M/S. Indukuri Life Spaces Llp v. Sri. C. Kumar Goud And 4 Others

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA C.M.A. NO: 433 OF 2021 Appeal under order XLlll Rule 1 of cpc against the order/ decree in lA No.303 of 2021 in OS No.208/2021 dated 0111012021 on the file of the Court of the ll Additionat District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Between:

It4/s lnd,ukuri-Life spaces LLP, A Limited Liability partnership Having jts office at g73lA, Road No. 49, Jubiree Hiils, Hyderabad - 50bo33, nepriisenteo-rivlil-Auinoriseo Signatory Sri.Basani Sanjay RediJy.

...APPELLANT/PETITIONERY PLAINTIFF AND

1. Sri. C. Kumar Goud, S/o- C .Satyanarayana Goud, Aged about 65 years, Occ. - Business, No.2-2-76t2^5, R. I Nagar, BaghRmbeipei, nyOeraOid_'014.-' - --

2. Sri. C. Rakesh Kumar Goud, S/o. e . Kumir Gouo,'ngbd lUoJfSa veais, O"c. - Business, R|o.2-2-76tZS, R.K. Nag,ar, Bagh ArnberpEt, XvOeiinaOlOie.' -"-

3. Sri. C. Mukesh Kumar Goud, S/o. e. Kumir Coud, AgeO ibort SO V"uii, O... Business, No.2-2-76t25, R.K. Nagar, BaghAmberp6t, HVderjOaOlOf f '--"

4. Sri. C. Krishna Qgua, plo !,.Saty5narayina Couo, Adeo'iUoui+s yeiis, occ. Business, No.2-2-76t2.!, RX Nagar, B'agh Amberpet] nyOeraOaO_6i4.-' --

5. Sri. C. Abhitash Goud,-Slo. C. Kris-hna Go"ud, ngeO'ab;ui'26 vJaii,-O"-" B usiness, N o. 2-2-Z 6 l2S, R. K._!!aga1 Ba gh Am"berpet, ftyAeiabaOlO f S. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under order XXX|X Rule '1 & 2 R/w. Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High bourt "may ne pleased to grant ad-interim- injunction against the respondenti, restraining the respondents, their henchmen or agents from interfering with the peaceful posseision of the plaintiff in the petition schedule property, SCH DULE OF THE PROPERTY All that the land totar admeasuring Ac. 20.07.s1 Gts (equivarent to g1697.04 sq. meters), rn Survey Nos.

438, 439, 440 part, situated at pasumamra Viilage formerly under Hayathnagar Revenue _Arrandar, presenfly under the pedda Amberpet Ivlunicrpality and Adulapurmet Revenue Mandar, iranga Reddy District, NORTH . 100' Radial Road connecri!-s ry1qole to Gowreily Junction oRR and Neili-roouri ano in sy. No. 440rp and 439 sourH Neighb-ours rand in Sy. r.ro. iac-ensr . |91q!o9urs land in Sv. No. 440lp, 436 and +iolp wesr . r.reighbours ianain!y ruo. 4401P,441 and 442 For the Appettant : M/s. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFTCES SRI B.NAMRATA REODY, ADVOCATES For the Respondents : SRI A.

THE H( )N'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO AND THE H(,N'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA CML M SCELLANEOUS APPEAL No'433 of 2021 JUDGMENT I :rer HoN'BLE SivII JUSIICE P' SREE SUDHA) This Civi Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order and dec ee dated 01.10.2021 in I'A'No'303 of 2021 in O.S.No.208 of 2021 passed by the Il Adclitional District Judge' Ranga Recldy t istrict at L'B. Nagar, dismissing the application fited by the ap rellant/plaintiff for grant of interim iniunction restraining the responclents therein from itrtelfering irrto the peaceful posses ;ion of the petition schedule property

2. The appe llant herein is the plaintiff and respondents herein are the c efendants before the lrial Court' For the sake of convenience, th: parties are referred to as they' lvere arraryed iu the suit before t re trial Court

