Quarter vacation dispute

Page No.1 of 10 OS No.179 OF 2010
IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT :: GODAVARIKHANI
PRESENT:- SMT.M ARUNA
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GODAVARIKHANI
Monday, this the 21st day of August, 2017
O.S NO.179 of 2010
Between:-
1] Md.Raziuddin S/o.Waheeduddin, died his L.Rs
2] Aisha Tabassum W/o.Late Raziuddin, Age 41 years – Wife
3] Safura Aiman D/o.Late Raziuddin Age 21 years – Daughter
4] Sana Aiman D/o.Late Raziuddin, Age 18 years, - Daughter
all are R/o.H.No.18-2-32/1, Addaguntapalli, Godavarikhani,
Ramagundam mandal of Karimnagar District
(Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are brought on record as legal representative
of plaintiff No.1 vide I.A.No.
... Plaintiffs.
And
The General Manager RG-I, S.C.Co.Ltd., Godavarikhani,
Ramagundam mandal of Karimnagar District
...Defendant.
Claim:- Suit for perpetual injunction.
This suit is coming on 08.08.2017 for final hearing before
me in the presence of Sri B.Amarender Rao & B.Vanitha,
Advocate for plaintiffs, and that of Sri D.Krishna Murthy and T
Ravinder Singh Advocate for defendant, having been heard and
stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the
following:-
: J U D G M E N T :
The suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining the
defendant, his subordinates from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff over the suit house.
Date 21.08.2017 PRL.JCJ, GDK
Page No.2 of 10 OS No.179 OF 2010
2 The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-
The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit
house bearing No.D-123 situated at Medarbashi locality of
Godavarikhani town of Ramagundam mandal of Karimnagar
district, which is fully described in the suit schedule annexed to
the plaint. The plaintiff constructed the suit house in the year
1992 in 30 Sq.yards land of the suit house till today without any
obstruction from anybody more particularly from the defendant.
That without having any right whatsoever the suit house the
subordinates of the defendant are interfering with the possession
of the plaintiff over the suit house. On 06.08.2010 the
subordinates of the defendant came to the suit house and
threatened the plaintiff that they will disposes the plaintiff from
the suit house within few days and tried to occupy the suit
house. But, the plaintiff with great difficult and with the
assistance of local people has resisted the subordinates of the
defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff
over the suit house. The subordinates of the defendant company
openly threatened the plaintiff that they would come again and
disposses the plaintiff from the suit house within time. As such,
the plaintiff cannot protect his possession over the suit house
without the aid of the Hon'ble Court. Hence, this suit is filed for
perpetual injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff is very
poor person and eking his livelihood by running a small Jilebi and
Mirchi shop in the name and style of Royal Sweet house in the
suit house for last 18 years, without any abstraction from
Date 21.08.2017 PRL.JCJ, GDK
Page No.3 of 10 OS No.179 OF 2010
anybody. The plaintiff has been paying licence fee to the
Ramagundam Municipality on his shop from the year 2000 and
paying electricity bill for his shop and he obtained licence from
the year 2000 and paying electricity bill for his shop and
obtained licence from Food Inspector, Karimnagar and obtained
certificate from Assistant labour officer, Godavarikhani to run the
sweet shop in the suit house premises, as such, it is very evident
through the above documents that the plaintiff is in possession
of suit house. Therefore, the plaintiff has no way, except, to
approach this Hon'ble Court for seeking relief of perpetual
Injunction.
3. The defendant filed written statement by denying the
plaint averments. The defendant submits that the defendant
company acquired Ac.7-23 gts of land in Sy.No.693 of Janagaon
village from Khaza Badroddin, owner of the land through land
acquisition proceedings vide award dated 09.06.1961. Later, the
defendant company constructed quarters on the said land from
the residential purpose of its workmen and Qr.NO.123 is one of
