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  

of 1999 decided on 21st 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