G.Suryakumari & Anr vs B.Chandramouli & Ors

3. Respondents herein as plaintiffs had filed Original Suit No. 5731 of 1994, against the present appellants/ defendants, for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering in any manner into their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule Property to an extent of 1,200 sq. yards forming part of House No. 6-3-584/31/B covered by Survey Nos. 94, 95 and 96 of Ward No. 3 out of 38,382 sq. yards belonging to M/s. Gramodyog Cooperative Housing Society, situated at Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

4. According to the plaint averments, respondents/plaintiffs contended that schedule property is part of 50,000 sq. yards covered by Survey Nos. 94, 95 and 96. It originally belonged to Dr. Ahmed Mirza from whom Smt. K. Parvathi Devi and four others purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 17.3.1961. Thereafter, M/s. Gramodyog Cooperative Housing Society purchased an area admeasuring 38,382 sq. yards from them by a registered deed of sale executed on 20.9.1962. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 purchased 600 sq. yards each under registered sale deeds from the said society on 17.1.1994 and 19.1.1994 respectively. C.A. @ S.L.P. (C) No.7296 of 2006 -3- After the execution of sale deeds, they raised boundary walls and invested huge amounts of money for its development. They also submitted plans for construction of houses, after paying necessary fee, for grant of such permission. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, claimed to be title holders of the said lands and having possession over the same but appellants/defendants without any right whatsoever tried to encroach about 382 sq. yards of the schedule property, claiming the same to have been purchased from a society, viz., M/s. Anand Jyothi Cooperative Housing Society. The respondents with great difficulty could resist illegal acts of encroachment by the appellants and lodged an FIR in this regard with the concerned Police Station but police did not take any appropriate action in the matter. On or about 8.12.1994 with the help and assistance of anti social elements, appellants once again, tried to encroach Suit Schedule Property of the respondents. They resisted the attempts of the appellants with the help of neighbours. Since there existed imminent danger of their land being encroached upon by the appellants, they were constrained to file suit for perpetual injunction against the appellants with a prayer to restrain them from encroaching upon their land in any manner whatsoever. C.A. @ S.L.P. (C) No.7296 of 2006 -4-

5. On summons being issued to them by the Civil Court, the appellants herein filed their Written Statement, denying the claim of the respondents/plaintiffs. According to them, schedule land is part of Survey No. 105/1 of Khairtabad village, which originally belonged to Hazmatunnisa Begum, who had gifted the same to Zohra Begum by gift deed dated 1.9.1966. Zohra Begum, after becoming owner had sold Ac. 4-36 cents to Ch. Achaiah by registered sale deed dated 8.9.1966 from whom M/s. Anand Jyothi Cooperative Housing Society had purchased 4,990 sq. yards under registered sale deed dated 8.5.1970 with specific boundaries. After purchase, the said society also got the layout plan approved from Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. Internal roads were laid. The land was divided into plots with specific numbers and allotted to its members. Appellants have contended that the said society had executed registered sale deed dated 25.10.1993 in favour of first defendant i.e. Respondent No. 3 herein K.V.J.R. Krupanidhi, with respect to Plot No. 7 admeasuring 382 sq. yards. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 herein obtained permission from the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority, under Section 26 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act on 28.3.1994 to sell the said plot to defendant C.A. @ S.L.P. (C) No.7296 of 2006 -5- no.2-present Appellant No.1. The sale deed by Respondent No. 3 (original Defendant No. 1) was then executed in favour of Appellant No. 1 on 13.4.1994 who, thereafter, took possession of the plot.

5. In order to have the said site into regular and proper shape, appellant no.2 further purchased additional 21 sq. yards from C. Nageswar Rao out of his plot No. 6 and sold 21 sq. yards to Smt. A. Vijayalaxmi out of Plot No. 7 under registered sale deed dated 28.11.1994. He, thereafter, got his name mutated and started paying tax. Encumbrance Certificate for a period of 15 years was also obtained by him between 28.8.1980 to 24.8.1994. Domestic electrical connection was also obtained for the store/watchman room from APSEB and necessary permission from Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad to construct a house was also obtained.

10.The lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.3.2002 allowed the same and the respondents' suit was dismissed.

14. Learned Single Judge of the High Court entirely agreed with the finding recorded by the Trial Court with regard to possession of the appellants on 382 sq. yards of land. It further agreed that possession being sine qua non for grant of permanent injunction, the Trial Court had committed no error in granting the same. After discussing the matter threadbare, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court, whereby and whereunder the respondents' suit was decreed. Hence, this Appeal. C.A. @ S.L.P. (C) No.7296 of 2006 -9-

15. It is pertinent to mention that a suit being O.S. No.1846 of 1982 was filed by Anand Jyothi Co-operative Housing Society for perpetual injunction restraining Gramodyog Co-operative Housing Society from interfering with 6090 sq.yards in survey no.105/1, which was dismissed for default on 12.7.1985.

Court, Hyderabad against Gramodyog Cooperative Housing Society for injunction would create a bar against the present respondents/ plaintiffs to file fresh suit.

22. Apart from the above, other grounds advanced before us have already been answered by an elaborate and detailed order passed by High Court in the respondents' second appeal. Despite arguing for quite some time learned counsel for appellants could not point out any illegality or perversity to us in the impugned judgment and decree. The Appeal being devoid of merits and substance is hereby dismissed with costs throughout.

23. Counsels' fee Rs. 5, 000/-.