Dismissed

Mrs.Mamidala Ravi Priya Reddy and another v. Ganta Buchiram Reddy and 5 Others

Telangana HC16 Mar 2022WA/42/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment holds that rights regarding a disputed land property between two brothers must be decided in a pending civil suit. Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals were dismissed with liberty to the parties to raise all possible grounds before the trial court where the civil suit is pending.

Mrs.Mamidala Ravi Priya Reddy and another Vs Ganta Buchiram… — Partition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NOS: 7 AND 42OF 2o2o

¶6

wA NO.7 0F 2020:

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order Dated 28-08-2019 in W.P.No 18443 Of 2019 on the file of the High Cou(.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ganta Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Late Narasimha Reddy, Aged 48^years, Occ. Agriculture ,Rlo. 1-74, Old Correspondent 40-1-97, lvlamnoor Village, Khila Warangal Mandal, Warangal District.

¶10

...AppELLANr

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Revisional Authority And Joint Collector, Warangal^(Urban), Warangal District.

¶14

3 The Revisional Divisional Officer, Warangal (Urban), Warangal District. 4 The Tahsildar, Khila Warangal, Warangal Urban District.

¶15

5 Ganta Buchi Ram Reddy, S/o. Late Narasimha Reddy,Occ. Retd.Employee,No.9-22 Mahadevpur Road,Parkal Village and^lrilandal warangal District

¶16

...REspoNoENrs

¶17

lA NO:.'2 OF 2020

¶18

'Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

¶19

the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleasedto stay of the operation of the orders passed by the 3rd Respondent appellate authority in proceedings No. 4/291 112006, dt1810212017 which are confirmed by the 2nd Respondent Revisional Authority in Revision No. E3/565/2017, dl.^2410712019. fording disposal of the Writ Appeal

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J. PRABHAKAR FOR

¶21

J. VENKATESWARA REDDY

¶22

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶23

Counsel for Respondent No. 5: M/s. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES

¶24

WA NO: 42 OF 2020

¶25

Writ Appeal under clause 1 5 of the Letters Patent Prefened Against the Order dated 3011212019 passed in r.A.No.'l of 2019 in w.p.No.28878 of 2o1g. on the fire of the High Court

¶26

Between:

¶27

Mrs.Mamidala Ravi Priva Reddy, w/o Sri Meeraj Mamidala, aged about 55 years occ.pvt Service r/o rr,-Sce'nrc ,y M;;r'r"*r.nip]-r.r"I""i"*i

¶28

2 08831 Mrs.Kasarta Devakamma USA now at 301, Annapurna @ Devika, nestOehcy ,lo Sritha;d* Waaiepatty ht,iov, roait, ,igdd Wrianqii",,oiiii'oo yrs occ.. Housewife rto"2oz, A;n;pr;;^-RJ.ii"l"v Waddepaily road, Warangal.

¶29

AND

¶30

...AppELLANTs/3*, pARw/

¶31

'1. Ganta Buchiram Recrdy. s/o Narasimha Reddy @ Narsaiah, aged about 69 years r/o USA rep.by GpA Horder vasam verika-teswarru s/o L"axminr.lrrr,,I lrr rd I dvdr rd aged 39 yea rs r/o^j 6-3 -7 2s t 1 . err.irr* g"i, Fil;;;,Wr;;""1q^r

¶32

The Tahsirdar, Khira warangar wrrrngJi'Stbtjnoruo.eNneertrtdruER/PErlrloNER

¶33

The Revenue Divisionar officer waran"gat iu-ruanl, Waiangar Urban District 4. The Joint Coilector, Warangat UrUan Oistriti, Waiingat

¶34

The State of reranoana, ref,-by er.secretary, Reven-ue Dept., secretariat, Hyderabad

¶35

Ganta Satyanarayana Reddy, s/o Late_Narasimha Reddy, aged about 4g years r/o 1-74. Ivtamnoor (v) Khaita, Warangal ManOil, tt;;;"g"I U;b;;" District

¶36

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶37

lA NO: 3 OF 2O2O

¶38

Petition under section 15r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated

¶39

in the adidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders dr.3ot12/2019 passed in lA.No.1 of 20.19 in WP.No.28878 of 2019, pending disposat of WA.No.42 of 2O2O.

