Allowed

Ravi Raj Boda v. Madu Goutam Goud

Telangana HC25 Mar 2022CMA/113/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a dismissal of an interim injunction application. The court held that the trial court must independently adjudicate framed issues in the main suit for specific performance, uninfluenced by its findings on title in the interim order.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to independently adjudicate the framed issues in the Suit.

Ravi Raj Boda Vs Madu Goutam Goud — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR, JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL N O:113 OF 2022

¶7

Appeal Under Order XLlll Rule 1 r/w. Sec. 104 of C.p.C. aggrieved by the orderdated24-11-2021 inl.A.No.353o'f 2021 inO.S.No.Bl of 2021 onthefileof the Court of the V Additional District Judge, t/edak at Sangareddy.

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

Ravi Raj Boda, S/o.B.Chithambaram, Hindu, aged 43 years, Business, H.No. 1.1-5431 , Lakdi-Ka-Pul, Hyderabad ..APPELLANT ( Petitioner /Petitioner /

¶10

..APPELLANT ( Petitioner /Petitioner / Plaintiff )

¶11

AND

¶12

It4adu Goutam Goud, Sio.tr,/.Babu Rao, Hindu, aged 38 years, r/o.H.No.83-79, HUDA Colony, Chandanagar, Hyderabad

¶13

2 Banda Madhukar Reddy, S/o.Krishna Reddy, Aged 34 years, Occ. Business, r/o.H.No.2-69, Ameenpur Village, Patancheiuvu Manddl, Sangareddy District.

¶14

3 Balagouni Mallesham Goud, S/o.Narayana Goud, Aged 54 years, Occ.Business, r/o.H.No.'1-14l1 , Eedulanagulapalle Viilage, Ramachand rapu ram Mandal Sangareddy District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents/ Defendants

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition underOrderXXX|X Rules l and2 R/w. Sec.'1 51 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant lnterim Order of lnjunction restraining the Respondents from either alienating or transferring or conveying the Schedule Property to any third partres, pending disposal of the CMA.

¶18

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES.

¶19

SUIT SCHEDULE-A PROPERTY.

¶20

Agricultural land in Sy.No.135/39/AA5 Ac. 0.18.5 Gts. Situated at Eed ulanagulapalle village, Ra mach a nd ra pu ra m lvla nd a l, Sangareddy District which is bounded by.

¶21

East. Part land of Sy No. 135/39, West. Part land of Sy No. 135/36, North . Part land of Sy. No. 1 35/39, South . Part land of Sy No. 135/40,

¶22

SUIT SCHEDULE.B PROPERTY

¶23

Agricultural land in Sy No. 135/30/AA Ac. 0-10.5 Gts. situated at Eed ulanagulaDalle village, Ramachandrapuram [\rlandal, Sangareddywhich is bounded by.

¶24

East. Part land of Sy No. 135/39, West. Part land of Sy No. 135/36, North . Part land of Sy.No. 135/39, South . Part land of Sy No. 135/40,

¶25

SUIT SCHEDULE.C PROPERTY

¶26

Agricultural land in Sy. No. Sy No. 134/41lA5 A3 A2 Ac 0-10 Gts. situated at Eedulanagulapalle village, Ramacha nd rap u ra m [Mandal, Sangareddy which is bounded by. East. Part land of Sy No.^.134, West. Part land of Sy No. 134, North . Part land of Sy.No. .1 34, South . Part land of Sy No. 134,

¶27

Counsel for the Appeilant: SRI. p. RAJESH BABU

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L. VENKATESHWAR RAO The court detivered the roriowing:lu;iiil?i{T'

¶29

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶30

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEA L No.113 O F 2022

¶31

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'bre Dr.SA,J)

¶32

This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the order, dated 24,11.2021, passed in i.A,No.353 of 2O2L in O.S.No.B1 of 2O2L by the learned V Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, wherein, the subject application filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking to grant temporary injunction. restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the Suit, was dismissed.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that while dealing with the subject matter of LA.No.353 of 2021, the Court below had gone into examination of the title of the respondents/defendants and had decided certain issues, which are not relevant for the purpose of dqtermination of the subject I.A. The Court below has

¶35

Dr.SA,J &^JS'J C.M.A.No^{l 13 of 2022}

¶36

recorded^{certain findings in relation to title of the subject} property i.e.,^{inam land, Government land etc' The Court} below^{ought not have goneinto those issuesand determined} the same^{and ultimately, prayed to directthe Court below to} independently^{determine all the issues that are framed in the} -rubject^{Suit filed for specific performanceof contract'} uninfluenced^{by any of the observationsmade in the} impugned^order.

¶37

4.ThereiSnomuchdisputewithregardtothequestions that are^{determined by the Court below in the impugned} order.^{Anyhow, once the evidence is recorded and documents} are marked^{by both the parties in the Suit' the Court has to} independently^{examinethe issuesframed and answerthem'}

¶38

Under^{these circumstances, the Court belowshall} independently^{adjudicateand determinethe issuesframedin} the subject Suit,^{strictly in accordancewith law' uninfluenced} by the findings^{recordedby it in the impugned order' dated} 24.7t.202L,^{passedin I.A.No'353 of 2O2t in O'S'No'81of} 2o2tinrelationtothecharacter/natureofthesubject property, and expedite^{the disposal of the subject Suit'}

¶39

¶40

Dr.SA,J & JS,J C.I,t.A.No.1 l3 of 2022

¶41

¶42

¶43

With the above observations, the Civil Miscellaneous

¶44

Appeal is disposed of,

¶45

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal

¶46

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

,TRUE COPY//

¶48

SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR V SECTION OFFICER

¶49

Tot. The V Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy 2. One CC to SRl. P. RAJESH BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRl. L. VENKATESHWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] a. Two CD Copies 5. One Spare Copy sbr Kul *,V,//'S

¶50

HIGH COURT

¶51

DATED: 2510312022

¶52

( $9 SIaI5:
,d
I oo 2 1 APf, ?n22 L
o
t oPQ

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

CMA.No.113 of 2022

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

6
E/ <br>

Ravi Raj Boda v. Madu Goutam Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Raj Boda v. Madu Goutam Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shah Jahan Begum Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Sri S.Mahesh Kumar Vs Smt. S.Gayathri

Kalyani Sumalatha Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Obilisetty Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Manekar Beju Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Bonathu Snehalatha Vs The State of Telangana