the year 2002 and finally vacated this defendant denies the same and submits that he is still running the industry and is in occupation of the scheduled premises as an occupant. And it is the plaintiff who is not running any industry and the lease of plaintiff has become null and void. Further the plaintiff is no longer in occupation of the scheduled property. This defendant submits and in the circumstances Def. No.5 in his capacity as lessee/occupant of the schedule property has applied for free hold rights pursuant to G.O.Ms. 

NO.100, dt.7­3­2002 and the same is pending consideration with the government. The agreement of license dated 9­4­1974 between plaintiff and defendant No.5 herein specifically provides for arbitration in the event of any dispute between the parties there to Clause­8 and the plaintiff herein cannot approach this Hon'ble Court and the suit filed by him before this Hon'ble Court is not maintainable in view of specific 

>> 14 << OS 390/2011

provision for arbitration under the license agreement.

5..Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction and recovery of possession as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6..In order to substantiate the suit claim PW1 was examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A8.

7..On behalf of the defendant DW1 is examined by Advocate commissioner, no documents are marked.

8.. Heard Both sides.

9.. ISSUE No. 1

The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff taken the land admeasuring 1­163 Acs bearing plot No.7/3, municipal No.1­9­1124, 

Azamabad Industrial area, Hyderabad – 5000020 on lease for 99 years from the State Government of A.P., Hyderabad on 22nd day of June, 1965 for the purpose of erecting a factory for the manufacture of Ice with its bye­products and cold storage used in Ice Industry and to carry on business and other buildings required in connection with the goods for the purpose of the said business. The plaintiff sub­leased a part of above said land i.e open land and Shed with backside of rooms 

>> 15 << OS 390/2011

admeasuring 40' x 30' to M/s Tirupathi Metal Industries ( D5 ) with the permission of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Commerce Dept., 

Memo No.1104/IF­Cell/75­1, dated 17­10­1975. The plaintiff and 

Defendant No.5 entered into an agreement dated 9­4­1974d which is as follows : ­

a) The plaintiff permitted the defendant No.5 to use the aforesaid premises for a period of one year as per the lease deed.

b) The said premises shall at all times during the continuance of this Agreement be and remain absolute property and in sole possession of plaintiff ( Licensor ). The Agreement shall not be constructed as creating any right, interest or tenancy in favor of defendant No.5 ( licensee ) in respect of the said premises. 

C ) During the said period, the defendant No.5 is permitted to store Aluminium Sheets and Utensils and also to use the said premises for the storing of Aluminium Utensils and all other matters connected with or incidental to the business of Aluminium sheets and Utensils. 

d) During the said period, defendant No.5 shall pay Rs.301/­ per month commencing from 1­4­1974 as Licensee fee to the plaintiff. 

e) The plaintiff shall permit the entry of Hand­Trolley, Bullock­Cart, Lorry and other means of transport into the compound of the said premises for the purposes of bringing raw materials from Rail and Road and at the same time permitting the defendant No.5 ( licensee ) to dispatch the finished products by the aforementioned means of transport to various marketing centers from the said premises. 

f) The plaintiff shall permit the proprietor ( D5 ) their employees, representatives, workmen and customers to enter into the aforesaid portion of the premises at all times for carrying on business in the said premises.

g) Defendant No.5 shall obtain connection of Electricity and water supply and all expenses for consumption of Electricity of Water shall be borne by Defendant No.5 and in no case, the plaintiff is not liable to bear or pay the said charges. 

h) The repairs and maintenance of the premises will be occurred by the Defendant No.5.

I) In case of any disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant No.5 in respect of Interpretation, Contract or Performance of any of them or conditions of the Licensee, the same shall be referred to the Arbitration ( Two advocates one chosen by each party ) whose decision shall be final and conclusive and not open to challenge or review. 

j) The defendant No.5 hereby agrees with the plaintiff that in the course of conducting the operations of the said business, the defendant No.5 shall not commit any 

>> 16 << OS 390/2011

alterations without the content of the plaintiff or cause any damage to the aforesaid premises and will try to maintain the premises in good conditions.

k) The defendant No.5 hereby convenants with the plaintiff that he will not use the said premises for any other purpose other than the purposes aforesaid and connected with its defendant No.5 business and that if the defendant No.5 ceases to do so, will be entitled to revoke the licence.

li)The plaintiff hereby convenants with the defendant No.5 that as long as the defendant No.5 performs and observes the terms and conditions herein before contained, the plaintiff will not in any way hinder him in the use and enjoyment of the said premises and of the license herein above contained. 

m)The schedule referred to herein, and any alteration thereto from time to time, will always be deemed to be the part of this agreement. 

It is submitted that the Defendant No.1 to 4 alleged that they are so called employees of Defendant No.5 illegally occupied the 

Rooms for their residence without the permission of the plaintiff and it is given to Defendant No.5 for the purpose of Storage of material etc. 

As per the Agreement between plaintiff and Defendant No.5 as and when the Defendant No.5 vacate the said premises, Defendant NO.5 should remove all stocks, materials, furniture, fixtures, electric connections etc which was brought into the premises and handover the premises to the plaintiff without any dispute. It is further submitted that the Defendant No.1 to 4 illegally occupied the said rooms without any agreement from the plaintiff and the defendant No.5 closed down the Industry in the year 2002 and it is primary duty of defendant No.5 to vacate the premises with all his men and material by handing over the said premises and sheds which is taken on sub­lease. But the 

>> 17 << OS 390/2011

defendant No.1 to 4 who are alleged that they were the men of defendant No.5 started living in the said sub­leased premises even­ though the defendant No.5 closed down and vacated the premises in terms of agreement in which Defendant No.1 to 4 are not living any right, still occupied and reside in the said scheduled property illegally. 

The ( D1 to D4 ) applied for Ration card, driving licence, voter identity card, bank account, opening, telephone connection with the address of the plaintiff and possessed without the knowledge of the plaintiff. 

The defendants No.1 to 4 filed a suit against the plaintiff and other partners for claim of perpetual injunction for the suit scheduled property in the court of Hon'ble 10th Junior Civil Judge, City 

Civil Court, Hyderabad with OS No.3665/2007 alleging in the plaint that they are the employees of defendant No.5 ( M/s Tirupati Metal 

Industries ) and occupied he premises with sheds / rooms for their residence and obtained by filing a suit for Perpetual Injunction restraining the plaintiff and his men from evicting the defendants No.1 to 4 except as per “ due process of law “. Because of Apprehension that they will be vacated forcibly the defendant's filed the above suit for perpetual injunction and succeeded and the plaintiffs have given sub­ lease to defendant No.5 ( M/s Tirupathi Metal Industries ) only for their manufacture and storage of goods and as per Agreement in the sub­ lease the plaintiffs allowed the employees etc to work in the industry 

>> 18 << OS 390/2011

only but not allowed their employees to reside or illegally occupy the premises and rooms. The so called employees not entitled to reside in the premises when the said Industry called (M/s Tirupathi Metal 

Industry ( Defendant No.5 ) closed down in the year 2002 and it is the responsibility and bounden duty to handover the premises and rooms as per Agreement agreed by both the plaintiffs and Defendant No.5. The defendant No.1 to 4 are not entitled to reside in the suit schedule property land therefore the plaintiffs is seeking Eviction by “ due process of law “ as the defendants No.1 to 4 are not entitled to stay in the suit schedule property of premises, even though the defendants No.1 to 4 filed OS No.3665 of 2007 which was decreed on 10­12­2007 by the 

Hon'ble 10th Junior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad. The Hon'ble Court 

decreed the suit. But the plaintiff is now filing this suit for Eviction by due process of law. The present suit is filed for evicting all the defendants No.1 to 4 by due process of law as they are not entitled to reside in the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that 

Defendant No.5 who entered into an agreement with the plaintiff is terminated and inspite of giving notice to vacate as per the provisions contained in the lease deed, the defendant No.5 is reluctant to vacate, even though he has closed down his business in the year 2002 and finally vacated. But defendants No.1 to 4 are still residing in the said suit schedule property for whom the present suit is filed for eviction.

>> 19 << OS 390/2011

In order to substantiate suit claim PW1 was examined and reiterated the facts of the plaint and got marked the document Ex.A1 to 

A8, Ex.A1 is lease agreement dt.22.06.1965, Ex.A2 is Original Sublease agreement between agreement Kapadia industries and M/s Tirupathi 

Metal Industries, Ex.A3 is Original memo NO.1104/1F­G4/75, Ex.A4 is 

C/C of status quo order dt.17.07.2007, Ex.A5 C/c of Judgment and decree in OS No.3665/2007, dt.10.12.2007, Ex.A6 C/c of order in IA 

No.47/08 in OS No.3665/07, dt.20.03.2009, Ex.A7 is Death certificate of Dhiraj Lal Tokarshi Kapadia dt.17.04.2013, Ex.A8 is Original partnership and Registration Certificate of Firm dt.10.07.2013.

During the cross examination he admitted that as per GO Ms 

No.87, dt.7.3.2002 issued by Industries and Commerce and lease holders/occupants authorized to apply for freehold rights and further admitted that D1 to D4 are residing in the suit schedule property from 1974.

In contrary the counsel for the defendants submitted that the above suit is bad for non joinder and mis­joinder of necessary parties and as such the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 

There is privity of contract between plaintiff and these defendants as such plaintiff cannot maintain the above suit against him. On this ground alone the above suit is liable to be dismissed as against them. 

The defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein were the employees of defendant No.5 

>> 20 << OS 390/2011

and the defendant No.4 is the sister of defendant Nos.1 to 3. The defendants herein submit that the defendants No.1 and 2 joined the 

Defendant No.5 in the year 1975 and defendant No.3 in the year 1982. 

The defendants herein submit that in as much as they are the employees of the defendant No.5 provided quarter to them and since then they are residing in the suit schedule property and are running small scale industry. While so, the Govt. of A.P amended the Azamabad Industrial 

Area ( Termination & Regulation of Leases ) Act, 2000 on 7­3­2002 by 

G.O.Ms.No.87, Industries and Commerce ( IF­Cell ) 20­2­2002 wherein they have submitted the rules. As per the said amendment the lease holders or the occupants can apply for a fresh lease with effect from approved date and renewal thereof or he can apply for free hold rights by praying a price equivalent to 75% of the market value. If the said lease holders or occupants have been using the premises for Industrial purpose. The defendants further submit, the defendant No.5 who is carrying out the Industrial activities in the said premises ( suit schedule property ) had applied for freehold rights vide his application dt.16­6­ 2008 to the competent authority and Commissioner of Industries A.P., for grant of freehold or fresh lease in R/o. Plot No.713, MCH No.1­9­ 1124 of Azamabad Industrial Area, Hyderabad and the same is pending consideration with the governments. The defendants further submit that they came to know the plaintiff also applied for freehold right in 

>> 21 << OS 390/2011

respect of suit schedule property and the same is pending consideration. 

