Dismissed

Adresh Dev v. Krishna Murthy

Telangana HC5 Jan 2021CMA/246/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunctions against construction and alienation of disputed land were refused for want of a prima facie case and balance of convenience. The Court dismissed both appeals and vacated interim status quo orders, while directing that the suit be decided independently of the tentative findings.

What did the court decide?

The vacate application was allowed and the interim status quo orders in both appeals, including the order against respondent no.43, were vacated.

Adresh Dev Vs Krishna Murthy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

lnterlocutorv Ao plication No.1 ot 2021 in lnterlocutorv Application No.4 of 2 20 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.246 of 2020 And Civil Misce llaneous Aooeal No.246 of 2020 And Civil Miscellaneous A^ppeal No.248 of 2020

¶7

cMA.NO.246 0F 2020:

¶8

¶9

Appeal Under Order XLlll Rule 1 of CPC against the order/decree in 1.A.No.379 of 2017 in O.S.No.394 of 2017 dated 06.06.2020 on the file of the Court of the XtV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar.

¶10

Between:

¶11

1.Adlesh Dev,S/o.late^SureshBabu, Aged about 47Years,^{Occ:Bttsiness,} No.l^{-2-217I 1612,StleetNo.1 2,Domalguda,} Hyderrrbad.
2.Rahul Dev,^{S/o'lateSr-rreshBabu,} Aged about⁴⁵Years,^{Occ:Advocate,} R/o.1-2-217116/2,^{StreetNo.2,Domalguda,} Hyderabad. 'APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFF^S' AND
I(rishnaMurthy,^{S/o.late iRangaiah,} Ap.ed68ve"r.,O..,^{Service,R/o'D'No'} r-'t-izoli,Nuilakunta,^HydLlabad44' 1 1
2.Srt AzeemKhan ^S/o.S edI(han, Aged73 ^yeals,^occ: ort.EmplgYee, Wo.8-1-332/3/ ^N146, Nagar CoionY, 'folloichowki,HYderab 5 0008.
3.Srnt. Jeelani^{Begum,Wo'SriAzeemKhan'} Aged65^{years, Occ: Flousewife,RJo'D'No'} S-t^{-l':Ztlt N t q6,AlvindNagarColony'} Tolioichowl<i,^{Hycierabad-500008} 4.Sri lbrahim^{ShareeLs'o.SrikJaffer Sharee['} Aged63^{yeat's,Occ: Business,R/o'D'No'} g-q-nZtCtZ,ChabraEnclave,SevenTombs Tolloichowki,^{HYderabad-500008}

i':l'

it |^.1

	rr-*-
:-l	t I{t' I
2 q-, 5.,\4/s.Agamithra,projectrep. by p.Venkata Srinivasulu,Slo.Srii.C,v.ifur.,unoiJ.ua 1J,r_lr.^{Occ:Business,R/".FI;i}N;:;;i"" 1^{.to9!AryaMitr.a pearl}Castle,alkupoo. Township,Nek.nampurU,,,,-.;.ri.l NrgarMandal,R.i.Oist.,Te.langana.	1<a A F 16.S / r I I I I I l
6.G,S.u.menderReddy, S/o.p.M.Canapathi I:^o1r;1-^{s],"_u,.,,o..,s.*i..i-'"'} lvo.5-0_552.Gun[oundry.Hyderabad_1.	17.1 ! I ) I I
7SriJasti SainauiCtranara,,;"r;;;r,; Eshwarprasad,aged5iv.".r,oi.,iiir,*". R/o.PIot No.72, RoadNo Hva.rauia-::l'^{"-o"'ru'9'JublieeHills'}	"( I lo( IO.r I l t
8.SriR.ShivaSharatReddy, S/o.SriR.pra gi:::-:ii'iffi'r,::;"",:.., b ls, li	I 19.
9.Smt.R.Neeraja, Wo.R.Ramesh, D/o.G. Krishna Murthy,aged 30years,ucc:Housewife. wo.H.No.r_r_313r,S;ir_.e*jir;".,", upp:Big BazaarRTCxn"'"1.-fyi.?ura_zo.	20. i
,o PIH:IYrsore.^{RASMECCGBranch,} r_tIoor,Said TaraTow Ilyderabad. ers'Nallaktrnta'	2t. I I i i
ILSmr.,G.Shailaja.Wo.SriG.V.Bhaskar l1.o9l,::e:a^25years,Occ:Househotd, ,1,1[]:01^t '88/2/3' AcrriReddvNagar.	22 i i l
l2Smt.ApadmaLarha,Wo.A.SrinivasReddv rrged30 years,Househo Na'ayanaguda,r;;..Jj3: R/oH.No.3-a-ai.	II I
Venkateshadav	23
',^t^?=,,n y,s/o.Balla $tfri?li.1}'ifrgili*, i	24 ) i l I
I
'fliifi#?.Jl:iH":riE:jii;:, [Xy:^1q"0 38)cars,bcc:Business, rwo.(achrgudaXRoads.HVa.Lua.. l	25

I 5.A.Srinivasa l{eddy, S/o.A.V.Ramanareddy, ,^{Aged4l years,Occ:Business,}

¶21

' ,i R/o.Kachiguda X Roads, Uyderabad,

¶22

i6.Sri A.Ramesh, S/o,Sri R.Kanakaiah, Agcd 38 years. Occ: Business,

¶23

:t,

¶24

r R/o,Kachiguda X Roads, Hyderabad.

¶25

I 7,lWs. Sluee Maheswari Builders and Developers l . Sri K.Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.K.Laxma Reddy,aged 48 years, Occ: Business, R^/o.Flalt No. 1 02, Srinivasa Homes, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad-s000,l I.

¶26

I 8.Sri K.Ashok Yadav, S/o. K. Venkataiah yii<luv Aged 42 years, Occ: Businejs, IVorI{.No.

¶27

4-42, Narsingi Vitlage, Rajendr.a Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Disrricr.

¶28

i l.Or.Seji anti Nithin I(umar, /o.D.B.SatyanaRayana Rao, aged 42 years cc: Doctor IVo.Plor No.369, Road No. ,^Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad-500 033.

¶29

20.Dr.Shmti Sripati, W/o.Dr.Bejjanki Nithin I(umar, aged 37 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o.Plot No.369, Road No.24, Jubliee I{ills, Hy,delabad-500 03 3.

¶30

21.Smt. Dcvulapally Vaidehi, Wo.Sri Rajendra Kumar, aged 34 yeals, Occ: I{ousehold, RJo.3-4-381, Lingarnpally, Behind Basanth Talkies, Hyderabad.

¶31

22,Smt.l{udra Raju Lldra, Wo.R.Vij aya Bhaskar, Aged 35 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Flat No. 19E, Renuka Apartn.rents, Anand Nagar, Khairathabad, Hyderabad-5 00 004.

¶32

23.Sli Vemulapalli Chandla Sekhar, S/o.V.Venkafeshwara Rao, aged 3 5 years, Occ:Business, R/o.9-4-86/3 I 0, Salarj ung Colony, Hyderabad.

¶33

24.Smt.V.Sailaj a, W/o.V.V.Ravindra Kumar, Age 41 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.9-4-86/3 1 0, Salarjung Col6ny, Hyderabad.

¶34

25"Dr.K.Ashol< S/o.K.Kishan, aged 38 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o.Alipur, Jiagitiala (Taluk), Karimnagar District.

¶35

Li'

¶36

!r-

¶37

4S 37.Sri^C
26.Dr.PramilaDavidWo.Dr,L.H.David, Redi BJol
Aged73 yearsOcclPhsician .
, y, R/o.P16tNo.486,Road No.10,Jubliee Colo
Hills,Hyderabad-S00033,T.S. 38.Allu
27.Smt.K.Usha Rani,Wo.B.D.Lal,aged 49 Not
Years.Occ: Empioyee,R/o.11_10_106/4, Jubi
Vijaya Puri Colony, Kothapet,Hyderabad_35. 39.Ailt
28.SriB.D.Lal,S/o.SriBhima,aged 53 years, Not
Occ: Employee,fuo.1l-10-106/4, Jub
Vijaya Puri Colony, Kothapet,Hyderabad_35.
29.Chada LarhaReddy, Wo.ChadaRansaReddv
.. Aged6lyears,Occ:HouseholdR/o.i.No.
ll-10-249,VijayapuriColony,R;.;N".i. '
R.K.Puram,Dilsuklrnagar, Saroomagar:' A 1 K.'
, Hyderabad-500035. Ag
ii Rc
30.Sri V.Naveen,S/o.V.VishnuBabu il i
,u.ea Years,Occ:Student,R/oplotN";t;;;;i i42.1'A
.., Canaparhi^plaza.MasiclVeedhi,Lrbbi;;il Its
Vijayawadc.I(.ishraDisr.A.p. Sa
3I.Snrt.AfsarBegurn.Wio.SriIbr.ahim Sharect Si H
. i
lUo.94-133/C12Clnbralll
, ncave.Seven Iornbs. Tollichowki.Hyderabra_SOOOOS. I
,, ?I1?^{W/o.MohammedJawad} ae
,,0.,,y,yasrnccn, /lrrrcoJrourque.agcd 26 yearsOcc:Hil '"' pp
, otrsewc. R./o.9-4-i33/Ct2.CIabraEnclave,T;r;;' ^. " Adv
, Road,Tollichol,ki,Hyderabaa-SfjOOOS. Kha
33.Dr.MowaRajesh,S/o.Dr.M.L.K.prasad,
J4.Mr.MoovaRajeev. S/o.Dr.M.L.K.prasad. , dat, L
AgeoJJycars, Occ: Engineer,R/o.H,No. 5-87-89 lL-Iil' the l
,2ndane,r.pr;;;,;;;.
Nal I
35.Dr.C-Hanumanth Rao,S/o.C.Chalartraiah Aged67 years,Occ:Oo.ro.,nlo]f,a6'"", Nursing Home,Inkollu,pr;k;;;-Dll
, ul$:lltl}ldS/oJ ateN.Saryanarayana 1.
.y, neooy,agcd 55 years,Occ:Business, R/oH.No.t_92rj,SrreerN".i,[rt.ii,iy. Nagar Colony, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. evl I

¶38

¶39

r1 Sri C.Nagi Recldy, S/o,iate C.Narasiriha l' Reddy, aged 39 years, Oco: Business, R/o.H.No. 1 6- I I-16/1133, Sripuram Colony, Malakpet, Llyderabad.