3. In the ;rounds of appeal' the appellant/piaintiff contended that :he trial Court without giving any weightage to Exs.P-1 to P-50 dismissecl I A'No'303 of 202f in O'S'No'208 of 2021 and it oug rt to have considered that the petitiorr schedule propertv admet suring, Acs'20'07'51 gts in Sy Nos'438' 439 ancl

440/part and the respondents/defendants are claiming only an extent of Acs.2-'1.6 gts. in Sy.No.439, situated in Pasumamilla Village, Pedda Amberpet Municipality and Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiff also stated that, admittedly, Syed Mohammed Farooq Miya is the owner of tl-re extent claimed bv the defendarrts and the defendants have no valid title over the suit schedule property, but the plaintiff's predecessors in the title had purchased the said extent directly from the legal heirs of the Syed Mohamood Farooq Miyan. The piaintiff further stated rirat the HMDA had approved the lavout of the plaintiff over the petition schedule property and the same is placed before it under Ex.p_49 and that the plaintiff has clear fitle and right over the suit schedure property through multiple registered sale deeds Exs.

p_1 to p_3 and registered Development Agreement-cum-Irrevocable GpA under Exs.P-4 to P-25 covering the total extent of land and thus, the plaintiff has right over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further submits that it has invested crores of money, time and energv into the project on the suit schedule property and had acquired the required permissions from the HMDA under Ex.R-49 and RERA authorities under Ex.p_50. The plaintiff also stated that though the defendants have no Conveyance Deed, they are claiming ownership from Ex.

.:r' .

l .-l which appears to be a conditional Agreement of Sale on a plain paper, but tl rey have not filed any evidence to prove subsequent de relopment/transactions with respect to Ex.R-23' It is also contr nded that though the defendants are claiming that their nam ls are reflecting in the pahanies,, they failed to prove their l ossession over the extent of suit schedule property. The plaintiff further contended that the clefendants, on one hand, :laiming to be the owners of the land under Ex.R-23, on t 1e other hand, they are claiming adverse possession in espect of the said land, which is rl disputed question of fac . It is well settled law that adverse possession can be consider:d only in case of hostile possession i e' rvithout the consent of t re owner' It is contended that as per the photos under Ex.

P-21 f led by the defendants the consffuction activities are going on in the petition schedule ProPerty and they' are in possession of the suit schedule ProPerty and that even the defendants hal: admitted the same and the said admission itself is sufficier t to grant injunction in its favour' TLre plaintiff also contencled hat though the defenclants are claimitrg that the conversiot.t of l, nci in Sy.

PNR.] ANIJ PSS.,I CMA No,t3l olz0l l rl 4, The suit in O.S.No.208 of 2021, is filed by tl're plaintiff - M/s. Inclukuri Life Spaces LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership, Hyderabad, against the defendants seeking to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen, subordinates, workmen or any other persons claiming through or acting under them from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.303 of 2021 is filed by the plaintiff for grant of interim injuncrion restraining the defendants from ir-rterfering into the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and the same was disnrissed by the trial Court vide order dated 01.10.2021. 5.

The plaintiff was entrusted with a total extent of land admeasuring Acs.20.07.51 gts. (equivalent to 91697.04 Sq. meters) irl Sy.Nos.438, 439 and 440/part, situated in Pasumamilla Village, Pedda Amberpet Municipaiity and Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It also acquired the land admeasuring Acs.11.01 gts. in Sy.No.43g and an extent of Acs.7-28 gts. in Sy.No .440/ part and other extent of lands in Pasumamilla Village, Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The flow of title regarding the land in Sy.No.439 is that, originally one Syecl Mohamood

I PNR,J AND T'SS, J CI,IA N! 413 o; 2021 Farooq Miyan was the sole and absolute owner of the land admeasuring I cs.2-"16 gts in the said survey number. After the death of Syed Vohamood Farooq Mivan, his legal heirs have clividec'l the sai I propertv anlong themselves ancl that some of them have ext cuted the registered Agreemerrt of Sale-cumGPA dated 091,2.2019, bearing document No.3392i 2020; and with respect tc their share of land admeasuring Ac.1-16 gts. some of the le ;al heirs have registered Agreement of Sale - cum-GPA date,l 21,.12.20L9, bearing document No.3393/2020; and with respec: to the land admeasuring Ac.0-25 gts. in favour of M/s. Sri Adi ya Infra, represented by its Managing Partner.