The defendants further submit that the defendant No.3 applied under 

Right to Information Act to know whether the plaintiff herein has been carrying out any Industrial activities on the said premises from the following offices : 

1.Divisional Engineer, Elec. OP., Azamabad Division, APCPDCL, Hyderabad.

2. Employees State Insurance Corporation and

3. Government of Andhra Pradesh of factories.

And the said office has stated that no such industrial activities is carried out by the plaintiff in the said premises. 

The defendants herein submit that the employees of the plaintiff having threatened the defendants with dire consequences and asked them to vacate the suit schedule premises. The defendant herein filed 

OS 3665/2007 on the file of this Hon'ble Court for perpetual injunction 

against the plaintiff herein and others from interfering with the peaceful possession of the premises bearing Municipal No.1­9­1124, at 

Azamabad, Hyderabad which is the subject matter of present suit. The defendants submit that the plaintiff appeared through his counsel did not choose to file written statement as such the plaintiff herein was set exparte in OS 3665/2007 and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass exparte decree. The defendants submit that the plaintiff is not having any right to evict the defendants herein when the application of 

>> 22 << OS 390/2011

defendant No.5 for grant of lease/freehold right is pending before the concerned authorities which was applied by defendant on 16­8­2008 as per amendment made in Section 4 of the Azamabad Industrial Area ( Termination & Regulation of Leases ) Act, 2000 ( Act No.1 of 2000) (GOMS No.87 Industries and Commerce ) (IFCED). The defendants deny that they illegally occupied the rooms for their residence claimed to be employees of defendant No.5 without the permission and agreement with the plaintiff and the plaintiff herein is put to strict proof of the same. With reference to other allegations in para under reply the defendant No.1 to 4 herein deny the same for want of knowledge and the plaintiff herein is put to strict proof of the same. The defendant 

No.1 to 4 herein deny that defendant No.5 closed the industries in the year 2002 as such it is the primary duty of defendant No.5 to vacate the premises with all his men and material by handing over the said premises and sheds and that the defendant No.1 to 4 herein are not vacating the suit schedule premises even though Defendant No.5 vacated the premises in terms of the agreement and that these defendants are not having any right to occupy the said land and reside in the said property this defendants deny the same and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The defendant submits that Def. No.5 is running the industry in occupation of the schedule property. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 herein submit that all the above allegations are 

>> 23 << OS 390/2011

baseless and made for the purpose of the present suit. This defendant further submits that Def. No.5 has already applied to competent authority and Commissioner of Industries, A.P seeking for fresh lease hold or free hold rights as per the G.O.Ms No.100 dated 7­3­2002 notification published in Eenadu and Deccan Chronicle vide their letter 

dated 16­06­2008 and the same is pending consideration with the 

Government. The Defendant No.5 herein did not vacate the suit schedule premises till date and the defendants 1 to 4 herein are in possession of the said premises and the employees of defendant No.5. 

The defendants 1 to 4 herein deny that they are not entitled to reside in the suit schedule premises and that lease of defendant No.5 with the plaintiff is terminated and that inspite of giving notice to vacate as per the contents in lease deed defendant No.5 is reluctant to vacate though he closed his business in the year 2002 and finally vacated and the plaintiff herein is put to strict proof of the same. The defendant No.1 to 4 herein submits that the above allegations made by the plaintiff are without basis and there is no iota of truth. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 herein submits carrying out his business activities from the said premises itself and further he has also applied to the competent authorities for fresh lease and freehold rights and the same is pending adjudication. As such the allegations made by the plaintiff are false. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him in the present suit and the 

>> 24 << OS 390/2011

above suit is also not maintainable and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 

In contrary the defendant No 5 submitted the plaintiff concern was not a registered partnership firm as on the date of filing of the suit, as such the above suit is framed and filed by the plaintiff is hit by section 69 ( 2 ) of the Indian Partnership Act. In case of any dispute between the licensor and the licensee not open to challenge.

Therefore, the dispute between plaintiff and defendant has to necessarily go before Arbitrators as specified in the clause supra and as such the above suit is not maintainable and this defendant with utmost respect submit that this court cannot adjudicate the matter in view of the Arbitration clause and this Hon'ble Court at the most can refer the parties to arbitration. Without prejudice to the above, this defendant submits that the above suit is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of parties. The contents of the plaint are nothing but replication of recitals of agreement between plaintiff and defendant No.5. Defendant No.1 to 4 are his employees and it is incorrect to state that defendants 1 to 4 have illegally occupied the rooms for their residence which was given to 

Defendant No.5 for the purpose of storage of material. This defendant denies all other allegations contained in the para. The written statement that this defendant closed down the industry in the year 2002 and that it is the primary duty of Defendant No.5 to vacate the premises with all 

>> 25 << OS 390/2011

his men and material by handing over the said premises and sheds which is taken on sub­lease and that Def. No.1 to 4 who are the men of 

Def. No.5 started living in the said sub­lease premises even though 

Def.No.5 closed down and vacated the premises in terms of agreement and that defs 1 to 4 are not having any right to occupy and reside in the said land legally. The defendant denies the same and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. This defendant submits that the plaintiff is making the above allegations knowing fully well that the same are false to his knowledge with a malafide intention to prejudice the mind of the Hon'ble Court. This defendant submits that he is still running defendant No.5 industry. The Def. No.1 to 4 who are the employees of this defendant and as such he does not wish to traverse the said allegations. The scheduled property was given on sub­lease to this defendant for running industry and in the course of running the industry Def. No.5 is permitted Def. No.1 to 4 to reside in the premises in the course of their employment and the same does not amount to any illegally. The agreement of the plaintiff that def. 5 is terminated and inspite of giving notice to vacate as the provisions contained in lease deed the def. No.5 is reluctant to vacate even though he has closed down his business in the year 2002 and finally vacated this defendant denies the same and submits that he is still running the industry and is in occupation of the scheduled premises as an occupant. And it is the 

>> 26 << OS 390/2011

plaintiff who is not running any industry and the lease of plaintiff has become null and void. Further the plaintiff is no longer in occupation of the scheduled property. This defendant submits and in the circumstances Def. No.5 in his capacity as lessee/occupant of the schedule property has applied for free hold rights pursuant to G.O.Ms. 

NO.100, dt.7­3­2002 and the same is pending consideration with the government. The agreement of license dated 9­4­1974 between plaintiff and defendant No.5 herein specifically provides for arbitration in the event of any dispute between the parties there to Clause­8 and the plaintiff herein cannot approach this Hon'ble Court and the suit filed by him before this Hon'ble Court is not maintainable in view of specific provision for arbitration under the license agreement.

In support of his contention the defendant No 1 is examined as 

DW1 no documents are marked.

10..On considering the rival contentions of either side the court observes that there is no dispute with respect to the fact that D1 to D4 are in possession of the suit schedule property. The plea of the plaintiff is that he has permitted D5 to use the premises for a period of one year as per lease deed dt.9.5.1974 and as such D5 is only licenser and is permitted to store Aluminum Sheets and Utensils and also to use the said premises for the storing of Aluminum Utensils and all other matters 

>> 27 << OS 390/2011

connected with or incidental to the business of Aluminum sheets and 

Utensils. The plaintiff shall permit the proprietor ( D5 ) their employees, representatives, workmen and customers to enter into the aforesaid portion of the premises at all times for carrying on business in the said premises. The Defendant No.1 to 4 alleged to be employees of 

Defendant No.5 illegally occupied the Rooms for their residence without the permission of the plaintiff or D5 and the defendant No.5 closed down the Industry in the year 2002 and it is primary duty of defendant 

No.5 to vacate the premises with all his men and material by handing over the said premises and sheds which is taken on sub­lease.

The further plea of the plaintiff is that as D1 to D4 are not entitled to reside in the suit schedule property and he can seek eviction by due process or law and he further stated that D5 had vacated suit schedule property. However, D5 has not admitted that he has vacated the suit schedule property and he is still continuing the business and D1 to D4 being his employees are residing in the suit schedule property and in addition to that he pleaded that as per GOMs No.87, D5 has applied that for grant of lease/freehold right and it is pending before the concerned authorities which was applied by defendant on 16­8­2008 as per amendment made in Section 4 of the Azamabad Industrial Area ( Termination & Regulation of Leases ) Act, 2000 ( Act No.1 of 2000) (GOMS No.87 Industries and Commerce ) (IFCED). Hence the plaintiff 

>> 28 << OS 390/2011

has no right to evict the D1 to D5 from the suit schedule property.

However the point pertinent here to note is that unless the concerned authorities grant lease right in favour of defendants, the defendants are the lessors of the plaintiff. As admitted by the defendants the plaintiff has obtained the premises on lease from the 

Government for a period of 99 years. In the above circumstances the defendant cannot take shelter under the guise of their application to the 

Government for lease rights. However it is duty of the plaintiff to issue notice to the defendant for eviction of the suit schedule property. On perusal of entire record there is no notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants for vacation of suit schedule property and to hand over the same to the plaintiff. As such there is no cause of action in the plaint to file the present suit and the plaintiff has mentioned that the cause of action to file the suit arose on 20.03.2009. IA No.47/2008 in OS 

No.3665/2007 was dismissed.

But, the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit in view of dismissal in IA No.47/2008 in OS No.3665/2007. In order to vacate the defendant with due processes of law, the plaintiff has to issue quit notice to the defendants who are the tenants of the plaintiff. In the present case though the eviction suit filed, there is no notice to the defendants u/s 106 T P Act.

In the above circumstances the plaintiff failed to follow due 

>> 29 << OS 390/2011

process of law and the present suit is not maintainable. Though the plaintiff stated that D5 has already vacated the suit schedule property when D5 is denying the same, it is for the plaintiff to establish the same but plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence to show that D5 has vacated the suit property and is not continuing the business in the property. In the circumstances aforesaid, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of eviction of defendant from the suit schedule property and recovery of the possession. Accordingly issue is answered against the plaintiff.

11..Issue No 2:

In view of the findings in the issue No 1 the suit is dismissed without costs.

In the result, the suit is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, 

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 1 st DAY OF June, 2016.

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

PW1 : Sushil Dhirajlal Kapadia DW1:Chaganlal Rasiklal Lotia

>> 30 << OS 390/2011

Documents marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1 :Lease agreement dt.22.06.1965, 

Ex.A2 :Original Sublease agreement between agreement Kapadia industries and M/s Tirupathi Metal Industries, 

Ex.A3 :Original memo NO.1104/1F­G4/75, Ex.A4 is C/C of status quo order dt.17.07.2007, Ex.A5 C/c of Judgment and decree in OS 

No.3665/2007, dt.10.12.2007, 

Ex.A6 : C/c of order in IA No.47/08 in OS No.3665/07, dt.20.03.2009, 

Ex.A7 :Death certificate of Dhiraj Lal Tokarshi Kapadia dt.17.04.2013, 

Ex.A8 :Original partnership and Registration Certificate of Firm dt.10.07.2013.

