Dismissed

K. Ram Mohan Rao v. Sai Kanna

Telangana HC2 Dec 2024CRP/923/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a trial court order under Section 151 CPC restraining land registration. Bench held closure of an interlocutory application without explicit dismissal words does not vacate the order, sustaining the restraint.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory application closing did not vacate restraint order; trial court order on land registration restraint is sustained.

K. Ram Mohan Rao Vs Sai Kanna — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN.THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:923 OF 2022

¶6

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia against the order dated 24-02-2022 in l.A.No. 47 ot 2022 in O.S.No. 82 ol 2014 on the file of the Gourt of the ll Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Mahabubnagar District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

K. Ram l/ohan Rao, Sio Late Ambaji Rao, Aged about.63 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Ambedkar Nagar, lt/lakthal, Narayanpet District.

¶9

...PETITIONERS/ Respondents

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . Sai Kanria, S/o Late Shankar, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Pvt.Employee, R/o Ramaiah Bowli, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶12

Goutam, S/o Late Shankar, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Pvt-Employee, R/o Ramaiah Bowli, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶13

Smt Preethisri, W/o Yadagiri, Aged about 40 years, Occ: house wife, R/o Ramaiah Bowli, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶14

Smt H.M.Sumitra Bai, Wo H.M.Suresh Babu, Aged about 53 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H,No. 13-2-387, Ramachandra Nagar, Anathapur, Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

Smt. Anasuya Bai, Wo Late Ambaji Rao, Aged about 85 years, Occ. House wife, R/o Makthal, Mahaboobnagar Diskict.

¶16

K.Ramakanth Rao, S/o Late Ambaji Rao, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Makthal, Narayanpet District.

¶17

K.Hari Prasad, S/o Late Ambaji Rao, Aged about 63 years, Occ Agricultuie, Rio Ambedkar Nagar, lt/akthal, Narayanpet District-

¶18

... RESPONDENTS/ Petitioners/ Plaintiffs

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶20

Petition 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 extend the interim orders passed in lA No. 1 of 2022 dated 22-4-2022 until

¶21

,. .l5'r
.
'1"
further orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper ir-r the interest of
justice.

¶22

lA NO:^'l OF 2022

¶23

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High Court maybe p.leased to} suspend the orders^passed in^{stayof all further proceedingsin lA No 47 of 2022} in OS No. 82 of 2O1a , dated 24-02-2022^{passed by the Hon'blell Additional} District and Sessions .ludge, Mahaboobnagar.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶25

Between:

¶26

Goutam, S/o Late Shankar, Aged about^{36 years, Occ: Pvt.Employee,R/o} Ramaiah Bowli,^{t/ahaboobnagar} District.

¶27

Smt Preethisri, Wo Yadagiri, Aged about^{40 years, Occ: house wife, R/o} Ramaiah Bowli, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶28

Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 2 &³

¶29

And

¶30

K. Ram l\4ohan Rao, S/o Late Ambaji Rao,^{Aged about 63 years, Occ} Agriculture, R/o ,Ambedkar Nagar, Makthal, Narayanpet^Distr'ct.

¶31

Sai Kanna, S/o [.ate Shankar, Aged about 38^{years, Occ: Pvt.Employee,R/o} Ramaiah Bowli, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶32

Smt H M.Sumitra Bai, Wo H.M.Suresh Babu,^{Aged about 53 years, Occ:} House wife, R/o H.No. 13-2-387, Ramachandra^{Nagar,Anathapur, Andhra} Pradesh.

¶33

Smt. Anasuya Bai, Wo Late Ambaji Rao, Aged about^{85 years, Occ:House} wife, R/o lVlakthal, lVlahaboobnagar District.

¶34

5 K.Ramakanth Rao, S/o Late Ambaji Rao, Aged about 56^years,Occ: Agriculture, R/o ,Ambedkar Nagar, Makthal, Narayanpet Distrtct.

¶35

K.Hari Prasad, S/o Late Ambaji Rao, Aged about 63^years, Occ^Agriculture, R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Makthal, Narayanpet District.

¶36

.. Respondents/ Respondent Nos.'1 , 4 to 7

¶37

Petition under {iection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the stay granted in IA.No.1/2022 in CRP.92312022, dated 22.4.2022

¶38

.rti.}-4:r.tr;.1'i''.-Fi:

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. C.VISWANATH SRI E. RAMESH CHANDRA GOUD

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI V. BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRI S.V. RAMANA

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent No. 7: SRI CHALLA SRINIVAS REDDY

¶43

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶44

i ?-;-l* "{i ' ,'.!

¶45

i.*. 6-.

¶46

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^K. SUJANA

¶47

CIVIL EVISION PET roN No.923 0 F 2022

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

.' ,i

¶50

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the^{order of} the trial Court dated 24.02.2022 in IA.No.47 of^{2.022 in} OS.No.B2 of 2014, wherein, the^{petition is filed under Section} 151 of Civil Pr,rcedure Code (for short'C.P.C.') to^restrain the Tahsildar' - cum - loint Sub-Registrar, Makthal^Mandal, Narayanpet District from registration of any documentⁱⁿ respect of suit "8" schedule lands and to record the^samein prohibitory list, in view of injunction order passed by this Court in IA.No.239 of 2Ol4 dated 24.10.20t4.

