G. Raghavender v. G. Kalyandas
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: N.TUKARAMJI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-19. G. Raghavender v. G. Kalyandas. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
t32171 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL NO: 257 OF 2024 Appeal under section 100 of C. P. C against the Judgment and D9-cree. D. ated 04. 01. 2Oi4 made in A. S. No. So of 2O2't on the file of the Court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad preferred against th. e Judgment and of Decree pa-sseO in'O. S. tto. Z+a ot iOrc dated 25. 10. 2021 on the fite of the Court the XXll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. Between: G. Raghavender, S/o G. Kalyandas, Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Chartered Accouitant, R/o. 'H. No. 3-5-1O94t14, lStFloor, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad' ... AppellanUDefendant AND 1. G. Kalyandas, S/o. Late Sri. G. Kishan Rao, Aged about 87 Years' Occ' Chartered Accountant, R/o. H. No. 3-5- 1094/'14, Ground Floor, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 2. G. Pavan Kumar, S/o.
Kalyandas' Aged about 56 Years, Occ' G-overnment - Se-ice, R/o. H. lrio. 3-S-1O94t14, SeCond Floor, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad' 3. G. Praveen Kumar, S/o. Kalyandas, Aged about 55 Years, Occ' Advocate, R/o. H. No. 2-3-18/32, Tilaknigar, Golnaka, Hyderabad - 500013' ... Respondents/Plaintiffs lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasl='rl to extend the interim orders dt. 28-06-2024 made in lA No. 1 0f 2024 in sA No'257 0f 2024, pending disposal of the main appeal, in the interest of justice' lA NO: 2 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 G- Kalyandas, S/o. Late Sri. G. Kishan Rao, Aged about 87 years, Occ. Chartered Accountant, R/o. H. No. 3-5- 1 094/1 4, Ground Floor, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 2 G. Pavan Kumar, S/o. Kalyandas, Aged about 56 Years, Occ. Government Service, R/o. H. No. 3-5-1094114, Second Floor, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 3 G. Praveen Kumar, S/o.
Kalyandas, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o. H. No. 2-3-18/32, Tilaknagar, Golnaka, Hyderabad 500013. - ... Petitioners/Respondents/Plaintiffs AND G. Raghavender, S/o G. Kalyandas, Aged about years, 50 Occ. Chartered Accountant, R/o. H. No. 3-5-1094114, 'l St Floor, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, ... RespondenUPetitioner/Appellant Petition under section 15'l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt. 28-06-2024 passed in lA No. 1 2oz4 in SA No. 257 'tf of 2024 and dismiss the above Second Appeal with exemplary costs. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High court rrray be pleased to stay all further proceedings inclu--Iihg eiecttion ther-eof, puisuant to the impug-ed Judgment and Decree passed in A. s. No. s0 of 2021, dt. o4. o1 .
2024 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, confirming the Judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 244 ot 2016, dated 25. 102021, bt the court of the lX Junior civil Judge, FAc xxll Junior civil Judge, city civil court, at Hyderabad, pending final disposal ofthe Second Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: SriB Vamshidhar Reddy The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL NO . 257 0F 2024 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal has been filed assailing the Decree and Judgment dated 04. 01 . 2024 inAS No'50 of 2021 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad' whereby' the Decree and Judgment dated 25'10'2021 in OS No'244 of 2016 Court' Hyderabad passed by the XXll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil has been affirmed. counsel for the 2 Heard Sri V. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned for Reddy' learned counsel appellant and Sri B.