Documents marked for defendant: NIL

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

 IN THE COURT OF THE X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: 

CITY CIVIL COURT:HYDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 1 st DAY OF JUNE, 2016.

PRESENT: Smt.S.Swathi Reddy,

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

OS No.1771 of 2012

Between: Yamuna Mutyala D/o Dr Doraswamy Naidu Mutyala, Aged 80 years, Occ: Household, R?o 3­6­286, Hyderaguda, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad

.. Plaintiff

AND

A V Manohar S/o A Prabhakar Rao, Aged 38 years, R/o Flat No.10, Ramakrishna Sharada Apartments, Mutyala Gardens, Hyderaguda, Hyderabad. . . Defendant

This suit coming on 21.03.2016 before me for final disposal, in presence of Sri Shyam S Agarwal, Advocate for the plaintiff, and of Sri D P Jaiswal, Advocate for defendant and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

The plaintiff filed a suit to declare that the defendant is not adopted son of the plaintiff and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from impersonating or claiming himself as a adopted son of the plaintiff before any government authorities or general public at large.

2..The averments of the plaint as stated by the plaintiff are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of various immovable 

>> 2 << OS1771/2012

properties which includes agricultural lands in Survey No.180/1 to 180/15 situated at Kajipalli village, Zinnaram Mandal, Medak District and house property building bearing No.3­6­286, admeasuring 800 

Sq.yds situated at Hyderguda, Hyderabad and Flat No.10, Ramakrishna 

Sharada Apartments, Mutyala Gardens, Hyderguda, Hyderabad ­ 500029 and defendant's father was a tenant in the flat of plaintiff's brother in law as such defendant's family got close acquaintance with the plaintiff and since the plaintiff is a spinster and since there are no male members in her family, the defendant was entrusted to look after the property affairs of the plaintiff. Inview of the close acquaintance, the defendant was permitted to stay in the flat of the plaintiff and the main intention of the plaintiff to permit the defendant to stay in the first of the plaintiff is only that the defendant could look after the immovable properties of the plaintiff by staying with her. The defendant requested the plaintiff to execute a power of attorney in his favour for enabling him to manage the immovable properties of the plaintiff. The plaintiff got induced by the request of the defendant and she executed General Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant authorities him to manage the properties. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff being a senior citizen and not well versed confidence don the defendant and under bonafide hope that the defendant will not act detriment to the interest of the plaintiff as such 

>> 3 << OS1771/2012

executed general power of attorney in favour of the defendant. 

Plaintiff came to know about the mis­using of the powers conferred under General Power of Attorney by the defendant herein and so also came to know of the misappropriation of amounts by the defendant by entering the sale transactions by receiving the amounts from the third parties without the consent and acknowledge of the plaintiff. After knowing the misdeeds committed by the defendant, the plaintiff was constrained to cancel the General POWER OF attorney executed in favour of the defendant and the same was intimated to the defendant by causing a legal notice dated 30­10­2011 calling upon him not to indulge or transact with the properties of the plaintiff and a copy of the said notice was also marked to concerned Districtg Registrar, Medak 

District and also Sub­Registrar, Narsapur, Medak Dist. It is suffice to say that the said notice was received by the defendant as well as concerned authorities and there was no response from the defendant to the legal notice dated 30­10­2011 and cancellation of General Power of 

Attorney executed in favour of the defendant attained finally and publication was also caused to the said effect in Eenadu on 2­11­11. 

Apart from mis­managing the properties and mis­using powers conferred upon him the defendant is falsely claiming himself to be the adopted son of the plaintiff before the Govt. authorities and general public at large, which claim of the defendant is false in view of the fact 

>> 4 << OS1771/2012

that the plaintiff never adopted the defendant any point of time and it is the defendant who is falsely impersonating himself to be adopted son of the plaintiff only with the malafide intention to deprive the plaintiff of her legitimate rights in the immoveable properties and so also to make illegal and wrongful gains for himself. Immediately after coming to the know about the false claim of the defendant as adopted son of the plaintiff, the defendant got a caution notice issued in Deccan 

Chronicle dated 19­11­2011 informing the general public that the defendant is not the adopted son of the plaintiff and through the said publication, the general public was cautioned not to transact with the defendant in respect of the properties belonging to the plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendant is not the adopted son of the plaintiff and at no point of time giving and taking advantage of of the defendant in adoption has not taken place which is mandatory requirement and no registered document to the said affect was executed and the defendant is called upon to prove his false allegation as to he being the adopted son of the plaintiff. The defendant has got a paper publication in Deccan Chronicle on 20­05­2012 by falsely informing the general public that he is the adopted son of the plaintiff and he is having rights in the properties. The defendant has no rights or title over the properties belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant is not adopted son of the plaintiff, as such the defendant cannot claim 

>> 5 << OS1771/2012

any rights over the properties of the plaintiff and plaintiff reposed trust on the defendant on the bonafide belief that he will not act adverse to the interest of the plaintiff but the defendant contrary to the same has acted detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff by falsely claiming himself to be the adopted son of the plaintiff and indulging in mis­ appropriation and mis­management of the properties of the plaintiff. 

Thus with a view to expose the nefracious from impersonating himself to be adopted son of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was left with no other alternative except to approach this Hon'ble Court by filing the present suit for declaration to declare the defendant is not the adopted son of the plaintiff and consequently restraining the defendant by way of injunction from claiming himself to be adopted son of the plaintiff 

before general public or any Govt. authorities. Hence the suit.

3..A written statement is filed by defendant and denied that it is false and baseless to allege that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the immoveable properties ie agricultural lands in Survey 

No.180/1 to 180/15 situted at Khazipally Village Jinnaram Mandal, 

Medak district, A.P. It is also false and untrue to allege that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of house property bearing H.No.3­6­ 286, admeasuring 800 Sq.Yds., situted at Hyderguda, Hyderabad and flat No.10 in Ram Krishna Sharda Apartments, Mutyala Gardens, 

>> 6 << OS1771/2012

Hyderguda, Hyderabad. The plaintiff is the mother of the defendant and the defendant being her son, are the joint owners of the lands in 

Khazipally Village Mandal and the house property bearing No.H.No.3­6­ 286, Mutyala Gardens, Hyderguda, Hyderabad and the plaintiff being the mother and joint owner is not entitled to claim the said property as absolute owner. The plaintiff and the biological parents of the defendant, and the brother­in­law of the plaintiff P.Subramani Iyer, were very close family friends and living at the same area and place and are well acquainted and had close relationship with each other. The plaintiff being a spinster, had adopted the defendant as her son on 23­ 08­1974 in the presence of her sister and brother in law and other family members by complying all the formalities, and since then the defendant is living and residing with the plaintiff in her house H.No.3­6­ 286, at Mutyala Gardens, Hydergdua, Hyderabad as the son of the plaintiff and defendant was brought up by the plaintiff as her son and all the records show and prove that the defendant is residing with the plaintiff at H.No.3­6­286, Mutyala Gradens, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. 

The defendant was entrusted to look after the properties as there is no male member in the family, but in favour of the defendant being the son is looking after and taking care of and looking after all the affairs of the family properties. The said flat was given and gifted to the biological parents of this defendant by the said Shri P.Subramani Iyer brother in 

>> 7 << OS1771/2012

law of the plaintiff during his lifetime, and they are in possession and enjoyment of the said flat No.10, Rama Krishna Apartments, as absolute owners thereof since last more than 22 years, without any interference or interruption by the plaintiff or any other person. The property / land in Khazipally was attempted by some third persons to grab the said land, and it is the defendant who had resisted along with the plaintiff from land grabbing and has saved the lands and property and the defendant being the son of the plaintiff has saved the properties of the family and the plaintiff has given the GPA to manage the family properties. The defendant never misappropriated any amounts and the defendant has not sole any properties and the defendant has not received any amounts from the third parties as alleged. The plaintiff is making all these allegations with the sole intention to file the present suit and at the behest of some vested interest persons. Some vested interest persons are interested in the properties, and were trying to usurp the family properties and amounts of the plaintiff, and when the defendant resisted their attempt and stopped them from usurping the properties, then the said vested interest persons are creating a misunderstanding and rift between the plaintiff and defendant and they are instigating the plaintiff to deny the relationship of the plaintiff and defendant so that they can easily usurp the properties, and the plaintiff was induced by the said persons and at the behest of the said vested 

>> 8 << OS1771/2012

interest persons have got issued the notices and got published in the news paper, and the defendant is not aware of the said notice and publication, and it came to the knowledge only after the receipt of the court summons and copies of the plaint in the suit. When the defendant came to know about the intentions of the said vested interest persons the defendant has got published a notice in the news paper on 20­05­ 2012. The defendant being the legally adopted son of the plaintiff, and which was also admitted by the plaintiff in the General Power of 

Attorney executed by her and also before the Revenue Authorities that the defendant is the adopted son of the plaintiff. Now after a gap and lapse of more then 37 years, from the date of adoption, the plaintiff at the behest, interference and instigation of the vested interest persons is denying the said factum of adoption. The defendant is the legally adopted son of the plaintiff and being the son of plaintiff, the defendant has got every right and share in the properties.

Further it is submitted that the defendant never misused or misappropriated any amounts and the defendant had never acted against the interest of his mother i.e the plaintiff and has not entered into any sale transactions in respect of the properties. The plaintiff is making all the false and untrue allegations against the defendant at the behest of the vested interest persons and at their instance only the plaintiff has filed the present suit and the defendant claims all the 

>> 9 << OS1771/2012

adverse allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint, and the plaintiff may be put to strict proof of each and every allegations by her in the plaint. The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, and the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts before this Honourable court and as such she is not entitled for any relief from this Honourable Court. 

There arises no cause of action for filing the suit and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini. The plaintiff has not valued the suit property and the court fee paid is not proper and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. 

4..Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and consequential injunction as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff adopted defendant as her son on 23.08.1974, by complying all the formalities under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act?

3. To what relief?

5..In order to substantiate the suit claim PW1 and PW2 were examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A7.

6..On behalf of the defendant DW1 is examined and Ex.B1 to B3 are marked by commissioner and Ex.B4 & B5 got marked on behalf of defendant.

>> 10 << OS1771/2012

7.. Heard Both sides.

