Sri.V.R.K.Krupa Sagar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE;

RR.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR: HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI V.R.K.K.SAGAR, B.Com., LL.M.,

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

DATED THIS THE 6 th DAY OF MARCH, 2012.

IA.No.976 OF 2010.

IN

OS.No.957 OF 2010.

Between:-

G.Devaiah @ Devender. ...Petitioner.

AND

1. G.Babaiah.

2. G.Shankaraiah.

3. The Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam. ...Respondents.

This petition is coming before me on 21.2.2012 for hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Anjaneyulu, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Mohd.Gulam Hyder, Advocate for R1 and R2 and upon perusal of the record the matter having stood over for consideration till this day; this court delivered the following:­

O R D E R

This is a petition filed U/O.39 R.1 and 2 and Sec.151

CPC for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit.

2. In the petition it is stated that Sri G.Venkaiah was the ancestor from whom Sri G.Sayanna got the properties.

After the death of Sri Sayanna the properties were partitioned among his sons and D1 got Ac.2-31gts towards 2 his share in the year 1991. Plaintiff and D2 are his sons.

All of them constitute joint Hindu family and the petitioner has got 1/3rd share in the property. While the suit is filed for partition during its pendency, R1 gave away the petition schedule property to R2 under a registered gift deed dtd:15.6.2010. Now R2 is trying to alienate the property and change the nature of it and if that is permitted it would lead to multiplicity of litigation and the petitioner would loose his rights, therefore the present petition is filed with the prayers referred above.

3. By way of contest R1 and R2 filed a common counter admitting the relationships among the parties.

The alleged gift deed by R1 in favour of R1 is admitted.

The joint possession and the theory of joint family property stated by the petitioner is denied as false. It is further stated that this property never belonged to Late Sayanna or his father Late Venkaiah. Late Sayanna died 60years ago.

20 years thereafter, R1 and his brothers jointly purchased various lands from their respective pattdars and thereafter, an oral partition took place in which the present suit properties came to the share of R1. Thus, the petition schedule properties are self acquired properties of R1 and he was entitled to gift them to R2 and the petitioner has no share in it. Petitioner filed IA.520/2010 for the similar relief and therefore present petition is not maintainable.

3

For these reasons they pray for dismissal of the petition with costs.

4. R3 did not file any counter and R3 is D3 in the suit and it was set exparte in the suit.

5. No oral evidence is adduced on both sides. Exs.P1 to P11 for petitioner are marked. For respondents it was reported that there are no documents to be exhibited as their documents are with petitioner.

6. Learned counsel on both sides submitted their oral arguments.

7. Point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for interim injunction as prayed for ?

8. POINT ANSWERED: It is an undisputed fact that petitioner and R2 are children of R1. According to petitioner petition schedule properties are ancestral properties and therefore, he is entitled for partition of these properties. According to respondents the properties are self acquired properties of R1 and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any share and the respondents are entitled to alienate the property as they wish. The main question whether these properties are ancestral properties or self 4 acquired properties has to be decided in the suit. Since a suit for partition is suit on property, while such a suit is pending such property cannot be transfered or dealt otherwise by any party to the suit as prescribed under

Section.52 of Transfer of Property Act. When there is possibility of alienating of the property in dispute the party is entitled to seek an injunctive relief pending suit U/O.39

R.1 (a) CPC. Before exercising powers of this provision there must be some prima facie case for the petitioner.

Ex.P11 is title deed passbook standing in the name of R1 wherein column no.5 describes how R1 got this property.

There is a mention that it is an ancestral property. That

R1 got property in partition among his brothers is a fact admitted on both sides and could be seen from Ex.P3 proceedings of Thasildhar on 18.3.91. The contention of the respondents that R1 and his brothers purchased large extent of property from others is not shown by any document. Thus from the above referred material prima facie it appears that there is force in the contention of the petitioner. In these circumstances, I find the prima facie case with petitioner. If property is permitted to be alienated that would offend Sec.52 of Transfer of Property

Act and the respondents have not shown any harm that they would sustain if they are injuncted. On the other hand if interim injunction is not granted and if alienation takes place it would harm the rights of the petitioner and litigation 5 would multiply by the intervention of third parties.

Therefore, petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. In that view of the matter, I find balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. According to the respondents, petitioners filed IA.520/2010 for same relief and therefore, he is not entitled for any relief in this petition. I have verified the record and found that IA.520/2010 was not pressed by the petitioner on 30.9.2010 and it was dismissed for that reason.

Since there was no adjudication, those proceedings do not hinder the petitioner from seeking relief in this petition.

Hence, this point is answered in favour of petitioner.