the suit quarters constructed by the defendant company and the
same was allotted to to its employee Sri Bodakunti Sudhakar,
Badli worker of 18 M.W Power House, Godavarikhani of defendant
company vide allotment letter dated 25.07.1997 and said
Sudhakar has been staying in the said quarter since its allotment
and was transferred to Bhupalpalli area. It is submitted that Sri B
Sudhakar, allotte of the Qr.No.D-123 had constructed a small
Date 21.08.2017 PRL.JCJ, GDK
Page No.4 of 10 OS No.179 OF 2010
shed within the premises of the Qr.No.D-123 in a plinth area of
215 Sq.Ft. It is stated that the defendant company as per is
police decision started recovering licence fee from the allottee of
the said quarter from his salary and the recovery is being
continued till the allottee transferred to Bhupalpalli area. As per
conditions of quarter allotment letter, the employee on his
transfer should vacate the quarter allotted to him in vacant
position. It is further stated that Sri Sudhakar on his transfer to
Bhupalpally area, has to vacate the quarter No.D-123 and
handover the same to the defendant company, but till date he
has not handed over the quarter NO.D-123 and its premises in
vacant position. Hence, Sri Sudhakar might have let out the said
shed constructed in the premises of Qr.No.D-123 of the plaintiff.
As the original allottee was already transferred to Bhupalpalli
area, the plaintiff has no right whatsoever over the Qr.No.D-123
including the shed constructed by the allottee. It is also further
submitted that all the documents filed by the plaintiff pertains to
the business conducted by Royal Sweet House, at Medarbasthi,
Godavarikhani issued by Ramagundam Muncipality, Assistant
Labour Officer, Godavarikhani and Food Inspector Karimnagar.
The plaintiff did not file any document to prove his title and
possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the
plaintiff approached this Court without clean hands for equitable
remedy of injunction which is not tenable under law. Therefore,
the defendant is requesting to dismiss the suit.
Date 21.08.2017 PRL.JCJ, GDK
Page No.5 of 10 OS No.179 OF 2010
4. Basing on the pleadings, this Court framed the following
issues.
1. Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner and
possessor of House bearing No.Q.No.D-123,
situated at Medarbasti locality of
Ramagundam mandal?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
permanent Injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
5. The contention of the plaintiff is that he is the owner and
possessor of the suit house bearing Qr.No.D-123 situated at
Medarbasthi locality of Godavarikhani town of Ramagundam
mandal. The plaintiff is constructed the suit house in the year
1992 to an extent of 30 Sq.yarards, since construction of the
house, the plaintiff is in continuous possession without
obstruction from anybody, but the defendant who are no way
concerned to the suit schedule property are interfering into her
possession, so that, the plaintiff is requesting to grant perpetual
injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into her
possession.
6 On the other hand, the defendant contended that the
alleged suit schedule property i.e., Qr.No.D-123 belongs to SCCL
company quarter which is allotted to one Bodakunti Sudhakar
who was the employee of the defendant company and he has
been transferring to Bhupalpally, but he did not hand-over the
quarter, so that the defendant company is recovering licence fee
Date 21.08.2017 PRL.JCJ, GDK
Page No.6 of 10 OS No.179 OF 2010
till today also and at the time of residing of Bodakunti Sudhakar
he might have constructed the shed for his comfortable stay.
Therefore, the defendant authority taking steps against the
allottees, but, the plaintiff is no way concerned to the property, is
claiming equitable relief of injunction. Therefore, the injunction
cannot grant against the true owner. Therefore, it is liable to be
dismissed.
7. Issue No.1
To prove the title of the plaintiff, she has to furnish the title
deed or any documents and also produce the evidence, why
because, the plaintiff submitted at Para No.3 of his plaint that
she is the owner of the property to an extent of 30 Sq.yards of
the house, which is constructed in the year 1992 and also the