8.. ISSUE No. 1 & 2

As issue Nos 1 & 2 are inter related they are discussed together:

The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the several immovable properties and the father of the defendant was the tenant in the flat of plaintiff's brother­in­law, as such this family got close acquaintance with her and since she is senior citizen and there are no other family members in her family. The defendant was taking care of even her properties on her behalf. In view of the close acquaintance the defendant has permitted to stay in the flat 

No 10, Ramakrishna Sharada Apartments and her main intention is to permit the defendant to stay for the only reason the defendant can look after immovable properties of the plaintiff by staying with her. The further case of the plaintiff is that The defendant requested the plaintiff to execute a power of attorney in his favour for enabling him to manage the immovable properties of the plaintiff. The plaintiff got induced by the request of the defendant and she executed General Power of 

Attorney in favour of the defendant authorities him to manage the properties. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff being a senior citizen and not well versed confidence don the defendant and 

>> 11 << OS1771/2012

under bonafide hope that the defendant will not act detriment to the interest of the plaintiff as such executed general power of attorney in favour of the defendant. Plaintiff came to know about the mis­using of the powers conferred under General Power of Attorney by the defendant herein and so also came to know of the misappropriation of amounts by the defendant by entering the sale transactions by receiving the amounts from the third parties without the consent and acknowledge of the plaintiff. After knowing the misdeeds committed by the defendant, the plaintiff was constrained to cancel the General 

POWER OF attorney executed in favour of the defendant and the same was intimated to the defendant by causing a legal notice dated 30­10­ 2011 calling upon him not to indulge or transact with the properties of the plaintiff and a copy of the said notice was also marked to concerned 

Districtg Registrar, Medak District and also Sub­Registrar, Narsapur, 

Medak Dist. It is suffice to say that the said notice was received by the defendant as well as concerned authorities and there was no response from the defendant to the legal notice dated 30­10­2011 and cancellation of General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the defendant attained finally and publication was also caused to the said effect in Eenadu on 2­11­11. Apart from mis­managing the properties and mis­using powers conferred upon him the defendant is falsely claiming himself to be the adopted son of the plaintiff before the Govt. 

>> 12 << OS1771/2012

authorities and general public at large, which claim of the defendant is false in view of the fact that the plaintiff never adopted the defendant any point of time and it is the defendant who is falsely impersonating himself to be adopted son of the plaintiff only with the malafide intention to deprive the plaintiff of her legitimate rights in the immoveable properties and so also to make illegal and wrongful gains for himself. Immediately after coming to the know about the false claim of the defendant as adopted son of the plaintiff, the defendant got a caution notice issued in Deccan Chronicle dated 19­11­2011 informing the general public that the defendant is not the adopted son of the plaintiff and through the said publication, the general public was cautioned not to transact with the defendant in respect of the properties belonging to the plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendant is not the adopted son of the plaintiff and at no point of time giving and taking advantage of of the defendant in adoption has not taken place which is mandatory requirement and no registered document to the said affect was executed and the defendant is called upon to prove his false allegation as to he being the adopted son of the plaintiff. The defendant has got a paper publication in Deccan 

Chronicle on 20­05­2012 by falsely informing the general public that he is the adopted son of the plaintiff and he is having rights in the properties. The defendant has no rights or title over the properties 

>> 13 << OS1771/2012

belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant is not adopted son of the plaintiff, as such the defendant cannot claim any rights over the properties of the plaintiff and plaintiff reposed trust on the defendant on the bonafide belief that he will not act adverse to the interest of the plaintiff but the defendant contrary to the same has acted detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff by falsely claiming himself to be the adopted son of the plaintiff and indulging in mis­appropriation and mis­ management of the properties of the plaintiff. Thus with a view to expose the nefracious from impersonating himself to be adopted son of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was left with no other alternative except to approach this Hon'ble Court by filing the present suit for declaration to declare the defendant is not the adopted son of the plaintiff and consequently restraining the defendant by way of injunction from claiming himself to be adopted son of the plaintiff before general public or any Govt. authorities and after filing the written statement by defendant the plaintiff filed rejoinder further stated that she never adopted the defendant at any point of time, that the very personal documents of the defendant like his Aadhar card, Voter Identity card and all other Government records show his surname as that of his father 'Amam' and also his father's name as 'Prabhakar Rao'. If really the defendant was adopted by the plaintiff, his surname would have changed to that of the plaintiff and he would have been described as 

>> 14 << OS1771/2012

son of the plaintiff. Apart from the defendant has been residing along with his father in flat No 10of Ramakrishna Sarada Apartments and not with the plaintiff. The plaintiff made clear that she never had any intention to adopt anybody including the defendant, that as the defendant was the only son of his parents, it cannot be thought that his parents would give him away in adoption, that the parents of the defendant used to serve the plaintiff by residing in the outhouse of her house, that the defendant used to help the plaintiff in her day to day activities and gained proximity and confidence with access in the house and that the defendant misused the trust and confidence. The plaintiff also contended in rejoinder that the defendant has not specified any particular ceremony as performed in relation to alleged adoption, that there was no giving and taking at any particular place or time, the defendant was never described or shown as son of the plaintiff, that taking advantage of her old age, loneliness, waker sex and other disadvantages in life, the defendant initially made her sing the documents showing him as her son and misused them. Taking advantage of her reposing confidence in him, the defendant manipulate and created documents in his favour and making attempts to cause harm to the plaintiff with the same.

9..In order to corroborate the case of the plaintiff the plaintiff 

>> 15 << OS1771/2012

examined as PW1 and she reiterated the contention of the plaint as well as rejoinder in her evidence and got marked the documents Ex.A1 to A7, Ex.A1 is office copy of the legal notice dt.30.10.2011, Ex.A2 is original paper publication in eenadu dt.02.11.2011, Ex.A3 is original postal acknowledgment, Ex.A4 is original paper publication in Deccan 

Chronicle on 19.11.2011, Ex.A5 Original paper publication in Deccan 

Chronicle on 20.02.2012 and during her cross examination she admitted the documents which are confronted to her they are Ex.B1 to 

B3, Ex.B1 is Certified copy of the counter dt.04.09.2004, Ex.B2 is certified copy of order dt.18.04.2005, Ex.B3 is certified copy of the 

GPA dt.17.06.2005, Ex.B4 is Aashar card of the defendant, Ex.B5 is 

Voter ID card.

In order to substantiate suit claim one Smt Shakuntala was examined as PW2 who stated that she has been very close to the plaintiff being her friend for the past more than 5 decades, that they meet very frequently and know well about each other, that the defendant had grown up in the house of the plaintiff, the plaintiff never adopted the defendant nor she had any intention to take anybody in adoption at any time. the defendant offered her help to the plaintiff in view of her old age and being a lady and as there was no make person in family to support her she accepted the same. She also affirmed that the defendant obtained signatures of the plaintiff on several papers 

>> 16 << OS1771/2012

without allowing her to go through the contents showing urgency and hurriedness that the plaintiff canceled the deed of power of attorney, that the defendant approached PW2 requesting to pacify the plaintiff as she distanced him after coming to know about his mischief. Nothing much could be elicited int he cross examination of PW2 also against the plaintiff.

In contrary the submission of defendant is that it is also false and untrue to allege that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of house property bearing H.No.3­6­286, admeasuring 800 Sq.Yds., situated at 

Hyderguda, Hyderabad and flat No.10 in Ram Krishna Sharda 

Apartments, Mutyala Gardens, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. The plaintiff is the mother of the defendant and the defendant being her son, are the joint owners of the lands in Khazipally Village Mandal and the house property bearing No.H.No.3­6­286, Mutyala Gardens, Hyderguda, 

Hyderabad and the plaintiff being the mother and joint owner is not entitled to claim the said property as absolute owner. The plaintiff and the biological parents of the defendant, and the brother­in­law of the plaintiff P.Subramani Iyer, were very close family friends and living at the same area and place and are well acquainted and had close relationship with each other. The plaintiff being a spinster, had adopted the defendant as her son on 23­08­1974 in the presence of her sister and brother in law and other family members by complying all the 

>> 17 << OS1771/2012

formalities, and since then the defendant is living and residing with the plaintiff in her house H.No.3­6­286, at Mutyala Gardens, Hydergdua, 

Hyderabad as the son of the plaintiff and defendant was brought up by the plaintiff as her son and all the records show and prove that the defendant is residing with the plaintiff at H.No.3­6­286, Mutyala 

Gradens, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. The defendant was entrusted to look after the properties as there is no male member in the family, but in favour of the defendant being the son is looking after and taking care of and looking after all the affairs of the family properties. The said flat was given and gifted to the biological parents of this defendant by the said Shri P.Subramani Iyer brother in law of the plaintiff during his lifetime, and they are in possession and enjoyment of the said flat 

No.10, Rama Krishna Apartments, as absolute owners thereof since last more than 22 years, without any interference or interruption by the plaintiff or any other person. The property / land in Khazipally was attempted by some third persons to grab the said land, and it is the defendant who had resisted along with the plaintiff from land grabbing and has saved the lands and property and the defendant being the son of the plaintiff has saved the properties of the family and the plaintiff has given the GPA to manage the family properties. The defendant never misappropriated any amounts and the defendant has not sole any properties and the defendant has not received any amounts from the 

>> 18 << OS1771/2012

third parties as alleged. The plaintiff is making all these allegations with the sole intention to file the present suit and at the behest of some vested interest persons. Some vested interest persons are interested in the properties, and were trying to usurp the family properties and amounts of the plaintiff, and when the defendant resisted their attempt and stopped them from usurping the properties, then the said vested interest persons are creating a misunderstanding and rift between the plaintiff and defendant and they are instigating the plaintiff to deny the relationship of the plaintiff and defendant so that they can easily usurp the properties, and the plaintiff was induced by the said persons and at the behest of the said vested interest persons have got issued the notices and got published in the news paper, and the defendant is not aware of the said notice and publication, and it came to the knowledge only after the receipt of the court summons and copies of the plaint in the suit. 

When the defendant came to know about the intentions of the said vested interest persons the defendant has got published a notice in the news paper on 20­05­2012. The defendant being the legally adopted son of the plaintiff, and which was also admitted by the plaintiff in the 

General Power of Attorney executed by her and also before the Revenue 

Authorities that the defendant is the adopted son of the plaintiff. Now after a gap and lapse of more then 37 years, from the date of adoption, the plaintiff at the behest, interference and instigation of the vested 

>> 19 << OS1771/2012

interest persons is denying the said factum of adoption. The defendant is the legally adopted son of the plaintiff and being the son of plaintiff, the defendant has got every right and share in the properties.

