Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 479 (AP)

Shaik Mansoor v. Sofia Hasan

2010-06-18

B.CHANDRA KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT : 1. This revision is directed against the orders passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R.A. No.31 of 2010, dated 20.02.2010, whereby and whereunder the order passed by the learned I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in R.C. No.190 of 2008, dated 28.10.2009, has been confirmed. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner is disputing the title of the respondent herein and that the sale deed through which the respondent purchased the property is of house bearing No.6-3-668/10 to 13 whereas the schedule mentioned property is 6-3-668/14 and therefore the respondent herein is not the owner of the premises. It is also his contention that the revision petitioner was set ex parte on 07.07.2008 and that he filed an application in I.A. No. 231 of 2008 in R.C. No. 190 of 2008 to set aside the ex parte orders, however, the said application was dismissed on 01.10.2009 and thus no opportunity was given to the revision petitioner to contest the RC. It is also his contention that the revision petitioner is the tenant of one Sree Ramulu. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court, after taking into consideration the fact of affixing the notice to the door of the petitioner and also after ascertaining the fact of service of notice by registered post with acknowledgment due, set the petitioner ex parte. It is also his submission that the appellate Court has given cogent reasons for dismissing the appeal. It is also his submission that the copy of the sale deed filed by the petitioner is misleading, since the plan attached to the original sale deed has not been filed only to mislead the Court. It is also submitted that the mother of the petitioner herein filed a suit against the respondent herein wherein she has admitted that she is the tenant of the respondent herein. 4. As seen from the record summons were served on the petitioner when they were sent through registered post. Then the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.231 of 2008 to set aside the ex parte orders dated 07.07.2008. 4. As seen from the record summons were served on the petitioner when they were sent through registered post. Then the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.231 of 2008 to set aside the ex parte orders dated 07.07.2008. The Court below, after examining the records and ascertaining the particulars furnished by the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the notices were sent to the same address and that the petitioner was not available and his mother alone was present and that the bailiff affixed summons on the door of the house and that the acknowledgment returned by the postal authorities shows the signature of the petitioner which reveals that the notice sent through registered post was served on the petitioner herein. Taking into consideration those facts, I.A. No.31 of 2008 filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 01.10.2009. The petitioner has not whispered anything about filing of I.A. No.231 of 2008 in the present revision. The appellate Court also, on verification found that, the summons were duly affixed and the summons sent through registered post were duly served on the petitioner. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, were confirmed by the appellate authority. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is not the owner of the property and that the schedule mentioned property is bearing house No.6-3-668/14 and whereas the sale deed shows that her house number is 6-3-668/10 to 13. The learned counsel for the respondent filed a copy of the said sale deed dated 26.06.1972. A plan is attached to the said sale deed. Admittedly, the copy of sale deed filed by the petitioner does not contain the said plan showing the mulgies. When a document is to be filed before a Court the parties must file the complete document, but not a part of that document. Of course, the sale deed filed by the petitioner shows that the respondent has purchased the property bearing house No.6-3-668/10 to 13. But, however, since the plan attached to the sale deed is not filed along with the copy of the sale deed by the petitioner in the papers filed by him, it has to be held that the complete sale deed is not filed. The petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts. 6. Yet there is another circumstance. But, however, since the plan attached to the sale deed is not filed along with the copy of the sale deed by the petitioner in the papers filed by him, it has to be held that the complete sale deed is not filed. The petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts. 6. Yet there is another circumstance. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the mother of the present petitioner had filed a suit for injunction against the respondent herein, wherein it was mentioned that the mulgie bearing No.6-3-668/14 admeasuring 6.3’ x 10’, situated at Punjagutta, Hyderabad, was obtained by her husband from Abul Khair Siddiqui, father-in-law of Smt. Sofia Hassan, the respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. So when the mother of the petitioner herself has referred the mulgi number as 6-3-668/14 and admitted that the respondent herein is the owner of the property and that her husband was only a tenant, I do not see that the petitioner has any case either on facts or in law. Since there are no merits in the revision the revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. The revision petitioner is directed to vacate the petition schedule premises and hand over the vacant possession of the said property to the respondent on or before 10th August, 2010.