Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1903 (TS)

M. Laxmi Bai v. M. Hanumantha Rao

2025-12-23

RENUKA YARA

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. V. Aravind, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.M.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5. 2. The parties to all the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and the petitions are filed on similar grounds aggrieved by various proceedings that took place in continuation of the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2003 passed in O.S.No.830 of 2001 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 3. The C.R.P.No.2579 of 2024 is preferred by the petitioners/appellants/claim petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2024 in I.A.No.615 of 2024 in A.S.No.3 of 2024 pending on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, wherein, a petition filed under Order XLI Rule 5 (1) of CPC to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.379 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, has been dismissed. 4. The C.R.P.No.2579 of 2024 is preferred by the petitioners/ claim petitioners to direct the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally to take up the suit in O.S.No.405 of 2006 filed by the petitioners for cancellation of decree passed in O.S.No.803 of 2001 along with E.P.No.379 of 2022 in O.S.No.803 of 2001. 5. The C.R.P.No.3692 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners/ claim petitioners aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 13.08.2024 in EP No. 379 of 2022 in O.S.No.830 of 2001. 6. Since parties to all the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and these petitions are filed aggrieved by the orders in cases initiated in continuance of judgment and decree dated 10.02.2003 passed in O.S.No.830 of 2001 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar on similar grounds, all of them are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. 7. The background facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/plaintiff (P. Vidyasagar) filed suit in O.S.No.830 of 2001 seeking specific performance of Agreement of sale against respondent No.1/defendant (M. Hanumantha Rao) and obtained ex-parte decree on 10.02.2003. Thereafter, said Vidyasagar filed E.P.No.24 of 2005 and obtained registered sale deed No.234 of 2006 dated 09.01.2006. Subsequently, plaintiff filed E.P No.90 of 2007 dated 04.06.2007 seeking delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, said Vidyasagar filed E.P.No.24 of 2005 and obtained registered sale deed No.234 of 2006 dated 09.01.2006. Subsequently, plaintiff filed E.P No.90 of 2007 dated 04.06.2007 seeking delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. The revision petitioners i.e. legal heirs of defendant/JDR filed suit in O.S.No.405 of 2006 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar with a prayer to set aside the ex-parte decree and judgment in O.S.No.830 of 2001 claiming right in the E.P schedule property. 8. During pendency of E.P.90 of 2007, the wife and children of the JDR Hanumantha Rao/defendant filed claim petition in E.A.No.133 of 2007 for recall of warrant and E.A No.134 of 2007 for stay of all proceedings and said E.As were dismissed on 01.04.2009. Thereafter, the revision petitioners, who are the wife and children of the JDR, preferred Appeal vide A.S.No.103 of 2009 before the VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and said appeal was also dismissed on 18.03.2014. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, the revision petitioners preferred Second Appeal vide No.376 of 2014 on the file of this Court and said Second Appeal is currently pending. While things stood thus, E.P.No.90 of 2007 was dismissed for default on 27.01.2012 for non-prosecution. Then, the decree holder/plaintiff filed E.P.No.221 of 2014 (New No.379 of 2022) on the I Additional Senior Civil Judge under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC for delivery of EP schedule property. Said E.P was ordered on 06.07.2015. At that time, the revision petitioners filed E.A No.69 of 2015 under Order XXI Rule 98, 99 and 101 r/w Section 151 of CPC to recall the warrant for delivery of possession and also filed E.A.No.70 of 2015 under Section 151 of CPC to stay all further proceedings in the E.P. Said E.As were allowed. 9. Aggrieved by the common order dated 22.07.2015 in E.A.Nos.69 and 70 in E.P.No.221 of 2014 (New No.379 of 2022), the decree holder preferred Civil Revision Petition No.3914 of 2015 before this court and said C.R.P was allowed setting aside the common order passed in the E.A.Nos.69 and 70 of 2015. In the C.R.P., it is held that there is a jurisdictional error committed and therefore, the C.R.P was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3914 of 2015, the revision petitioners filed review petition and the same was dismissed on 07.06.2024. In the C.R.P., it is held that there is a jurisdictional error committed and therefore, the C.R.P was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3914 of 2015, the revision petitioners filed review petition and the same was dismissed on 07.06.2024. Then, again the revision petitioners filed claim petition vide by E.A.No.39 of 2022 in EP No.379 of 2022. Aggrieved by the order in E.A. No.39 of 2022, appeal suit vide A.S.No.3 of 2024 was filed on the file of the VIII Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Along with the appeal suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.615 of 2024 to grant stay of further proceedings in E.P.No.379 of 2022. The learned III Addl. District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally upon examining the sequence of judicial proceedings that have taken place, held that the revision petitioners are not entitled to stay in the EP proceedings. It is held that grant of stay amounts to scuttling the process of execution of decree, which was not permitted by the High Court in the order dated 17.10.2022 in CRP No. 3914 of 2015. To sum up, it is held that the petitioners failed to show prima facie case to stay further proceedings in E.P No.379 of 2022, hence, dismissed the I.A.No.615 of 2024 in A.S.No.3 of 2024 filed to stay further proceedings in the E.P. Aggrieved by the same, the C.R.P.No.2579 of 2024 is preferred. 