¶40

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J. PRABHAKAR

¶41

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: M/s. BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES

¶42

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶43

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGEMNT

¶44

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SIIARMA AND

¶45

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC E ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶46

WRIT APPEAL Nos.7 and 42 of 2O2O

¶47

COMMON JUDGMENTa Per the Hon'ble the ChieJ Justice Satish chandra sharmat

¶48

Rcgard being had to the conrroversy involved in thc. zrforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being decidcd by a common order.

¶49

The facts of W.A.No.7 of 2O2O are reproduced as under: The present writ appeal is arising out of order dared 28.08.20 l9 passed in W.P.No.18443 of 2019.

¶50

The facts of the case reveal that the present appellant - (l.1nta Satyanaravana Reddy and respondent No.5 - Ganta []uchi llam Reddy are real brothers. The dispute relates ro lan(l bcaring S_r,.No- 1O I /A admeasuring Acs.S.O2 guntas situatccl :rt NIlunnoor Village, I.lanamkonda Mandal. The facts furthcr 'rn'c:rl that the properfy was mutated solely in the namc ol(]ant.r Sitt-,'anarayana Reddy. Being aggrieved by the orclcr p:rsscr.l lrl the Revenue Divisional Officer dated l8.O2.2Ol'i. a rtvision r,r'ers preferrcd by Ganta Satyanarayana Reddv to thc .lrirrt Collcctor. Thc Joint Collcctor has passed orclcr clatcrl -2-1^{.07.2OI9.-rt1-irming} rhe orderof the Revenue Divisional Otfii.t.r

¶51

and in those^{circumstances, the u'rit petitionwas preferred} before this Court.^{Another important aspect of the case is that} there is a civil^{suit pendingbet'*'eenthe parties in respect of the} same property and^{therefore, the learned Single Judge has} declined to^{interfere r.r'ith the order passedby the revenue} authorities.

¶52

The undisputed^{facts of the case make it very clear that} two brothers are^{fighting in respcct of a pieceof land' An} attempt has been^{made by appointing a mediatorto resolve the} dispute amicably.^{However, the mediator submitted a report of} unsuccessful mediation.^{Meaning thereby, now the rights of the} parties are to be dccidecl^{in thc pcnding civil suit and therefore'} this Court,^{withor,rt expressingan-vopinion on merits, is of the} opinion that^{the writ appealclcservesto be dismissedwith a} liberty to the^{parties to raise all possibiegrounds before the triai} Court at Warangal^{r,vhere the civil suit is pending'It is needless} lo mention^{that the trial Court\r'ithout being influencedby the} order passed by the^{learncdSingle Judgeand by this Court} shall decide the^{civil sttits i.c.' O.S.No.542 of 2015 on the file of} the Il Additional^{Scnior Civil .Iuclge, Warangaland O'S'No'59 of} 2O1 lon thc file o[^{thc l)rincipzrlDistricl} '^{ludge, Warangal,based} upon the cvidencc adduced^{bY thc parties'}

¶53

¶54

¶55

With the aforesaid, both the writ appeals stand disposed

¶56

¶57

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶58

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

sD/-B.S.CHt JEEVI JOINT ISTRAR

//TRUE COPY// C

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1_ The Principal District Judge, Warangal. 2. The ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. 3. One CC to Sri J Venkateswara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 5. One CC lo [r4/s. Bharadwaj Associates, Advocate (OPUC) b- One CC to Sri J. Prabhakar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies 8. One Spare Copy MBC sbra,_

¶64

HIGH COURT

¶65

DATED: 1610312022

¶66

\ $E si ,}LC
<br>'9
tJ
!.) 2 6 JUL 2$12
:,| .n. 1,

¶67

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶68

WA.Nos.7 AND 42 of 2020

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS

¶70

0
1w

¶71

WITHOUT COSTS

Mrs.Mamidala Ravi Priya Reddy and another v. Ganta Buchiram Reddy and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Mamidala Ravi Priya Reddy and another v. Ganta Buchiram Reddy and 5 Others

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

K. Sammi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sharada Dondlapally Vs Pittala Venkataiah

Union of India Vs Kota Suvarna

Redapangu Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana And 7 Others

Kingshuk Nag, Vs The Chief Election Commissioner

M/s. Krans Projects Private Limited, Vs The South Central Railway (Scr)