¶40

¶41

-t

¶42

38.Allu Arjun, S/o.Allu Arvind, aged about Not known, R/o.Plor No.1 067, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, l-lyderabad.

¶43

39.Allu Sirish, S/o,Allr.r Alvind, aged about ' Not l<nown, R /o.PIot No. 1067, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills' Hyderabad Hills' Hyderabad Hyderabad

¶44

Jubilee Hills' Hyderabad Hills' Hyderabad Hyderabad @^{u [s.fitlio*og..-r t.!-..1 ,a} Pan-trv-,,.sL

¶45

40.AIlu Nirmala w/o.Allu Arvind, ac,ed about , ,6:'^"r^{;t"ue^ j'Prrt} ur Npt known, tuo.Plot No.tooz, no"aa No.+s, IY:"Y Reo. slo L.'L u v R'r...ono. rubireer-rirrs,Hyderaba,r ffi,Hi,n}:"n;\J ,,^ "'lr '

¶46

4l .K.Vasantha Aged about not Laxmi, known, Wlo. R/J.ii"ilui, Venk:rteshwar Rao,^{"'Mdq'lo,,uil-iag,€} s,^".*,"{S,;}Tlfilt}';q . l".,x-,.{o, "

¶47

Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. kuu'l"oG"d"J t v)d- c-..,s omd4'-

¶48

42.lWs.Green Trec Leasing & Trading, rep. by I" r n Trading, rep. by I" r n rep. by I" r n by I" r n

¶49

42.lWs.Green Trec Leasing & Trading, rep. by I" r n Trading, rep. by I" r n rep. by I" r n by I" r n f:'.1T.".T#-1 ',H3:5,r:lilitJ/"0't' '<^crcd "'Z '," n' ' " ' :i t '"') So

¶50

iHyderabad. Siliconr Country, Alpha 106, il ft.ondapur, ..RESPoNDENTS/ QA . I, RESPoNDENTSIDEFENDANTS. l.

¶51

lA NO: 4 OF 2020

¶52

Petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to implead the Respondent No.43 in the above CMA.No.246 of 2020, in the interests of justice and pass any other order or orders which this Hon'ble Court thinks fit.

¶53

lA NO: 5 OF 2020

¶54

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order directing the Station House Officer Narsingi to give Police protection for implementing the Order dt.13.08.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in l.A.No.2 of 2020 in CMA.No.246 of 2020 not to change the nature of the petition/plaint schedule

tsh*-

property pending finalization of the above appeal as the respondents willfully disobeying the order passed by this Hon'ble Court

l.A.NO.1 0F 2021:

Bewveen:

M/s. Rellance^{Bullders,a paitnershlpfllm,} . -' ;:';;,;;;.';;ilrs. M.srinivas^{rao S/o M'V Rama Rao'} n"riance Green^{village'Mokllavillage'} ",rir-r.i",if i[.nr"rpuirv^{Mandal,Ranga Reddv dist'} ..^{petitioner/RespondentNo,43}

¶66

AND

¶67

1, Adresh^{Dev, S/o late Suresh BabuAged about47 years OccBuslness R/o} izziitiotz^{street No 12 Domalguda Hvderabad}

¶68

2 Rahul Dev,^{S/o late Suresh Babu Agedabout 45 years OccAdvocateR/o} tZZtlttOlZ Street^{No 2 Domalguda Hyderabad}

¶69

1 Krishna Murthy,^{S/o latd RangaiahAged68 years Occ ServiceR/o D No} ian'lS Nallakunta^HYderabad44

¶70

2SrlAzeemKhan,S/o5r|AhmedKhanAgedT3yearsoccRetd^G^ovt En^{ptoy-.. nio} arr:zlllnirqo^{nrvindNaqar colonyTolloichowki Hyderabad500 008}

¶71

3 Smt Jeelani Begum,^{Wio Sri Azeem Khan Aged 65 vears Occ HousewifeR/o} O no at::Zl:/A/146^{Arvind NagarColonY TolloichowkiHyCerabad500 008} .1 Sri lbrahim Shareef,^{S/o Srik laffer Shareef Aged63 years OccBusiness} Rio D No^{g4l33lclzChabraEntlave seven TombsTolloichowkiHyderabad500 008} 5 M/s Aryamithra,^{Project rep by P Venkata Srinivasulu S/o Sri P C V} Ramanaiah aged^{41 y"rrc O.. BuiinessR/o Flat No 201 Znd Floor AryaMitra} p.rrt custtu llk.poo|.^-l'ownship Neknampur^{Village Rajender Nagar Mandal R R} Dist Telangana

¶72

6 G Sumender^{Reddy,S/o P M Ganapathi Reddyaged 5L years Occ Service} R/o 505? GunfoundrY^HYderbbadl 7 Sri Jasti Sai Ravi^{Chandra, S/o Sri Jasti Eshwar Prasad aged 51 years Occ} ersirui, n/o^{ptot No 72 RoadNo 9 JublieeHills Hyderabad33 '} I Sri R Shiva Sharat^{Reddy,S/o Sri R Prabhakar Reddy aged 39 yearsOcc} Buslness Rio 8268U8^{Road No 12 Banjara Hills Hyderabad34}

¶73

gSmtRNeeraia,W/oRRameshD/oGKrishnaMurthyaged30yearsOcc Housewife R/o H No 113131^{Sai Legend Lane Opp Big BazaarRTC X Road} Hyderabad20

¶74

10 Bank of^{Mysore,RASMECCCBranch Ls1 Floor SaidTaraTowers Nallakunta} Hyderabad

; J-

i'. t.Ixl t,{l I i frI

.-,

_ L-

r 1 Smt G Shailajalw/o^{s'i ,c vi ahaskarReddyagefl /5 years occ Household} iil *^{,iJ iui.liiiiiir'ih"aavlNagar Hvderabad:}

¶83

Latha,^{w/o A srinivas neddvAgedr3dvears HousqholdR/oH} ;; ;;;dma

¶84

*o lqql^{nr..rranagudaHYderabad}

¶85

t3 36/6/2/A Sri^Gowligoddi Balla^{Venkatesh Yadav' S/o Balla Nagaiah aped 35 virr'gt s1"'iitef iriv n,l'"a'r and Municipalitv vearsBusiness Ranga ReddvR/o} District 14^{M/s Disitech lnformation Telangana Statesvester'} '-'p^{9'?1G'yil::iT;"rXtil t' "}

¶86

nirrr,,^{n.aaviged 38 years Occ BusinessR/o Kachiguo} 15 A Srinivasa^{Reddy' Sio A V RamanareddyAged 41 years occ Business R/o} i-ac',riqr.,rla^{X Roads HYderabad}

¶87

16 Sri^{A Rarnesh,Sio Sri R KanakaiahAged38 years OccBusinessR/o} iachieuaa^{X Roads HYderabad}

¶88

17^{M/s shreeMaheswari Builders and Developersfifttlt;1;;i:'#ftti:l} li^ o ' ,".1 a.ddv aqed^{48 yearsoccBusiness R/o F} "of e*.npuf f v Secundera6ad500011

¶89

18^{sri K Ashok Yadav, S/oK venkataiah Yad.ay fsed42 vearsocc BusinessR/o} H No 442^{Narsingivilltst ;:;;;i;Nle'iI"1'na'rRJnsa Reddv District} 19^{Dr Bejanki Nithin Kuma, s/o D B satyanaRayana Rao aged 42 years occ} Doctor^{Rio Plot No 36e R;;'N: ili'uritt iiirt Hvderatiad500033}

¶90

20 Dr^{Shruti Sripati' W/o Dr Bejjanki NithinKumaraged 37 YearsOcc Doctor}

¶91

R/o Plot^{No 36e RoadN" iiitluri"""riillsHvderabad500 033}

¶92

2L Smt^{Devulapallv Vaidehi'W/o Sri n'j:l'dl1 Kumar aged 34 vearsOcc} a"intr''^{Talkles HYderabad} Household^{R/o 34381} ";;;;;iiu'eliina 22^{5mt Rudra Raju rncrra'w/o R vijava Bl1:li:liili::,il:;::?i'r!|,:1::!.[3}

¶93

"o"a rr"'r'i. igE Renuka Apartments Anand^Nagar oo4

¶94

oo4 Rao aged^{35 Years} 71 Sri Vemulapalli^{Chandra Sekhar'S/o Y} 'Y:ll'ttuth*ara 'o'.. ,.i''..ii ol"^{6oesdlo i'i'ijune coronvHvderabad}

¶95

)a Smt v^{Sailaja'w/o V V Ravindra Kumar Age 41 Years occ Housewlfe R/o '} 6oael:ilj'i''*,'ni^{cotonYHYderabad}

¶96

6oael:ilj'i'','ni^{cotonYHYderabad} )< Dr K 'Ashok'^{S/o K Kishan aged 38 years Occ Doctor R/o Alipur Jlagitlala} i-rlrt^{xrtttnn'garDistrlct} ?6^{Dr pramira t}ilt.Y,,:,,?J,irl.?rili$1'r1]3vears occ PhYsician R/oProt r.ro^{qso no.aNoAo rubliee H'::::::;;}

¶97

occ Emproyee^{R/o 1r.10106/A} ''1 q'rnt K usha Ranl' W/o^{B D Lal aqed49 Year} ":,;, i',lrt,^{pwl coionv rotnapet coionv rotnapetHYderabadr)}

¶98

i',lrt,^{pwl coionv rotnapet coionv rotnapetHYderabadr)} 28^{Srl B D Lal'} -S/o^{Srl Bhlma-aged<53 voart occ EmploveeR/o 1110106/4}

¶99

f --';1 nio^"' D^{:il,:l'ffi No 1110249.} ffi'#*i#**^{*1, i"'x',: !",'L'.," T x;tff [:x} i'r"roLn^{itu': *tderab a d 5 oo o3 5}

I I L

30 Sri^{V Naveen, S/o V VishnuBabu aged ?7.Y":l?Occ StudentR/o Plot No 6} Laxml Ganapatht^{ptazar',tasti'i""iiiituLp"tvlJavawadaKrlshna Dlst A P} 31 Smt^{Afsar Begum'Wo Srl lbrahlm SEl9"lAged' 59 vears Occ Housewife} No 9a733lCl2ci,aura^{Encr'"i'Idi"lii ii;'ui iolllchowktHvderabad500 008} 32 Smt^{Fatlma Yasmeen' W/o MohammedJawad Ahmed Slddlque aged 26} vears^{occ Housewifenl""'sj+ililiiz Cr''ut'Enclave Tombs Roadrollichowki} Hyderabad500⁰⁰⁸

¶104

33 Dr^{Moova RaJesh,5/o Dr M L K Prasad Aged 56 years Occ Doctor R/oH No} 58788 2nd^{lane LaxmiPuram Guntur}

¶105

-:?