10. In revision petitions, it is contented that the revision petitioners are in possession of immovable property claiming legal title and until their rights are adjudicated, the respondent No.2/decree holder cannot be permitted to take possession until the proceedings are terminated in favour of the decree holder. Further, it is pleaded that there is a matrimonial dispute between the claim petitioners and respondent No.1/JDR and therefore, the respondent No.1/JDR created and fabricated documents and a collusive suit is filed and decree is obtained behind the back of claim petitioners. The petitioners claim that they have preemptive rights and charge over the suit schedule properties as stipulated under Section 39 of Transfer of Property Act and the petitioners are residing in the EP schedule property and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The petitioners claim that they have preemptive rights and charge over the suit schedule properties as stipulated under Section 39 of Transfer of Property Act and the petitioners are residing in the EP schedule property and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It further stated that the decree in the suit for specific performance was obtained by fraud and that the claim petitioners are not living with the judgment debtor for over two decades, as he is living in the village after completing his sentence in a criminal case. 11. According to the revision petitioners, the appellate court has declined to grant relief in their stay petition, which is not tenable in law i.e., without recording prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. It is further pleaded that the claim petitioners have filed E.A.Nos.69 and 70 of 2015 after E.P.No.221 of 2014 (New E.P.No.379 of 2022) was filed by the decree holder, as the earlier E.P.No.90 of 2007 was dismissed for default. Further, E.A.Nos.133 and 134 of 2007 were dismissed against which first appeal vide A.S.No.103 of 2009 and the second appeal vide S.A.No.376 of 2014 are preferred and therefore, orders passed in the current E.A.Nos.69 and 70 of 2015 which are preferred seeking recall of warrant and stay of further proceedings which are not sustainable in law. In view of the foregoing reasoning, the revision petitioners pray that the impugned orders be set aside and direct the learned Trial Court to take up the suit in O.S.No.405 of 2006 along with E.P.No.379 of 2022. 12. During arguments, the learned counsel for revision petitioners relied upon judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Inder Singh vs Piara Singh , AIR 1993 P&H 83 , wherein, it is held that in an execution petition for delivery of possession of immovable property, objections by any person in possession, who is not bound by decree, the Executing Court cannot dispossess him without considering his application in view of Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC. 13. 13. On the basis of the aforementioned citation, the learned counsel for revision petitioners argued that the revision petitioners i.e. wife and children of the judgment debtor are living in the suit schedule property continuously prior to the filing of the suit for specific performance and that they do not have any relationship with the judgment debtor and therefore, their claim over the suit schedule property has to be considered. It is submitted that any judgment passed against the judgment debtor is not binding on them until their rights are independently decided in the Second Appeal pending before the High Court, in Second Appeal No.376 of 2014. According to the revision petitioners, until their rights are decided, the Execution Court does not have any power to proceed in the E.P. 14. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan , MANU/SC/0772/2025 , wherein, it is held that when both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court arrived at the conclusion that exclusive possession of the suit schedule property could be with the original defendant when the suit was decreed, the relief of transfer of possession was implicit in the decree for specific performance while directing the original defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the original plaintiff. Further, where the exclusive possession of the suit property is with the contracting party, a decree for specific performance of contract of sale simpliciter, without specifically providing for delivery of possession, may give complete relief to the decree holder. 15. In the case of Rohit Kochar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. , 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1114 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of land it is open for the plaintiff to join in the same suit two prayers, one for execution of deed of transfer and another for recovery of land in question. Further, it is held that a decree for specific performance of a contract includes everything incidental to be done by one party or another to complete the sale transaction including the rights and obligations of the parties in such matter being governed by Section 55 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 16. Further, it is held that a decree for specific performance of a contract includes everything incidental to be done by one party or another to complete the sale transaction including the rights and obligations of the parties in such matter being governed by Section 55 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 16. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondents that in a suit for specific performance though the relief of delivery of possession is not pleaded, it is incumbent upon the Courts to not only get the registered sale deed executed through Court process, but there is also an obligation to deliver possession of the property as delivery of possession is incidental to a sale transaction. It is emphasized that though the suit was decreed way back in the year 2003. The decree holders are unable to enjoy the fruits of the decree till date. In fact, it is the revision petitioners who are abusing Court process, denying the fruits of decree to the legal heirs of the decree holder. It is submitted that the decree holder died and his legal heirs continue to run from pillar to post for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property even after 22 years. Learned counsel for legal heirs of the decree holder prayed that the litigation which is going on from the year 2001 onwards till date be taken into consideration while passing orders. 