Appeal against an order rejecting a revision when a civil suit on title is pending. The Court held that disputed title questions must be resolved in civil court, so the Writ Appeal was dismissed without interfering.
Writ appeal dismissed. Liberty to pursue civil suits remains unaffected. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THETWENTY THIRDDAYOF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEFJUSTTCESATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTTCEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1023 OF2007
Writ Appeal under clause15 of the Letters Patentagainst order dated 1 8-07-2007in WP No.12121 of 2007 on thefile of the High Court.
Betwee n:
Smt.B,Laxmi,, Wo B.SubramanyeswaraRao'Housewife R/o H No'5-153/1, Chandanagar Village, SeriLingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District'
...APPellanUWrit Petitioner
AND
(LRs 6 to 8 of the deceased RespondentNo 4 qre -bloqg.ht.gLt9.colq3^t,P9l-, bourt orderdated 18_12_2012in wAMp No.2387t2O12in wA No.1023/2007)
...RESPONDENTS
7
WAMP. NO: 2065 OL2007
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affirJavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to suspend the impugned order dated 17-12-2005passed by the respondent No.1in Appeal Case Nos D5/7408/2003 D5/7409/2003 and DSl87O5l2003 pending disposal of the writ appeal.
WAMP. NO: 2066 OF 2007
Fetition 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 to receive;
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S-ASHOK ANAND KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI Ch.DHANAMJAYA
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI P.KALYAN RAM
Counselfor the Respondent Nos.6 to 8: None Appeared
The Cor:rt made the following: ORDER
---lt
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEFJUSTICESATISH CIIANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEABHINAND KUMARSHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL !to.1O23 of 2OO7
JUDGMENT, rp" tthe Hon'btetha chielrusnce satishchand.astlrmal
The present writ appeal is arising outof an order, dated 18.07.2OO7 passed in W.P.No.12l2l of2OO7 by the learnedSingle Judge.
The facts of the case reveal that the appellant/petitionercame up before this Court stating that shehas purchased a plot bearing No.27 lPart, admeasuring 150square yards and aplot No.28, admcasuring 2OO square yards in surveyNo.317/ I and 318 respectively situated at Chandanagar Village,Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from oneSmt. Krishnaveni, B.Venkataramana Reddy and N.Ramachandraiahvide registeredsale deed dated 05.06.2002. It has beenfurther stated that orrc B.Shyam started intcrfering with the appellant/petitioner'spossession and thercfore , she preferred a civil suit - O'S.No.1322 of 2OO7before the Principal .Junior Civil Judge, RangaReddyDistrict and along u'ith rhc said suit, she has also filed an interlocutoryapplication for grant of injunction. The interim injunctionwas granted on 26.O4.2OO7 lt has bcen further stated that a complaintu'as arlso m:rdeinthe maltcr bv B.Sh1'am t.o the police and the appellant/petiliotrcrn'as I callcd by' P.S,, Chandanagar along with thc documentsThcI
l
documents were shown to thepolice. The appellant/petitioner came to know that B.Shyam and B.Mohan, who were the respondents4 and 5 in the writ petition were claiming themselves to be sons of late Anantha Ram, who was the original owner of the entire land a<lmeasuring Acs.25.03 guntas in survey Nos.315/1, 316ll,3l7/1 and 318/ I of Chandanagar Village. It also came to the light of the appellant/ petitioner that the respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition herve also obtained succession certilicate in O.P.No.5 of 1998 from the Principal .Junior Civil Judge (West and South), Ranga Reddy District in respect of bank account of Vijaya Bank, Chandanagar Branch. Based upon the succession certificate, they also liled an application before the Deputy Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer for mLltation of their names. The facts further reveal that M/ s.Samir More, Sunil More and Tara More and others preferred appeals before the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Chevella Division in res;pect of mutation and an order was passed on 27.O8.2OO3 holding that the amendment of rccord of rights incorporating the names of M/ s.Samir Morc, Sunil More and Tara More was erroneous. Thereafter, a revision u'as preferred before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District iLnd hi: has rejected the revision by an order dated 17.l2.2oos on rhc grouncl that a civil suit, O.S.No.932 of 2OO2, is pending. As thcrc \,as a serious dispute in respect of title between
:)
the appellant/petitioner and the private respondents,the learned Single Judge has granted liberty toget the issue resolved in civil suit. In the considered opinion of this Court, incase disputed question of titte is involved, a proper remedy is tofrle a civilsuit, where all disputed questions of factscan be resolvedand declaration of title can also bc obtained.Insofar as the revenue proceedingsare concerned, they are certainlydependentupon the judgmentand decree passed in civil suit and therefore, thisCourt is also of the opinion that keeping in view thepeculiarfactsand circumstances o[ the case, as the civil suits are alreadypending betweenthe parties, the question of interference in thewrit appeal does not arise.
The vgrit appeal is accordingly dismissed.However, it is made clear that the observations madeby the learnedSingle Judge or by this Court u'ill not come in way ofparties inrespect of the civil suits u,hich are pcnding and the trial Court shall befree to proceed ahead in accordance with law.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,shall standclosed' Thr:rc shall be no order as to costs.
SD/-M.RAMANAKRISHNA DEPUTY-REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// rt SECTIdN OFFICER
To,
2 b; cc ro SRI sASHoKANAND KUMAR,AdvocatetoPUCl
-t, tlkt^)-X
HIGH COURT
DATE):2310312022
JUDGIVIENT
c
(
[s $P NII
WA.No.1023 of 2007
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
t
h\L
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Honble High Court can interfere with the revenue order when a civil suit regarding title is pending between the parties.
Smt. B. Laxmi
The Joint Collector-ll
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division
The Deputy Collector & Mandal Revenue Officer
B. Shyam
B. Mohan
Satish Chandra Sharma
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