¶106

34 Mr Moova^{RaJeev,S/b Dr M L K PrasadAged 33 years Occ EnglneerR/o H} No 58788 2nd^{lane LaxmiPuram Guntur}

¶107

35 Dr C Hanumanth^{Rao, S/o C Chalamaiah Aged 67 years Occ DoctorR/oEAC} Nur*Elnq Home^{lnkolluPrakasam Dlst}

¶108

sri N lndra^{Reddv, sio late N Satyanarayana Reddyaged 55 years occ} 3; Business R/o H^{No rezli'Si;-et ruo iralattriya NagarcolonyHabsiguda} Hyderabad

¶109

37 Srl^{C Nagl Reddy, S/o late C Naraslmha Reddy aged 39 years OccBuslness}

¶110

ai"^g x=o rorrr?/r::^{SrlpuramColony Malakpet Hyderabad}

¶111

3B,AlluArjun,S/oAlluArvindagedaboutNotknownR/oPlotNol'067RoadNo 45 Juhllee Hills^HYderabad

¶112

39 Allu slrish,^{sio AIlu Arvindagedabout Not knownR/oPlot No 1067 RoadNo} 45 Jubllee HIlls HYderabad

¶113

40 Allu Nirmala,^{w/oAllu Arvind aged about Not knownR/oPIot No 1067Road} No 45 Jubilee Hills^HYderabad

¶114

4l K Vasantha Laxmi,^{w/o venkateshwarRaoAged about not knownR/o Plot} No 1067 Road No 45 Jubilee^{Hills Hyderabad}

¶115

42 M/s Green Tree^{Leasing and Trading,rep by lts PartnerMrs Sanajana} sahani wo sunny^{sahaniaged,47 years off Jayaberisilicom countryAlpha 106} Kondapur Hyderabad.

¶116

¶117

Petition Under Section 151 of cpc praying that in rhe circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to vacate the status Quo granted vide interim order dated 05.01 .2021 in r.A.No.4 0f 2O2O in cMA.No.246 0f 2o2o and pass such other order or orders in the interest ofjus ce.

¶118

¶119

CMA,NO.248 OF 2020i

¶120

Appeal Under Order XLlll Rule 1 of CPC against the order/decree^{in 1.A.No.380} of 2017 in O.S.No.394 of 2017 dated 06.06.2020^{on the file of the Court of the XIV} Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar.

¶121

Between:

¶122

Adresh Dev, S/o.late Suresh Babu,^{Aged about47 years, Occ. Business,RJo.1-} 2-217 11612,Street No.1 2, Domalguda,^Hyderabad'

¶123

Rahul Dev, S/o.late Suresh Babu, Aged^{about 45 years, Occ. Advocate,Rlo.1-2'} 21711612, Street No.2, Domalguda, Hyderabad.

¶124

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS

¶125

AND

¶126

1 . Krishna tr/urthy, S/o.late Rangaiah,^{Aged 68 years, Occ. Service, R/o,D No 1-8-} 72615, Nallakunta, HYderabad-44.

¶127

Sri Azeem Khan, S/o. Sri^{Ahmed Khan, Aged 73 years, Occ. Retd- Govt'} - frnpOyee, R/o.8-1-332/3/AJ146, Arvind Nagar Ccilony' Tolloichowki, Hyderabad500 008.

¶128

Smt. Jeelani Begum, W/o.Sri^{Azeem Khan' Aged6-5 years, Occ Housewife,} - Rlo.o.flo 8-1-3i2131At146, Arvind NagarColony' Toiloichowki, Hyderabad-500 008.

¶129

Sri lbrahim Shareef, S/o.Srik Jaffer^{Shareef, Aged 63 years, Occ Business,} nlo.O.trto.^g:4-1331C12, Chabra^{Enclave, SeveiTomb's Tolloichowki,Hyderabad-} s00 008.

¶130

M/s.Arvamithra Proiect,^{rep. by P.Venkata SrinivasulqS/o.Sri P'9 V'Ramanaiah'} - ;;ea 45tdrs, Oci. Business, Fl/o.Flat No 201,2nd Floor, Arya Mitra Pearl C-astle, Alkapoor Township,^{Neknampur Village, Rajender Nagar Mandal,} R.R.Dist., Telangana.

¶131

G.Sumender Reddy, S/o.P.M.Ganapathi^{Reddy,aged51 years, Occ'Service,} FUo.5-0-552, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-'1.

¶132

Sri Jasti Sai Ravi Chandra, S/o.Sri Jasti^{Eshwar Prasad, aged 5'1-years,Occ'} Business, Rlo.'Plot No.72,^iRoad No.9,^{Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad-33'}

¶133

Sri R.Shiva Sharat Reddv,^{S/o.Sri R.PrabhakarReddy,aged 39 years, Occ'} Business, Fyo.8-2-681/8,- Road^{No.12,Banjara Hills,Hyderabad-34'}

¶134

L Smt. R.Nee raia, W/o.R.Ramesh, D/o.G.Krishna^It4urthy, aged^{30 years, Occ.} Housewife, RJo.H.No.1-1-3131, Sai Legend Lane, Opp. Big BazaarRTC X Road, Hyderabad-20.

¶135

Bank of l,4ysore, RASMECCC Branch, 1St Floor, Said^{Tara Towers,Nallakunta,} Hyderabad.

¶136

Smt. G.Shailaja, W/o.Sri G.V.Bhaskar Reddy,.aged^{25 years, Occ. Household,} R/o.H. No. 1 -8-588/2/3, Achi Reddy Nagar,^Hyderabad.

¶137

Smt.A.Padma Latha, Wio.A.Srinivas^{Reddy,Aged 30 years,Household,} PJo.H.No.3-4-45, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

¶138

Sri Balla Venkatesh Yadav, S/o.Balla^{Nagaiah, aged35 years, Business,R/o3-} 6l6l2tA, Gowligoddi Village, Serilingampally^{Mandal and Municipality'Ranga}

¶139

Reddy_District,^{TelanganaState.}

-i\

I /

F!-_ - _

¶144

\ 14.1v1/s. Dioitech lnformation Svester,^{rep. bv Sri G V.BhasiarE"OOStoE} " G.Allunj Reody, aged 38^{yelars,Occ. Business,Rl/o.KachigudaX Roads,} Hyderabad.

¶145

l5.A.Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.A.V.Ramanareddy,^{Aged 41 years, Occ. Business,} Fl/o.Kachiguda X Roads, Hyderabad.

¶146

'16.Sri A.Ramesh, S/o.Sri R.Kanakaiah, Aged 38 years, Occ. Business, RJo.Kachiguda X Roads, HYderabad.

¶147

M/s. Shree Maheswari Builders and Developers,^{Sri K.SatyanarayanaReddy,} S/o.K.Laxma Reddy, aged 48^years, Occ. Business,^{Fl/o.FlaltNo.102' Srinivasa} Homes, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad-50001^1.

¶148

18.Sri K.Ashok Yadav, S/o. K.Venkataiah Yadav Aged^{42 yearc,} Occ.^Business, Fl/o,H.No.4-42, Narsingi Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶149

Dr.Bei.janki Nithin Kumar, S/o.D.B.Satyanarayana Rao, aged^{42 years,Occ.} Doctor, Rl/o.Plot No.3 69, Road No.24, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad-So0 033.

¶150

20.Dr.Shruti Sripati, W/o.Dr.Bejjanki Nithin Kumar, aged 37^years, Occ. Doctor, RJo.Plot No.369, Road No.24, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad-S0O 033.

¶151

21.Smt. Devulapally Vaidehi, W/o.Sri Ra.lendra Kumar, aged 34^years, Occ. Household, Fyo.3-4-38'1 , Lingampally, Behind Basanth Talkies, Hyderabad.

¶152

Smt.Rudra Raju lndra, W/o.R.Vijaya Bhaskar, Aged 32^years, Occ. Housewife, RJo.Flat No.19E, Renuka Apartments, Arland Nagar, Khairathabad, Hyderabad500 004.

¶153

Sri Vemulapalli Chandra Sekhar, S/o.V.Venkateshwara Rao, aged 35 years, Occ.Business, R/o,9-4-86/310, Salaryung Colony, Hyderabad.

¶154

Smt.V.Sailaja, W/o.V.V.Ravindra Kumar, Age 41 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.9-486/310, Salarjung Colony, Hyderabad.

¶155

25.Dr.K.Ashok, S/o.K.Kishan, aged 38 years, Occ. Doctor, FVo.Alipur, Jiagitiala (Taluk), Karimnagar District.

