S PRABHAVATHI Vs. ROHINI KILARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arise out of the related proceedings in the suit and the parties are also same. Hence, this common order. The petitioner is the plaintiff. She filed suit for injunction. In the suit being O.S. No.1455 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge (West and South), Ranga Reddy District, she also filed LA. No.3219 of 2004 for ad interim injunction. On 1-12-2004, the trial Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction but subsequently, by order, dated 14-12-2004, the trial Court dismissed the application vacating the ex parte order. Sometime thereafter defendants also filed application being LA. No.685 of 2005 before trial Court under Sections 144 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking restoration of possession by removing illegal constructions allegedly made by the plaintiff after obtaining ad interim ex parte injunction. The same was allowed by the trial Court on 19-10-2005. The plaintiff filed CMA No.1 of 2005 against order of the trial Court dismissing the injunction application and C.M.A. No.204 of 2005 against the order of the trial Court directing the plaintiff to restore possession and remove the structures on the plaint schedule property. Both the civil miscellaneous appeals were dismissed by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, on 20-2-2006, by separate orders. CRP No.2146 of 2006 is filed against CMA No.1 of 2005 and CRP No.2145 of 2006 is filed against CMA No.204 of 2005. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner will be referred to as plaintiff and respondents as defendants.

(2.) The plaintiff pleaded that she is absolute owner of house bearing No.8-7- 180/9, Plot No.36 admeasuring 286.66 square yards (suit schedule) in Survey No.2063 of Old Boyenapalli Village, that she acquired the same under registered gift deed executed by her father on 16-7-2003, that the property consists of two rooms with ACC sheets, that the plaintiff obtained building permission from Kukatapalli Municipality on 24-2-2004 but could not commence construction immediately due to paucity of funds and that when she commenced construction, defendants came to the suit schedule land on 30-11-2004 and tried to prevent her from proceeding with the construction. She took similar pleas in her interlocutory application also.

(3.) Defendants opposed the applications. They allege that the premises with Door No.8-7-180/9 relates to the property in Rajarajeswari Nagar of Kukatapalli, that the first defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property with Door No.5-59/36 in Old Boyenapalli known as Samathanagar, that she purchased the property under registered sale deed, dated 6-8-1996 from Audil Pasha, that her vendor purchased the suit schedule property from G. Devender Reddy under registered sale deed, dated 22-1-1986, that the second defendant is an employee of South Central Railway, they also obtained permission from the employer, vide letter dated 7-1-1997, that the defendants have become members of Samathanagar Members Welfare Association, that the suit schedule property is open land without any structures thereon, that the plaintiff's father who was original owner and pattadar of the land sold away the land to Laxminath C. Seth on 24-9-1985 and delivered vacant possession of the property, and therefore, Balawantha Reddy had no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and that he could not have executed gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant also averred that Land Grabbing Case i.e., L.G.C. No.77 of 1999 filed by the mother of the plaintiff against fifteen flat owners was also dismissed by the Special Court on 28-1-2004 and that the permission for construction, electricity service connection, obtained by the plaintiff relate to the property in Rajarajeswari Nagar.