9. In the result, this petition is allowed in favour of the petitioner directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to alienate the petition schedule property till disposal of the main suit. Since R3 is a public servant and cannot dispose of this property, petition against R3 is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by 

me in the open court on this the 6 th day of March, 2012.

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

EX.P1 : Adangal pahani for the year 1992-93. Ex.P2 : Adangal pahani for the year 2008-2009 Ex.P3 : ROR proceedings dtd:18.3.1991. Ex.P4 : Letter dated:8.6.2010 issued by Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam.

6

Ex.P5 : C.C of Gift settlement deed dtd:9.6.2010. Ex.P6 : Copy of order in WP.No.16148/2010 dtd:22.3.2011. Ex.P7 : Letter dtd:5.12.2011. Ex.P8 : Letter dtd:12.12.2011. Ex.P9 : Notice dtd:20.12.2011. Ex.P10: Pattadar passbook of G.Babaiah. Ex.P11: Title deed of G.Babaiah

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Nil.

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE;

RR.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR: HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI V.R.K.K.SAGAR, B.Com., LL.M.,

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

DATED THIS THE 21 st DAY OF FEBRUARUY, 2012.

IA.No.1122 OF 2011.

IN

OS.No.2256 OF 2011.

Between:-

B.Prakash. ..Petitioner/Plaintiff.

AND

1. M.Vijaya Laxmi.

2. G.Bharathi.

3. B.Prabhakar Reddy.

4. T.Prameela.

5. Ch.VenkataRao Chowdhary. .Respondents/Defendants.

This petition is coming before me on 7.2.2012 for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Keshava Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri V.Appa Rao, Advocate for R1, R4 and R5 and Sri P.Santosh Kumar, Advcate for R2 and R3 and upon perusal of the record the matter having stood over for consideration till this day; this court delivered the following:­

O R D E R

This is a petition filed U/O.39 R.1 and 2 and Sec.151

CPC for interim injunction restraining the respondents from making any construction activities in any portion of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.

2. In the sworn affidavit the petitioner states that under a registered sale deed dtd:21.1.09, the petitioner and all the five respondents purchased the petition schedule property holding respective percentage of share holdings 2 mentioned therein. Petitioner and R3 along with husband of R1 jointly undertook to develop residential apartments in it and the work is in progress. It has come to the notice that the title of the property was not very perfect and the original land lords were making certain claims and at that juncture, the husband of R1 assured to resolve it. In the year 2009 some strangers interfered with construction. When the husband of R1 was asked about it, he assured to resolve it. At that juncture both parties to this case decided to stop further constructions till resolution of the disputes with others. On 30.10.2011 petitioner asked for partition of the property but the husband of R1 became angry. On 20.11.2011 at the instance of R1, R4 and R5 some persons started making constructions and some persons came telling that they are verifying the property as they intended to purchase certain flats in it from R1, R4 and R5. In these circumstances the suit for partition is filed and the present application is filed with the above referred prayers.

3. By way of contest R1 and R4 filed a common counter admitting the joint ownership and construction of apartments and progress of work. Rest of the contentions are denied as false. It is stated that there was oral partition by floor wise and the pent house house was also shared and therefore, the suit and this petition are not 3 maintainable. There are prohibitory orders in view of

Urban Land clearance laws. More then one prayer was asked in the petition and they are not maintainable. The counter also refers to various amounts contributed by then and others for this property and finally they prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. R5 filed a counter. Where also the subsistence of the stand, for the purpose of this application, is similar to the stand taken by R1 and R4. Because of internal understandings internal works are taken up. With a view to cause loss financially to the respondents, the present case is filed with bad intention and therefore, it shall be dismissed.

5. R2 and R3 filed a common counter wherein most of the averments made in the petition are admitted as true.

In substance they support the stand taken by the petitioner and question the activities of remaining respondents and stated that they are clandestinely trying to make constructions and they are trying to sell away the property and therefore appropriate orders shall be passed.

6. No oral evidence is adduced on both sides.

Exs.P1 to P3 are marked for petitioner. For respondents no documents are exhibited.

4

7. Learned counsel on both sides submitted their oral arguments.

8. Point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for interim injunction ?

9. POINT ANSWERED: Ex.P1 is certified copy of the registered sale deed dtd:21.1.09 showing that the petitioner and the five respondents jointly purchased petition schedule property. At page.4 of it their respective shares are also mentioned. From the petition and counters, it is an undisputed fact that out of consensus among them, they invested money and commenced construction of multi- storied building and the work was stopped out of either internal disputes or problems that came from others.

The contesting respondents state about oral partition and also state about payment of lakhs of money to third party to resolve the title dispute and failure of the petitioner to contribute his share for it. All those facts are not borne by any document during this inquiry. These contentions of respondents make it clear that there arose dispute between the parties.

