“Litigation Went In Respect Of Non-Existing Properties For The Last 66 Years”- Telangana High Court Closes Case
The Telangana High Court was dealing with a case involving a Civil Suit for partition and separate possession of Matruka properties.
The Telangana High Court closed a 66-year-old property dispute related case in respect of the non-existing properties.
The Court was dealing with a batch of Applications and a Civil Suit involving partition and separate possession of Matruka properties.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar remarked, “The report of the receiver cum commissioner dated 06.07.2023 is hereby accepted to the extent of its implication of release order of Commissioner of Survey Settlement – Inam dated 30.12.1977 and the observations opined by the receiver cum commissioner are hereby discarded. Though, a preliminary decree has been passed on 06.04.1959 based on a compromise decree, the litigation went in respect of non-existing properties for the last 66 years. In view of the observations made in the foregoing paragraphs and to put a quietus to the suit of the year 1958, we deem it appropriate to formally close C.S.No.7 of 1958.”
Senior Advocates Vedula Srinivas, Vedula Venkat Raman, J. Prabhakar, and Advocate N.M. Krishnaiah represented the Applicants while Senior Advocates Sunil B. Ganu, A. Venkatesh, and Advocate Naga Srinivas Rao represented the Respondents. Additional Advocate General (AAG) Imran Khan represented the State.
Facts of the Case
The subject matter of the Applications pertained to a land which was included in Annexure A annexed to the preliminary Decree. A Division Bench of the High Court by an Order passed in an Application, directed the Receiver-cum-Commissioner to submit a report by dividing the land by metes and bounds between the sharers as per their entitlements in the preliminary Decree. The Receiver-cum-Commissioner submitted a report before the High Court in 2009. The Division Bench accepted the report and thereafter the objectors filed an Application for passing a final Decree. The same was allowed and thereupon a final Decree was drawn.
The final Decree Holders deposited the required stamp duty and the final Decree was engrossed on the stamp paper. The final Decree was registered as a document by the Joint Sub Registrar. The Division Bench by an Order passed in Application and batch, appointed new Receiver-cum-Commissioner to submit a detailed report on the basis of which a final Decree may be drawn. Pursuantly, the Receiver-cum-Commissioner submitted a report in 2023 and the Commissioner recorded their conclusions. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for receiving objections on the report of the Receiver-cum-Commissioner.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “On a perusal of the paragraph 4(g) of the preliminary decree dated 06.04.1959, it is evident that the defendant Nos.2 to 22 were entitled to the properties mentioned at item Nos.230 to 254 of Schedule ‘A’ annexed to the preliminary decree, in case the same are restored or released in favour of Asman Jahi Paigah.”
The Court noted that the Commissioners-cum-Receivers have the power to sell the property by way of public auction and exercise all powers necessary for effecting the division of the sale between the Defendants.
“In the case on hand, the scope of the Commissioners-cum-Receivers is to divide the extent of shares as specified in the para 4(g) to the extent of arrears of income future income, compensation or commutation or sale proceeds of the said items 230 to 254 of Schedule ‘A’”, it added.
The Court said that the scope of the preliminary Decree in which such compromise recorded is only for the purpose of receiving income subject to the condition that they are restored or released.
“However, the parties have created documents pertaining to the villages listed in the schedule without there being inclusion of any lands in items 230 to 254 which is in contravention to the compromise recorded in the preliminary decree. As such, there cannot be any scope to parties to file any application under preliminary decree dated 06.04.1959 in C.S. No.7 of 1958 seeking recognition and acceptance etc., of any assignment deed and for passing of any final decree in C.S. No.7 of 1958”, it further noted.
The Court held that no lands are available for partition being attached to the preliminary Decree and in the absence of preliminary Decree, no final Decree could have been passed. It added that the reports filed earlier are without proper verification, are fictitious and the same are treated as nullity.
“… the scope and powers of the receiver cum commissioner as held in Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Court Receiver can hold the properties as custodia legis and can act in a manner as reasonable prudent trustees and such action on the part of the Court Receiver is nothing but for preservation of the property in question”, it also noted.
The Court added that, since no property is available, the judgment of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of this case.
“… since the lands are not available physically, the parties may seek their appropriate remedy as available under law”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court closed the Civil Suit and dismissed the Application.
Cause Title- Sahebzadi Sultan Jahan Begum & Others v. Nawab Zahir Yar Jung Bahadur & Others
Appearance:
Applicants: Senior Advocates Vedula Srinivas, Vedula Venkat Raman, J. Prabhakar, Advocates N.M. Krishnaiah, and Deepak Misra.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Sunil B. Ganu, A. Venkatesh, Advocates Naga Srinivas Rao, Mohammed Sarshar Ahmed, Manjari S. Ganu, and Shyam Sundar Rao Burgula.
