Telangana High Court
SA/1091/2009 of M. Praveen Kumar Vs B.V. Raju, on 30 December 2010
R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1091 OF 2009 Dated 30-12-2010 Between: M.Praveen Kumar. …Appellant. And: B.V.Raju and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1091 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the 1st
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.1091 OF 2009Dated 30-12-2010
Between:
M.Praveen Kumar.
…Appellant.
And:
B.V.Raju and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAOSECOND APPEAL No.1091 OF 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment passed bythe 1[st] Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad inA.S.No.156 of 2004 whereby and whereunder, the learned 1[st]Additional Chief Judge confirmed the decree and judgment passedby the XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. I have heard the learned counsel.
Plaintiff filed the present Second Appeal. He filed theO.S.No.1066 of 2000 for simple injunction, in respect of theschedule mentioned property stating that he purchased theproperty under an agreement of sale dated 9-5-1990 and alsounder the release agreement deed dated 6-1-1999 made by his co-owner in his favour.
On the other hand, respondents/defendants contended thatthe 1[st] defendant purchased the schedule mentioned property i.e.,plot Nos.37 and 38 admeasuring 420 Sq.Yds. forming part ofS.Nos.70, 72, 73 and 74 of Chinna Thokatta Village, Bowenpally,Secunderabad from the Sanjeevaiah Nagar Co-Operative HousingSociety Ltd., under a registered sale deed dated 22-11-1982 andwhen some third parties tried to interfere within the possession, they filed a suit against them. The suit was decreed and thedefendants therein preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. Their contention was that the defendants in the said suit havinglost the same, set up the plaintiff/appellant to file the present suit.
Both the Court below recorded concurrent findings to theeffect that the appellant did not file any document in proof of hisownership and possession showing that he purchased the propertyfrom its true owner whereas the defendants adduced evidence tothe effect that 1[st] defendant purchased plot Nos.37 and 38 fromthe Sanjeevaiah Nagar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., undera registered sale deed dated 22-11-1982. Both the Courts belowhad categorically held that Exs.A.1 and A.2 filed by the appellantdo not show that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedulementioned property.
On the other hand, the respondents-defendants by filingEx.B.2 sale deed dated 22-11-1982 executed by the SanjeevaiahNagar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., established that theirpredecessors-in-title purchased the property from its pattadarunder sale deed dated 21-4-1982 and thus, both the Courts haverecorded a finding that the appellant-plaintiff could not be able toprove that he has any title to the property and is in possession andenjoyment of the property on the date of filing the suit. Thefindings of the Courts below not being perverse and not beingcontrary to the evidence on record, do not call for any interferencein this appeal. In fact, the Second Appeal ought not to haveadmitted at all since it does not involve any substantial question oflaw for consideration.
In view of the above, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________
Justice R.KANTHA RAO
Dated 30-12-2010Dvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.1091 OF 2009Dated 30-12-2010