Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1293 (TS)

Chintalapani Pranathi v. Janga Devendar Reddy

2025-10-25

RENUKA YARA

body2025
ORDER : Renuka Yara, J. Heard Sri. A.Ganesh Raj, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.B.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri. Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as Sri. Ch. Samson Babu, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Perused the record. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.04.2024 passed in I.A. No.179 of 2023 in O.S. No. 57 of 2023 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal, wherein, the petition filed under Order XV-A read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) to strike off the defence of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 by ordering them to pay the due amount to the plaintiff, has been disposed of with a direction to defendant No.1/bank to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.48,756/- per month before this Court and also to deposit the arrears of rent with effect from January, 2023 within one month of passing of the order. 3. The revision petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are defendant Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.1 is plaintiff. Respondent No.2 is defendant No.1. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are defendant Nos.4 and 5. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S. No.57 of 2023. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit viz., O.S. No. 57 of 2023 for eviction and recovery arrears of rents of Rs.32,23,396/- against defendant Nos.1 to 5 jointly and severally and for a direction to defendant No.1 to deposit monthly rent of Rs.1,00,000/- into the account of the plaintiff. 5. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the suit schedule property i.e., house bearing No.2-076/3/G2, ground floor, admeasuring 64 sq. yards out of 700 sq. yards on open plot in Survey No.88/Part, Sai Baba Complex, situated at Petbasheerabad, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from the vendor namely K.Venkatesh and his partner namely Harishankar Goud, under the registered sale deed bearing document No.32013 of 2022 dated 29.11.2022. The said K.Venkatesh and his partner, Harishankar Goud, purchased the suit schedule property from one Mahendranath Dixit, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.7747 of 1999 and possession was delivered on 20.12.1999. The said K.Venkatesh and his partner, Harishankar Goud, purchased the suit schedule property from one Mahendranath Dixit, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.7747 of 1999 and possession was delivered on 20.12.1999. Subsequent to the purchase, Harishankar Goud got released his share in the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed vide document bearing No.29433 of 2022 dated 31.10.2022. The plaintiff got his name mutated in the municipal record vide proceeding dated 24.03.2003 and executed a rectification deed bearing document No.7767 of 2023 dated 25.03.2023. 6. Defendant No.1/bank took the suit schedule property on lease from defendant No.5 under registered lease deed document bearing No.11534 of 2010 dated 29.11.2010 as per the interim orders in W.P.M.P. No.27658 of 2010 in W.P. No.21741 of 2010 dated 10.11.2010. Thereafter, defendant No.5 sole the suit schedule property to defendant Nos.2 and 3 under registered sale deed document bearing No.1185 of 2011 dated 07.02.2011. Defendant No.1 entered into registered lease deed document bearing No.5224 of 2011 dated 03.06.2011 when lease period is subsisting upto 14.02.2021. After the expiry of the lease deed, defendant No.1 did not enter into fresh deed with the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit viz., O.S. No. 57 of 2023 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rents from 09.04.2022 onwards. 7. The sale deed dated 07.02.2011 which is executed by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 has been declared as null and void by the then Erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.No.21741 of 2010 dated 24.04.2012. Thereafter, defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed W.A. No.962 of 2017 before the division bench and on refusal to interfere with the order of the single bench in W.P. No.21741 of 2010, defendant Nos.2 and 3 withdrew the W.A. No.962 of 2017 on 22.02.2021 with liberty to take appropriate civil remedies. Subsequently, defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed O.S. No.302 of 2022 against defendant No.1 for eviction and recovery of possession and said suit is pending. Meanwhile, defendant No.1 accepted for increase of rent from Rs.48,756/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per month. 8. The plaintiff referred to defendant No.4 as a purchaser of suit schedule property from K.Venkatesh and his partner namely K.Harishankar Goud under registered document bearing No.4285 of 2000 dated 19.06.2000. Meanwhile, defendant No.1 accepted for increase of rent from Rs.48,756/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per month. 