They inlurn file i application for conversion of the above said land from agrir ultural usage to non-agricultural usage vide proceedings dat d 28.09.2020. Later, the legal rePresentatives of Syed Mohamoo I Farooq Miyan also sold out their retained extent of land tc an extent of Ac.0-15 gunts to NI/s. Sri Aditya Infra by way of registered sale deed vide document No.1806/2021, lated 08 02.2021 and sale deed clocument No.1809/2021, d rted 08.Oz.zOZL and for an extent of Ac'0-.t3 gts' of land and Ac.0 02 gts' respectively, and thus, NI/s' Sri Aditya Infra has alienu ted the land to an extent of Acs 2-16 gts' (equivalent to 1161'6 Sq.

\ PNR.,IAND PSS..I CMA No 4.11 ofl02l the plaintiff had presented an application dated 21.07.2020 to HMDA for approval of the residential draft Layout and while the said application is under process for approval by the HMDA and also got registered the ongoing project in the suit schedule property under the name and style of "INDUKURI LAKE SHORE" with the Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority, the defendants rvithout an1, right, title and interest over the suit schedule property started interfering and disrupting the functioning of the developmerlt activities upon the suit schedule propertv, therefore, the plaintiff filed the present application for grant of interirn injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession ancl enjovnrer.rt of the suit schedule propertv

6. On the other hand, the defendants filed counter affidavit denying petition averments of the plaintiff. They admitted that Syed Mohamood Farooq Miyan was the pattadar and possessor of the land to an extent of Acs.2-16 gts. in Sy.No.439 situated in Pasumamilla Vitlage, but denied execution of sale deed by the legal representatives of Syed Mohamood Farooq Miyan. They further stated that there is no document filed by the plaintiff or contents of the documents filed by the plaintiff establishes that they are the legal heirs of late Syed Mohamood Farooq Miyan

/ and got dividt d the land in Sy.No.439. It is further stated that when the defer Ldants are in physical possession and cultivation of the land adr reasuring Acs.2-16 gts. since more than 50 years, the question c i dividing the land between the alleged legal heirs of late S. ed Mohamood Farooq Miyan woulci not arise and all the dc cuments filed by the plaintiff are bogus and created one. Tt ey mainly contended that their paternal grandfather, namely Chetty Ramaiah had purchased an extent of Acs.2-16 gts. in Sy.No.439 of Pasumamilla Village, Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from the original pa tadar Syed Mohamood Farooq Miy.an in the year 1,966 and s nce then, they were in uninterruptecl physical possession of th r land and cultivating the same till his death in the year 1977.

i bsequent to his death, his seven sons were put in physical poss tssion and they were cultivating the said land and the name of grand-father of the defendants, namelv Chetty Ramaiah was t learly recorded in the Revenue rt:cords in possessory colur rn since 1966 to till his death in the veat '1977 and tlrc' certifiet copies of pahanies from 1967 to 2079-2020 clearly establisl r about the physical possession of the defendants and t reir agnates in respect of the land in an extent of Acs.2-39 gts. in Sy'No.439.

PNR.J AND PSS, J CMA No 4ll ol202l Mandal, through the Revenue Inspector, in the year 2000 clearly disclose that the defendants and their agnates are cultivating the said land and enioying physical possession of the said land till date. They further submitted that the persons claiming to be the legai representatives of late Syed Mohamood Farooq Miyan without their knowiedge and in coliusion with the Revenue authorities got mutated their names in the Revenue records as Pattadars and obtained pass books and title deeds.

They also contended that it is settled principle of law that under ROR Act, the pattadar, who is not in possession of the land, is not entitled for issuance pass books and title deeds' They also contended that when the defendants are in possession of the land to an extent of Acs'2-16 gts' in Sli 'No'439' there is no necessify to interfere with the alleged development work of the plaintiff. It is also conter-rded that the plaintiff in collusion with the alleged land owners is trying to grab the land of the defendants and it is only a developer and GPA holder of the land owners and, therefore, the present suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. They further stated that one Syed Isa Khundmiri and Syed Kunia Fathima jointly filed a suit in O.S.No.

983 of 201,6 on the file of IV Additional District ludge, Ranga Reddy District, for partition and cancellation of GPA in respect of the iand in Sy.Nos.

PNR,, AND PSS,, CMA No {31 ot202l 423, 424 and 499 of pasumamilla Village, Abdullapurmet Revenue Manr [al, Ranga Reddy District, the deferdants filed impleading pe ition in the said suit and the same is coming up for counter. I is also contended that the defenclants also submitted an a rprication dated 20.04.2019 before the Tahsirdar, Abdullapurme, Revenue Mandar, for issuance of pass Books in respect of lanrl admeasuring Acs.2_16 gts. in Sy.No.439 of Pasumamilla V llage, and also an application dated 0g.01,2020 requesting not to mutate the names of any other prersons as they are in posl ession of the land for more than 50 .years. The defendants, thr refore, sought to dismiss the atrove said a ppl ica tion.

7.

Now it is for this Court to see whether the h.ial Court erred in not grar ling the injunction or not? 8.

The plaint ff is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in an exter:t of Acs.20_07.51 gts. in Sy.No.43g , 439 and, 440/part of Parumamilla Village, Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, whereas the defenclants are claiming to be tt e owners of the land to an extent of Acs.2-16 gts. in Sy.No.43,,. Therefore, the main dispute is onlv with regard to an exte rt of Acs.2-16 gts. The plaintiff contended that it has purchase I the land from *thq legal heirs of Svecl

cVe lo qrl ot)0:t Mohamood Farooq Miyan' who is the absolute owner of the Iand, whereas the defendants stated that their paternai grandfather purchased the said land in the year 1966 from Syed Mohamood Farooq Miyan and from then onwards' his legal heirs and agnates are in possession of the said land and also cultivating the same and that their names were also recorded in the pahanies from 1966 to 2019-2}in possessory column and, as such, the alieged saie deeds executed bY the Iegal representatives of Syed Mohamood Farooq Miy"t are not valid and binding on them' Admittedly' the plaintiff filed sale deeds' which are registered documents and thus' primafacie' they proved title and possession over the suit schedule property' The trial Court observecl that the defendants filed pahanies and are in possession of the land and granted injunction in their favour.

No doubt, they filed pahanies but they did not file pattadar pass books' When the defendants ciaim to be residing in the suit schedule properW for more than 50 years, why they did not submitt an application for issuance of pattadar pass books tili 20.04.2019 is not explained by them. g.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that the defendants have no title deeds over the suit schedule property and the Rel,enue records filed bv them camrot be treated as title

I1 PNR,J ,\ND PSS. J CMA Nr 131 oJ'202 t deeds. Howevr r, the trial Court held that the ciefendants have proved their pc;session over the suit schedule property.

10. It is the settled principle of law that in a suit for injunction, prii u-facie, the parties must establish their possession ove; the suit schedule property. In a decision reported in MAliIA MARGARIDA SEeUEIRA FERNANDES V/s. ERASMO J \CK DE SEeUEIRAT the Honible A|s1 eeuli held in para70, r rhich is extracted hereunder: 'lt wc uld be imperative that one who claims possession must give a I such details as enumerated hereunder, Thev are only illustra (u) who i (b) title o (.) who i (d) identi (e) the d;

(f) how :ive and not exhaustive:

;or are the owner or owners of the property:

the propertv;

, in possession of the title documents;

y of the claimant or claimants to possession.; te of entry into possession;

re came into possession - whether he purchased operty or inherited or got the same in gift or by the p, any o (g) in ce her method;

;e he purchased the property, what is the eration; if he has taken it on rent, hor^r much is consir rt, licence fee or lease amount;

the re (h) if tak, n on rent, licence fee or lease-then insist on rent licence deed or lease deed;

deed, (20 l2) 5 SCC 370

t2 PNR.J AND PSS, J CMA No 431 oi202l (D who are the persons in possession/ occupation or otherwise living with him, in what capacity; as family members, friends or servants, etc.;

(,) subsequent conduct i.e. any event which might have extinguished his entitlement to possession or caused shift therein; and (k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue in possession.'