Further it is submitted that the defendant never misused or misappropriated any amounts and the defendant had never acted against the interest of his mother i.e the plaintiff and has not entered into any sale transactions in respect of the properties. The plaintiff is making all the false and untrue allegations against the defendant at the behest of the vested interest persons and at their instance only the plaintiff has filed the present suit and the defendant claims all the adverse allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint, and the plaintiff may be put to strict proof of each and every allegations by her in the plaint. The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, and the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts before this Honourable court and as such she is not entitled for any relief from this Honourable Court. 

There arises no cause of action for filing the suit and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed in limini. The plaintiff has not valued the suit property and the court fee paid is not proper and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. 

It is unture to state that the defendant is not the adopted son of the plaintiff. Initially in the original plaint the plaintiff has stated that defendant is residing in a Flat No 10 as tenant of the plaintiff's brother­

>> 20 << OS1771/2012

in­law, and when the defendant filed certain documents, showing that the defendant is residing in the home of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff has changed her version and now states that the defendant and his family were servants of the plaintiff and were residing in a portion of the house where the plaintiff is residing. This statement of the plaintiff is false and there is no iota of truth in such statement. When the question of the defendant or his parents residing at plaintiffs house does not arise at all. The biological parents of the defendant were 

Government servant and as such the allegation that they were residing as servants of the plaintiff is false and baseless. Admittedly the biological parents of the defendant were residing in flat in Rama 

Krishna Sarada Apartments and not in the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff who has adopted the defendant on 23.08.1974 by complying all the formalities under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in the presence of her sister and brother­in­law and everyone in the family knows that the defendant was adopted by the plaintiff and it is denied that there was no ceremony performed. The defendant being the son of the plaintiff was looking after the plaintiff and the properties. The adoption is a valid adoption according to the law and which was also admitted by the plaintiff. After adoption the plaintiff has given the name of the defendant as A V M Manohar by giving surname of 'M'. The defendant denies all the adverse allegations made by the plaintiff in her 

>> 21 << OS1771/2012

rejoinder. Therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

In order to substantiate his claim he was examined as DW1 and reiterated the facts of the written statement and reply to the rejoinder and got marked Ex.B4 & B5.

10..On considering the rival contentions of either side the court is of opinion that the plea of the plaintiff is that due to close acquaintance defendant was appointed as GPA and as he misused GPA and representing himself as adopted son of the plaintiff and injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff and declaration stating that defendant is not adopted son of plaintiff. But the defendant claims to be adopted son of the plaintiff and relates to Ex.B1 to B3, wherein the plaintiff has admitted before Revenue authorities in her counter that the defendant is adopted son of plaintiff and in GPA dt.17.06.2005 wherein the plaintiff stated that she is given GPA in favour of her adopted son. 

The point pertinent here to note is that whether the adoption of the defendant by the plaintiff can be established in view of the documents in Ex.B1 to B3.

The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in a similar case before the courts, where the name of the adopted father was reflected in all educational records and other documents of the plaintiff and the adopted parents performed her marriage by distributing wedding cards 

>> 22 << OS1771/2012

showing her as their daughter and also the adopted father showing her as daughter in his service records, the Hon'ble courts held that the adoption was not proved as there was no giving and taking ceremony proved by the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the suit and the appellate court also affirmed the same.

It is further stated that the plaintiff made clear in her deposition itself that in view of the defendant coming forward to help her in the household activities as well as in the cases related to her properties and she having seen the defendant growing in her house, she had reposed full confidence and trust in him and signed the documents put by him 

before her, but by taking advantage of the same, the defendant brought 

to her the deed of general power of attorney and the counter to be filed to the revenue case and obtained her signatures without allowing her to go through the contents thereof and mischievously got written therein the defendant was adopted by the plaintiff, though there was no requirement to mention it therein.

“ The most important point and aspect in the present case is the evidence lead by the defendant in support of his stand that he was adopted by the plaintiff and that his parents had given him in adoption to the plaintiff. The defendant contented that the sister and brother in law of the plaintiff had witnessed the alleged adoption, as they are no more alive. However the very person who alleged to have given the 

>> 23 << OS1771/2012

defendant in adoption i.e., the father of the defendant still being alive admittedly, would have been the right and proper person to depose in this regard. However for the reasons best known to him alone, the defendant has not examined his father to speak about alleged adoption if really he had given the defendant in adoption to the plaintiff. No better evidence would have been there than the oral evidence of the father of the defendant. The defendant has not examined only other person to speak that really the defendant was adopted by the plaintiff and that the defendant was ever treated as son by the plaintiff. In these circumstances the court is required to draw adverse inference against the defendant. Even conduct of the defendant before the court also proves the same. In the absence of any positive evidence of proof of adoption, it cannot be accepted and more particularly when the plaintiff herself is denying the very adoption alleged to have been taken by her.

The counsel for the plaintiff relied on case law Lakshman Singh 

Kothari v. Rup Kanwar (AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1378): wherein the 

Hon'ble Apex court held that:

“ The law may be briefly stated thus: Under the Hindu Law, whether among the 

regenerate caste or among Sudras, there cannot be a valid adoption unless the adoptive boy is transferred from one family to another and that can be done only by the ceremony of giving and taking. The object of the corporeal giving and receiving in adoption is obviously to secure due publicity. To achieve this object it is essential to have a formal ceremony. No particular form is prescribed for the ceremony, but the law requires that the natural parent shall hand over the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent shall receive him. The nature of th ceremony may vary depending upon the circumstances of each case. But a ceremony there shall be, and giving and taking shall be part of it. The exigencies of the situation arising out of diverse circumstances necessitated the introduction of the doctrine of delegation; and therefore the parents, after exercising 

>> 24 << OS1771/2012

their volition to give and take the boy in adoption, may both or either of them delegate the physical act of handing over the boy or receiving him, as the case may be to a third party. 

In the present case, none of the aforesaid conditions has been satisfied. The High Court found that Zalim Singh and Moti Singh did not decide to take the boy in adoption on February, 14,1923. The High Court further found that their common intention was to take the boy in adoption only after he was admitted in Gurukul or thereafter. The documents filed and the oral evidence adduced in the case establish that the adoptive father did not delegate his power to give the boy in adoption to Moti singh to Hira Lal and that Moti Singh did not receive the boy as a part of the ceremony of adoption, but only received him with a view to send him to Gurukul We, therefore, hold that the ceremony of giving and taking which is very essential for the validity of an adoption had not taken place in this case.”

As per the above apex court judgment giving and taking is essential for adoption. In the present case also there is no giving and taking established by the defendant.

The plaintiff further relied on case law Kashi Nath Rai v. 

Mahadeo Rai and others ( AIR 1977 PATNA 199): wherein the Hon'ble 

Patna High Court relied on case law reported in Air 1961 SC 1378 held that :

“The giving and taking ceremony is essential to the validity of an adoption. It is an operative part of the ceremony. This ceremony is common amongst the Surdas as well as in twice born classes. The execution of a deed in connection with giving and taking ceremony cannot be treated as a substitute for giving and taking ceremony. The giving and taking ceremony is compulsory, both for the twice born classes and the Sudras. The adoption can only be held valid provided the giving and taking ceremony is performed between the parties. In the giving and taking ceremony the presence of he natural parents, adoptive parents and the child is necessary. The natural parents shall give the child in adoption to the adoptive parents, and the adoptive parents shall declare that they accepted the child in adoption.”

As per above judgment the adoption is valid only if the giving and taking ceremony is performed in the presence of actual parents and 

>> 25 << OS1771/2012

adoptive parents.

The counsel for the plaintiff further relied on case law Rahasa 

Pandiani (Dead) by LRs and others v. Gokulananda Panda and others 

(AIR 1987 Supreme Court 962) : wherein the apex court held that:

“Yet another very important circumstance which has not been accorded sufficient 

importance is that Syamosundar and Ram Krishna Sabat, the maternal uncle of Gokul who acted as next friend when the suit was instituted, had in terms mentioned the names of three respectable persons as having remained present at the adoption ceremony at the time of adoption. None of these three persons was examined. No explanation has been offered as to why these three persons who admittedly were present according to the plaintiff and whose names were mentioned int he plant; were not examined. The trial court rightly drew the inference that if they had been examined, they would not have supported the plaintiff. What is more the priest who is supposed to have performed the 

adoption ceremony has also not been examined. A convenient explanation has been 

found by naming a person who was dead. This is another suspicious circumstance. So also none of the near relative or prominent persons of the village have been examined to show that such an adoption had taken place. It was not even suggested to defendant Rahasa that the giving and taking ceremony had taken place. Not was it suggested to her that a particular person had acted as priest. in this stage of evidence the trial court rightly dismissed the suit.”

In contrary the counsel for the defendant stated that at the first instance the plaintiff stated that as the father of the defendant is tenant of plaintiff's brother­in­law, plaintiff has got close acquaintance with the defendant and during the filing of rejoinder they have changed the version and stated that as defendant's father is servant is residing in the out house of the plaintiff as such the version of the plaintiff cannot be believe and the plaintiff also admitted in Ex.B1 to B3 the defendant is adopted son of plaintiff and though the plaintiff alleged the defendant is trying to sell away the properties by misappropriation to General public. There is no evidence on record to see the alleged acts of 

>> 26 << OS1771/2012

defendant. PW1 & PW2 have not stated what are the acts committed by the defendant in order to grab the property of plaintiff. As there are no such act proved by the plaintiff and there is evidence on record in Ex.B1 to B3 that the defendant is adopted son of plaintiff and as there is no cause of action. The case of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

On considering the rival submissions and the citations filed by the plaintiff, the court comes to conclusion that as stated by the counsel for the plaintiff the defendant has never claimed either surname of the plaintiff and address of the plaintiff and it is not reflecting in any records. During the cross examination of DW1 he admitted that in all certificates and Governments record including Aadhar card, driving licence his father name is shown as Amam Prabhakar, DW1 failed to explain what are the formalities that have been taken place with respect to adoption and he has not filed any documentary evidence with respect to adoption. Except DW1, no witnesses are examined on behalf of DW1 to show that defendant is adopted by the plaintiff. As rightly contended by the counsel for plaintiff, when the defendant claims to be adopted by the plaintiff and his parents have given him to adoption and sister, brother­in­law of the plaintiff being witness the alleged adoption, the father of the defendant who is alive and who can depose with respect to adoption is not examined by the defendant. In the absence of oral and 

>> 27 << OS1771/2012

documentary evidence with respect to adoption mere statement of plaintiff in Revenue records cannot be treated as proof of adoption. 