Municipality allotted H.No.Qr.D-123 and regularly paying the
monthly taxes and other taxes to the Government. Therefore, at
this stage, it is the duty of the plaintiff to show her title as-wellas
her possession. To prove the said version, the plaintiff is
examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-15.
Ex.A-1 is the original Electricity receipt bearing No.778876
dated 22.03.1997
Ex.A-2 is the original Electricity receipt bearing No.326642
dated 20.06.1997
Ex.A-3 is the original Electricity receipt bearing No.314213
dated 23.06.2008
Ex.A-4 is the Original Municipal tax receipt dated 31.03.2011
Ex.A-5 is the Original Municipal tax receipt bearing No.040006177
Date 21.08.2017 PRL.JCJ, GDK
Page No.7 of 10 OS No.179 OF 2010
Ex.A-6: Is the Original Municipal Tax receipt bearing No.080099850
Ex.A-7: Is the Original Municipal Tax receipt bearing No.090123285
Ex.A-8: Is the Renewal of certificate of registration dated 15.02.06
Ex.A-9: Is the Renewal of certificate of registration dated 31.12.08
Ex.A-10: Is the Renewal of certificate of registration dated 31.12.10
Ex.A-11: Is the Original Licence Under PFA Rules dated 24.07.2010
Ex.A-12 is the three original Electricity Bills dated 02.04.2010 ,
02.12.2013, 24.02.2015 respectively
Ex.A-13 is the Original Municipal Tax receipt bearing No.090143703
Ex.A-14 is the Original Municipal Tax receipt bearing No.012163095
Ex.A-15 is the Original Municipal Tax receipt bearing No.012199385
8. Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 are the Electricity receipts. The said
receipts are not reflecting any House Number. So that, Ex.A-1 to
Ex.A-3 are useful to the plaintiff. Ex.A-4 to Ex.A-7 are the
Municipal Tax receipts from the year 2001 to 2011. These
receipts are also not showing any House Number. Ex.A-8 to
Ex.A-12 are Renewal certificates and licences issued by the
Assistant Labour Officer and Food Inspector respectively. As per
these documents, those are issued to the shop of the plaintiff
i.e., Royal Sweet House, but, among these documents, none of
the document is showing title of the plaintiff over the suit
schedule property and moreover the plaintiff is also failed to
show how she acquired the property and when she constructed
the house, and atleast permission to construct house also not
filed and not mentioned anywhere why because, the defendant
company denying the title and possession of the plaintiff over
Date 21.08.2017 PRL.JCJ, GDK
Page No.8 of 10 OS No.179 OF 2010
the property and claiming that the suit property is belongs to
them, which is allotted to one Bodakunti Sudhakar. Therefore,
they filed document of allotment letter issued in the year 1992
and also office order dated 19.01.2004. As per these documents,,
the quarter belongs to Singareni Collieries company Ltd., i.e.,
defendant herein and other document also filed by the defendant
company i.e., transfer order of the allottee of the suit schedule
property. As per this document, the alleged suit schedule
property allotted to Bodakunti Sudhakar who was transferred
from Godavarikhani to Bhupalpalli, later, he failed to hand-over
the quarter to the defendant company, so that, the defendant
company is recovering the amounts from the salary of the
allottee. Therefore, as per defence taken by the defendant, they
filed the documents and examined DW-1 and DW-2 who are the
authorized persons of the defendant company, they are also
submitted the same to this Court. But, on behalf of the plaintiff,
PWs.1 to 3 are examined, but, on considering the evidence of
PWs.1 to 3, there is no evidence with regard to the title and
possession of the plaintiff and moreover, the plaintiff did not file
any single document to show her possession. The plaintiff filed
documents which are issued by the Labour Commissioner and
Food Inspector. But basing on those documents, the possession
cannot be decided and more specifically the plaintiff is claiming
title over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff has
to seek relief of declaration also but in this case the plaintiff
prayed only injunction against the defendant even if injunction is
Date 21.08.2017 PRL.JCJ, GDK
Page No.9 of 10 OS No.179 OF 2010
granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, the