¶156

Dr.Pramila David, W/o.Dr. L.H. David, Aged 73 years, Occ. Physician, Fl/o.Plot No.486, Road No.'10, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad-500033, T.S.

¶157

27.Smt.K.Usha Rani, W/o.B.D.Lal, aged 49 Years, Occ. Employee, R/o.11-'10106/A, Vijaya Puri Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad-35.

¶158

28.Sri B.D.Lal, S/o.Sri Bhima, aged 53 years, Occ. Employee, R/o.'l 1-10-106/A, Vijaya Puri Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad-35.

¶159

29.Chada Latha Reddy, Wo.Chada Ranga Reddy, Aged 62 years, Occ. Household F|/o.D.No. 11-10-249, Vijayapuri Colony, Road No.2, R.K.Puram, Dilsukhnagar, Saroornagar, Hyderabad-500 035.

¶160

30.Sri V.Naveen, S/o.V.Vishnu Babu, aged 27 Years, Occ. Student, Rl/o.Plot No.6, Laxmi Ganapathi Plaza, Masid Veedhi, Labbipet, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. A.P.

¶161

Smt.Afsar Begum, W/o.Sri lbrahim Shareef, Aged 59 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl o.9-4-1 331 Cl2, Chabra Enclave, Seven Tombs, Tollichowki, Hyderabad-500 008.

¶162

Smt.Fatima Yasmeen,^{W/o.Mohammed Jawad Ahmed Siddique' aged 29 years,} Occ. Housewife, R/o.9-4-133/C^{12, Chabra Enclave,TombsRoad, Tollichowki,} Hyderabad-500 008.

¶163

33.Dr.Moova Rajesh, S/o.Dr.M.L.K.Prasad,^{Aged 5Q years, Occ. Doctor, R/o.H.No.} 5-87-88, 2nd'lane, Laxmi Puram,^Guntur.

¶164

34.Mr.Moova Rajeev, S/o. Dr.M.L.K.Prasad,^{Aged 33 years, Occ. Engineer,} Fl/o.H.No. 5-87-88, 2nd lane, Laxmi^{Puram, Guntur.}

¶165

35.Dr.C.Hanumanth Rao, S/o.C.Chalamaiah,^{Aged 67 years, Occ. Doctor' F/o.EAC} Nursing Home, lnkollu, Prakasam Dist.

¶166

36.Sri N.lndra Reddy, S/o.late N.Satyanarayana^Reddy, aged 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H. No.1-9215, Street No.1,^KakathiyaN agar Colony, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

¶167

Sri C.Nagi Reddy, S/o.late C.Narasimha^{Reddy,aged39.years,.Occ.Business,} Fyo.H.No.16-1 f^-i6/133, Sripuram Colony,^{Malakpet,Hyderabad.}

¶168

38.Allu Arjun, S/o.Allu Arvind, aged about Not^{known, R/o.Plot No.1067,Road} No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶169

'L-

¶170

39.Allu Sirish, S/o A!]u Arvind, aged about Not known, Rio.plot No..1067, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶171

40.Allu Nirmala, W/o.AIlu Arvind, aged about Not known, Fl/o.plot No.1067, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶172

K.Vasantha Laxmi, Wo.Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about not known, Fl/o.plot No.1067, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶173

M/s.Green Tree Leasing and Trading, rep. by lts Parlner Mrs. Sanaiana Sahani, W/o.Sunny Sahani, aged 47 yearc, Off. Jayaberi Silicom Country, Alpha 106, Kondapur, Hyderabad.

¶174

..,RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶175

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI C.V. MOHAN REDDY, Senior Counsel For SRI E. V. V. S. RAVI KUMAR

¶176

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6,7,1 4,17,22,23,24,28 to 30 in CMA.No.246/2020 and Respondent Nos.1 4,6,21,22,24,28,29,42 in CMA.248/2020:

¶177

SRI M.V.S. SURESH KUMAR, for SRI CH. SHASHI BHUSHAN

¶178

Counsel for the Vacate Petitioner/Respondent No.43 in CMA,.24612020:

¶179

SRI K.S. MURTHY,

¶180

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1,8,9, 11,12, 13 & 25 in CMA.246l202O andfor the Respondent Nos.1,8,9, 11,12, 13 and 25 in CM4.24812020: SRl. S. SRIDHAR

¶181

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶182

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND

¶183

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶184

lnterlocutorv Apnlication No.l of 2021 in Interlocutory Application No.'l ol'2020 in Civil Miscellaneous Aprreal No.246 of 2020 and Civil Miscellaneous Aprreal No.2,l6 of 2020

¶185

and

¶186

Civil Nliscellaneous ApDeal No.248 of 2020

¶187

COMMON JUDCMENT: (Per Hon'ble SriJustice !r'1.5. Rarnachtndra Roo)

¶188

Both these Appeals arise out of the same suit betrveen the same parties, and so, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶189

2, The appellants in both these Appeals are plaintiffs ln O.S.No.394 of 2017 on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

¶190

The1, filed the said suit against respondents to declare that appellants and respondent nos.38 to 41 are owners ol'A' Schedule propenv; to direct respondent nos.l to 37,42 to 45 to deliver vacant possession of the 'A' schedule propefty; to pass a decree tbr nrnnclatorv injrrnction directing respondent nos. I to 31 ,42 lo 45 to r.lenrolish stnrctures raised b1, them in suit 'B.l to B.4' properties; and to grant a perpetual injunction restraining respondent nos.l to 37 and 42 ro 45 from selling or creating any third party charge or interest over the suit schedule propefty.

¶191

\ )

¶192

cma l,:ro&::16 i0-0

¶193

Schedule 'A' properly consists ol Ac.5.00 of lancl corrrprising 0.32 gts. in Survey No. l3l, Acs. l.l gts. in Survey No. 164, Acs,3.7 gts. in Survey No. l65 of Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal. Ranga Reddy District.

¶194

Schedule 'B.l' property consists of 1509 Sq.yds.; Schedule '8.2' property consists of 1025.15 sq.yds.; Schedule '8.3' property consists of 1582 sq.yds.; and Schedule 'B.4' property consists of 1582 sq.yds. , all located within 'A' Schedule property.

¶195

The casc of appellants / plaintiffs :

¶196

6, The appellants contend that an extent of Acs.2l.34 gts III Sy.Nos. l3 1, 163, 164, 165 of Narsingi Village belong to trvo brothers. viz., Neeiam Chukkayya and Neelarn Jaggaiah; that father ol appellants by name Suresh Babu purchased the hall-share ol Neelanr Chukkayya under a registered Sale Decd Ex.P.2 dt. 17.0-s.l97ll that the lather of appellants died in the year 1978 leaving behind appellants, their mother Smt. Triveni Devi and Sister Mayoor Jaiswal as his legal heirs and representatives; that under a Will dt.05. I 1 . I 975 executed by their father, the appellants and their other family members inherited the property; that there was a family alrangement dt.05.05.1989 whereby their sister was allotted 0.16 gts. in Survey No.l63 and she gave up her right in the balance land along u'ith appellants' mother, and that the same was recorded in a Memorandutn of LJndcrstanding dt.02.07.2006: that undet the said iarnilv qrrangelnent, their narnes have been mutated in the Revenue Records

¶197

MSR,J & TVK,J cma 246&248 2020

¶198

¶199

and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued to them. It is thr:s contended that on accoLlnt of relinquishment of their respective shares by their sister and their mother under a registered document bearing No.3737 of 2011 (Ex.R4 dt.9.12.2011), they became coo\'ners o1'the plopefty uhich devolved ou them after the death ol their iirther.

¶200

According to appellants, the remaining half-share of Neelam Jaggaiah was purchased by one Md. Mujtaba Khan under a registered Sale Deed Ex.R.3 dt.16.08.1976 and that Md. Mujtaba Khan sold the property to respondent nos.3 8 to 4 1 under two registered Sale Deeds dt. 1 7.01.2004

¶201

The appellants further contended that there was no partition betu,een Neelam Chukkayya and Neelam Jaggaiah, and the properry purchased by the father of appellants and respondent nos.38 to 4l remained joint; that appellanrs filed O.S.No.728 of 2009 before the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for partition against respondent nos.38 to 4l as well as their sister and mother; that pending the said suit, the sister and mother ofappellants gave up their right over the remaining 0.16 gts. in Sy.No.163 through a Release Deed No.3737 of 2011 [Ex.R.a]; and that the said suit was later compromised and then an Award was passed on 04.01.2016 by the Lgk Adalat and the Award of the Lok Adalat was also subsequently \ reg'istered on I1.0 1.20 l6 [Ex.pl9 = Ex.p.60].

¶202

cma 246&24E 2o2o

¶203

According to appellants, under the said Award Ex.p I 9=p60 dt.04.0l.20t6,rhe appellants are allorted Acs.34.l7 gts. in Sy.No.l3l. Acs. 16.64 gts, in Sy,No. 163 and Acs. 1.26 gts. in Sy.No.165, toraling to 4cs.2.27 gts. on the South_West comer of the land. and the respondent nos.3g ro 4 I were allotted Acs.2. l3 gts. in Sy.No. I 3 I. 0.15 gts. in Sy.No.163,2 Acres 0.05 gts. in Sy.No. 164 and 3 Acs.22.50 srs. in Sy.No. 165, totaling to g Acres 35.6 gts.

¶204

I0. It is the allegation of appellants that under the said award an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.l3l, 164 and 165 was kept joint amongst the appellants and respondent nos.3g to 4l; that appellants and respondent nos.38 to 4l had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dt.2I.l Z.ZO I 5 whereunder appellants would be entitled to 3 Acres out of 5 Acres, and respondent nos.3g to 4l together u,ould take 2 Acres out of 5 Acres and this is the properr), rvhich is mentioned in the plaint^,A' Schedule propefty.

