NAWAB MOHD KABIRUDDIN KHAN Vs. M KRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S. No.1543 of 1987 on the file of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court are the petitioners in this CRP. TheCRParisesoutof an order passed by the IV Addl. Judge on a memo filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs seeking transfer of the suit to the Special Court constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act for trial and decision. The memo was filed on 9-9-1994. The application was allowed by an order dt.12-9-1994 and the Court returned the plaint for presentation to proper Court. Against this order CRP No.3786 of 1994 was filed by the 1st respondent-defendant. On 13-3-1995 this Court set aside the aforementioned order on the ground that the order was passed without hearing the counsel for the defendant and the order did not disclose any reasons. The case was remitted to the 4th Addl. Judge for fresh disposal. After hearing both the counsel the impugned order was passed on 10-4-1995 rejecting the petitioner's request to transfer the suit. Aggrieved by thisorder the present CRP is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit.

(2.) The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac7-00 situate mSy.No.202/2ofBaghlingampaUy.Itisthecase of theplaintiff that the said land was granted to his father by Nawab Sir Khursheed Jah in 1347 Fasli. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants' land in Sy. No.65, 66 and 67 is situated at Baghamberpet Revenue Village and it has nothing to do with the suit schedule land. It may be mentioned that as far as Sy. No.65,66 and 67 of Baghamberpet village is concerned the right and title of the defendants and their predecessors in title was upheld in O.S. No.294 of 1980 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad and the said judgment and decree was confirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court is reported in AIR 1992 SC 797.

(3.) Coming back to the contention of the petitioners-plaintiffs, they alleged in the plaint that on 4-9-1987, defendants 1 to 7 trespassed into the plaintiff's land which is at Baghlingampally, removed the name board of the plaintiff high-handedly and started digging up the land and putting up boundary stones and sheds. The defendants denied the allegations. It is their case that the land which is being claimed by the petitioners in OS. No.1543 of 1987 is nothing but the same land which was the subject-matter of dispute in O.S. No.294 of 1980. The defendants contend that the subsequent suit filed by the petitioners herein is an instance of the abuse of the process of Court and is meant to circumvent the decree in O.S. No.294 of 1980 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.