Partly allowed

Sri Y.Anthi Reddy, v. Deepa Tiwari

Telangana HC1 Jul 2013CMA/260/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeals challenging the dismissal of interim applications in a civil suit for declaration and injunction. The Court modified the impugned orders to permit respondents to continue construction but prohibited them from claiming equities or alienating the property until the suit concludes.

What did the court decide?

The order under appeals was modified to allow construction but restrict claims of equity and alienation.

Sri Y.Anthi Reddy, Vs Deepa Tiwari — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶4

C.M.A.Nos.259 & 260 of 2013

¶5

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

¶6

These two appeals are filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.539 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.Nos.2359 and 2360 of 2012. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

¶7

The appellant herein filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property, admeasuring 1500 sq.yards in Sy.No.59 of Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It was pleaded that a large extent, being Ac.2.13 guntas in that survey number was owned by Sri Erani Achaiah and his sons, and out of that, they sold Ac.1.07 guntas through their G.P.A., in favour of one Sri M. Narsimha Rao, through sale deed dated 28-09-1995. Narsimha Rao, is said to have executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant on 20-06-1998, and that he died on 03-08-2006. The appellant was said to be in possession of the property ever since then.

¶8

The appellant stated that respondents 8 and 9 have purchased the remaining extent of Ac.1.06 guntas of land from Achaiah and his sons, but have sold the same in plots to various persons, between

¶9

1996 and 1998. According to him, no area would be left with the respondents 8 and 9, and still, they have laid claim over the suit schedule property and entered into a development agreement with respondent No.7; and respondents are trying to encroach upon his land.

¶10

The appellant filed I.A.No.2359 of 2012, with a prayer to restrain the respondents from changing the nature of the suit schedule property, and I.A.No.2360 of 2012, from transferring the same during the pendency of the suit. These two I.As along with two others were heard by the trial Court, and I.A.Nos.2359 and 2360 were dismissed. Hence, these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

¶11

Heard Sri V. Parabrahma Sastry, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

¶12

This is not a stage to deal with the contentious issues.

¶13

The appellant filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. It appears that on realizing that the possession is not with him, he got the prayer, for recovery of possession, included in the plaint. Be that as it may, even by the time the suit was filed and I.As were taken up for hearing, construction has already commenced. Though an order of

¶14

status quo was passed on 09-04-2003, after hearing both the parties, this Court passed a detailed order on 25-04-2013, directing that

¶15

it shall be open to the respondents to proceed with the construction, but they shall not claim equities, in the event of the suit being decreed, in favour of the appellant. A further direction was issued to the effect that the respondents shall not alienate the property, nor shall create

¶16

third party rights, until further orders.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the view that the same arrangement shall continue, till the disposal of the suit.

¶18

We accordingly dispose of the appeals with the observations made above; and the orders under appeals shall stand modified to the extent indicated above.

¶19

The miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶21

_______________________ S.V.BHATT, J.

¶22

Dt.01-07-2013

¶23

Sri Y.Anthi Reddy, v. Deepa Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Y.Anthi Reddy, v. Deepa Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pillela Mallikarjuna Vs Pillela Srilakshmi , Rami Setty Srilakshmi

Nemani Ramalakshmi Vs Bokka Satyanarayana

Aruri Laxmaiah, Vs Vemula Satya Murthy

Sri Y.Anthi Reddy, Vs Deepa Tiwari

Venigalla Pullaiah Vs Golla Venkata Krishna

Varada Jayalakshmi Vs M/S.Sri Padma Enterprises Guntur