¶205

I L The appellants also contended that one Krishna Murthy, with a nala /ide intention to grab the suit schedule propefty, Iiad forged, created and brought into existence an unregistered Sale Deed Ex.Rl dt.16.08.1976, and in collusion with Revenue Authorities he got his name mutated in the Revenue Records in 1994 in respect of suit schedule properties and the entries therein, and that this is illegal and against the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, 1971 as they were obtained without notice to appellants. II

¶206

MSR,J &^TVK,J cma 246&248²⁰²⁰

¶207

¶208

12,ltwasturthercontendedthatrespondentnos'38to41'after purchase of property^{from Md. MujtabaKhan, filedapplication for} mutating their^{names in the RevenueRecords;as the mutationwas} already done by the^{concernedMandalRevenue Officer in respect of} Acs.8.12 gts" in Sy.No.131,^{163, 165 in name of 1" respondent,} respondent nos. 38 to^{41 then preferredAppealbeforethe Revenue} Divisional Officer, Chevella^{in File No.C/1541/2004and the said} Appeal was allowed on 05.03.2005^{(Ex.P10) settingasidethe order of} the Mandal Revenue^{Officer;that the name of KrishnaMurthywas} directed to be deleted^{from the Records and his namewas also deleted} from Pahanies 2OOl-02 and^{his pattadar passbookand title deeds} rvere also cancelled.

¶209

13" It was further alleged that^{in spite of the said ordersand} cancellation of pattadar pass books^{and title deeds of KrishnaMurthy,} the' said Krishna N4urthy colluded with f{evenue Otflcials^{and got his} narle recorded in the Pahanies from 2002-03 till 2016, and these entries are illegal and non est. According to appellants, they filed objections before the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal and there was a rectification done and from 2015- 16 correct entry was made,

¶210

It was alleged that Krishna Murthy had illegally converted the said land into layout and sold it to various people and this came to the knowledge of the appellants when they got partition deed / Award -^{registered on 11.01.2016(Ex.Pl9=Ex.P60);that Krishna Murthy had} ') no right, title or inlerest and could not have conveyed any better title

¶211

9ttta7 z.+t)cxz.+o Lvav

¶212

to the purchasers and any sales effected by Krishna Murthy will not bind the appellants and the appellants are entitled to seek cancellation of the said documents as they are not parties to the same.

¶213

It was further alleged that alter obtaining an Encumbrance Certificate, the appellants went to the ptoperty on 26.02.2016 and came to know that respondent nos. I to 37, 42 to 45 have constructed plots and raised compound wall in a portion of the suit schedule property and the said construction is liable to be demolished.

¶214

According to appellants, the illegat constructions^{were made} in'B.1'to'B.4' Schedule^properties and^{whenthe appellants made} enquiries to respondent nos.2 to 37 ot^{26.03.2016,theyinformed} them that they had^purchased the^{same after verifuingPahanies} wherein the name of l" respondent^was still^{recorded;that appellants} then verified the Pahanies^{and made a complainton 07.05.2016to the} Tahsildar, Ranjendranagar Mandal^{lor deletingthe natne of 1"} respondent from the^Pahanies.

¶215

17, The appellants lurthcr contended^{that they filed an application} ibr cancellation of the illegal^{layoutrvith Hyderabad Metropolitan} Development Authority on^{26.03.2016,which is pending.}

¶216

It is the further contention^{of appellants that respondentnos. I to} 37 and 42 to 45 are trying^{to alienatethe property in order to create} litigation and hurdles with^{intentionto defeat the rights of appellants} and respondent nos.38^{to 41, and sincerespondentnos'38 to 41}

¶217

7 MSR.J & TVK,J cma 246&248 2020

¶218

intbrnred that the)- rvould not be in a position to join the appellants in thc suit clue to prior commitments, they were irnpleaded as def'endants in the suit

¶219

It is further alleged that respondent nos.1 to 37,42 to 45 denied the title of appellants on 26.03.2016, and so, the appellants are filing the suit for declaration of their title and recovery of possession.

¶220

The Written State nl cnt filed bv Res ndents 18 to 22 and 23 ad o nted bv res D0t) dent No,I and resoondcnt nos. 6. 8. 9. 1l to 17, 21. 22, 24 to 30 a nd 33 ro 37.

¶221

20, Written Statement was filed by respondent nos.1g to 20,22 and 23 r.r,hich rvas adopted by l'' respondent and also respondent nos.6, g, 9, ll to 17,21 ,2?,24 to 30 and 33 to 37.

¶222

21, It is the stand of respondents referred to above that respondent nos.l8 to 20, 22 and 23 have paid valuable consideration to their vendor and purchased their respective plots of land under registered Sale Deeds d1.04.06.2015 [Exs.p.36 and p.37]. They alleged that they are in possession of their respective plots since the date ofpurchase.

¶223

The respondents denied that though Neelam Chukkayya and Neelam Jaggaiah were owners of land in Sy.Nos.l3l, 164, 165 of Narsingi Village, they denied that they had equal shares. They also denied the allegation of appellants that their father purchased half_ share of Neelam Chukkayya under a registered Sale Deed dt.17.05.1972 [Ex.p.2]. They relied on the recitals in Ex.R.5 _ _'l Settlemenr Deed, dt. 13.05.200g executed by appellants wirh M/s. ) I{adha llcaltl, Corporation (lndia) pvt. Ltd., uhercin it is recited that

¶224

cma 2.16&248 20t{)

¶225

their father had purchased land from Neelam Chukkayya under a registered Sale Deed and also from Neelam Jaggaiah.

¶226

The respondents contended that appellants had suppressed material facts and came to the Court with unclean hands, and that Neelam Chukkayya did not deliver possession of half-share in all survey numbers as was clairned by appellants, and the^{appellantsare} estopped from contending contrary to their own admissions^contained in the said Settlement Deed [Ex.R.5].

¶227

24.^'fhe respondents contended that^{appellants' father did not havc} any right over the land^pulchased by^{respondent no. I /KrishnaMurthy} in Sy.Nos. 131 , 164, 165 and 168 and^{that was why in the Will Deed} executed by the father of^{appellants,there is no referenceto the} survey numbers which now belong^{to respondents.}

¶228

They contended that while^{under Ex'P'2 d1.17.05.1972, the} appellants' father had^{purchasedonly 17 Acres 39 t/z gls., the} appellants had wrongly represented^{in O.S.No.2l98of 2006that their} lather had purchased l9^acres 6^{gts., and tha! similar} misrepresentation was also^nrade in^{the ReleaseDeed Ex.R.:l} dt.09.12.20 ll executed by the^{sister and motheroftheappellants in} lavour of appellants, and^{this indicates that the appellants intendto} grab the property ofrespondents.

¶229

26, The respondents^{contended that Neelam Jaggaiah soldhis share} of land under two^{registered Sale Deeds, both bearing the date}

¶230

]\ISR.J & I VK.] cma 246&248 2020

¶231

¶232

16.08.1976, one executed in favour of Krishna Munhy for an^extent of Acs.5.25 gts. in Sy.Nos. 131A, 1644', 165.4 and 168A and the other for Acs.l4.27 gts. from Md. Mujtaba Khan; and the appellants are deliberately giving an impression that Md. Mujtaba Khan purchased the entire share of Neelam Jaggaiah which is factually incorrect.

¶233

It was contended that the father of Krishna Murthy is one Gudur Rangaiah, and the names of Gudur Rangaiah / Krishna Murthy were recorded as possessors in the Pahanies from the year 1977. They alleged that after the death of Gudur Rangaiah, the mutation was etl'ected in respect of the said property of Acs.5.25 gts. on 02.07.1994 in tlvor.rr ol his son Klishna Murthy and pattadar pass books and title deeds u,ere also issued to them

¶234

They contended that l't respondent divided the said land of extent Acs.5.25 gts. into plots as per Gram Panchayat approved layout [Ex.R.24]^{d1.18.02.1992,and} built^{a compound} wall to^protect the land, and the plots were then sold to prospective purchasers.

¶235

It was specifically alleged that an apartment building with aror-rnd 3 0 apartments is under construction and is in advanced stage and that the said consrruction is taking place over plot nos.1,22 and 2J adrretrsurjng 2409 sq.yds. rvhich belong to respondent nos.2 to 4, i l. 12, 42, 43, 44 which are being developed by the 5'r' respondent Ir was also stated that another structure was erected over plot no. 13. 1 )

¶236

cma l,16&248 20:0

¶237

It is contended that respondents / plot purchasers are ln exclusive and continuous possession and enjoyment of the land as absolute owners from 1976 and therefore the suit of appellants is hopelessly barred by limitation.

¶238

31, It was stated that Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority approval was also granted on 18.04.2016 and there was also applications and approvals obtained under the La,vout Regularization Scheme by some of the respondents/de lcndants.

¶239

32, It was contended that the appellants plal'cd tiaud^and misrepresented and have dealt with Iand in excess ol their entitlernent as per recitals contained in Settlerrent Deed [Ex.R.5] dt. 13.05.2008. Exchange Deed [Ex.R.6] dt.13.05.2018, Sale Deed fEx.R.7l d1.29.06.05, Partition Deed [Ex.P.60] and Release Deed [Ex.R.a] dt,09. 12.201 1 .

¶240

It was contended that the appellants cannot^{have possessionof} land more than extents recorded in the Sale Deed executed^{in lavour} of their father Ex.P.2 and they have^{no right overthe land in survey} numbers sold to Krishna Murthy.

¶241

It was further contended that^{appellants have set up a claim in} respect of Acs.2 l.14gts. as against their^{father's admittedentitlenrent} of l7 Acres 39^{t/z gts.,} and^{they had themselves alienatedAcs.8.2 gts'} of land under various^{documents, and their claimthat thel are in} possession of Acs. i 3.13^{gts., cannot be countenanced'}

¶242

::ll::

¶243

MSR,J & I'VK.J cna 246&248 2020

¶244

It was further alleged that the appellants have neither ownership nor title to the 5 acres described in the suit schedule, and they have distorted facts.

