It is an admitted fact that after the dismissal of the suit for injunction, the present appellants have filed a suit in O.S.No.1611/2005 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The filing of the suit in O.S.No.1611/2005 by the appellants herein itself shows that the appellants have no possession of the schedule property. It appears that the said suit was dismissed on 29.10.2010. As against the said judgment, the appellants herein intend to prefer an appeal. Taking into consideration of the above circumstances, since the possession is established by the plaintiffs, the relief of injunction was granted by the lower appellate Court. However, it is made clear that any of the findings recorded by the Courts below against the appellants herein may not operate as res judicata in the suit filed by the appellants herein in O.S.No.1611/2005, which is based on title.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD


FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

 

PRESENT

 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

 

SECOND APPEAL No.1017 of 2012

 

 

Between:

Nizamuddin and another
..... APPELLANTS
And
Syeda Shahnaz Sultana and 2 others
.....RESPONDENTS



The Court made the following:

                                                                                 

 


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

 

SECOND APPEAL No.1017 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

          Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.1575/2002 on the file of the X Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad are the appellants herein.  The suit is one filed for permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein and 2 others from interfering with the schedule property, which is a house property, claiming that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 09.05.1984.  The defendants claimed that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the schedule property and the 2nd defendant is the absolute owner, having purchased the same by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 27.08.2002. 
The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated 11.03.2005.  Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred appeal in A.S.No.262/2006 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was allowed, vide judgment dated 18.06.2010, granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.  Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present second appeal is sought to be filed.
          It is an admitted fact that after the dismissal of the suit for injunction, the present appellants have filed a suit in O.S.No.1611/2005 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession.  The filing of the suit in O.S.No.1611/2005 by the appellants herein itself shows that the appellants have no possession of the schedule property.  It appears that the said suit was dismissed on 29.10.2010.  As against the said judgment, the appellants herein intend to prefer an appeal.
          Taking into consideration of the above circumstances, since the possession is established by the plaintiffs, the relief of injunction was granted by the lower appellate Court. However, it is made clear that any of the findings recorded by the Courts below against the appellants herein may not operate as res judicata in the suit filed by the appellants herein in O.S.No.1611/2005, which is based on title.
          In view of the above, I find no question of law, much less substantial question of law that arise for consideration in the present appeal.  The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission.  Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence.  No order as to costs.
         
____________________________
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
Dated: 07.09.2012
Dsr

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.