Sri A.Narendra Kumar v. Smt. Ankor Uma,

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS SECOND APPEAL No.665 OF 2013 J U D G M E N T:

This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2013, passed in A.S.No.191 of 2011, by the I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby and whereunder the learned I Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2010, passed in O.S.No.8 of 2009 by the Junior Civil Judge Cum., V Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. The brief averments made in the plaint are that originally the appellant, who is the plaintiff, filed the suit for eviction of the respondent, who is the defendant, from the suit premises bearing House No.4-640 in Sy.Nos.244 to 258 in an extent of 100 Sq. Yards in plot No.

1024, situated at Balajinagar, Jawaharnagar Grampanchayath, Shameerpet Mandal, Rangareddy District, on the ground that defendant is a tenant in the Suit Schedule Property since 2006 under oral agreement for monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- excluding water and electricity consumption charges. The defendant committed default in payment of rents, and since the date of inception, he is postponing the payment of rents on one pretext or the other. As such, on 22.08.2008, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice and the same was replied by the defendant denying the facts mentioned in the legal notice. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

The defendant filed a written statement and has taken a specific plea that the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit

schedule property and he has no locus-standi to file the present suit. Further, the claim of the plaintiff that the number of the house is 4-640 is not the house number, but it is the survey number. The house premises bearing No.16-6-15/13/1 is in Sy.No.4-640, which belongs to the defendant, consisting of two rooms admeasuring 100 sq. yards and she is paying tax and electricity charges to it. Originally, the Sy.Nos.244 to 258 of Balajinagar, Jawaharnagar Gram Panchayat, Shameerpet Mandal, is a Government land which was occupied by the defendant to an extent of 100 Sq. Yards and she constructed two rooms and is residing without any interruption. Plaintiff is a stranger to the said property and there is no landlord and tenant relationship between them. The plaintiff has no right and title over the Suit Schedule Property and there is no cause of action to file the suit and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed seven issues. To prove his case, the plaintiff got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A102 on his behalf. On behalf of the defendant, she herself got examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B6 on her behalf.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership over the Suit Schedule Property and also the relationship of landlord and tenant. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.8 of 2009, the plaintiff preferred the appeal in A.S.No.191 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District.

After considering the evidence on record, the Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the finding of the first Appellate Court, the plaintiff filed the present Second Appeal on the ground that the concurrent finding given by the Courts below are not according to law and facts; that there is title dispute and findings of both the Courts below are contrary to the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court and finally prayed the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

Basing on the pleadings, this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law.

(1) Whether the Courts below were in error in going into the question of title of the plaintiff inspite of the fact that landlord and tenant relationship is established and the plaintiff is able to prove that he is entitled to the relief of eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property?

(2) Whether the Courts below erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff inspite of the fact that the title of the plaintiff is established?

(3) Whether the Courts below erred in placing reliance on the electricity consumption receipts filed by the defendant and dislodging the well established case of the appellant/plaintiff merely by giving undue importance to the electricity consumption receipts?

Now the point that arose for consideration is whether the appellant/plaintiff proved any of the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal for intervening with the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court? The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended that the Courts below erred in holding Ex.B2-house tax receipts issued for house bearing No.16-6-15/13/1 to be Plot No.38 in Sy.No.438. Further, it is also argued that the fact that the Weaker Sections Welfare Society allotted Plot No.1024 in Sy.Nos.244 to 258 admeasuring 100 Sq. Yards to the appellant/plaintiff under

Ex.A1 was not properly considered, and appellant/plaintiff proved his title to the suit property and finally argued that the concurrent findings given by the Courts below are arbitrary, illegal and without appreciating the evidence on record.

None appeared on behalf of the respondent/defendant. P O I N T : A perusal of the record shows that the appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for eviction of the respondent/defendant on the ground that he is the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property admeasuring 100 Sq. Yards bearing House No.4-640 in Sy. Nos.244 to 258 in plot No.1024 situated at Balajinagar, Jawaharnagar Gram Panchayat, Shameerpet Mandal, Rangareddy District on the ground that he purchased the property under an agreement of allotment made by Weaker Sections Welfare Society and thereafter, he paid house taxes and electricity bills to the suit schedule property. Defendant is the tenant since 2006 on monthly rent of Rs.

1,000/- and defendant failed to pay the said rent amount as such, he got issued a legal notice and same was replied by the defendant denying the averments of the notice. PW.1 in his evidence narrated the same facts and defendant, who was examined as DW.1, specifically pleaded that the lands in Sy.Nos.244 to 258 originally belongs to the Government. She occupied 100 Sq. Yards and constructed two rooms in the said land and the said house bears No.16-6-15/13/1 in Sy.No.4-640 and she is not the tenant of the plaintiff and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant in between them. Now, it is to be seen whether the plaintiff proved that he is the owner of the Suit Schedule Property.

Both the Courts after considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, documentary evidence of the plaintiff under Exs.A1 to A102 and also defendant's oral evidence and

documentary evidence, concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership and title to the suit schedule property and also failed to prove that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant in between them. Both the Courts after going through the entire record concurrently held on factual aspects that plaintiff failed to prove his case. The plaintiff after dismissal of the suit by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court filed the present appeal raising the same factual aspects, which were already decided by both the Courts below. The appellant/plaintiff is relying on Ex.A1 agreement of allotment made by Weaker Sections Welfare Society.

Ex.A1 is not a registered document.

Appellant/plaintiff has not filed the title document to show how Weaker Sections Welfare Society got the Government property to their Society. Ex.A1 is also silent about the boundaries. Respondent/defendant also claims the same property and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Appellant/plaintiff failed to prove the proper identity of the property in question as per Ex.A1 and also failed to prove his title and relationship of landlord and tenant.

From a perusal of the points raised by the appellant, it is no doubt that those points were substantially answered by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and appellant failed to prove any substantial question of law in the second appeal. Whatever issues raised are only based on oral and documentary evidence, but not on law. Therefore, under Section 100(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court has to satisfy that a substantial question of law is involved in any case and it shall formulate that question. In the present case, the appellant failed to answer any substantial question of law. Further, all submissions made by the appellant is based on factual aspects. Thus, in view

of the aforesaid discussion, the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

_____________ ANIS, J Date: 18.04.2016 sr