¶245

It was also further stated that there is no partition effected benveen Neelam Chukkayya and Neelam Jaggaiah on the date of execution of Ex.P.2 Sale Deed dt.17.05.1972; rhat the Revenue Records establish that both were in joint possession of the lands; and in the absence ol any partition between Neelam Chuklayya and Neelam Jaggaiah, Neelam Chukkayya could not have delivered possession ofthe half-share ofhimselfin the above lands to the father of appellant; that Neelam Jaggaiah is not a parry to the Sale Deed Ex.P.2 dt.17.05.1972, and that the Sale Deed Ex.p2 would not bind him.

¶246

After referring to entries in Revenue Records for the periods 1977-78 till 2005-06, it was contended by the respondents that the said entries would disprove the contention of appellants that their lather acquired half share in all survey numbe.rs in respect of an extent of Acs.2l.18 gts. and ir was also showed that Neelam Chukkayya did not deliver possession ofhalfshare in all survey numbers to the father of'appellants.

¶247

38, ir rs conrended that the terms ol. the Compromise betrveen \ appellants and respondent nos.3g to 4l show that rnischief was played against by them on the other respondents, and appellants and respondent nos.38 to 41 were aware that respondent nos.i to 37 and,

¶248

cma lJ6&lj1t l0t0

¶249

their predecessors in title u'ere in actual, undisputed and exclusive possession of the same for the previous 40 years. It was further alleged that appellants are guilty of laches and suppression of facrs and so they are entitled to the relief of injunction.

¶250

Interlocuton' Annlicatio Nos.379 and 380 ol2017^'.

¶251

The appellants filed Interlocutory Application No.379 of 2017 and Irrterlocutory Application No.380 of 2017 in O.S.No.394 of 2017 invoking Older XXXIX Rules I and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908: (a) for grant of temporary in.lunction against respondent nos.l to 37 and 45 restraining them lroni changing the nature ofthe'A' schedule land and the structures existing on 'B.1 ' to 'B.4' schedule lands till disposal of the suit; (b) against respondent nos.l to 37 and 4i rcstraining tliern fronr alienating or crcating an1'charge over the^',.' Schedule land and the structures existing on 'B.1' to 'B.4' schedule lands till the disposal of the suit.

¶252

The appellants reiterated the contents of the plaint in the said I.As.

¶253

The respondents filed counter affidavits in the I.As reiterating the stand taken by them in the Written Statements.

¶254

Belore the Court belori'. the appellants markcd Exs.P.I^{to P.65.} and the respondents rrarked tixs.R. I to R.40.

¶255

MSR,J & TVK,J cma 246&248 2020

¶256

:: l3 i:

¶257

The order dt.6.6.20 20 in IA No.379 and 380 of 2017 of the Court below

¶258

By separate orders, dt.06.06.2020, the Courl below dismissed Interlocutory Application No.379 of 2017 and Inrerlocutory Apolication No.380 of 2017 in O.S.No.394 of 2017"

¶259

After referring to the contentions of parties, the Court below held that the material on record shows that the suit schedule property \'as piotred and sold away by l" respondent since l99g till 2016 and all these transactions with structures raised by the purchasers were admitted by the appellants. It therefore refused to accept the contention of appellants that they came to know about the said sale and structures in the recent past.

¶260

It also observed that under Ex.p.60-registered partition Deed dt.11.01.2016, certain land was allotted to appellants and respondent nos.38 to 4l and the said land is adjacent to the suit schedule property; and so, the appellants would have ample opporlunity to see the de'eloprnents happening in the said land which was under.taken by the purchasers from the 1" respondent.

¶261

lr also observed Ex.R. I dt. 16.0g.1976 sale deed, being an unregistered transaction, in fbvor of Gudur Rangaiah (father ot respondent no.l) by Jaggiah, it cannot confer valid title on Gudur Rangaiah; that the said document was not immediately registered and had been kept pending registration; but it can still be looked into by the Court for the material purpose ofproving possession and nafure of \ lossession^by Gudur Rangaiah and other subsequent transfers of the

¶262

cma 246&248 2010

¶263

suit schedule land to other persons. It therefore held that the unregistered Sale Decci E,x.R.1 is admissible in evidence for collater.al pulpose to the lirnited extent of showing possession oi the l'' respondent's father;^.that the possessiorr of Gudur Rangaiah arrd thc stmctures raised thereon from time to time by the subsequent purchasers which are admitted by the appellants and which date back over a long period though not as valid owners thereof, would undoubtedly, amount to settled possession; and that this is also corroborated by the mutation proceedings dt.02.07.1994 which showed the name of I't respondent as owner ol the subject land till 2015

¶264

[t also observed that though the said rlutation proceedines rvcre set aside under Ex.P.10 dt.05.03.2015 bv the R.D.O.. Chevella. the said order appears to be passed under misconception of real facts.

¶265

it also held that Jaggaiah had sold his share of land to tw,o different purchases, i.e., Gudur Rangaiah [under Ex.R. I ] and Md. Mujtaba Khan [under Ex.R.3] ; that in Ex.R. l, the Southern boundary is shown as land of Md. Mujtaba Khan and in Ex.R.3, the Northern boundary is shown as land of Gudur Rangaiah; and not only the appellants, but also respondent nos.3 8 to 4 I , who are claiming land under Md. Mujtaba Khan cannot deny the fact that parcels of land sold under Exs.R. I and R.3 are different.

¶266

It also held that there is a recital in Ex.R.l that there^wasar.n prior Agreernent ol Sale dt.3 L 12. 1973 for sale of the land in l'avour of

¶267

MSR,J & TVK,J cn],a 246&248 2020

¶268

:: l5::

¶269

Gr.rdur Rangaiah, and that Gudur Rangaiah was already put Itl possession at the time ol the execution of the said Agreernent of Sale; that the said Sale Deed Ex.R. l, being more than 30 years, there is presumption of its valid execution arising under Section 90 of the Ilvidence Act, 1872 and these f-acts would show that the suit schedule land now claimed by the appellanrs is non-existing and it was the land which was actually sold to Gudur Rangaiah under Ex.R. 1 dt.16.08.1976.

¶270

It therefore held that all subsequent records of proceeding of whatsoever nature including Award of Lok Adalat d1.04.01.2016 and Ex.P.60=Ex.P.l9 registered Partition Deed dt.11.01.2016 are insignificant in law.

¶271

lt also rejected the contention of appellant thar Md.Mujtaba Khan actually purchased only Acs.l0.27 gts. as shown in Ex.p.8 and not Acs. 14. l7 gts. as mentioned in Ex.R.3 registered Sale Deed.

¶272

It also observed that the recitals in Ex.R. l4 to R.20 - pahanies ibr the period 1977-78 to 2004-05 show that the iather of appellants, viz., Md. Mujtaba Khan and Gudur Rangaiah, and after the death of Suresh Babu and Gudur Rangaiah, their legal heirs were in simultaneous possession of their respective lands.

¶273

It further observed that the fact of simultaneous entry of Gudur Rangaiah's name along with that of others fortifies the genuineness of purchase ofland by him. Because, ifthe purchase by Gudur Rangaiah

¶274

cr.ila 246&248 2020

¶275

was not genuine then Jaggaiah or the father of the appellants or. Md. Mujtaba Khan during their liietime w.ould havc ob.lected ro such entries and r.vould have taken steps lor deletion ol the sarne.

¶276

It also referred to Ex.R. l5 Pahanies for the vear 1985-86 wherein it was stated that the nature ol possession of the land by l'' respondent was by way of purchase implying genuineness of Ex.R. I dt.1 6.08.1976.

¶277

It observed that in Ex.P.10, order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella erroneously presumed that the executant of the Sale Deed of Gudur Rangaiah is Jaggaiah who is not a pattadar, and the owner and pattadar is Md. Mujtaba Khan overlooking the fact that Jaggaiah sold to both Gudur Rangaiah and Md. Mujtaba Khan, and it is for the Joint Collector. Ranga Reddy District before whorr Revision is filed to con'ect this mistake.

¶278

[t also obsen'ed that since there lvas a mutation in the narne ol' respondent in the Revenue Ilecold as per proccedings dt.02.07.1994, E,x.R. I Sale Deed can be said to have been regr"tlarized under Section 5-A ofthe Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar^Pass Books Act, 197 i .

¶279

57 . It also observed that the Award of the Lok Adalat dt.04.01^{.20 i 6} in O.S.No.728 of 2009 is not binding on respondent^{nos.l to 37 and} 42 because the land purchased by the l't^{respondent'sfather is} dillerent and distinct from the land^{purchasedby the appellants'father}

¶280

MSR.J & TVK,J cma 246&248 2020

¶281

and Md. Mujtaba Khan. It then discussed the decisions cited by the parties and held that the appellants are not entitled to any interim t c'ltc 1'

¶282

Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeals are filed by the appellants.

¶283

Events after filing of the Appeals :

¶284

On 13.08.2020, in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in C.M.A.No.246 of 2020, this Court directed status quo as on that date to be maintained by all panies until flurther orders.

¶285

On the same day, in LA.No.1 of ZO20 in C.M.A.No.24g of 2020, this Court directed stotus qxo as on that date to be maintained by ali parties, except respondent nos.l9 and, 20, who u,ere permitted only to lease out the suit schedule property, and not do anything else until further orders.

¶286

An application LA.No.4 of 2020 was filed by appellants contending that in violation of the status quo order passed on 13.08.2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in C.M.A.No.246 of 2020, the respondents had sold a portion of the suit schedule property to a third party by name IWs. Reliance Builders, a partnership Firm, and to implead the said Partnership Firm.

¶287

The said application was allowed on 05.01.202 1 and the said parly was impleaded as 43'd respondent in C.M.A.N o.246 of 2020.

¶288

cma_246&248 _2020

¶289

Pending further orders, on 05.01.2021, it was directed by this Courl that the said impleaded respondent shall also maintain status quo as on the said date in respect ofthe subject property.