Vamshidhar respondents case are that respondent the facts of the 3. Briefly, stated of Nos'2 and 3/ brothers the No. 1/father and respondent with No'244 of 2016 a filed the suit vlde OS appellanUdefendant to vacate and handover prayer to direct the appellanUdefendant i'e'' first floor of the suit schedule property the peaceful possession Hyderabad premises bearing No. 3-5-1094/14-A, Narayanaguda' (herein after referred as 'subject property') and also to pay future with interest @ mesne profits at Rs. 15,000/-per month together . _. SA No. 257 of 2024 12o/o per annum from 30. 1 1. 2015 lill the vacant possession is delivered. The trial Court consider. ing the evidence placed by both the parties, partly decreed the suit and directed the appellanU defendant to vacate and handover the subject property within one month from the date of judgment. However, the prayer in regard to mesne profits was dismissed.
Aggrieved by the judgnrent of eviction, appellanUdefendant preferred an appeal vide AS No. 50 of 2021 . The appellate Court on re_appreciation of evidence, confirmed the trial Court judgment, against which, the present second appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellanUdefen<Jant wor-rld submit that the relationship between respondent Nos.. t to 3/plaintiffs with the appellanUdefendant and pleaded in possession of the property €fe not in dispute. r n"ouglr the s-urt was frled for eviction , the plaintiffs were unclear as to how aM when the appellanVdefendant had entered into subject property. That apart, pleading that the schedule property is joint family property, a comprehensive suit seeking share has been filed vide OS No. 37 of 2. O11 on the file of lX Additional Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Further, in the written statement, the appellanUdefendant had specifically pleaded that the subject - _ property was purchaserJ in the name of SA No.
257 of 2024 respondent No. 1/plaintiff with the contribution on his mother' maternal uncle and maternal grand-parents as strch it is joint family prope(y and he is co-sharer to the property. Fu(hermore, as the suit claim, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff No. 1 had gifted No-2, as such, he subject property to respondent No. 2/plaintiff proceedings, divested with the title. Additionally, in the suit respondent No. 2/plaintiff No. 2 remained silent and did not the witness box. For that reason, an adverse inference has ln support of this drawn against the respondents/plaintiffs. learned counsel cited Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another"l and "lswar C. Patet vs. Harihar Behera'2. 5. Additionally, pleaded that the Courts below without material, much less pleading and in the teeth of specific denial the appellanUdefendant ered in holding that appellanUdefendant is in permissive possession of the subject property.
Therefore, granting decree of eviction is improper prayed for intervention. 6. The submissions of learned counsels are given . consideration and I have perused the materials. I 11999; 3 Sup. eme Court Cases 573 SA No. 257 of2024 7. As per the pleadings of the appellanVdefendant, the subject property was purchased during the life time of his mother in the name of respondent No. 'llplaintiff No. 1 and he gifting the property under registered gift deed to plaintiff No. 2/respondent No. 2 in the year 19Bl are not in dispute. Further, the appellant,s/defendant,s possession over the subject property as claimed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3/plaintiffs is also in agreement. The above read facts coupled with the oral evidence of plaintiff No. 1 as pW. 1 coupled with the entries in documenU Ex. A1, the tifle of respondent M. liplaintiff No. 1 over the building including the subject property and gifting the same to respondent No. 2/plaintiff No. 2 can safely be concluded. B.
As per the plaintiffs, the appellanUdefendant had forcibly entered into the subject property. This assertion is supported by the oral testimony. Thus, though denied, it has to be held that the respondents/plaintiffs in support of the pleadings had placed positive material. 9. On the other hand, the specific contentions of the appeflant are that the building including the subject property was purchased Joint family funds, and he is co-sharer of ther property. ln this {om r (jourt ' 1tSoSl I Supreme Cases 457 SA No. 257 of 2024 the suit, except his oral claim, no material demons{rating to infer the status of joint family contrlbutions as asserted by him, Nonetheless' as the property and his entitlement as co-sharer' filed another comprehensive suit for appellanUdefendant had partition, these aspects shall remain open for determination basing on the evidence placed therein.
