Dismissed¶33

Kondannagari Prakash Kumar v. K. Devaki

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Dec 2025CC/2211/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Contempt Case No.2211 of 2025, decided 24.12.2025 by Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad. Petitioner Kondannagari Prakash Kumar alleged breach of the interim Status quo order dated 21.12.2024 in W.P.No.30279 of 2024 by contemnors K Devaki and Nella Srinivasulu (Unofficial Respondent Nos. 7 and 8). Court found their registered sale deed (Document No.126 of 2024) was registered on 11.01.2024, about 11 months before the status quo order, with possession already transferred to the purchaser; no violation held. Contempt Case dismissed, no order to costs; IA(s) closed.

What did the court decide?

The registered Sale Deed (Document No.126 of 2024) between Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 of the Writ Petition, registered on 11.01.2024, predates the Status quo order and was therefore not covered by it. ¶31

Kondannagari Prakash Kumar Vs K. Devaki — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Contemnors, being Unofficial Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in W.P.No.30279 of 2024) violated the Interim Order of Status quo dated 21.12.2024 in W.P.No.30279 of 2024, including the direction not to create third party rights over the property.

¶24

Court's answer

The registered Sale Deed (Document No.126 of 2024) between Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 of the Writ Petition, registered on 11.01.2024, predates the Status quo order and was therefore not covered by it.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Possession of the subject land had already been handed over by Respondent No.7 to Respondent No.8 under the registered sale deed.

¶31

Key takeaways

The Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition contained no reference to the sale transaction between Respondent Nos. 7 and 8.ratio¶29
The Respondents have not violated the Status quo order nor created third party rights, as the sale was registered way back on 11.01.2024, almost 11 months before the Status quo order was passed; hence the Contempt Case has no merit.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Case No.2211 of 2025, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, 24.12.2025): Kondannagari Prakash Kumar (Forest Beat Officer) alleged that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (K Devaki and Nella Srinivasulu, Unofficial Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in W.P.No.30279 of 2024) violated the interim Status quo order dated 21.12.2024, which had directed all parties to maintain status quo and restrained the Unofficial Respondents from creating third party rights by lease, sale or any other mode of alienation. Perusal of Registered Sale Deed Document No.126 of 2024 showed the sale between Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 was presented for registration and registered on 11.01.2024, almost 11 months before the Status quo order, and that possession of the subject land had already been handed over by Respondent No.7 to Respondent No.8; the writ petition affidavit made no reference to the transaction. Holding the sale was not covered by the Status quo order, the Court found no violation and dismissed the Contempt Case with no order as to costs; interlocutory applications, if any, were closed.

¶1

[3328]

¶2

APHC010430072025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶8

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2211 OF 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

KONDANNAGARI PRAKASH KUMAR, S/O. K. NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCFOREST BEAT OFFICER, R/O. H. NO. 15-253, KRISHNAPPA LANE. SUBASH ROAD, MADANAPALLE TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT (FORMERLY CHITTOOR DISTRICT), ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

K DEVAKI, , W/O. MUNIRATNAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCHOUSEWIFE, R/O. TARIGONDA VILLAGE, GURRAMKONDA MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, (FORMERLY CHITTOOR DISTRICT).

¶14

NELLA SRINIVASULU, S/O. N. SIDDAPPA, AGEDA ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. 1/14, RAMAPURAM, GURRAMKONDA MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT (FORMERLY CHITTOOR DISTRICT)

¶15

...CONTEMNOR(S):

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.CH VENKAT RAMAN

¶18

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶19

1.M VENKATA RAMANA REDDY

¶20

¶21

¶22

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

¶23

Heard Sri Ch.L. Narasimha Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ch. Venkata Raman, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M. Venkata Ramana Reddy, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents.

¶24

The present case is filed complaining of violation of the Interim Order of Status quo dated 21.12.2024 in W.P.No.30279 of 2024 by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Unofficial Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the Writ Petition). The relevant portion of the Interim Order dated 21.12.2024, is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶25

“6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this Case, there shall be a direction to all parties to maintain Status-Quo obtaining as on today until further orders.

¶26

7. There shall also be further direction to the Unofficial Respondents not to create any third party rights either by way of lease, sale or by any other mode of alienation, until further orders.”

¶27

The above extract would indicate that this Court had not only directed the parties to maintain Status quo obtaining as on the said date, but also further directed the Unofficial Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 not to create any third party rights either by way of lease, sale or by any other mode of alienation, until further orders.

¶28

In compliance with the Order of this Court dated 12.12.2025, the two Contemnors (who are arrayed as Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the Writ Petition) are present.

¶29

Ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that a Sale Deed was executed by the Respondent No.7 (in the Writ Petition) in favour of the Respondent No.8 (in the Writ Petition). On perusal of the Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.126 of 2024, dated 01.01.2024, it transpires that the said document was presented for registration on 11.01.2024 and it was registered on the said date. When this Court has perused the Affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, it is noticed that there is no reference to this

¶30

¶31

particular transaction in the Writ Petition. Therefore, the Order of Status quo with a further direction not to create any third party rights as on 26.12.2024, did not cover the transaction between the Respondent No.7 and 8 (in Writ Petition) by way of registered Sale Deed dated 11.01.2024 bearing document No.126 of 2024. The Registered Sale Deed dated 11.12.2024 would further indicate that the Respondent No.7 has already handed over the possession of the subject land in favour of the Respondent No.8.

¶32

In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Respondents herein have not violated the Order of Status quo or with regard to alienation of the property by creating any third party rights, inasmuch as the sale was registered way back on 11.01.2024 which had taken place almost 11 months before the Order of Status quo was passed by this Court. Hence, there is no merit in this Contempt Case and therefore, this Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

7. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. No order to costs.

¶34