Dismissed¶47

K. Manohar Reddy v. G. Chandra Sekhar

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Sept 2025CRP/1469/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; C.R.P.No.1469 of 2025; Justice B. Krishna Mohan; decided 12.09.2025. Keywords: impleadment / addition of party application rejected; declaration of title and permanent injunction suit (O.S.No.125 of 2019, Tirupati); overlapping survey number but distinct house plots in unapproved layout; registered sale deed dated 20.11.2019; Mandal Surveyor endorsement dated 12.04.2023; ambiguous prayers; revision dismissed; liberty to file separate suit; interim orders vacated; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; liberty reserved to the plaintiffs to file a separate suit against the proposed 8th respondent if warranted; interim order, if any, deemed vacated; no order as to costs. ¶47

K. Manohar Reddy Vs G. Chandra Sekhar — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order in I.A.No.331 of 2023 (O.S.No.125 of 2019) refusing to implead the proposed 8th defendant was reasonable and sustainable, i.e., whether the Civil Revision Petition has any merit.

¶46

Court's answer

The High Court upheld the trial Court's order declining impleadment of the proposed 8th defendant, finding the reasons assigned by the trial Court reasonable and sustainable and holding that the Civil Revision Petition has no merit.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Liberty was reserved to the plaintiffs to file a separate suit against the proposed 8th respondent, if so warranted and advised, on any cause of action arising against the property claimed by him.

¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. The petitioners (plaintiffs in O.S.No.125 of 2019, Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati — a suit for declaration of title over Plaint A & B schedule properties, 348 sq. yards each in Sy.No.1, Koramenugunta Residential area, Tirupati, and permanent injunction against 7 defendants) challenged the order dated 19.03.2025 in I.A.No.331 of 2023 rejecting their application to implead the proposed 8th defendant (respondent No.8, claiming absolute ownership of 101 1/2 sq. yards in Sy.No.1 and 2 (old)/present Sy.No.1/1A under a registered sale deed dated 20.11.2019, supported by a Mandal Surveyor endorsement dated 12.04.2023). The trial Court had held that although both sides claimed land in the same survey number, they related to different house plots in an unapproved layout whose schedules did not match, that the plaintiffs could not stretch the litigation on ambiguous prayers and apprehensions, and that no document showed the 8th respondent's plot to be part of the plaint schedule. Holding the trial Court's reasons reasonable and sustainable, the High Court (B. Krishna Mohan, J.; judgment dated 12.09.2025, suit then at the stage of framing of issues) found no merit in the revision, dismissed it, deemed interim orders vacated, made no order as to costs, and reserved liberty to the plaintiffs to file a separate suit against the proposed 8th respondent on any available cause of action.

¶1

APHC010314252025

¶2

[3233]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1469/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. MANOHAR REDDY, S/O. K. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.20-1-443/A3, KORLAGUNTA, MARUTHI NAGAR, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶10

B. CHANDRA SEKHAR,, S/O. B. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.18-4-10, RAILWAY COLONY, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

G CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O. G. LAKSHMAIAHCHETTY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.7-166, SANTHI NAGAR, S.V. UNIVERSITY TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶14

G SANKARAMMA, W/O. G. PANDURANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.7-166, SANTHI NAGAR, S.V UNIVERSITY TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶15

A EASWARAPARABRAMHAM, S/O. A. KOTILINGAM, R/O. D.N0.199-4A, KENEDY NAGAR, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶16

G VENUGOPAL NAIDU, S/O. G. PEDDAIAH NAIDU, R/O. K.V. PALLIMANDALAM, GALIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶17

¶18

HBKM,J C.R.P.No.1469 of 2025

¶19

K NARENDRA REDDY, S/O. K. JANAKIRAMI REDDY, RESIDING AT INUMADUGU POST AND VILLAGE, KOUR MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶20

P BALASUBRAHMANYAM, S/O. P. VENKATESHREDDY, R/O. D.NO. 10-14, WARD 10, KORAMEENUGUNTA, THIMINAIDUPAYMAPANCHATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶21