l-{owever, by the evidence on any had failed to put up record, it has to be held that the appellant the position' his claim' That being piece of material supporting joint as to the appellanUdefendant disallowing the claim of by the Courts below ownership of the building and subject property is justified. 10. ln regard to the gift deed and the contention that the into the witness box' No. 2 not entering respondent No. 2/plaintiff are pertaining to the authorities cited by the appellanUdefendant in the money, wherein specific assertion the suit for recovery of by entering into witness box was pleading has not been maintained considered and held that, in such circumstance adnerse inference the particular claim of the party' ln has to be drawn against that No'2 along with the present case, the respondent No'2/plainti{f property und of the subject other plaintiffs pleaded ownership oo that The contention prayed for eviction of the appellanUdefendant' NTRJ a. SA Aro.
257 of 2024 his abstinence from the witness box deserves adverse inference. To note, the gift deed in favour of the respondent No. 2/plaintiff No. 2 is not in dispute, however, in ttre given situation at the best an adverse inference can be drawn against the gift deecl. Even in absence of such deed, the ownership of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff No. 1 would remain inefutable and it woulcJ not make out any favourable fact for the appellanUdefendant. 11. Thus, the claim of the appellant that il. ris case was not properly considered by the Courts below is evidently unsuitable. On the other hand, to rebut the substantial evidence placed by the respondents/plaintiffs and to prove the asserted fact of joint ownership of the subject property remained undischarged by the appellanvdefendant. For these reasons this cou( finds no tenabre ground much ress any substantiar question of law for deriberation in the appear. Resurtanfly, this appear is riabre to be and is accordingly dismissed. 12.
Since the second appeal is dismissed and upon consensus between the counsels, the appellant shall vacate the suit schedule premises on or before 31. 03. 2025. No costs, \ SA No. 257 of 2024 if any, As a sequel, miscellaneous applications stands closed Sd/- M. RJAMANA KRISHNA DE U REG]STRAR /TTRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1. Sri G. Raghavender, S/o. G. Kalyanda, CA, H. No. 3-5-1094/14, 1't Floor, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 2. The X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 3. The XXll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad 4. One CC to Sri V Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri B Vamshidhar Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ADI(gh I HIGH COURT DATED:1911212024 Si47 lrat € c -f ( . J 21 rEB zffi L ) , *+t -* .. * \. i-'__-,. ,,.. , JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS SA. No.
257 of 2024 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ge4a LO \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL NO: 257 OF 2024 Between: G. Raghavender, S/o G. Kalyandas, Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Chartered Accountant, R/o. H. No. 3-5- 1 094 I 1 4, 1 St Floor, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. ... AppellanUDefenda nt AND 1. G. Kalyandas, S/o. Late Sri. G. Kishan Rao, Aged about 87 Years, Occ. Chartered Accountant, R/o. H. No. 3-5- 1094114, Ground Floor, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 2. G. Pavan Kumar, S/o. Kalyandas, Aged about 56 Years, Occ. Government Service, R/o. H. No. 3-5-1094114, Second Floor, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 3. G. Praveen Kumar, S/o. Kalyandas, Aged about 55 Years, Occ. Advocate, R/o. H. No. 2-3-18132, Tilaknagar, Golnaka, Hyderabad - 500013. ... Respondents/Plaintiffs Appeal under section 100 of C. P.
C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 04. 01 . 2024 made in A. S. No. 50 of 2O21 on the file of the Court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed in O. S. No. 244 of 2016 dated 25. '10. 2021 on the file of the Court of the XXtl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. This Second appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellant Court and the Court of the First lnstance and the material papers in the Suit and upon helaring the arguments of Sri V Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri B Vamshidhar Reddy Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the Second Appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That the Appellant shall vacate the suit schedule premises on or before 31-03-2025; and 3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- M.
RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEUTIoN oFFIcER To, 1. The X Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad 2. The XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civit Court, at H'yderabad 3. Two CD Copies ADK s I I HIGH COURT DATED:1911212024 DECREE SA. No. 257 ot 2024 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS c4\4 @ s \
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.