Even in case if the plaintiff has admitted the adoption, as per law there is procedure for legal and valid adoption and mere admission of evidence with respect of adoption will not confer any legal right or status of the person as an adopted child. As held in several judgments by the Apex court there should be proof with respect to giving and taking of child in adoption. In the absence of giving and taking it cannot be said that there is legal and valid adoption and in the absence of legal adoption no person can claim that he is adopted in the general public. As per the apex court judgment in L.Debi Prasad(Dead) by LRs. 

v. Tribeni Devi and others ( AIR 1970 SC 1286) : wherein it was held that:

“A large number of documents have been produced to show that friends, relations 

and even strangers were treating Shyam Behari Lal as the son of Gopal Das. The 

documents produced before the court conclusively prove that right from 1907 till 1946, 

Shyam Behari Lal was treated as the son of Gopal Das. This continuous and consistent course of conduct on the part of Debi Prasad, Gopal Das and other affords a satisfactory proof of the fact that Shyam Behari Lal must have been the adopted son of Gopal Das. 

No other reasonable inference can be drawn from the material on record.”

However, in the present case there is neither documentary evidence or oral evidence establishing that defendant is the adopted son 

>> 28 << OS1771/2012

of plaintiff. Hence even the reasonable inference also cannot be drawn in the present case. The plea of the defendant that as plaintiff admitted in Ex.R1 & R2 that defendant is her adopted son the same may be taken into consideration. However as observed earlier mere entry in revenue records cannot be considered. 

As such the defendant failed to prove that he is adopted son of plaintiff, he has no right to claim the status of adopted son in general public. Accordingly in view of the discussions aforesaid the plaintiff has established that the defendant is claiming the status of adopted son without any legal authority. As such the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the defendant is not the adopted son of the plaintiff and consequential injunction as prayed for.

11..Issue No 3:

In the result, the suit of plaintiffs is hereby decreed by declaring that the defendant is not adopted son of the plaintiff and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from impersonating or claiming himself as a adopted son of the plaintiff before any government authorities or general public at large.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, 

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 1 st DAY OF June, 2016. Sd/­

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

>> 29 << OS1771/2012

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witnesses examined:

PW1 : Yamuna Mutyala DW1: A V Manohar PW2 : Shakuntla

Documents marked for plaintiff: Ex.A1 :Office copy of the legal notice dt.30.10.2011, Ex.A2 :Original paper publication in eenadu dt.02.11.2011, Ex.A3 :Original postal acknowledgment, Ex.A4 :Original paper publication in Deccan Chronicle on 19.11.2011, Ex.A5 :Original paper publication in Deccan Chronicle on 20.02.2012 

Documents marked for defendant: 

Ex.B1 :Certified copy of the counter dt.04.09.2004, Ex.B2 :Certified copy of order dt.18.04.2005, Ex.B3 :Certified copy of the GPA dt.17.06.2005, Ex.B4 :Aadhar card of the defendant, Ex.B5 is Voter ID card. Sd/­

X JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF XIV ADDL. JUDGE-CUM- XVIII ADDL. CHIEF

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : SECUNDERABAD :

Present : Smt. S.SWATHI REDDY XIV Addl. Judge – Cum – XVIII ACMM City Civil Court, Secunderabad

WEDNESDAY, THE 20 th DAY OF JULY, 2022

CC No. 710/2018

BETWEEN :

C.Sriramulu, S/o C.Chinnanna, Aged about 67 years, Retired and Railway Contractor, General Power of Attorney Holder Balaji, R/o No.12-13-414/10, Street No.1, Tarnaka, Hyderabad.

.... Complainant

AND

M.Venkateshwar Rao, S/o Hanumaiah, Aged about 55 Years, Business, R/o. 5-12-66, Plot No.31, Suryanagar Colony, Sainikpuri, Hyderabad.

.... Accused

This case is coming for final disposal before me on 16.05.2022 in the presence of Sri. K.Srinivasan, counsel for the complainant and Sri. Y.Sudhakar, counsel for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a transferred case i.e. C.C.No.55 of 2018 from X Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. As per the orders of the

Honourable Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad this case is

transferred to this Court and it is renumbered as C.C.No.710 of 2018 in this court.

2.The complainant filed this complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of N.I.Act 1881 to punish the accused.

2 C.C.710 of 2018

3.The brief facts of the complaint are that, the Complainant is a

Retired Government Servant and after his retirement he is doing Railway

Contacts. The accused requested the Complainant to give a hand loan of

Rs.11,00,000/- and the Complainant collecting the said amount from his relatives and family members gave the amount to the accused on 08.05.2009. The Accused promised to return the amount after clearance of bills from the Government. But even after the clearance of accused bills, he failed to return the amount and on repeated request he issued a cheque bearing No.306651 dated 12.05.2011 for Rs.11,00,000/- drawn on

Andhra Bank, Balanagar Branch, Hyderabad. But, on presentation the cheque was dishonored for the reasons “Account Closed”. The complainant filed the police case under section 420 and 406 of IPC. After filing the said case before Police Osmania University the accused along with his son-in-law and others approached the Complainant and agreed to settle the issue out of the court and in consequence accused entered into an agreement on 18.08.2012 and promised to clear the amount in five installments along with interest and accordingly accused issued cheques bearing No. 726112, 726113, 922307, 922308 and 922309 pertaining to

Syndicate Bank and Andhra Bank wherein M.Kishore and Srinivas have stood as guarantors and the son of the accused also issued cheques to discharge the liability on behalf of the accused. On presentation of the cheque bearing No.726112 dated 31.10.2014 for Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on

Syndicate Bank, Basheerbagh Branch, the cheque was dishonored vide memo dated 11.11.2014 for the reasons “Funds Insufficient” the

Complainant issued notice to the Accused dated 05.12.2015 but inspite of receiving of the notice no cheque amount was paid, as such the accused is liable to be prosecuted under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments 3 C.C.710 of 2018

Act. Hence, the case

4.The sworn statement of the complainant was recorded by the

Hon’ble X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate court, Secunderabad

and basing on it, case was taken on file U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument

Act and numbered as C.C.No.55/2018. Thereafter this case was transferred to this court from X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

Court, Secunderabad.

5. On appearance of accused, the copies of this case were served to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. On 12.03.2019 the accused was examined U/s 251 Cr.P.C and substance of the complaint was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he understood the same and denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to substantiate the offence, the complainant examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P17 on his behalf. Ex.P1 is the

Original Cheque bearing No. 726112, dated 31-10-2014, Ex.P2 is the

Original Cheque Return Memo, dated 11-11-2014, Ex.P3 is the Postal

Receipt, dated 05-12-2014, Ex.P4 is the Acknowledgment Card, Ex.P5 is the Agreement, dated 18-08-2012, Ex.P6 is the Legal Notice dated 05.12.2014 and Ex.P7 is the Agreement dated 18.08.2012.

7.After closure of the complainant evidence, the accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.PC and he denied all the incriminating evidence against him in the evidence on record. No defence evidence adduced on behalf of the accused.

4 C.C.710 of 2018

8.Heard.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the complainant

has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.The evidence of PW1 is nothing but the replica of the contents of complaint. To prove the case against the accused U/s 138 of N.I Act, the testimony of PW1 is that, the accused issued the subject cheque bearing

No.726112 dated 31.10.2014 for Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) drawn on Syndicate Bank, Basheerbagh Branch. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient” vide cheque return memo dated 11.11.2014. When complainant presented the said cheques for encashment with his banker. The said cheque was dishonoured due to “Funds Insufficient” as per the memo dated 11.11.2014. Further, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 05.12.2015 to accused and inspite of receiving the notice, the accused did not make the payment.

11.To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act the complainant needs to prove:-

A) That the cheque issued by the accused was presented for collection within the period of its validity?

B) That the cheque was dishonoured by the Bank Authorities for one of the reasons which attract the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881?

C) That the drawee issued notice under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 within the statutory period?

D) That the drawer received the said notice, but failed to make any 5 C.C.710 of 2018 payment covered by the dischonoured cheque within stipulated time as mentioned in section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881?

E) That complaint was filed within the period of limitation in the court having jurisdiction?

F) A prima facie proof that the cheque was issued in discharge of any legal enforceable subsisting debt?

12.Therefore, if all the ingredients are proved by the complainant or in other words if all the above points were answered positively in favour of the complainant and against the accused, presumption under section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 comes into play and the burden of proving the case shifts to the accused and he has to rebut the presumption that arises under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 in favour of the complainant. To prove all the ingredients and to attract the provisions of 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the complainant adduced his evidence and the same is discussed here under point wise.

13.POINT – A: - Whether the cheque was issued by the accused presented for collection within the period of its validity?

The version of the Complainant is that, the cheque was issued

dated 31.10.2014 and was presented on 31.10.2014 as such with the

period of validity where as the version of counsel for accused is that, accused never gave post dated cheques and as per the Compromise

Agreements under Ex.P5 and Ex.P7, Ex.P1 cheque was issued and any cheque given in lieu of compromise are not legally enforceable. On perusal of Ex.P5 and Ex.P7, the cheque bearing No.726112, dated 31.10.2014 was issued for payment of amount by 15th January, 2013. The 6 C.C.710 of 2018 version of the accused is that, the agreement between the parties can not be a legally enforceable debt and is not tenable and as per the evidence of PW1. Ex.P1 is the dishonoured cheque admittedly issued by the accused drawn on Syndicate Bank, Basheerbag Branch, when he has presented the cheque for realization through his banker vide Cheque bearing No.726112 dated 31.10.2014 for Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) for collection purpose, the same is dishonoured and the Bank authorities issued Cheque Return Memo by endorsing “Funds Insufficient” on 11.11.2014 and same are marked as Ex.P2. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that the complainant presented Ex.P1 cheque in the above said

Bank for collection within limitation period of 3 months from the date mentioned in it. The point pertaining to legally enforceability will be discussed at a later stage.

14.POINT B:- Whether the cheque was dishonoured by the Bank

Authorities for one of the reasons which attract the offence under

section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881?

In the present case, the accused issued Cheque in favour of the complainant vide Cheque bearing No.726112 dated 31.10.2014 for

Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) drawn on Syndicate Bank,

Basheerbagh Branch. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment with his banker i.e., State Bank of Hyderabad, Himmath

Nagar Branch. The said cheque was dishonoured for the reason “Funds

Insufficient” Ex.P3 is Cheque Return Memo. The nomenclature mentioned in Cheque Return Memo plays a vital role to make out the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. On a plain and literal reading of section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 it becomes clear that the section refers to dishonour of cheque.

7 C.C.710 of 2018

1. Due to insufficiency of funds in the account to honour cheque and:

2. The amount of cheque exceeds the amounts arranged to be paid from the account by an agreement made with the Bank.

In the present case Ex.P1 cheque was returned with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. It also attracts the provisions of section 138 of N.I. Act.

15.POINT C & D:- Whether the drawee issued notice under

section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 within the

statutory period?

Whether the drawer received the said notice, but failed to

make any payment covered by the dishonoured cheque within

stipulated time as mentioned in section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, 1881?

