9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -in-title of original defendant no.1 by a registered sale deed for a total consideration of ₹ 6000/-. Razia Begum remained in uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the said property from the date of her purchase. On or about 11.08.1963 Razia Begum obtained house construction loan from the Housing Cooperative Society, Mellapelly Limited and thereafter permission for construction was accorded on or about 18.02.1964 by the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The original defendant no.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the property till it was transferred on 20.6.1973 to one Lateef Hassan Burney, the predecessor-in-title of the appellants (original defendant No.2) as the nominee of the defendant no.1 in terms of the rules of the Housing Society. Then, on 4.12.1975, the original suit (O.S.164 of 1976), out of which this proceeding arises, was instituted in the Court of the 4th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by the plaintiffs against Razia Begum alleging that the plaintiffs' father Saiyed Shah Abdul Khader was the Pattedar and Landlord of land bearing Survey No.129/55 (old), New Survey No.165 admeasuring 3 Acres and 26 guntas situated at Kachcha Tattikhana Siva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Razia Begum, the original defendant no.1, before it was transferred in his name and the Razia Begum had perfected her title by adverse possession against plaintiffs. 4. Then, the witnesses were examined by the Trial Court. Then by an order dated 19.12.1983 the trial Court appointed a Court Commissioner. The Court Commissioner with the help of a surveyor submitted a report on 25.4.1984. 5. Ultimately, by judgment dated 19.9.1985, the suit was dismissed and being aggrieved by the same an appeal was filed before the High Court in the year 1986. The High Court again by an order dated 5.2.2002 appointed an Advocate Commissioner to determine the location of the property which, according to the original plaintiffs-respondent, was falling in Survey No. 129/55(old). However, the contention of the appellants is that the property was falling in Survey No. 129/64. 6. The Advocate-Commissioner appointed by the High Court submitted a report along with a Map in which it has been shown that the suit property falls under Survey No. 129/55(old) but that finding has been reached on the basis of the judgment and order in O.S.No. 331/1980 which was between the original plaintiffs and one Sar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants), the suit is liable to be dismissed as against Defendant No.2 in view of the provisions of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure. 12. The second point urged was that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (contesting respondents) who are the legal representatives of the Original Plaintiffs, did not prove that the disputed land falls within Survey No. 129/55(old). 13. The third point on which the impugned judgment was assailed was that the contesting respondents (original plaintiffs) did not succeed in proving their title in respect of Survey No. 129/55. 14. It was also urged that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the High Court should have held that the appellants had perfected their title by way of adverse possession and even on the ground of equity no decree for possession can be passed in favour of the contesting respondents who are the successor -in-title of the original plaintiff. 15. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the suit is for recovery of possession on the strength of title and not a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of possession. According to the learned counsel the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement. 20. In Sheikh Abdul Kayum and others v. Mulla Alibhai and others [AIR 1963 SC 309] it has been held by this Court that it does not lie within the jurisdiction of a Court to grant relief against defendant against whom no reliefs have been claimed [See paragraph 13, page 313 of the report]. 21. Same propositions have been reiterated recently by a judgment of this Court in Scotts Engineering, Bangalore v. Rajesh P. Surana and others [(2008) 4 SCC 256]. In paragraph 10 at page 258 of the report this Court found that even after the appellant was arrayed as defendant 6, the plaintiff did not care to amend the plaint except making the appellant as defendant 6. No relief was claimed against defendant 6. If we follow the said principle in the facts of this case we have to hold that no relief having been claimed against defen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