¶290

LA.No.l of 2021was filed by the 43'd respondent to vacate the order dt.05.01.202 I in C,M.A.No.246 of 2020.

¶291

I.A.No.5 of 2020 is filed by the appellants in C.M.A.No.246 ol 2020 to direct the Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station^to give Police protection for implementing the order dt. 13.08.2020ⁱⁿ I.A.No.2 of 2020 in C.M.A.No.246 of 2020^{not to change the nature} ofthe suit schedule property.

¶292

66, A Memo dt.22.03.2021^{was filedby the appellants stating that} there was a compromise between^{the appellantsand G' Sumender} Reddy (6'h defendant in the suit / 6'h^{respondentin C.M.A.No.246 of} 2020) in respect of 1100 sq.yds in Sy.No.l3l,^{164, 165 and 168 ol} Narsingi Village which forms^part ol'B.2'^{Schedulepropertv and in} the said compromise he admitted^{that the appellantshave 28%oshare} while the 6'h respondent has 72Yo share^{in the said land, and neither} will question the right, title or interest^{of the other partyin respectol} the latter' s share.

¶293

Heard Sri C.V. Mohan^{Reddy, leamed Senior Counselfor Sri} E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar,^{counsel lbr appellants; Sri M.V.S. Suresh} Kumar, counsel for Sri Ch'^{Shashi Bhushan, counsel for respondent} nos.6,7, 14, 17,22,23,24,28^{to 30 in Civil MiscellaneousAppeal}

¶294

¶295

MSR,J &^'TVK,J cma 246&248 2020

¶296

::19::

¶297

t'r-o.246 of'2020 and respondent nos.l4, 6,21,22,24,28,29, 42 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.248 of 2020; Sri K.S. Murrhy, counsel tbr vacate petitioner / 43'd respondent in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.246 of2020; and Sri S. Sridhar, counsel for respondent nos.l, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 25 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.246 of 2020, and for respondent nos.l, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 25 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.248 of 2020.

¶298

Considerati on bv the Court :

¶299

The appellants contend that the original owners of the suit schedule property are Neelam Chukkayya and Neelam Jaggaiah, that they owned in all Acs.38.13 gts. in Sy.Nos.125, lTj to 131,, 163 to 165 and 168 of Narsingi Village, and the extenr owned by them jointll in Sy.Nos. l3 l, 163, i 64 and 165 ot Narsingi Village is Acs.2l.34 gts.

¶300

69, The appellants have also contended that Neelam Chukkayya and Neelam Jaggaiah jointly owned in Sy.No.13l- Acs.g.26 gts., in Sy.No.l63- Acs.1.26 gts., in Sy.No.l64 - Acs.2.32 gts and in Sy.No.165 - Acs.8.l4 gts. On this aspect, there is not much of a dispute between the appellants and respondents.

¶301

But, the plea of appellants is that in this Acs.21.34 gts. jointly ou'ned by them in Sy.Nos. l3l, 163, 164 and 165 of Narsingi Village, both Clrukkayya and Jaggaiah had equal shares in all sr.rrvey numbers 'l (e\actlv Ac.10.37 gts each); and that that the entire share ol land ol Jaggiah was sold by him to Md.Mujtaba Khan under Ex.R3

¶302

cnra 246&2.18 2010

¶303

dt.16.8.1976. These pleas are disputed by respondent no. I and the respondents claiming through him.

¶304

There is admittedly no documentary evidence of any partition by Chukkayya and Jaggaiah to enable us to know which land in which survey number to what extenr is retair-red b1, each of therr

¶305

12, But there is evidence on record ro show 1hat.laggaiah cxecutcd Ex.R. I - Sale Deed on 16.08. 1976 to Gudur Rangaiah, the father of i'' respondent-Krishna Murthy in respect of Acs.1.8 gts. in Sy.No.l3liA, 0.39 gts. in Sy.No.164/4, Acs.3.3gts. in Sy.No.l65/A and 0.15 gts ln Sy.No. 168/4 of Narsingi Village totalling Acs.5.25 gts.; and the said document was presented for registration on 16.08.1976, but was kepr pending registration for certain reasons. The said document was got impounded on 17.10.2010 and the complete stamp duty was paid thereon.

¶306

This document, having been executed more than 30 years back, the presumption under Sec.90 of the Evidence Act,1872 that it was indeed executed by Jaggiah and is genuine, is attracted. Sec.90 states:

¶307

"90, Presumplion as lo docnntents thirty years old.--ll'ltere un1 docttmenl, purporting or proved to be thirtl, lcars old. is produt'ed fron^{an1' custodl'whit'h thc} Court in^{the particularcasc consider.t}

¶308

nr, the Com"t Dtal Dresume that lhe .\itln.tlut"e antl every olhcr rl o h c nl u'hich orts to be in lhe han 111 o any^parlicular Derson, is in thol^p erson's handwrilint!.lnd. in lhe case of a documenl exec uled or atlesled. lhat il u,as dulv execulcd and altested hv the oersons bv u,hom il t) DO rts lo be execu ted ond atlested. " ( emphasis supllied)

¶309

MSR.J & I'VK.J cma 246&248 2020

¶310

it2l:i

¶311

ln Lakhi Baruah v. Padma Kanta Kalitar, the supreme courl explained the reason for believing a 30 year old document produced from proper custody to be genuine in the following terms. :

¶312

"15.^Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is founded on necessity and convenience because it is extremely dfficult and sometimes not possible to lead evidence to prove handwriting, signature or execution of old documents after lapse of thirty years. In order to obviute such dilJiculties or improbabilities to prove execurion of an old document, Section 90 has been incorporated in the Evitlence Act, 1872 vhich doe.s utt,oy y'ith the strict rule of proof o.l' privute Llo(umcnts. Presumption of genuineness may be raised if the dotuments in questiotl is produt'ed.fiom proper custot)1,. "

¶313

75.^'Ihus the Court belorv was prima facie correct in presuming the genuineness of Ex.Rl dt. 16.8.1976 and so the contention of the appellants that the respondent no.1 forged, created and brought it into existence cannot be prima facie accepted.

¶314

It is also admitted by the appellants that Jaggaiah executed Ex.R.3- registered Sale Deed on 16.08.1976 in favour of Md. Mujtaba Khan in respect of Acs.1.26 gts. in Sy.No.l63, Acs.2.21 gts. in Sy.No. 164, Acs.4. 13 gts. in Sy.No.165 and Acs.6.7 gts. in Sy.No.t31 totalling Acs.l4.27 gts. Later Md. Mujtaba Khan executed registered Sale Deeds dt. 17.01.2004 in favour ofrespondent nos.3g to 41.

¶315

7'7. It is important to note that the Northem boundary of the land sold by Jaggaiah to Md. Mujtaba Khan under Ex.R.3 is the land of

¶316

\ ' 1^tooo;8 scc 357, ar pags 362

¶317

cma 246&2,{ll 201(,

¶318

Gudur Rangaiah. Also, the Southern boundary of the land sold by Jaggaiah to Gudur Rangaiah under Ex.Rl is shown^{to be the land of} Md. Mujtaba Khan.

¶319

Thus, it is clear that Jaggaiah sold^{his share of land to two} different parties - Gudur Rangiah^{and Md.Mujtaba Khanunder two} different sale deeds Ex.R1 and Ex.R6^{on the samedate 16.8'1976,and} both these bits sold are^{physically different.}

¶320

79, This evidence prima-facie^{falsifiesthe plea of the appellants} that Jaggiah sold his entire^{share in the land to Md.Mujtaba Khan'}

¶321

I I E,xs.R. I and R.3^{are takeninto account, printa} .facic^they' show that Jaggaiah enjoyed^{Acs.20'12gts. (Acs.5.25 gts. coveredb1"} Ex.R1 + Acs.l4.27^gts covered^{by Ex.R3) out of the joint holding of} extent Acs.38.13 gts.^with Chukkayya.

¶322

So it cannot be^{said that each of them had equalsharein} Acs.38.13 gts^(of Acs.19^{.6 % gts each) in all survey numbers,which is} the plea of the appellants.^{Had the shares been equal, Chukkayya} would not have allowed Jaggaiah^{to sell more thanhis half share'}

¶323

82, The father of appellants.^{viz., SureshBabu' purchasedunder} E,x.P.2 - registered Sale^{Deed from Chukkayyaon l7'051972 onll} Acres 17.39 %^{gts. This cornprisesof :}

¶324

Sy.No.	Extentoflandi
	Acres -Guntas I
125	0-28^t/:
127	2-5'/,
128	0-t%

¶325

'.r1..

¶326

MSR.J & I'VK.J cma 216&248 2020

¶327

t29	1-4%
130	0-33
1 3 1	4-2%
163	0-30%
164	1-t2
165	3-39
168	3-2%
	Acs.I7-39^t/zgts.

¶328

83 Therefore, the claim by appellants can only be to the propefty belonging to Chukkayya purchased by their father under Ex.p2 tfi.17.5.1972, and nor ro any property which t'ell to share olJaggiah.

¶329

The mere facr rhat Ex.Rl sale deed dt.16.8.t976 executed by jaggiah in lhvor ol'GLrdur Rangiah, the lather of respondent no.l, is unregistered, means only that title under it was not conveyed by Jaggiah to Gudur Rangiah, the father of respondent no. l, ro the land covered by the said document; but it does not mean that the appellants will get title to the area covered by the said document.

¶330

The plea of the appellants that under Ex.p19-Ex.p60 award passed by Lok Adalat dt.11.1.2016 an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No. 131, 164 and 165 was kept joint by them with respondents 3g-41 of Narsingi village, and the said land is the suit schedule land, prima /ircie^cannotbe accepted because the respondent No.s 3g to 4l are onl;, glaiming through Md.Mujtaba Khan, who, as we have pointed olrt did not buy the entire share of Jaggiah. So even Respondent No.s 38-41 cannot have prima facie any claim to property attempted to be sold by Jaggiah to Gudur Rangiah under Ex.R1 dt.16.g.1976.