The version of the complainant is that, Complainant issued Legal

Notice on 05.12.2014 (Ex.P6) vide Postal Receipt (Ex.P3) and the legal notice was received by the accused through his son at the address as per

Acknowledgment Ex.P4. Therefore, the complainant has issued the Legal

Notice as contemplated under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

16.However, the version of accused is that, no Legal Notice was served on the accused in the above case and the Acknowledgment Card marked as Ex.P4 is not addressed to the accused and the signature on Ex.P4 does not belongs to accused. Hence, there is no issuance of Legal Notice to the accused.

8 C.C.710 of 2018

17. He further relied on the case laws in a) M.D.Thomas Vs. P.S.Jaleel and another reported in 2009 (14) SCC 398 wherein it is held:

“In the present case, the notice of demand was served upon the wife of the appellant and not the appellant.

Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that complainant-respondent had not complied with the requirement of giving notice in terms of Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Act. Unfortunately, the High

Court overlooked this important lacuna in the complainant's case. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.

b)Shakti Travel and Tours Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in 2002 SCC 9 415 wherein it is held:

“Accused who is the Appellant, assails the order of the High

Court refusing to quash the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The only ground on which the learned Counsel for the Appellant prays for quashing of the complaint is that on the assertions made in paragraph 8 of the complaint, it must be held that notice has not been served and, therefore, an application under

Section 138 could not have been maintained. Undoubtedly, the accused has a right to pay the money within 15 days from the date of the service of notice and only when it fails to pay, it is open for the complainant to file a case under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That being the position and in the complaint itself having not been 9 C.C.710 of 2018 mentioned that the notice has been served, on the assertions made in paragraph 8, the complaint itself is not maintainable. We accordingly quash the complaint.”

18.On perusal of case documents and judgments of apex court, the court is of opinion that, Legal Notice Ex.P6 is addressed to the accused.

The Postal Receipt Ex.P3 also shows the address of the accused.

Therefore, it can be safely concluded the legal notice was sent to the accused on his address on his name. Though the address on Ex.P4 acknowledgment card is “M. Srinivas, S/o M.Venkateshwar Rao, R/o 5-12- 66, Plot No.31, Suryanagar Colony, Sainikpuri Colony, Hyderabad – 94” the address is same as mentioned in postal receipt. Even though the said

Acknowledgment is received by the son of the accused is deemed to be served on the accused. Merely non-mentioning of name of the accused on acknowledgment, it cannot be said that the notice was not issued to the accused. Ex.P6 and Ex.P3 clearly established that the said notice was issued to the accused in the name accused. Even if it is presumed that the legal notice was not received by the accused, the accused ought to have showed his bonafides by paying the amount within the stipulated time after appearing before the court. In C.C.Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty

Muhammed & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 767 of 2007), reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3578 the apex court held :

"Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the Court in respect of the complaint under

Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque 10 C.C.710 of 2018 amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the

Court along-with the copy of the complaint under

Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act".

In view of the above judgment the point is answered in favour of the complainant.

19.POINT E:- Whether the complaint was filed within the period of limitation in the court having jurisdiction?

The accused had taken defence during the arguments stating that, the Complaint is filed on 21.01.2015 as as on 21.01.2015 this court is not having territorial jurisdiction. But as rightly contended by counsel for

Complainant the case was filed originally before X Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 21.01.2015 vide S.R. No.207/2015 and later it was transferred to this court on administrative grounds.

20.The counsel for the accused relied on the case law in Dashrath

Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2014 (9) SCC 129 wherein it is held:

“The interpretation of Section 138 of the NI Act which 11 C.C.710 of 2018 commends itself to us is that the offence contemplated therein stands committed on the dishonour of the cheque, and accordingly the JMFC at the place where this occurs is ordinarily where the Complaint must be filed, entertained and tried. The cognizance of the crime by the JMFC at that place however, can be taken only when the concomitants or constituents contemplated by the Section concatenate with each other. We clarify that the place of the issuance or delivery of the statutory notice or where the Complainant chooses to present the cheque for encashment by his bank are not relevant for purposes of territorial jurisdiction of the

Complaints even though non-compliance thereof will inexorably lead to the dismissal of the complaint. It cannot be contested that considerable confusion prevails on the interpretation of Section 138 in particular and Chapter XVII in general of the NI Act. The vindication of this view is duly manifested by the decisions and conclusion arrived at by the

High Courts even in the few cases that we shall decide by this

Judgment. We clarify that the Complainant is statutorily bound to comply with Section 177 etc. of the Cr.P.C and therefore the place or situs where the Section 138 Complaint is to be filed is not of his choosing. The territorial jurisdiction is restricted to the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, which in the present context is where the cheque is dishonoured by the bank on which it is drawn.”

As per the above case law the amendment came into force from 15.06.2015. However, in the present case the Complainant Bank is at 12 C.C.710 of 2018

Himmatnagar and Accused Bank is at Basheerbagh both pertaining to the jurisdiction of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Therefore, the court is having jurisdiction to try the matter. More-soever, the case is transferred to this court by orders of Hon’ble Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Nampally who has power to transfer the case within his

jurisdiction to any court. Therefore, the complaint is filed before proper court of Jurisdiction. On perusal of record, the accused has nowhere taken the objection as to point of jurisdiction during the trial, 251 Cr.PC examination as well as 313 Cr.P.C examination. On scrutiny of record this case was made-over to this court on administrative grounds. Therefore, there cannot be defence as to jurisdiction of this court in trying the matter. Therefore, the point is answered in favour of the complainant and that complaint is filed before court having jurisdiction.

21.So far as the point of limitation is concerned, the defence of the accused is that the liability is time barred debt as the liability arises out of the loan taken on 08.05.2009 and therefore, the present case is barred by section 18 of the Limitation Act. But so far as the present case is concerned, the case is filed for dishonour of the cheque dated 31.10.2014 and the present case is filed well within the period of limitation as contemplated under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the plea of the accused that the case is barred by the limitation cannot be considered.

22.However, with respect to the fact that whether the debt for which the subject cheque is issued is time barred or not will be decided while discussing with respect to legally enforceable liability. Accordingly, the 13 C.C.710 of 2018 court comes to conclusion that the complaint is filed well within the limitation before the court having jurisdiction.

23.POINT F:- Whether the cheque is issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable debt or not?

The case of the complainant is that, the accused has taken loan of

Rs.11,00,000/- on 18.05.2009 and failed to repay the amount. Thereafter, the accused has entered into an agreement vide Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 wherein he admitted to pay the loan amount in five installments and accordingly, issued the subject cheque Ex.P1 bearing No.726112, dated 31.10.2014 for

Rs.6,00,000/- for repayment of the said amount. Therefore, there is legally enforceable liability between the parties. As Complainant is permanent resident of Arakkonam Tamil Nadu State, he issued General

Power of Attorney in the name of his son Sri.C.Sriramulu, son of Late

C.Chinnanna authorizing him to file the complaint and to depose the evidence. Accordingly, the General Power of Attorney holder is examined as PW1 and got marked the relevant documents in support of the case.

24.However, the version of the counsel for accused is that, the said

General Power of Attorney is not marked before the court and complainant did not give his evidence before the court. The present complaint is not maintainable and the evidence of PW1 cannot be considered. The further plea of the counsel for the accused is that, the

PW1 is not having any personal knowledge about the case and he is not the signatory to Ex.P7. Further, there is no financial capacity to the

Complainant to lend such a huge amount and the present debt is time barred and is not legally enforceable.

14 C.C.710 of 2018

25.The counsel for accused further submitted that, the presumption under section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act is a rebuttable presumption and the onus of the accused is to raise a probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. In the present case as Complainant failed to establish that the debt is legally enforceable debt and not barred by limitation and that he has financial capacity to give the loan amount. Therefore, the accused has rebutted the presumption arising under section 139 of Negotiable

Instruments Act.

26.In support of his contention he relied on the case laws:

a) Joseph Vs. Devassia reported in 2000 (2) ALT (Crl.) 416 (Ker) wherein it is held:

“The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent who issued the cheque in question in discharge of a time barred debt is liable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In this case, the complainant had admitted that the loan was advanced to the accused in January, 1988 and the cheque was issued in February, 1991. Thus, by the time the cheque was issued, the debt was barred by limitation since there was no valid acknowledgment of the liability within the period of limitation” ………..

Thus, Section 138 is attracted only if the cheque is issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. In this case, admittedly, the cheque in question was issued in discharge of a time barred debt. It cannot be said 15 C.C.710 of 2018 that a time barred debt is a legally enforceable debt.”

b) Padala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh and another reported in 2019 (1) ALD (Crl.) 496 (AP) wherein it is held:

“The prime ground, on which the relief of quash is based for, is that the cheques issued by the petitioners are towards a time barred debt and hence, no prosecution can lie against them. According to the averments in the complaint, the petitioners approached the 2 nd respondent and there were business transactions between them. The 2 nd respondent is a medical practitioner while the petitioners have medical shops. The petitioners borrowed amounts from the 2 nd respondent for different purpose and the petitioners failed to discharge the amounts taken by them from the 2 nd respondent. The petitioners executed a demand promissory note, agreeing to pay the amount with interest at 24% per annum. The petitioners did not pay the said amounts and later issued cheque towards the discharge of the said amounts. The promissory note is also filed along with the complaint. The list of documents shows that the promissory notes are of the year 2012 while the cheques are issued in the year 2017. The date of issuance of cheques is beyond three years from the date of issuance of the promissory note. Hence, on the face of its the cheques can be understood to have been issued towards a time barred debt.” 16 C.C.710 of 2018

c)Lalit Kumar Sharma and another Vs. State of U.P and anther reported in 2008 (2) Crime 397 (SC) wherein it is held:

"It has been stated on behalf of the accused persons that by settlement it was found that the party involved in the dealing would be responsible. Thus, prayer has been made on behalf of the accused persons that the aforementioned all the three accused persons may be discharged from this case.

The aforesaid contentions have been opposed on behalf of the complainant and it has been stated that all these three persons were party in the whole dealing and their liability is just like other accused persons.

It is clear from the perusal of the complaint that total 6 accused persons have been made parties in this matter by the complainant and in her statement U/s 200 of Cr.P.C., complainant has clearly stated that Manish Arora, Ashish

Narula and L.K. Sharma and Bela Narula and wife of L.K.

Sharma were directors of the company. All the five accused persons demanded loan of Rs. Five Lakh Two Hundred Fifty from the complainant for some time and promised her to return the said money soon. All the five persons have been equally involved in the dealing of giving and receiving the cheque."

d)Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa reported in 2019 (5) SCJ 235 wherein it is held:

We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court in above 17 C.C.710 of 2018 cases on Section 118(a) and 139, we now summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in following manner:-

(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.

