KANAKADHARA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. K JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition is directed against the order, dated 17-6-2005, passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.637 of 2005 and I.A.No.774 of 2005 in O.S.No.709 of 2005.

(2.) The unsuccessful second respondent in I.A.No.637 of 2005, the petitioner in I.A.No.774 of 2005, is the revision petitioner.

(3.) The first respondent herein laid the suit in O.S.No.709 of 2005 for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (for short the Act'). Her case as averred, inter alia, in the plaint seems to be that one Sumanth Kale (R2) was the owner and possessor of the land as described in schedule appended to the plaint. He sold the said land in favour of his wife and one Smt. Vijaya Bowgikar jointly under registered sale deed, dated 29-6-1985. The vendees in turn sold the property in her favour under registered sale deed dated 20-6-2001 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The revision petitioner, who is a builder, and respondents 3 to 5, 7 and 8, who are the neighbouring owners of the schedule property, approached her with a proposal of developing the petition schedule property for which she agreed and signed certain documents enabling the revision petitioner and others to get no objection from the District Collector and relevant permissions and approval from the M.C.H. However, she received a caveat petition filed by the revision petitioner on 26-11 -2004, wherein he claimed that she was a stranger to him and to the suit properties and had been interfering with the construction being made by him without having any right or possession. On receiving the caveat petition, she issued a legal notice, dated 16-1-2005, to all the respondents. The respondent No.6, in reply, stated, inter alia, that she had not purchased the plaint schedule property and she had only purchased a flat from R2, the revision petitioner. Taking advantage of the Pongal vacation, the revision petitioner illegally trespassed into the plaint schedule property on 31-12-2004 andstarted making construction and hence the suit under Section 6 of the Act.