¶51

The brief facts of the case are that originally the suit is filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein against the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 and 7 seeking partition and separate^possession of the suit schedule^properties along with the suit in IA.No.239 of 2014 was filed wherein ex^parte ad-interim injunction was granted by this Court directing the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 and 7 not to make any

¶52

¶53

¶54

alienations of the suit schedule^{properties, and the samewas} served on them. Later,^petitioner and^{respondent No.7 got} engaged an Advocate, and respondent^{No.6 stood ex parte,} on which the^petition was closed. Subsequently,^{in the main} suit, after adducing the^{plaintiff'sevidence, the matter was} posted for defendant's evidence. During^{pendencyof the suit,} recently, respondent Nos.1 to 5^{came to know through} Dharani^portal that the^{petitioneris tryingto alienatethe suit} schedule^properties to third^{parties suppressing pendencyof} the suit, on which, immediately,^{approachedTahsildar,who} insisted them to bring Court^{order copy. It is further stated} that the^petitioner by colluding^{with politicalpa]ties,on} influence he intended to alienate^{schedule 'B' lands. Hence,} the said Interlocutory^{Applicationis filed.}

¶55

The trial Court after^hearing both^{sides, allowed the} petition directing Tahsildar not to^{make any registration of the} document in respect^{of 'B'schedulelands.}

¶56

Heard Sri E.Ramesh Chandra^{Goud, learned counsel for} the petitioner, and Sri^{S.V. Ramana, learnedcounselfor the} respondents.

¶57

¶58

¶59

The contention of learned counsel for the^petitioner herein is that IA.No.47 of 2022 is filed basing on the order of IA.No.239 of 2D14, whereas, IA.No.239 of 2Ol4 is not in force as on the rlate of filing of IA.No.47 of 2014, and the said Interlocutory Application is dismissed. When there is no order prohibiting the order of 'B' schedule property, the Court cannot direct the Sub-Registrar not to register the^properties mentioned in'B'schedule, as such, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

¶60

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that closing of the interlocutory application is not dismissing the petition. The said IA.No.239 of 2014 was closed by the t|ial Court and it is not dismissed. When the I.A. is closed, the order in I.A. is subsisting, therefore, filing the petition under IA.No.47 of 2022 is basing on the order of the Court in IA.No.239 of 2014, as such, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and he also relied on a judgment of this Court in "S.Kristappa vs. K.Gopala Chari

¶61

¶62

I lr

¶63

and others"l, wherein in Para No.16, it was observed

¶64

that

¶65

'Closure of Interlocutory Application tantamount to an order of dismissal For vacating the order of ad-interim injunction is not correct proposition and closure of interlocutory application is only cannot be deemed to be dismissed'.

¶66

Also relied on a Judgment of this Court in 'T.Ganesh

¶67

vs. State of Telangana and Others'2, wherein it was held

¶68

that :

¶69

"In the cases on hand, in exercise of discretion vested in him, the registering authority refused to register and release the document on the ground that injunction order of civil Court in a pending suit is operating, where the subject property is the suit schedule property. Such discretion is guided by S.O. 219(b), Government orders, circular instructions of the Commissioner and declaration of this Court in Venkannagiri Naveen Rao. Therefore, it cannot be said that such discretion is unguided. Further, it cannot be said that discretion was not validly exercised and is illegal. No patent illegality vitiating the decision of registering authority is noticed to interdict the said decision in exercise of^power of judicial review".

¶70

1 2oo5 (2) ALD 499

¶71

2 zozo (3) ALD 139 (TS)

¶72

¶73

¶74

There is rro illegality in the order of the trial Court and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

¶75

B. Having regard to the submissions made by both the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the only^question tc be decided in this revision^petition is^that whether the closure of interlocutory application amounts to vacating the order granted by the trial Court In the said interlocutory application. The contention of the^petitioner herein that when interlocutory application is closed, there cannot be any interim order, and it amounts to dismissal of interlocutory application. Therefore, no order can be passed basing on the order of the Court in I.A. which is closed, subsequently, granting ad-interim inj u nction.

¶76

The contention of respondents is that the order in interlocutory application subsisting till, it is vacated when ad-interim injunction is^granted directing the^parties not to alienate the suit schedule property and the respondents not filed any petition for vacating the said order and no counter is

¶77

¶78

filed in the said I.A. and the said I.A. is closed only for the purpose of statistics, it not amounts to the closure. Generally, the trial Court either dismisses the petition or allow the petition and there is no word in C.P.C. closing the petition. Whereas, in the present case, interlocutory application is closed without mentioning anything that without prejudice to the parties to LA. that word is not mentioned in the order.

¶79

In view of the order of this Court in 'Inspector General of Police, Police Transport Organisation, Hyderabad vs. V.Venkateshwarulu'3, this Court observed that it cannot be said that closure of Interlocutory Application tantamount to an order of dismissal for vacating the order of ad-interim injunction and furthermore, order passed by the trial Court is only to the extent of allowing the suit schedule property during the pendency of suit, and it is closed without mentioning anything and it is not dismissed by the trial Court, as such, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court.

¶80

3 zoos 121 ALD so6 (DB)

¶81

¶82

There are no rnerits in the petition and it is liable to^be

¶83

dismissed

¶84