8. The plaintiff referred to defendant No.4 as a purchaser of suit schedule property from K.Venkatesh and his partner namely K.Harishankar Goud under registered document bearing No.4285 of 2000 dated 19.06.2000. There was failure on the part of defendant No.4 to pay the sale consideration and therefore, a suit in O.S. No.280 of 2007 was filed before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, for cancelling the registered sale deed document bearing No.9008 of 2002 dated 30.10.2002 and the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.4 has been cancelled. 9. Defendant No.5 obtained unregistered GPA from defendant No.4 and fraudulently obtained validation orders vide Validation file No.1522/AR/2010 dated 21.05.2010. The plaintiff after purchasing the property and after having possession got a legal notice dated 01.12.2022 calling upon the defendant No.1 to deposit monthly rent of Rs.48,756/- into his HDFC saving account bearing No.05181000007372, IFSC No.HDFC0000518, Karimnagar branch, Karimnagar, Telangana State. The plaintiff also called upon defendant Nos.2 to 5 to pay entire arrears of rent from 01.12.2019 to 07.04.2022 which was paid by defendant No.1 to defendant Nos.2 and 3 at the rate of Rs.48,756/- from 01.12.2019 to 07.04.2022. In reply of said legal notice, defendant No.1 mentioned about O.S. No.302 of 2022, therefore, the plaintiff got impleaded in said suit. Further, the plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 is paying Rs.1,00,000/- rent with effect from 07.04.2022 to defendant Nos.2 and 3. In the circumstances, legal notices were issued to defendant Nos.1 to 3. Since there was no proper response and the rents were not deposited into account of the plaintiff, a suit viz., O.S. No.57 of 2023 for eviction was followed by filing I.A under the revision petition was filed to strike off the defence for failure to pay the admitted rent to the account of the plaintiff. Upon considering the case of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5, the impugned order dated 03.04.2024 was passed directing the plaintiff to deposit the rent to the credit of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred. 10. In the grounds of the revision petition, defendant Nos.2 and 3 contended that about 46 documents were filed on their behalf and not a single document is discussed or marked. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred. 10. In the grounds of the revision petition, defendant Nos.2 and 3 contended that about 46 documents were filed on their behalf and not a single document is discussed or marked. It is pleaded that marking of the documents is necessary as per Order LI and LX of Civil Rules of Practice but not a single document is marked in the current I.A. under the revision. 11. This Court had issued circular to the Subordinate Courts to mark the documents while disposing of the interlocutory application on basis of the order passed in C.R.P. No. 1234 of 2020 dated 28.07.2021. However, the trial Court did not follow the said circular while passing the impugned order dated 03.04.2024. It is urged that defendant No.1 denied jural relationship with the plaintiff and therefore, directing to depositing of rent would amounts to acknowledging the non-existing title of the plaintiff and negating the title of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Further, it is pleaded that owner is one who collects the rents from the tenant and there is no whisper as to whether the plaintiff or his vendor ever collected rents from defendant No.1. As per the lease deed, the rents are payable to defendant Nos.2 and 3 and rents are paid upto January, 2023. In view of filing of O.S. No.302 of 2022, defendant No.1 is a tenant at sufferance or tenant holding over. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 pleaded that the plaintiff cannot plead ignorance about filing of suit of eviction when he himself filed a implead petition in the said suit. It is pleaded that there is a title dispute between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 and vehemently argued but there is no whisper in the impugned order dated 03.04.2024 about the title dispute. Referring to Order XV-A of the CPC, it is urged that only undisputed rents can be deposited and the lease deed document bearing No.5224 of 2011 dated 03.06.2011 shows the existence of jural relationship between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside. 12. During arguments, learned counsel for the defendant Nos.2 and 3 argued that the rents were paid to defendant Nos.2 and 3 till passing the impugned order dated 03.04.2024. Therefore, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside. 12. During arguments, learned counsel for the defendant Nos.2 and 3 argued that the rents were paid to defendant Nos.2 and 3 till passing the impugned order dated 03.04.2024. It is argued that there is a title dispute between the defendant Nos.2 and 3 on one hand and the plaintiff on the other hand. Before the title dispute is settled no order can be passed to cause prejudice to the interest of defendant Nos.2 and 3. It is further argued that several documents were filed in support of the case of defendant Nos.2 and 3 but none of the documents are discussed or exhibited. Since the order is passed without exhibiting the documents, it is argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. There is an allegation of relying upon invalid documents by the plaintiff to claim ownership. It is argued that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the jural relationship and receiving the rents from defendant No.1/bank. Therefore, it is argued that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of striking off defence under Order XV-A of the CPC. