THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY S.A.No.195 of 2011 JUDGMENT: Lack of harmony in the family headed by the sole respondent herein has given rise to conflicts among the family members and institution of civil and criminal proceedings in various Courts. The respondent has five sons and two daughters. The appellant is the fifth son. The respondent worked as a Head Master. According to him, the property bearing premises No.20-1-140 wherein a multi-storeyed complex was constructed was purchased by him through a sale deed dated 24.04.1974. Stating that he permitted the appellant herein to reside in one of the portions along with his wife and children and that despite his demands, the appellant has not vacated the premises, the respondent filed O.S.No.2590 of 2004 in the Court of IX Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. He asserted title in respect of the premises and pleaded that the appellant has no right to reside therein. The appellant filed a written statement opposing the suit. He stated that one of his brothers by name Ramesh Kumar Yadav filed O.S.No.1774 of 2003 in the Court of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondent for declaration of title in respect of a portion of the house, on the basis of a gift deed and that latter in turn filed O.S.No.2060 of 2003 in the same Court for cancellation of the gift deed executed by him in favour of Ramesh Kumar Yadav stating interalia that the property is ancestral and that the gift deed is untenable. The appellant also asserted that the premises in 20-1-140 is an ancestral property and that the respondent does not have exclusive title in him. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment dated 18.01.2010. Thereupon, the appellant filed A.S.No.86 of 2010 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 18.01.2011. Hence, the second appeal. Heard Sri V. Rajagopal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.V. Sanjeeva Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. The suit filed by the respondent against the appellant was one for eviction. On his part, the appellant disputed the exclusive title claimed by the respondent. The trial Court framed the following issues for consideration. 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises as prayed for? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for? 3) To what relief? On behalf of the respondent, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A18 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, DWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. B1 to B45 were filed. During the pendency of O.S.No.2590 of 2004, the Court of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad decided O.S.Nos. 1774 and 2060 of 2003 through a common judgment. The judgment was filed as Ex.B44 in O.S.No.2590 of 2004. In O.S.No.2060 of 2003 it was held that the suit schedule property is ancestral in nature and that it does not belong exclusively, to the respondent. In O.S.No.2590 of 2004, this fact was referred to, but the suit was decreed. In A.S.No.86 of 2010 filed by the appellant herein, the lower appellate Court framed the following points for consideration and dismissed the appeal. 1) Whether the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of the respondent? If so, whether the appellant has been residing in the suit premises with the permission of the respondent? 2) Whether the respondent is entitled for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property? 3) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is illegal and erroneous and is liable to be set aside? Across the bar, it is stated that against the decree in O.S.No.2060 of 2003, the respondent herein filed A.S.No.66 of 2009 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent treated premises No. 20-1-140 as his exclusive property on the basis of the purchase made by him through Ex.A1 dated 24.04.1974. The disharmony in the family is so serious that the members thereof are fighting with each other as though they are enemies. One of the sons by name Ramesh Kumar Yadav filed O.S.No.1774 of 2003 for declaration of his title on the strength of a gift deed said to have been executed by his father, the respondent. The latter filed O.S.No.2060 of 2003 for cancellation of the gift deed pleading that it was obtained by playing fraud and coercion. O.S.No.1774 of 2003 was dismissed in view of the finding recorded by the trial Court that the premises No. 20-1-140 is an ancestral property and the respondent did not have the right to execute a gift deed at all. Obviously because that finding was handy for him, Ramesh Kumar Yadav did not prefer any appeal. The respondent, however, felt aggrieved by the said finding and filed A.S.No.66 of 2009. Before the trial Court and the lower appellate Court in the present set of proceedings, the common judgment in O.S.Nos. 1774 and 2060 of 2003, formed part of record. The finding recorded therein that the suit property is ancestral was virtually disagreed and relief was granted in O.S.No.2590 of 2004 on the assumption that the property exclusively belongs to the respondent. Such an approach was totally untenable. It only demonstrates as to how, the Courts at various stages have expressed such conflicting views as regards the right of the respondent. It is indeed surprising that the parties did not ensure clubbing of A.S.No.66 of 2009 with A.S.No.86 of 2010 out of which the present second appeal arises in spite of the fact that both the appellants are before the same Court. An appeal, which was filed at a later point of time, was decided earlier. This Court is of the view that a serious irregularity has crept into the judgments rendered by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court on the question of title of the respondent and the glaring conflict can be resolved only by remanding the matter to the appellate Court and by issuing necessary directions for its being clubbed along with A.S.No.66 of 2009. Hence, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment in A.S.No. 86 of 2010 rendered by the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The same shall be heard along with A.S.No.66 of 2009. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant filed O.S.No.277 of 2011 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the relief of declaration to the effect that the judgment in A.S.No.86 of 2010 rendered by that Court confirming the decree in O.S.No.2590 of 2004 be cancelled on the face of it as the said suit is untenable. Learned counsel for the appellant herein submits that his client would withdraw the suit to avoid further complication in the matter. It is directed that O.S.No.277 of 2011 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad shall stand dismissed as not maintainable. It is also stated that O.S.No.96 of 2010 filed by the appellant herein and one of his brothers for the relief of partition is pending in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said suit shall stand transferred to the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. That shall be kept aside till the said appeals are decided. In case the property bearing premises No. 20-1-140 is held to be ancestral, it shall proceed to record the evidence in that suit and decide it on merits. On the other hand, it is held to be an exclusive property of the respondent herein, the Court shall dismiss the suit through a separate decree. The learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad shall endeavour to dispose of the appeals in A.S.No.66 of 2009 and A.S.No.86 of 2010 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt. 16.12.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY S.A.No.195 of 2011 Dt. 16.12.2011