¶331

cma 246&248 2010

¶332

Under the guise of the Ex.Pl9:P60 transaction, the appellants cannot tlrerefore prima facie seek to maintain any clainr to Ac.5.00 gts of land out of Ac.5.25 gts covered by Ex.Rl sale deed dt.16.8.1976 by misrepresenting that entire share of Jaggiah was sold to Md.Mujtaba Khan.

¶333

In any event, any compromise between the appellants and respondent nos.38 to 41, as recorded in Ex.P.19=Ex.P.60 dt. 11.01.2016 in O.S.No.728 of 2009, will not bind the respondent no. I and others claiming tholough him.

¶334

Even though Ex.R. l dt.16.8.1976 is unregistered since it is properly stamped, it can certainly be relied upon for a collateral pulpose i.e,, to prove delivery of possession to Gudur Rangaiah and the subsequent possession of l" respondent, and purchasers from hinr. in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. ln

¶335

Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh2, the Supreme Court had declared:

¶336

" 5.... Under the law a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to the^vendee. However, legal position is clear law that a document like the sale deed in the present case, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into.for collateral^purposes. In the^{presenlcase lhe} collateral purpose to be seen is the nature of^possession of lhe plainliffs over the suit land.^"

¶337

'^(2oo.t )^{.l scct6t}

¶338

MSR.J & TVK,J cnla 246&248 2020

¶339

So from 1976,the possession of the land covered by the Ex.Rl was prima facie with Gudur Rangiah and later with his son the respondent no. I .

¶340

Admittedly, Gudur Rangaiah died in 1976 and the properry was inherited by Krishna Murthy (1't respondent).

¶341

The various pahanies filed by the parties from 1977-7g till 2009- i 0 shoq, the narnes ol Suresh Babu, father ol appellants and also Cudur Rangaiah, Md.Mujtaba Khan from 1977-79. They also show the name of Krishna Murthy ( I " respondent) from l9g2-g3. Later, the names ofthe appellants also appear in the place oftheir father Suresh Babu.

¶342

92, It is also the contention of respondents that the l't respondent approached the Gram Panchayat and obtained a layout Ex.R.24 on 18.02.1992 dividing Acs.5.25 gts. into 23 plots, and then sold the plots to various persons, and some of the plot owners even got their plots regularized under the Layout Regularization Scheme introduced bl the State Government subsequently under Exs.R.25 to R.36 issued by HMDA from 2011 rill 2018. Ex.R.22 _ photographs show nrassive str'rctures including commercial complexes located in the disputeci plots.

¶343

The^'l'rial Couft has also noticed that l sr respondent had executed registered Gift Deed on 08. 10. I 999 (Ex.p.29) in favour of 9s respondent, and her husband R. Ramesh had executed, representing 1

¶344

Digitech Peripherals as its proprietor, Ex.P.30 regisrered Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dt.30.05.2014.

¶345

94, The appellants cannot dispute the existence of structures in the subject land for considerable time or that registered transactions had taken place through the l" respondent dealing with the land covered by Ex.R.1 Sale Deed.

¶346

It is also found by the Court below that the subject land is adjacent to the land in respect of which there was a compromise between the appellants and the respondent nos.38 to 4l under Ex.P. 19:Ex.P.60 - registered Partition Deed dt. I 1 .01 .20 I 6 / Lok Adalat Award d1.04.01.2016, and that the appellants cannot plead any ignorance olthe existence of structures in the subject Iand.

¶347

96, On the basis ol the above material. the Court below^printcr lacie came to a conclusion that the appellants cannot claim to^{have cometo} know about the various transactions in respect of^{the 'A' Schedule} property and the structures therein only on 26.2.2016 prior to^the filing of the suit, and that the respondents are in settled^possessionof the land.

¶348

We also primafacie agree with the said reasoning.

¶349

It is the contention ofthe 1't respondent that^{the appellantshave} incorrectly mentioned in the Release^{Deedd1.09.12.201I} [Ex.R.a] executed by the sister and^rnother of^{appellants in their favourthat} Acs. 19.06 gts. was^purchased by^{their father. Prima} .facie^this

¶350

MSR,J & TVK,J cma 246&248 2020

¶351

contention appears to be correct because the father of the appellants had only purchased Acs. 17.39 % gts. under Ex.P.2 Sale Deed dt.17.05.1972 and not Acs.19.06 gts as is incorectly menrioned in the recitals in Ex.R4 Release deed.

¶352

After the I't respondent got mutated the suit schedule land in his f'avour through proceedings dt.02.07.1994 by the Mandal Revenue OfUcer, Rajendranagar Mandal, Respondent nos.38 to 4l had questioned thc same by filing an Appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P Rights in Land and Paftadar Pass Books Act, l97l before the R.D.O., Chevella, and the said Appeal was allowed on 05.03.2005 vide Ex.P.10 Order. In the said order, it is recorded that Neelam Jaggaiah is not a pattedar, and the owner and pattedar is Md. Mujtaba Khan.

¶353

This statement in Ex.P.10 Order of the R.D.O., Chevella appears to be erroneous because even the appellants admit that Jaggaiah and Chukkayya jointly owned the land originally, and that Jaggaiah sold to Md. Mujtaba Khan under Ex.R.3 Sale Deed. -l'heretbre, much credence cannot be given to Ex.p.l0, particularly rvhen the said order is now under challenge before the Joint collector admittedly.

¶354

We may also point out that the appellants had executed a registered Settlement Deed Ex.R.5 dt.13.05.200g in favour of l ilI/s.Radha Realty Colporation in respect of Acs.g.3g gts. in sy.nos.127, 128, 129 and 130 of Narsingi Village. The conrents of rhe

¶355

crr|a ?46&248 2020

¶356

said Settlement Deed indicate thar though under Ex.P.2 Sale i)eed d1.17.05.1912, the lather ol the appellants had purchased partjcular extents in these survey nurnbers, the appellants had settled and dcalt with more than the extents purchased by their father under Ex.R5 in

¶357

those Sy.Nos.

¶358

Extentpurchasedbyfatherof appellants andSy.No.	Extentsettledbyappellants underEx.RSinsaidSy.No.
Acs.2.5%gts.inSy.no. 127	Acs.2.33 gts.andAcs.l.30sts. inI sy.no.t27
0.1 %gts.inSy.no.128	Acs.0.04 gts.inSy.no.128
I Acs.1.a %gs.inSy.no.129
0.33 gts.in Sy.no.l30	Acs.0.01 gts.andAcs.1.30 gts.in Sy.no.130

¶359

l0l. I'his indicates prima Iacic that the appellants u,ere settling rnore land under Ex.R.5 dt. 13.05.2008, than thcir father purchased under Ex.P.2 on 17.05.1972.

¶360

102, We may also point that under registered Sale Deed dt.29.06.2005 [Ex.R.7], the appellants had sold to one M. Raghava Reddy an extent of Acs.3.11 gts. in Sy.No.168, but their father under Ex.P.2 sale deed dt.17.05.1972 had purchased only Acs.3.2^t/z gts. in Sy.No.168.

¶361

This also indicates prima facie that the appellants were selling more land under Ex.R.7 dt.29.06.2005,, than their lather purchased under Ex.P.2 on 17.05.1972.

¶362

MS&J &^TVK,J cna]46&248-020

¶363

..ro..

¶364

The^{aboveconduct shows that they have not come to the Court} n,ith clean hands.

¶365

105" The^{respondentno'43 had claimed to havepurchased611} sq."v-ds in^{Plot No.2 in Sy'No l3l,164' 165 and 168 of Narsingi} Village through a^{RegdSale deed executedon 23'3'2018 by the} owner thereof^{by nameM.Nagamani, who had purchased the said plot} through^{respondentNo.1 under a regd'sale deed dt'30'8'2004'It} claims to^{have obtained buildingpermissionon 8'2'2019 from the} HMDA and^{completed constructionof a building therein'It alleges} that though^{the appellants had filed the suit in 2017 and were awareof} the construction^{beingmade by this respondent'they had not chosen} to implead^{them in the suit;and that the appellantswaited till the} construction^{is completedand filed the applicationto implead it'} Prima lacie^{we find lorce in this contention'}

¶366

106" In this^{view of the matter the appellants cannotseek any interim} relief against^{the Respondentsincluding respondent no'43 in CMA} r.\o.246ol2020oragainsttherespondentsinCMANo.248of2020.

¶367

We thereibre^{hold that the appellants have no prima-faciecase} or balance of^{convenience and the courtbelowhad rightlydismissed} Interlocutory Application^{No'379 of2017 and Interlocutory} Application No'380^{of 2017 in O.S.No'394 of 2017 '}

¶368

Accordingly, the^{Appealsare dismissed; and the orders} dt.13.08.2020 in^{I.A'No'2 of 2020 in C.M.A'No'246 of 2020 and also}

¶369

.-tI

¶370

order dt,18.08 "2020^{in I.A.No.l of 2020 in C M A'No'248of 2020are} vacated; and Intcrlocutory^{Application No.l ol202lin C lvlA'No 146} o1'2020 is allowed,^{and the orderdt.05.01.202I in I'A'No4 oi2020 in} C.M.A.No.246 of 2020^{is vacated. No costs.}

¶371

109, We also make it^{clear that any cornpromise betu'eenthe} appellants and^{6th respondent in the Appeals is not binding on the} contesting resPondents.

¶372

ll0.Whateverfindingshavebeenrecordedbyusinthisorderare merelytentativeandfordecidingtheseappealsandtheCourtbelow shall decide^{the suit uninfluencedby these findings/observationsand} a so by the^{findings/obseruations rnadeby it in the Interlocutory} Application Nos.379^{and 380 of 2017.}

¶373

lll. Pending tlriscellaneous^{petitions' if any, in these Appeals shall} also stand dismissed.^{No costs.}

¶374

Sd/. K.SRINIVAS^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY// @

SECTION^OFFICER

To,