Palakurthi Manasa Vs Medapati Ramachandra Reddy — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Palakurthi Manasa Vs Medapati Ramachandra Reddy — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Writ Appeal was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed. The merits (including the lis pendens and pattadar passbook prayers) were not adjudicated.

Issue for consideration

Whether anything remained for adjudication in Writ Appeal No. 402/2026, given the appellant's counsel's submission that the Tahsildar had already passed orders on 28.03.2026 pursuant to the learned Single Judge's order, rendering the appeal infructuous.

Court's answer

Recording the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that nothing survived for adjudication, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

Ratio / Principle

There shall be no order as to costs.

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, were ordered to stand closed.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal No. 402/2026 (filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent) by Palakurthi Manasa challenged the learned Single Judge's order dated 01.12.2025 in W.P.No.3383 of 2020, particularly its direction to the Tahsildar, Samarlakota to consider the 1st Respondent's mutation application. The appellant's prayers included declarations that the sale deed dated 20.04.2013 (Doc.No.4950/2013) executed by Tadi Srinivasa Reddy in favour of Smt. Palacharla Tulasamma stands vitiated by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as subject to the lis in O.S.No.173/2013, and that her Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed for Sy.No.111/3 (Ac.2.43 cents, G.Medapadu Village, Samarlakota Mandal, East Godavari District) remain in force until set aside by a competent Civil Court. Before any adjudication, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that nothing survived in the appeal, the Tahsildar having already passed orders on 28.03.2026 pursuant to the learned Single Judge's order. Recording that submission, the Bench (Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Tuhin Kumar Gedela, JJ., judgment per Roy, J.) dismissed the Writ Appeal as infructuous on 08.04.2026, made no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous petitions (IA Nos.1-3 of 2026, including condonation of 92 days' filing delay). The merits were not adjudicated and no precedent was cited.

1

APHC010180082026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3558]

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT APPEAL NO: 402/2026

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to (a) ADMIT this Writ Appeal (b) Grant Stay of the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.3383 of 2020, pending disposal of this Appeal, and in particular stay the operation of the direction to the Tahsildar, Samarlakota to consider the mutation application of the 1st Respondent Writ Petitioner (c) On hearing, ALLOW this Writ Appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.3383 of 2020, and dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the 1st Respondent (d) Declare that the Sale Deed dated 20.04.2013 (Doc.No.4950/2013) executed by Tadi Srinivasa Reddy in favour of Smt. Palacharla Tulasamma is subject to the result of the lis in O.S.No.173/2013 and stands vitiated by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (e) Declare that the Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed held by the Appellant for Sy.No.111/3 to an extent of Ac.2.43 cents at G.Medapadu Village, Samarlakota Mandal, East Godavari District shall remain in force until set aside by a competent Civil Court (f) Direct the 1st Respondent to seek his remedy through a Civil Suit before the competent court for declaration of title and possession (g) Pass

Between:

PALAKURTHI MANASA, D/O. SATTIBABU, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 12-34, G.MEDAPADU VILLAGE, SAMARLAKOTA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT

AND

2

MEDAPATI RAMACHANDRA REDDY, MEDAPATI RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O. VENKATA REDDY, AGED 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 10131, MAHENDRAVADA VILLAGE, ANAPARTHI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

THE TAHSILDAR, SAMARLAKOTA, SAMARLAKOTA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to dispense with the Certified Copy of the order passed in order dated 01.12.2025 in W.P.No.3383 of 2020 on the file of this Hon'ble Court, in the above Writ Appeal and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 92 days in filing the above W.A in order dated 01.12.2025 in W.P.No.3383 of 2020 on the file of this Hon’ble Court, passed by His Lordship otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and hardship and pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 01.12.2025 in W.P.No.3383 of 2020 passed by learned single judge until further orders and pass

Counsel for the Appellant:

3

1.N RAVI PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE

2.P DURGA PRASAD

4

5

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that nothing survives in this appeal for adjudication and the writ appeal became infructuous in view of the fact that the Tahsildar has already passed orders on 28.03.2026 pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Therefore, recording the said submission of learned counsel for the appellant, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 08.04.2026

ARR

6

99

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT APPEAL NO: 402/2026

Date: 08.04.2026

ARR