17. The sequence of events of the present case show that a suit for specific performance was filed by respondent No.2/plaintiff way back in the year 2001 and the same was decreed in the year 2003. Ever since the suit was decreed, respondent No.2 and his legal heirs have been in the process of getting the decree executed. In that process, the E.P.No.24 of 2005 was filed and a registered sale deed was executed. Thereafter, E.P.No.90 of 2007 was filed with a prayer for delivery of possession of the suit house. From that stage onwards till date, the proceedings in the E.P. are stagnated without any outcome. During pendency of the E.P., the wife and children of the judgment debtor/revision petitioners have filed suit in O.S.No.405 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.830 of 2001 and said suit is disposed off. 18. During pendency of the E.P., the wife and children of the judgment debtor/revision petitioners have filed suit in O.S.No.405 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.830 of 2001 and said suit is disposed off. 18. The claim petitioners filed E.A.Nos.133 and 134 of 2007 in E.P.No.90 of 2007 for recall of warrant and for stay of further proceedings, the said E.As. have been dismissed on 01.04.2007 i.e., the prayer of the revision petitioners herein for recall of warrant of delivery of possession and stay of further proceedings in E.P.No.90 of 2007 was dismissed for the first time on 01.04.2007. Thereafter, an appeal vide A.S.No.103 of 2009 was preferred. The said appeal was dismissed leading to filing of Second Appeal No.376 of 2014, which is still pending. When the E.P.No.90 of 2007 was dismissed for default, in the year 2012, the legal heirs of respondent No.2/plaintiff have filed E.P.No.221 of 2014 (New E.P.No.379 of 2022), in which also there was a claim petition filed by the petitioners herein along with E.A.Nos.69 and 70 of 2015 to recall warrant of delivery of possession and to stay further proceedings in E.P.No.221 of 2014 (New E.P.No.379 of 2022). The said E.As. were allowed leading to filing of C.R.P.No.3914 of 2015 and the said C.R.P was allowed on 22.07.2015 setting aside the order passed by the E.P.Court in E.A.Nos.69 and 70 of 2015 i.e., for the second time, the revision petitioners were denied the relief of stay of further proceedings in order to facilitate delivery of possession and said order was passed by this Court itself. Once the E.As. were dismissed, a review petition was filed and said review petition was also dismissed on 07.06.2024. 19. In the circumstances, the revision/review petitioners have filed the third I.A.No.615 of 2024 in A.S.No.3 of 2024 seeking stay of all further proceedings in E.P.379 of 2022 filed seeking delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. Again, the revision petitioners have filed E.A.No.39 of 2022 to recall the warrant for delivery of possession in E.P.No.379 of 2022. 20. This sequence of events shows repeated attempts on the part of the review petitioners to stall the execution of the E.P. The conduct of the revision petitioners shows nothing but abuse of Court process. Again, the revision petitioners have filed E.A.No.39 of 2022 to recall the warrant for delivery of possession in E.P.No.379 of 2022. 20. This sequence of events shows repeated attempts on the part of the review petitioners to stall the execution of the E.P. The conduct of the revision petitioners shows nothing but abuse of Court process. In fact, the revision petitioners have sought exercise of their rights by filing O.S.No.405 of 2006 as well as by filing E.A.No.69 of 2015 under Order XXI Rules 98, 99 and 101 of CPC i.e., an opportunity was given to the revision petitioners to prove their rights before the competent Civil Court and also before the Execution Court. It is a point to be noted that the repeated findings of the Courts are against the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners are doggedly obstructing the execution of the E.P. It is a point to be noted that all the proceedings initiated by the revision petitioners ended in orders against them, except the Second Appeal No.376 of 2014, which is still pending. Be that as it may, dismissal of claim petition filed under Order XXI Rule 97 to 101 of CPC which is in the nature of a suit clearly indicates that the petitioners failed to establish their rights. 21. Lastly, there is no stay in the said Second Appeal to prevent execution of the delivery of possession in favour of the legal heirs of the decree holder. When there is repeated failure on the part of revision petitioners to prove their rights and there is no stay in the Second Appeal, there can be no question of granting any stay on further proceedings in the E.P. to stall delivery of possession. It is a point to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case between Periyammal (dead) through LRs and others v. V. Rajamani and another, etc. , Civil Appeal Nos.3640-3642 of 2025 held that an effort has to be made for concluding the proceedings in any execution petition within six months. Instead, herein is a situation where the E.P. proceedings which have begun in the year 2005 have not concluded even in the year 2025. 22. , Civil Appeal Nos.3640-3642 of 2025 held that an effort has to be made for concluding the proceedings in any execution petition within six months. Instead, herein is a situation where the E.P. proceedings which have begun in the year 2005 have not concluded even in the year 2025. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, in view of the fact that the revision petitioners have failed in establishing their rights by filing O.S.No.405 of 2006 and E.A.No.69 of 2015 under Order XXI Rules 98 to 101 of CPC though Second Appeal is pending, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge in I.A.No.615 of 2024 in A.S.No.3 of 2024 and order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally in E.P.No.379 of 2022 in O.S.No.830 of 2001. 23. In the result, all the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.