(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.

(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.

(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.

(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.

e)Ashok Kumar Goud Vs. Sree Ramulu and another reported in 2018 (1) ALD (Crl) 256 wherein it is held:

“17. In view of the decision of this court, it is clear that non-production of any bank statements and also as there is 18 C.C.710 of 2018 no mention of this amount in the income tax returns filed by the complainant under Exs.P-8, makes the claim of the complainant doubtful and existence of any legally enforceable debt or liability on the part of the accused.

18. The further case of the Complainant is that the accused refunded an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the advance amount for this also, the complainant did not lead any evidence. These circumstances create any amount of doubt that the accused issued Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 cheques for return of the amount.

19. The circumstances of not proving Ex.P1 agreement of sale and source for making advance payment of

Rs.45,00,000/- to the accused and also not producing any receipt for refund of Rs.10,00,000/- probalises the defence of the accused that the cheques were issued not for legally enforceable debt or liability. Considering these circumstances, the court below has rightly held that the cheques were issued by the accused for another transaction and the complainant misused the same and filed the case.”

f)ANNS Rajashekar Vs. Augustus Jeba Ananth reported in 2019 Lawsuits (SC) 223 wherein it is held:

“Besides what has been set out above, an important facet in the matter was that the complainant failed to establish the source of funds which he is alleged to have utilized for the disbursal of the loan of Rs.15 lakhs to the appellant.

19 C.C.710 of 2018

During the course of his cross-examination the complainant deposed that earlier, the appellant had furnished two cheques, one of ICICI Bank for Rs.5 lakhs and another of

Canara Bank for Rs.10 lakhs which he had presented. The complainant admitted that he had not mentioned anything about the accused having issued these two cheques in his complaint. Nothing was stated by the complainant in regard to the fate of the earlier two cheques which were allegedly issued by the appellant. The non-disclosure of the facts pertaining to the earlier two cheques, and the steps, if any, taken for recovery was again a material consideration which indicated that there was a doubt in regard to the transaction.”

g)Mohinder Kaur Vs. Sant Paul Sing reported in Civil Appeal

No(s) 2869 – 2870 of 2010 wherein it is held:

“15. Apart from what has been stated, this Court in the case of Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao observed at SCC pp. 583-84, para 17 that:

“17. Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct….”

h)Vijay Vs. Laxman and another reported in 2014 (1) ALT (Crl.) 342 SC wherein it is held:

“It is, therefore, difficult to appreciate as to why the cheque 20 C.C.710 of 2018 which even as per the case of the complainant was towards repayment of loan which was meant to be encashed within two months, was deposited on the date of issuance itself.

The complainant thus has miserably failed to prove his case that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a lawful debt and it was meant to be encashed on the same date when it was issued specially when the complainant has failed to disclose the date on which the alleged amount was advanced to the Respondent/Accused. There are thus glaring inconsistencies indicating gaping hole in the complainant’s version that the cheque although had been issued, the same was also meant to be encashed instantly on the same date when it was issued.

14. Thus, we are of the view that although the cheque might have been duly obtained from its lawful owner i.e.

the respondent-accused, it was used for unlawful reason as it appears to have been submitted for encashment on a date when it was not meant to be presented as in that event the respondent would have had no reason to ask for a loan from the complainant if he had the capacity to discharge the loan amount on the date when the cheque had been issued. In any event, it leaves the complainant’s case in the realm of grave doubt on which the case of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained.” 21 C.C.710 of 2018

27. In contrary, the counsel for Complainant relied on the case laws;

a)Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., and other reported in 2005 (2) SCC 217 wherein it is held:

“On the question of power of attorney, the High Courts have divergent views. In the case of Shambhu Dutt Shastri Vs.

State of Rajasthan, 1986 2WLL 713 it was held that a general power of attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. He can only appear in his own capacity.

No one can delegate the power to appear in witness box on behalf of himself. To appear in a witness box is altogether a different act. A general power of attorney holder cannot be allowed to appear as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in the capacity of the plaintiff.”

b)Smt.Anita Sonkar Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Misra reported in Civil

Revision No.67 of 2012 wherein it is held:

“Thus, there is no express bar made in the provisions of CPC to debar the Power of Attorney to be examined as a witness on behalf of the parties to the proceedings. Power of

Attorney is a competent witness and is entitled to appear as such. His evidence cannot be refused to be taken into consideration on the ground that the parties to the suit i.e., plaintiff or defendant do not choose to appear as witness in the witness box.

22 C.C.710 of 2018

Accordingly, the question whether the General Power of

Attorney Holder of a party can be competent witness on behalf of a party has to be answered in the light of Section 118 of the Evidence Act. The Power of Attorney Holder of a party, only on the ground that he holds the power of attorney, cannot be said to be in the category of persons who are incapable of being witness as provided by Section 118 of the Evidence Act. Whether such Power of Attorney

Holder has personal knowledge about the matters in controversy, may be a question which can be thrashed out by cross-examining him and if it is found that the Power of

Attorney Holder has no personal knowledge about the facts in controversy, the evidentiary value of his deposition may be determined, but that has nothing to do with the competence of such a Power of Attorney Holder to depose

before a Court or a Judicial Tribunal as a competent

witness.”

c)Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan Vs. V.Radhakrishnan reported in 1998 (2) ALD Cri 546 where in it is held:

“In order to discharge the burden, the defendant has to adduce acceptable evidence. In the instant case, there is only the self-serving evidence of the defendant who got himself examined as D. W. 1. The defendant -has relied on documents exhibits B-1 to B-6. Exhibit B-1 is an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant with regard to the right to conduct arrack shop No. 10, in Group IV of 23 C.C.710 of 2018

Kottarakkara Range, which was given to the defendant under certain terms and conditions. The defendant also relied on exhibit B-4 dated March 51, 1984, with regard to an agreement in respect of toddy shop No. 10. We are of the view that merely because there were some transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant, the same would not lead to the conclusion that the cheque was not supported by consideration. The oral evidence of D. W.-l and exhibits B-l to B-6 as such would not lead to the conclusion that the cheque was not supported by consideration. Those documents would show that there were some transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant. But the defendant has to adduce reliable evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the

Act, which according to us, he has not discharged.”

28.On considering the submissions of either side, judgments relied by either side, the court is of opinion that, as discussed earlier, the

Complainant has established that the Accused issued cheque Ex.P1 and on presentation the said cheque was dishonoured for the reasons “Funds

Insufficient”. Even after issuance of legal notice, the accused failed to pay the amount and hence, the present case. In view of the above facts the presumption under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act comes into picture and it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption. In the present case the accused has not denied his signature on Ex.P1 cheque and so also issuance of Ex.P1 cheque. The only defence is that the said cheque is pertaining to a time barred Debt and therefore, the same 24 C.C.710 of 2018 cannot be enforced before the court of law.

29.The court is of opinion that, admittedly, the debt is pertaining to the year 2009 dated 08.05.2009 when the hand loan was taken by the accused. However, when Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 agreements are executed, the limitation for the debt ought to have been extended, if, the agreements were executed before 08.05.2012. But, in the present case, the said agreements are executed on 18.08.2012 which is beyond the period of limitation.

30.As per the section 18 of Limitation Act which reads as follows:

18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing:-

1. Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit of application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.

2. Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed.

So, there cannot be any acknowledgment of the debt dated 08.05.2009 either by Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 or vide Ex.P1 cheque. Therefore, there cannot be any legally enforceable liability pertaining to a time 25 C.C.710 of 2018 barred debt. Accordingly, the complainant failed to establish that there is legally enforceable liability between the parties and accused has liability to pay the cheque amount. When the complaint itself states that the debt is given on 08.05.2009, there is no need for further evidence to prove the same as it is a admitted fact.

31.With respect to the capacity to give hand loan, when there are clear documents on record to establish that the accused has taken hand loan amount, it is not necessary for the complainant to file any other documents. The defence of the accused pertaining to General Power of

Attorney cannot be considered for the reason that the General Power of

Attorney permitted the General Power of Attorney Holder to depose evidence on behalf of Complainant and also that General Power of

Attorney Holder being his son has knowledge about of the facts relating to the proceedings. Merely, because the General Power of Attorney agreement is not marked before the court, the evidence cannot be thrown away. The said General Power of Attorney was filed before the court as on the date of filing of the Complaint and the Complaint was registered by the General Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of the

Complainant, only in view of execution of the said General Power of

Attorney. When the General Power of Attorney is part of official court record, filed in original, before the court, it is sufficient to permit the

General Power of Attorney Holder Sri.C Sriramulu to file complaint and so also to give evidence on behalf of the Complainant.

32.Even as per the principles laid down in the case law of

A.C.Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 26 C.C.710 of 2018 2014 (1) ALT (Crl.) 44 (SC) wherein it is held:

“While holding that there is no serious conflict between the decisions in MMTC (supra) and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra), we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner:

(i) Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of N.I Act through power of attorney is perfectly legal and competent.

(ii) The Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint. However, the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions.

(iii) It is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint and the power of attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transactions cannot be examined as a witness in the case.

(iv) In the light of Section 145 of N.I Act, it is open to the

Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit

filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under

Section 138 of the N.I Act and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant of his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the 27 C.C.710 of 2018

N.I. Act.

(v) The functions under the general power of attorney cannot be delegated to another person without specific clause permitting the same in the power of attorney. Nevertheless, the general power of attorney itself can be cancelled and be given to another person.”

33.The complainant has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the above judgment and therefore, the defence of the accused cannot be considered.

34.In view of the above discussion, the court is of opinion that the objections of the accused pertaining to General Power of Attorney, jurisdiction of this court, Legal Notice cannot be considered. However, as the liability between the parties is time barred on 08.05.2012, there is no legally enforceable liability between the parties and accordingly accused is not liable to be punished under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act. It is a settled principle of law that if the cheque is issued for time barred debt and it is dishonoured, accused cannot be convicted under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the Complainant failed to establish the guilt of the accused under section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offence.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused, if any, shall 28 C.C.710 of 2018 stands cancelled.

Type to Dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20 th day of July, 2022.

XIV Addl. Judge–Cum-XVIII ACMM,

Secunderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : C.Balaji--- Nil ---

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 : Original Cheque bearing No. 726112, dated 31-10-2014

Ex.P2 : Original Cheque Return Memo, dated: 11-11-2014

Ex.P3 : Postal Receipt, dated 05-12-2014

Ex.P4 : Acknowledgment Card

Ex.P5 : Agreement, dated 18-08-2012

Ex.P6 : The Legal Notice dated 05.12.2014

Ex.P7 : Agreement dated 18.08.2012

FOR DEFENCE :

– Nil –

XIV Addl.Judge-cum-XVIII ACMM, Secunderabad.