purpose would not serve to the plaintiff and litigation will not put
an end. However, injunction is any equitable relief. Therefore,
who seeks equity, they must do equity and whoever seek the
equitable relief of injunction, they have to come to this Court
with clean hands by showing the genuine facts before this Court,
but in this case, the plaintiff failed to show the material facts
before this Court. Therefore, the equitable relief of injunction
cannot be granted to the plaintiff. Therefore, on considering the
evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 and documents under Ex.A-1 to
Ex.A-15 those are not supporting the version of the plaintiff.
Hence this issue is answered accordingly against the plaintiff.
9. Issue No.2
As per discussion at Issue No.1, the plaintiff failed to
prove her title and possession to show that she is in possession
legally as she is claiming the title over the property so she has to
establish her title also, but in this case, the plaintiff failed to
prove her possession or title over the property. Hence, the
plaintiff is not entitled for perpetual injunction.
10. Issue No.3
As per discussion at Issues No.1 and 2, there are no merits
in the petition , the plaintiff seek relief of equitable injunction.
Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Typist, , transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of August, 2017
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GODAVARIKHANI.
Date 21.08.2017 PRL.JCJ, GDK
Page No.10 of 10 OS No.179 OF 2010
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined.
For the plaintiff For the Defendant
PW-1 :Aisha Tabassum DW-1 Manchala Srinivas
PW-2 : Chittimalla Shankar DW-2 ‘S Harinath
PW-3: Chilagani Somaiah
Exhibits Marked.
For the plaintiff
Ex.A-1 is the original Electricity receipt bearing No.778876
dated 22.03.1997
Ex.A-2 is the original Electricity receipt bearing No.326642
dated 20.06.1997
Ex.A-3 is the original Electricity receipt bearing No.314213
dated 23.06.2008
Ex.A-4 is the Original Municipal tax receipt dated 31.03.2011
Ex.A-5 is the Original Municipal tax receipt bearing No.040006177
Ex.A-6: Is the Original Municipal Tax receipt bearing No.080099850
Ex.A-7: Is the Original Municipal Tax receipt bearing No.090123285
Ex.A-8: Is the Renewal of certificate of registration dated 15.02.06
Ex.A-9: Is the Renewal of certificate of registration dated 31.12.08
Ex.A-10: Is the Renewal of certificate of registration dated 31.12.10
Ex.A-11: Is the Original Licence Under PFA Rules dated 24.07.2010
Ex.A-12 is the three original Electricity Bills dated 02.04.2010 ,
02.12.2013, 24.02.2015 respectively
Ex.A-13 is the Original Municipal Tax receipt bearing No.090143703
Ex.A-14 is the Original Municipal Tax receipt bearing No.012163095
Ex.A-15 is the Original Municipal Tax receipt bearing No.012199385
For the Defendants
Ex.B-1 is the Authorization letter dated 10.03.2017
Ex.B-2 is the Attested copy of Quarter Allotment Letter
dated 25.07.1997
Ex.B-3 is the Attested copy of Transfer Proceedings dt 31.07.02
Ex.B-4 is the Attested copy of Office Order dated 19.01.2004
Ex.B-5 is the attested copy of letter dated 21.09.2010
Ex.B-6 is the attested copies (two) pay slips for the month of
January, 2011
and May, 2017
Ex.B-7 is the attested copy of Circular dated 16.06.1997
Ex.B-8 is the attested copy of letter dated 14.05.2003
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GODAVARIKHANI.
Date 21.08.2017 PRL.JCJ, GDK

1. When (on what date) were you transferred fto Bhupalpalli?

2. On what date were you supposed to hand over the vacant quarter to the Company, consequent to your transfer?

3. On what date did you actually hand over the vacant quarter to the Company?

4. From which date the Company is charging penal rent of Rs. 4500/-?

1. When (on what date) were you transferred fto Bhupalpalli?

Ans: December 2010

2. On what date were you supposed to hand over the vacant quarter to the Company, consequent to your transfer?

Ans: December 2010

3. On what date did you actually hand over the vacant quarter to the Company?

Ans: May 2011

4. From which date the Company is charging penal rent of Rs. 4500/-?

Ans: December 2010

 

I am waiting for your valuable advise.