G REDDAIAH NAIDU, S/O. PEDDAIAH NAIDU, R/O. D.NO. 19-928/C7, LAKSHMIPURAM, TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶22

HANUMAN RAM CHOYALDAGALARAM, S/O. DAGALARAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.8-1-46, BAZZAR STREET, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶25

1.GANDHAVALLI MAHESH DEVAN

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.V NITESH

¶28

¶29

¶30

HBKM,J C.R.P.No.1469 of 2025

¶31

The Court made the following Order:

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 8^th respondent.

¶33

This revision was filed against the order in I.A.No.331 of 2023 in O.S.No.125 of 2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tirupati dated 19.03.2025.

¶34

The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondent Nos.1 to 7 are the defendants in the suit. The 8^th respondent herein is the proposed defendant No.8 at the instance of the plaintiffs.

¶35

The suit in O.S.No.125 of 2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tirupati was instituted seeking the declaration of title of the Plaint A & B schedule properties and for grant of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants.

¶36

The A & B Plaint schedule properties are relating to the land in an extent of 348 Sq. Yards each in Sy.No.1 Tirupati Municipal Corporation 19^th Ward Koramenugunta Residential area with the boundaries as specified in the Plaint Schedule of the suit. As stated supra, initially suit was instituted against 7 defendants for the above said relief. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the above said I.A.No.331 of 2023 in O.S.No.125 of 2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tirupati to implead the proposed respondent No.8 as

¶37

¶38

HBKM,J C.R.P.No.1469 of 2025

¶39

the 8^th defendant in the suit proceedings and to make consequential amendments to the Plaint as mentioned in the said petition.

¶40

The said I.A. was contested by the proposed 8^th respondent/proposed 8^th defendant contending that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of 101 ½ square yards in Sy.No.1 and 2 (old), present Sy.No.1/1A within the limits of Tirupati Municipal Corporation, 19^th Ward, residential area with the boundaries as specified in the counter filed by him to the above said I.A. before the trial Court.

¶41

His contention is that he purchased the said piece of land through the registered sale deed dated 20.11.2019, he enclosed the said registered sale deed dated 20.11.2019 and the Mandal Surveyor endorsement dated 12.04.2023. The trial Court considering the above said I.A. on merits held that though both the parties are claiming the property in the same survey number, but they appear to be different house plots in the unapproved layout. The schedule property as shown by the plaintiffs and the proposed 8^th defendant is not matching to each other and as such there is no need to implead the proposed 8^th respondent as the 8^th defendant in the suit.

¶42

Accordingly, it observed that the plaintiffs cannot stretch the litigation with ambiguous prayers and apprehensions. The plaintiffs have not filed any documents marked in the above said I.A. to establish that the house plot claimed by the 8^th respondent is forming part and parcel of the Plaint Schedule Properties.

¶43

¶44

HBKM,J C.R.P.No.1469 of 2025

¶45

Both the counsels submit that the suit is at the stage of framing of issues.

¶46

In view of the same and as the reasons assigned by the trial Court in the above said order in I.A.No.331 of 2019 dated 19.03.2025 are reasonable and sustainable. This Court does not find any merit in the revision. However, the liberty is given for the plaintiffs to file a separate suit, if so warranted and advised against the proposed 8^th respondent on the cause of action if any, against the above said property claimed by the said proposed respondent.

¶47

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Interim order if any deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶49

__________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

¶50

12.09.2025 PGT

K. Manohar Reddy v. G. Chandra Sekhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Manohar Reddy v. G. Chandra Sekhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kovvuri Surya Bhakaram Vs the State of Ap

B. Lakshminarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Boddukola Jayamma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Chandra Sekhar Reddy Vs Shri Gopal Krishan Dwivedi

Golla Srinivasa Rao Vs Ponnuru Kesava Narayana

Devandla Thirupathaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh