N Ramakrishna & Ors vs G Nagasayanam & Ors.

C.A.@ SLP(C) Nos.12691-12694/2019

Delay condoned.

Application(s) for impleadment and deletion of respondent Nos.226-278, are allowed.

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. These appeals take exception to the judgment(s) and order(s) dated 05.01.2018 in Appeal Suit No.1229/1998 and Appeal Suit No.1494/1998; and dated 13.07.2018 in Review I.A. No.3/2018 in Appeal Suit No.1229/1998 and I.A. No.1/2018 in Appeal Suit No.1494/1998, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

For the nature of order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to delve upon the factual matrix of the case.

Suffice it to observe that the appellant(s) had filed suit for declaration, possession and other relief(s) concerning land Sy. No. 124, Ac.14.80 cents; dry land in Sy.No.126, Ac.43.35 cents; house bearing No.28/49 in Old Town, Anantapur; house bearing No.28/50 in Old Town, Anantapur; house bearing NO.10/52, Old Town Anantapur, house bearing No.10/126 in Rajaji Street, Anantapur; house situated in Sy.NO.124 D.No.1/182-B in Anantapur, plot in Sy.No.121 palki Ac.0.50 cents. These are the properties in plaint A schedule. In B schedule wearing apparel of value Rs.300/- is mentioned and the boundaries of house bearing No.28/49, 28/50 and 28/52 are also given in B schedule.

The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant(s) against the defendant(s)/ respondent(s). The defendant(s)/respondent(s) in the said suit filed first appeals before the High Court.

At the same time, another suit was filed by one S.Narayanaswami, being original suit No.103/1975 before the Court of Additional subordinate Judge, Anantapur for relief of specific performance of portion of the aforementioned suit property which was agreed to be sold to him vide agreements dated 14.08.1968 and 27.01.1970 in respect of land in Survey Nos.124 and 126 of Anantapur Municipality described in schedule B as under:

Land in Survey Nos. 124 and 126 of Anantapur Municipality in which defendants have to execute sale deeds in respect of the following plots: 141, 176, 177, 44,217, 218, 145, 94, 150, 180, 116, 117, 196, 172, 134, 135, 144, 225, 118, 119, 168, 128, 129, 130, 131, 110, 111, 171, 220, 221, 219, 95, 104, 61, 120, 121, 56, 57, 89, 126, 127, 54, 55, 55, 53, 124, 125, 60, 61, 164, 85, 96, 97, 81, 214, 70, 69, 71, 72, 79, 80, 91 Shown in the revised layout plan approved by the Director of town planning, Hyedrabad.

The High Court at the instance of defendant(s)/respondent(s) in the suit for declaration filed by the appellants, while partly allowing the appeal(s), took the view that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court to the extent of declaring item No.6 as the self acquired property of Peddanna and declaring it as having devolved upon the plaintiffs cannot be sustained and thus was pleased to set it aside. The rest of the judgment and decree in favour of the appellants was kept intact.

The High Court was given to understood that the appeals arising from the decision on suit for specific performance filed against the concerned parties were still pending. On that basis, the High Court, while partly allowing the subject appeal(s) observed that the decree passed in the present appeals would be subject to the outcome in the aforestated appeals (arising from suit for specific performance).

The defendant(s)/respondent(s) filed review petition before the High Court pointing out that the appeal in relation to suit for specific performance had already been disposed of. Accepting that submission, the review petition filed by the defendants/respondents came to be allowed. The appellants herein, therefore, have assailed both the impugned judgment(s) of the High Court by way of present appeal(s).

According to the appellants, the crucial contentions raised by them have not been considered by the High Court, especially, the fact that the suit for specific performance was only in respect of a portion of the total suit land for which, the appellants had filed the suit for declaration and possession. Hence, the relief of possession in respect of the land other than the land referred to in the agreements and subject matter of suit for specific performance, cannot be denied to the appellants. Further, the High Court while deciding the appeal has not even chosen to frame the points for its determination in reference to the said contentions. Further, when the matter was taken up in review, the High Court has only recorded that the parties raised several arguments but, it has not chosen to deal with the same, except to clarify the position regarding disposal of the appeal in the suit for specific performance.

Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the parties ought to be relegated before the High Court, also because of the argument canvassed before us by Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.50 (V. Chakali Pakkeerappa), that the matter could not have proceeded because some of the respondents had expired during the pendency of the suit and for which reason, the suit had abated. Even this contention will have to be considered by the High Court in the remanded proceedings.

Suffice it to observe that all aspects of the matter will have to be considered by the High Court on its own merits in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and orders are set aside and the parties are relegated before the High Court by restoring the Appeal Suit Nos.1229/1998 and 1494/1998 respectively to the file of the High Court to their original numbers.

We request the High Court to dispose of the appeals expeditiously, preferably within one year from today.

All contentions available to the parties, including the question of nature of land raised by defendant(s)/respondent(s) are left open.

The parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the suit properties till further orders are passed by the High Court in that behalf.

The appeals and pending application(s) are accordingly disposed of.

Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1083-1086, 1107-1110, 1157-1160 Of 2019

In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal Nos.8861-8864, these contempt petitions and pending applications shall stand disposed of.