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 2^nd 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