Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8260 OF 2003
MANOHAR PRASHAD & ANR. ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN, L.B.NAGAR MUNICIPALITY & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal No.886
st
of 1999 decided on 21 March, 2003. It may be pertinent here to
mention that the appellants filed a suit in the Court of the
Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Saroor Nagar,
Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) in which they prayed for vacant
possession of a portion of the premises comprising of two rooms, a
varandah and a garage admeasuring 110 sq.yards and situated in the
compound bearing Municipal No.3-1, Kothapet village, Uppal Mandal
under L.B.Nagar Municipality, R.R.District shown in Schedule-B.
The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the trial court
had also prayed for a declaration that plaintiffs are owners of the
structure and open land admeasuring about 1760 sq.yards situated
within the compound wall bearing Municipal No.3-1, Kothapet village,
Uppal Mandal, L.B.Nagar municipality, R.R.District. But from
paragraph 11 of the plaint it is abundantly clear that the court fee
was paid only in respect of 110 sq.yards and according to learned
counsel for the parties that is the only dispute between the
parties.
The appellants asserted that in the years 1981 and 1987
2
they allowed the Gram Panchayat, Kothapet to run their office in the
premises belonging to them and they also asked them (the Gram
Panchayat) to vacate, when they did not vacate, on 4.5.1991 the
appellants issued notice and thereafter filed a suit for recovery of
the said premises.
Learned counsel for the appellants submit that after the
Gram Panchayat acquired its own building they vacated and abandoned
the premises in question and the appellants took possession of the
same on 9.1.2009. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is
not in a position to controvert this factual position.
In this appeal, we would not like to enlarge the
controversy and in view of the fact that the respondents
vacated/abandoned the premises in question and the appellants had
taken possession of the same, no further directions are really
necessary in this appeal. Consequently, the impugned judgment is set
aside and the appeal is disposed of in terms of our observations
stated in the above mentioned paragraphs. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own
costs.
...................J.
(DALVEER BHANDARI)
...................J.
(DEEPAK VERMA)
NEW DELHI;
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2010