Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 335 (TS)

Chilvery Sree Vani v. Kantayapalam Shanti

2025-04-16

N.TUKARAMJI, P.SAM KOSHY

body2025
JUDGMENT : N. TUKARAMJI, J. 1. We have heard Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Pillix Law Firm appearing for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2, and Mr. Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff. 2. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 22.03.2024 in I.A. Nos.1776 and 1777 of 2023 in O.S. No. 237 of 2023 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally. 3. The appellants are defendant Nos.1 and 2/respondent Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondents’). The respondent No.1 herein as plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) filed suit vide O.S.No.237 of 2023 seeking declaration of title, possession, and perpetual injunction against the defendants over the suit schedule property, i.e., land admeasuring 263.44 square yards in Plot No.51, Sy.No.367/A, and 259.66 square yards in Plot No.54, Sy.Nos.367/A and 368, situated at Nallagandla Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject property’). Along with the suit, the petitioner filed I.A. No.1776 of 2024 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from making any construction or changing the nature of the subject property until the disposal of the suit, and I.A. No.1777 of 2024 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating and from creating any third-party interest over the subject property. Pending the suit, the trial Court, vide the impugned common order, allowed both the Interlocutory Applications. Feeling aggrieved, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals came to be filed. 4....... (i) Relevant facts in brief are that, according to the petitioner, the subject property was purchased by her under a registered sale deed dated 30.10.1981. Subsequently, upon realizing that there was a variance in the plot numbers as per the final layout approved by HUDA, the vendors of the petitioner executed a rectification deed on 11.05.2016. (ii) Originally, the petitioner’s vendors purchased Ac.0-39 gts. of land in Sy.No.367/A and by pooling this land with other lands in Sy.Nos.378, 366/B, 367/B, and part of Sy.Nos.367 and 368 at Nallagandla Village, the owners jointly obtained a layout with an understanding among the land owners that the plots within the boundaries of their respective lands would be their share. As per the petitioner, in terms thereof, plots in Sy.No. 367/A fell to the share of the petitioner’s vendors. As per the petitioner, in terms thereof, plots in Sy.No. 367/A fell to the share of the petitioner’s vendors. In this position, at a later date, the Government acquired a portion of land in Sy.No.368 of the petitioner and others in 2019 for bringing a radial road, whereby 16 square yards were acquired from Plot No. 54 of the petitioner, and compensation proceedings were conducted in the name of the petitioner. (iii) In this scenario, the respondents, without any right or interest, entered the subject property and started construction, claiming a right based upon fabricated documents of a gift deed dated 14.05.2018 between Vishnuvardhan Reddy and Srinivas Reddy (respondent Nos.2 and 3/defendant Nos.3 and 4) and Vishwakanth Reddy, said to be based on a partition deed dated 23.08.2018 executed among themselves, and that the respondent No.3/defendant No.4 (Srinivas Reddy) executed a sale deed dated 29.08.2021 in favour of respondent No.1. Further, in the documents of the respondents, the plot numbers were mentioned by changing the survey numbers, and they illegally occupied the subject property. Thus, the interim applications were filed. 5....... (i) Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that even as per the pleadings of the petitioner, respondent No.1 is in possession of the property, and a considerable level of construction has been done on the subject property. Be that as it may, the petitioner is none other than the wife of her vendor. The original sale deed reflects certain plot numbers, whereas the rectification deed, which was executed after about sixteen years, has introduced new property by changing the plot numbers and even the boundaries. The acceptability of the rectification and the delay in the execution of the rectification deed are triable issues. Apart from that, it was contested that, though there is a concept of a tentative layout and a final approved layout, under no circumstances would the plot numbers change. Thus, the assertion of the petitioner in this regard is another triable aspect. Additionally, the granting or otherwise of relief, particularly injunction pendente lite, shall be on the strength of the petitioner’s case but not in any way on the weakness of the respondents’ case. (ii) Learned Senior Counsel further contended that by the impugned order, the construction commenced by the respondent No.1 has been stalled, which is causing severe hardship and would be a waste of resources. (ii) Learned Senior Counsel further contended that by the impugned order, the construction commenced by the respondent No.1 has been stalled, which is causing severe hardship and would be a waste of resources. Thus, permitting the respondent No.1 to proceed with construction subject to the result of the suit would meet the balance of convenience. Further, respondent No.1 undertakes