LexG. SURYAKUMARI & ANR. versus B. CHANDRAMOULI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 758 A G. SURYAKUMARI & ANR. v. B. CHANDRAMOULI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8476 of 2009) B DECEMBER 18, 2009 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] ·- Suit - For perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession of suit schedule c property - Plaintiff as well as defendants claiming to be lawful purchasers of the suit property from two different co-operative Housing Societies - Trial Court decreed the suit - First appellate court dismissed the same - High Court, in second D appeal decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property; that the area claimed by the plaintiff did not fall within the area said to have been purchased by the defendants; and that the defendants could not pretend ignorance from the order against the co-operative E society, from whom they had purchased the property - In appeal to this court, defendant taking plea that in view of 0.9 r.9 CPC, after order of dismissal of the earlier suit filed by the society, plaintiff barred from filing fresh suit - Held: The ground , on the basis of 0. 9 r. 9 CPC since raised before Supreme F Court for the first time, cannot be permitted to be raised - Finding of High Court decreeing the suit, upheld - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- 0. 9 r. 9- Practice and Procedure - - New plea - Raising of. Yellapragada Gopalkrishnamurthi v. Pettu Poda G Madireddi and Ors. AIR 1949 Madras 882; Gajpat Singh v. . #- Sudhan (Died) by LRs. Hukum Chand AIR 1985 P&H 135, referred to H 758 G. SURYAKUMARI & ANR. v. 8. CHANDRAMOULI & 759 ORS. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. v. A Kam/a Mills Ltd. (2003) 6 .sec 315; Panchugopal Barua and Ors. v. Umesh Chandra Goswami and Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 713; Nityananda Kar and Anr. v. State of Orissa and Ors. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 516; /shwar Das Jain (Dead) Thr. LRs. v. Sohan Lal (Dead) by LRs. (2000) 1 SCC 434, relied on. B Case Law Reference: AIR 1949 Madras 882 Referred to. Para 19 AIR 1985 P&H 135 Referred to. Para 19 c (2003) 6 sec 315 Relied on Para 21 (1997) 4 sec 113 Relied on Para 21 1991 Supp (2) sec 516 Relied on Para 21 D (2000) 1 sec 434 Relied on Para 21 CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8476 of 2009. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.2006 of the High E Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Second Appeal No. 541 of 2002. M.N. Rao, Promila for the 'Appellant Petitioners. F H.S. Guru Raja Rao, G. Seshagiri Rao, Sridhar Potaraju ~ and S. Thananjayan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Leave granted. G 2. Defendants-appellants, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree pronounced by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in H 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A respondents' S.A. No. 541/2002 decided on 20.2.2006, are before us challenging the same on variety of grounds. 3. Respondents herein as plaintiffs had filed Original Suit No. 5731 of 1994, against the present appellants/ defendants, B for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering in any manner into their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Suit Schedule Property to an extent of 1,200 sq. yards forming part of House No. 6-3-584/31/B covered by Survey Nos. 94, 95 and 96 of Ward No. 3 out of 38,382 sq. c yards belonging to M/s. Gramodyog Cooperative Housing Society, situated at Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 4. According to the plaint averments, respondents/plaintiffs contended that schedule property is part of 50,000 sq. yards D covered by Survey Nos. 94, 95 and 96. It originally belonged to Dr. Ahmed Mirza from whom Smt. K. Parvathi Devi and four others purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 17.3.1961. Thereafter, M/s. Gramodyog Cooperative Housing Society purchased an area admeasuring 38,382 sq. yards from E them by a registered deed of sale executed on 20.9.1962. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 purchased 600 sq. yards each under registered sale deeds from the said society on 17.1.1994 and 19.1.1994 respectively. After the execution of sale deeds, they raised boundary walls and invested huge amounts of money for 1 F its development. They also submitted plans for construction of houses, after paying necessary fee, for grant of such permission. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, therefore. claimed to be title hold
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.