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the title deed of defendant No.4 from whom defendant Nos.2 and 3 have purchased the suit schedule property has been declared as null and void by this Court and therefore, no effective title is passed to defendant Nos.2 and 3 to claim ownership. It is pleaded that on the basis of invalid documents, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have collected rents from defendant No.1/bank and therefore, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are liable to pay the arrears as well as monthly rents. It is vehemently emphasized that the rents are not deposited into the account of the plaintiff but deposited to the credit of the suit. Therefore, any party who is successful subsequent to the adjudication of the suit can receive the rents. In the circumstances, it is argued that no fault can be found with the order passed by the trial Court and that the civil revision petition is liable to the dismissed. 14. A perusal of the pleading shows that the plaintiff on one hand and defendant Nos.2 and 3 on other hand are deriving their title from one K.Venkatesh and K.Harishankar Goud. 14. A perusal of the pleading shows that the plaintiff on one hand and defendant Nos.2 and 3 on other hand are deriving their title from one K.Venkatesh and K.Harishankar Goud. The plainitff claims to have purchased the suit schedule property from K.Venkatesh under registered sale deed document bearing No.32013 of 2022 dated 29.11.2022 and thereafter, K.Harishankar Goud executed a registered release deed document bearing No.29433 of 2022 dated 31.10.2022 in favour of K.Venkatesh. 15. Coming to the title of defendant Nos.2 and 3, initially K.Venkatesh and his partner, K.Harishankar Goud, have sold the suit schedule property under registered sale deed document bearing No.4285 of 2000 dated 19.06.2000 in favour of defendant No.4. However, on account of non-payment of sale consideration, a suit in O.S. No.280 of 2007 was filed and as per the judgment and decree in O.S. No.280 of 2007, the registered sale deed document dated 30.10.2002 executed in favour of defendant No.4 is declared as null and void. During said interregnum, defendant No.5 obtained unregistered GPA from defendant No.4 and also got its validation vide validation File No.1522/AR/2010 dated 21.05.2010. On the basis of the said validated GPA, defendant No.5 sold the suit schedule property to defendant Nos.2 and 3. Thus, it is seen that both defendant Nos.2 and 3 as well as the plaintiff are deriving their title from K.Venkatesh and his partner, K. Harishankar Goud. There is a need to adjudicate the issue of title of suit schedule property before arriving at a conclusion as to whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit schedule property or defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the owners of the suit schedule property. While so, strangely, the plaintiff filed suit for eviction against defendant No.1/bank and likewise, defendant Nos.2 and 3 also filed suit for eviction against defendant No.1/bank. One crucial point to be noted is that this Court has declared the sale deed of defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., sale deed document bearing No.1185 of 2011 dated 07.02.2011 as null and void in W.P. No.21741 of 2010, against which, W.A. No.962 of 2017 was preferred and the said W.A. No.962 of 2017 was withdrawn. One crucial point to be noted is that this Court has declared the sale deed of defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., sale deed document bearing No.1185 of 2011 dated 07.02.2011 as null and void in W.P. No.21741 of 2010, against which, W.A. No.962 of 2017 was preferred and the said W.A. No.962 of 2017 was withdrawn. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the title deed under which defendant Nos.2 and 3 are claiming right and interest in the suit schedule property is no longer in force and that being the case, defendant Nos.2 and 3 cannot insist that defendant No.1/bank has to deposit the rent to them. However, in view of serious issue of payment of rents, the trial Court has rightly directed defendant No.1/bank to deposit the rents to the credit of the suit. 16. Coming to the aspect of the circular issued by this Court with respect to marking of the documents, it is for the purpose of exhibiting the documents that ought to be considered by the Court for passing of the orders. The Court in itself may not direct the parties to exhibit the documents. It is pleaded that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have already produced 46 documents during arguments in the I.A under the revision petition. If so, defendant Nos.2 and 3 ought to have taken initiation to get their documents exhibited and not place the blame at the door steps of the trial Court. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not liable to be set aside for not exhibiting the documents of the respective parties and also not liable to set aside as the rents are directed to be paid to the credit of the suit which does not cause prejudice to any of the parties. Hence, there are no merits in the civil revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.