to pull down the structure and to deliver vacant possession, if the petitioner is able to establish her case. Admittedly, the disposal of the suit is likely to take considerable time, may be several years. Until then, withholding the construction would also affect the construction that has been made so far. In addition, as the discrepancies in the petitioner’s case require fact-finding, and stalling the construction would cause irreparable loss, the essential ingredients for granting a temporary injunction are indeed in favour of the respondents. Apart from that, it was fairly submitted that the respondents have no intention to make any alienation of the subject land; as such, maintaining the injunction orders restricting the alienation of third-party interest is not objectionable. (iii) In support, the following authorities of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Orissa were cited: (i) Dalpat Kumar and another vs. Prahlad Singh and others , (1992) 1 SCC 719 (ii) Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) through Legal Representatives and another vs. Shivnath and others , (2019) 6 SCC 82 (iii) Best Sellers Retail (India) Private Limited vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited and others , (2012) 6 SCC 792 (iv) ECE Industries Limited vs. S.P. Real Estate Developers Private Limited and another , (2009) 12 SCC 776 (v) Surendra Moharana vs. Rajkishore Moharana and others, 2015 SCC OnLine Ori 688 : (2017) 123 CLT 347 (High Court of Orissa) 6....... (i) Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposed the appeals by pointing to the plans of layout approvals and submitted that after the issuance of the tentative layout, the extreme northern portion of the layout was taken for public purposes. Likewise, the existing road was widened. In such peculiar circumstances, the plots were renumbered, and as per the amendment, Plot Nos.51 and 54 fell to the share of the petitioner’s vendors. He asserted that the location of the plots that fell to the share of the land owners never changed, but only the plot numbers did. Likewise, the existing road was widened. In such peculiar circumstances, the plots were renumbered, and as per the amendment, Plot Nos.51 and 54 fell to the share of the petitioner’s vendors. He asserted that the location of the plots that fell to the share of the land owners never changed, but only the plot numbers did. Thus, the contention that the rectification deed had changed the entire schedule property in the sale deed is unacceptable. Even though the respondents’ claim that the property was transferred through some registered gift and partition deeds, the foundational deed of transfer of property to the donee was an unstamped and unregistered sale deed/sada binama; for want of registration, the title would never pass on to the vendor. In such a position, the execution of a gift deed based on the unregistered document per se falls flat. However, the respondents had woven the imperfection through the registered gift, partition and sale deeds among the family members. The respondent No.1 is none other than the wife of respondent No.3. Thus, the respondents have no precipitated legal right in their claim. (ii) Furthermore, the respondents had obtained municipal permissions by showing different plots, but in violation, they are proceeding with construction on the schedule property. If permitted and the petitioner succeeds in the suit at a later date, firstly, the construction stands in violation of the sanction/permission, which would be one issue, and the destruction of the constructed building would be another, and the respondents may claim for equities. Thus, keeping the position as it is until the suit would be the just way out; as such, the impugned order is justified, as the materials on record are prima facie establishing the hollowness of the respondents’ title or interest over the schedule property. Therefore, there is no need for interference in these appeals. However, it was pleaded that a direction for the early disposal of the suit would secure the interests of both parties. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel and perused the record. 8. The question that emerges for determination is whether the Court below has properly examined the facts and law in granting interim injunctions. 9. The petitioner is claiming a right over the subject land through a registered sale deed and subsequent rectification deeds. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel and perused the record. 8. The question that emerges for determination is whether the Court below has properly examined the facts and law in granting interim injunctions. 