11. Further, though the defendarrts stated that they are in possession of Ac.2-76 guntas of land ancl filed pahanies to prove the same, they have not stated on which side of the survey number they possessed Ac.2-16 guntas and that they have also not pleaded that the plaintiff encroached into their land. It is the case of the defendants that they are in possession of Acs.2-16 gts. of land in Sy.No.439, but they cannot disrupt the construction activities in an extent of Acs.20.02.51 gts. in Sy.Nos.438, 439 and 440/part, siruared in pasumamilla Village, Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal, Ranga Recldy District. If at all any construction is going on in the suit schedule properfy, it is for them to approach the appropriate Forum for necessary relief.

72. It is to be noticed that both the parties are claiming ownership in an extent of Acs.2_-1,6 gts. in Sy.No.439, but the

ri PNR,J AND PSS. J CivlA Nr.lll o'202 plaintiff hereir filed only suit for grant perpetual injunction restraining th r defendants, their henchmen, subordinates, workmen or i ny other persons claiming through or acting under them frc m interfering in any manner with the plaintiff's peaceful posse ssion and enioyment over the suit schedule property. On rne hand, the defendants stated that it has purchased the and from the originai pattadar way back in the year 1966 and are in possession of the said land and also cultivating the ;ame. In order to prove the same, they mainly relied upon E: .R-23 - Original Agreement in Urdu dated 02,09.7966 alonl with English translated copy. A perusaL of the said rlocument r hows that it was executed by Syed Nlohamood Farooq Miyan i, r favour of Sri Chetty Ramaiah for an extent of Ac.2.

10 guntas f tr his own needs and necessitres for a total sale consideration o. Rs.1,500/- and received Rs'100/- as advance with a conditior that the advance amount of Rs'400/- should be paid within one month ancl the balance amount of Rs1'000/- also should be 1 aic'l within one month to register the property in the name of v:nclee, otherwise the Agreement of Sale will be treated as cance led. But, the defendants failed to file the said sale deed regist lred by the original pattadar in the name of paternal grand-'ather after Payment of the entire amount' IMoreover, Ex.R- 23 is exec.

t4 but not Ac.2.16 guntas. As such, they also contended that they perfected title by adverse possession. The issue of ownership in respect of the suit schedule property between the plaintiff and defendants is to be decided by appropriate Court in a suit for declaration of title.

13. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of real estate and conskucting and developing the lands including the suit schedule property in Sy.No.439 by obtaining necessarv permissions from the concerned departments. He aiso obtained permission for conversion of land from agricultural usage to non-agricultural usage on 28.09.2020. The plaintiff has taken up the construction activity in an extent of Acs.20.07.51 gts. in Sy.Nos.438, 439 and 440 / part, and the extent of land in dispute is only an extent of Acs.2-16 gts. in Sy.No.439. The plaintiff gave an application to HMDA on 21,.07.2020 and HMDA approved draft residential lavout rvith housing under gated community (with compound wall) in the entire suit schedule property on 09.07.2021 and unless the defendants are not restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff. However, the trial Court without considering the documents filed by the plaintiff and only by

I'NR,J AND PSS, J CMr'. No 431ol202l relying upon the pahanies filed by the defendants held that the defendants a'e in possession of the suit schedule property and granted injur Lction against the plaintiff' The said order dated 01.10.2021 is rot proper and is liable to be set aside L4. In the r esult, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting asidr the orcler and decree dated 01'10 2021 in i.A.No.303 rf 2021 in O'S'No 208 of 2021 and the respondentsT defendants are restrained from interfering in to the peacef ul rossessiot't of the suit schedule propL'rty No order as to costs.

15.

Miscell rneous applications pending, if anv. sh all stand closed.

"''[i$Hua?$'mR (ru \ //TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER To i'H:'Ltii'U#)i*#j,x'ilTi[H5#rli#i3'1:bi*'n"'

i two CD CoPie ;

s. On" SPare Co 'Y Ki

f .1:

HIGH COURT DATED3111212021 \ 20 lrN 2!)22 /

JUDGMENT

CMA.No 433 of 2O21 ALLOWING THE C[ AWITHOUT COSTS'

\€ CJ --::.

'

,