10. Admittedly the suit is filed for partition. During the pendency of such a suit the property has to be preserved in the manner it is available on the date of suit , 5

Any change in its physical structure or legal ownership is not contemplated, therefore petitioner appears to be right in seeking the relief. It is true both parties to the case hold ownership and possession. However when the dispute has travelled to the court considering the nature of the dispute, I find that there is justification in what the petitioner sought for. Therefore, I find prima facie case with the petitioner and if the respondents are restrained it would not cause any irreparable loss to them and on the other hand if they are not restrained it would alter the property and rights over it and would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner and that would multiply the litigation and therefore, balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. Hence, point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

11. In the result, the petition is allowed granting an interim injunction in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents from making any construction activities in any portion of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.

Going by the nature of the facts of the case, each party shall bear its own costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by 

me in the open court on this the 21 st day of February, 2012.

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

EX.P1 : C.C of sale deed dtd:21.1.2009. Ex.P2 : C.C of agreement of sale cum GPA dtd:26.7.2008. Ex.P3 : C.C of sale deed dtd:3.3.2006.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Nil.

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE;

RR.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR: HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI V.R.K.K.SAGAR, B.Com., LL.M.,

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

DATED THIS THE 2 nd DAY OF MARCH, 2012

OS.No.2315 OF 2007.

Between:-

Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd.,

Vanasthalipuram Branch. ..Plaintiff.

AND

1. D.Sevya Naik.

2. V.Yadaiah.

3. P.Santhoshi Matha

4. D.Beekoji. ..Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for hearing on 9.2.2012 in the presence of Sri V.Srinivas, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendants were set exparte and upon perusal of the record the matter having stood over for consideration till this day; this court delivered the following:­

J U D G E M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of RS.1,94,659/- based on a chit fund transaction.

2. In the plaint it is stated that D1 subscribed for a chit of Rs.2,50,000/- payable @ Rs.5000/- per month for 50months. In the auction conducted on 28.5.06, D1 became the highest prized bidder and received the prize money of Rs.1,50,000/-. By then his future liability was

Rs.2,10,000/- and assuring repayment of it D2 to D4 stood as guarantors. After paying a few installments they 2 defaulted since 15.1.2007 and the notices did not yield result and therefore, this suit.

3. All the defendants remained exparte.

4. To prove the case, an executive of the plaintiff company has deposed as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A11 are marked and on 9.2.2012 calculation memo is also filed showing certain payments by D1 during the pendency of the suit. As per the evidence of PW1, D1 executed

Ex.A2 chit agreement and became a subscriber for a chit and in the auction he became the highest prized bidder and received prize money as per Ex.A5 voucher. Assuring repayment of his future liability amount Ex.A3 guarantee agreement was executed by D2 to D4 and all the defendants together executed Ex.A4 pronote. PW1 said that there was default on the part of the defendants and

Ex.A10 statement of account would show the outstanding from them. Plaintiff got issued Ex.A6 notice. PW1 deposed about various payments made by D1 during the pendency of the suit and finally PW1 said that only

Rs.172,591/- is due from the defendants. This unchallenged evidence proves the case of the plaintiff.

5. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing D1 to D4 jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,72,591/- 3 (Rupees One lakh seventy two thousand five hundred and ninety one only ) to plaintiff with 12% interest per annum over the said amount from 9.12.2011 till the date of the decree and thereafter at 6% interest per annum till realisation.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2 nd day of March 2012.

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

FOR PLAINTIFFS.

PW1: D.Vidya Sagar.

FOR DEFENDANTS

Nil.

FOR PLAINTIFFS.

EX.A1 : Authorization letter dtd:16.11.2010. Ex.A2 : Chit agreement dtd:11.10.2005. Ex.A3 : Guarantee agreement dtd:5.7.2006. Ex.A4 : pronote dtd:5.7.2006. Ex.A5 : Cash voucher dtd:7.7.06. Ex.A6 : Office copy of legal notice dtd:18.5.07. Ex.A7 : Unserved postal cover of D1. Ex.A8 : Refused postal cover of D2. Ex.A9 : Postal acknowledgment of D4. Ex.A10: Statement of account. Ex.A11: True copy of extract board resolution of plaintiff company.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Nil.

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE;

RR.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR: HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI V.R.K.K.SAGAR, B.Com., LL.M.,

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

DATED THIS THE 7 th DAY OF MARCH, 2012

OS.No.366 OF 2008.

Between:-

T.Nageshwar Rao. ..Plaintiff.

AND

Ghousia Sultana. ..Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for hearing on 10.2.2012 in the presence of Sri V.R.N.Prashanth, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendant was set exparte and upon perusal of the record the matter having stood over for consideration till this day; this court delivered the following:­ 

J U D G E M E N T

This is a suit filed for permanent injunction.