9. The petitioner is claiming a right over the subject land through a registered sale deed and subsequent rectification deeds. As per the sale deed of the petitioner dated 30.10.1981/Ex.P-4, Plot Nos.52 and 55 in Sy.Nos.367/A, 367/AA, and 368 were sold. However, in the schedule of the rectification deed dated 11.05.2016/Ex.P-6, Plot Nos.51 and 54 were supplanted in the place of Plot Nos.52 and 55 for referring to HUDA Final Lay-out permission dated 14.09.1982. Primarily, if there is a change in plot numbers in a Layout, as a natural corollary, other plots in the Layout should also be affected. However, the petitioner has not brought any other document in support of this fact, except pleading that an adjustment was made after taking the extreme north portion for public purposes. Further, through the draft and final layout plans placed by the petitioner before this Court, the respondents have pointed out that the draft layout is not showing Plot No.55 at all, and Plot No.51 is in the east-north corner. Whereas, as per the final layout, Plot Nos.51 and 54 are shown as the plots in the middle portion, which goes against the petitioner’s claim that only the plot numbers were changed. So far as the localization of the plots is concerned, the draft and final layouts, as pointed out by the respondents, are showing a change of location of the plots claimed by the petitioner. Additionally, in the schedule of the original sale deed, Survey No.367/AA was referred to, whereas the rectification deed referred to the sale deed schedule plot numbers, and the same plot is shown in Sy.No.367/A and that it was replaced with Plot No.54. Thus, prima facie, we find a discrepancy in regard to the Plot numbers and the location. As per the petitioner, 16 square yards of land in Plot No.54 has been acquired, which is shown in Sy.No.368, and it was shown as old Plot No.55 in Survey Numbers 367/AA and 368. Thus, prima facie, we find a discrepancy in regard to the Plot numbers and the location. As per the petitioner, 16 square yards of land in Plot No.54 has been acquired, which is shown in Sy.No.368, and it was shown as old Plot No.55 in Survey Numbers 367/AA and 368. Thus, the entries in layouts, the location of plots shown in the draft and final layouts, and the reference of Survey Number 367/A in the rectification deed give rise to an issue of numbering and localization of the plots. Nonetheless, the reference of the petitioner in land acquisition proceedings and referring to the plot numbers is favouring the petitioner’s stand. 10. Though it is a settled proposition that the petitioner has to prove her case independently, as admittedly, the respondents are in possession and have made construction in the portion over the subject property claimed by the petitioner, the claim of title and possession of the respondents need attention as it would be a relevant factor. In this regard, the respondents’ claim is that the original transaction in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was under an agreement of sale. In this regard, the respondent No.3 claims that respondent Nos.1 and 2 purchased the property from respondent No.3 under an unregistered sale deed. This undisputed fact discloses a weakness in the title of the respondents, though they are in possession of the property. However, as of now, the petitioner and respondents are claiming the subject property based on the deeds in their favour. This puzzle can only be resolved in due trial. 11. At this juncture, the aspect that needs consideration is whether the injunction against the respondents restraining further construction can be sustained. 12. As per the respondents, the stalling of construction would cause loss to them, and as the respondents are volunteering to pull down the structure at a later date if the petitioner succeeds in the suit, which will not cause any prejudice, is another aspect for consideration. 13. On the other hand, the petitioner is pleading that the construction itself is not in accordance with the sanction plan; even otherwise, the construction and pulling down of the structure would be another waste and may cause complications. 14. 13. On the other hand, the petitioner is pleading that the construction itself is not in accordance with the sanction plan; even otherwise, the construction and pulling down of the structure would be another waste and may cause complications. 14. When these claims are juxtaposed, we are of the considered view that in the factual position, if the respondents are permitted to continue the construction, which would incur costs for the respondents, and at a later date, if the suit is decreed and a direction for delivery of possession is given, it would further burden the respondents in incurring expenditure to pull down the structure or even leaving the structure as it may not be useful for the petitioner's needs. Thus, the construction and removal of the structure would basically be a waste of resources and also a national waste. In that view, the impugned order against the respondents not to proceed with construction without disturbing the possession of the parties is found reasonable and justified. Further, as the respondents had volunteered that the subject property would not be alienated or would not create third-party interest, and in view of the fair stance of the respondents that they have no grievance in regard to the interim injunction in this regard, we find no reason to deliberate on this aspect. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned common order. However, having regard to the issues involved and the suit being of the year 2023, and as the construction is midway, the learned VI Additional District Judge, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to prioritize the suit in O.S.No.237 of 2023 to adjudicate the same, preferably with an outer limit of one year from the date of the next adjournment, which is found appropriate. Accordingly, ordered. It is needless to say that the petitioner and respondents shall extend their fullest cooperation in the trial process for an early adjudication. With this observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.