2. In the plaint it is stated that under a registered sale deed dtd:7.11.1997 plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from Smt B.Pushpa Latha. Para. no.1 in the plaint narrates the flow of title which at one point shows that defendant was owner of it in the year 1991 and he had sold out the property in the year 1996. It is further stated that plaintiff constructed a compound wall and one room and obtained house number and the same is assessed to tax. Plaintiff paid regularisation charges for his plot. On 24.2.2008 it was found that the name of the 2 defendant with cell phone number was found written on the compound wall. Plaintiff contacted the defendant on phone and shocked to hear that the defendant was demanding money to avoid disputes. On 27.2.2008 defendant and her men came to interfere. In these circumstances, this suit is filed with the prayers referred above.

3. Defendant remained exparte.

4. To prove his case, plaintiff gave evidence as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A7 are marked.

5. Learned counsel for plaintiff submitted oral arguments.

6. From the evidence of PW1, it is seen that by virtue of Ex.A1 registered sale deed dtd:7.11.97, plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule plot of land. He said that he made constructions and obtained house number and has been paying taxes for it. That can be seen from Ex.A2

Municipal Tax receipt. Plaintiff filed Ex.A4 to A7 link documents in proof of his title. PW1 said that he is in possession of the property. The above documents show this fact. PW1 said that for illegal gain, defendant is interfering with his possession. All this unchallenged 3 evidence proves the case of the plaintiff.

7. In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff is entitled for suit costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7 th day of March 2012.

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

FOR PLAINTIFFS.

PW1: T.Nageshwara Rao.

FOR DEFENDANTS

Nil.

FOR PLAINTIFFS.

EX.A1 : Original sale deed vide doc.no.7667/97. Ex.A2 : Municipal receipt. Ex.A3 : Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.A4 : C.C sale deed dtd:18.10.91. Ex.A5 : C.C of sale deed dtd:9.8.96. Ex.A6 : C.C of sale deed dtd:21.5.96. Ex.A7 : C.C of sale deed dtd:12.6.97.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Nil.

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE;

RR.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR: HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI V.R.K.K.SAGAR, B.Com., LL.M.,

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

DATED THIS THE 29 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

OS.No.660 OF 2007.

Between:-

Syndicate Bank,

Borabanda Branch. ..Plaintiff.

AND

1. Shaik Chotamastan.

2. Shaik Jhangir Pasha. ..Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for hearing on 9.2.2012 in the presence of Sri N.Venugopala Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendants were set exparte and upon perusal of the record the matter having stood over for consideration till this day; this court delivered the following:­

J U D G E M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of money.

2. Plaintiff is a nationalised bank and states in the plaint that on 12.1.2004, D1 obtained Rs.1,20,000/- as loan from the plaintiff and D2 stood as a guarantor and they executed necessary documents promising to repay in 60equated monthly installments at the rate of Rs.2793/-.

Money was credited into the S.B.Account of D1 and he acknowledged it. After paying some installments they defaulted and notice did not yield result and therefore, this suit.

2

3. Both the defendants remained exparte.

4. To prove this case, the Manager of the plaintiff bank deposed as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A9 are marked. .

5. Learned counsel for plaintiff submitted oral arguments.

6. As per the evidence of PW1, D1 made Ex.A1 loan application and that was granted and as per the Ex.A4 receipt, D1 acknowledges the debt. PW1 said that assuring its repayment, D1 executed Ex.A2 general agreement and D2 executed Ex.A3 guarantee agreement.

He said that after paying some money they defaulted and the amount due is shown in Ex.A8 statement of account.

He stated that despite Ex.A6 notice there was no repayment. Thus unchallenged evidence proves the case of the plaintiff.

7. In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants to pay Rs.1,76,464/- (Rupees one lakh seventy six thousand four hundred and sixty four only) with 12% interest per annum over the said amount from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter at 6% interest per annum till realisation.

3

Plaintiff is entitled for suit costs. D1 and D2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the decree amount.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of February 2012.

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

FOR PLAINTIFFS.

PW1: P.Chiranjeevi Kumar.

FOR DEFENDANTS

Nil.

FOR PLAINTIFFS.

EX.A1 : Original loan application cum sanctiondtd:5.1.2004. Ex.A2 : Original general agreement dtd:12.1.2004. Ex.A3 : Original Guarantee agreement dtd:12.1.04. Ex.A4 : Original stamped receipt dtd:12.1.2004. Ex.A5 : Original waiver notice dtd:12.1.2004. Ex.A6 : Office copy of legal notice dtd:11.1.2007. Ex.A7 : Two RPAD Postal receipts dtd:16.1.2007. Ex.A8 : Certified extract of statement of account. Ex.A9 : Authorisation letter dtd:4.1.2012.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Nil.

II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT.