Dismissed

Smt T. Aruna v. T. Narender REddy

Telangana HC4 Apr 2025AS/528/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal suit was filed under section 96 of CPC challenging a decree in a partition suit. The Court ordered parties to identify through the Legal Services Committee. A compromise was arrived at, enshrined in a Memorandum of Understanding, settling ownership of house and agricultural land. The appeal suit was dismissed based on the compromise.

What did the court decide?

The appeal suit is disposed of in terms of the compromise. There shall be no order as to costs.

Smt T. Aruna Vs T. Narender REddy — Partition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

APPEAL SUIT NO: 528 OF 2006

¶7

Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 30/06/2006 made in O.S.No.22 of^'1997 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt T Aruna, W/o T. Narender Reddy, Occ: Household, Rlo 1-9211 , Bhavanrnagar, Nacharam, R. R- District.

¶10

...AppellanUPlaintiff/Respondent in Vacate Petition

¶11

AND

¶12

1 T. Narender Reddy, (Died as per LRs Respondent Nos.2 to 5)

¶13

2 Thummalapally Madhavi, Wo. Narendar Reddy, Aged 46 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. Azmapuram Village of P.A.Pally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶14

3 Thummalapally Nikhil, S/o. Narendar Reddy, Aged 34 years, Occ. Software Employee, R/o. H.No.4-1-9211, Bhavani Nagar, Nacharam, Street No.2, Hyderabad-76.

¶15

4 Thummalapally Nithin, S/o. Narendar Reddy, Aged 30 years, Occ. Software Employee, R/o.H.No.4-1-9211, Bhavani Nagar, Nacharam, Street No.2, Hyderabad-76.

¶16

Thummalapally Sushmitha, D/o. Narendar Reddy, Aged 24 years, Occ. Student, R/o. Azmapuram Village of P.A.Pally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶17

Respondent No's.2 to 5 are brought on record as LR's of deceased Sole Respondent as per Court Order dated 25.03.2025, vide lA.No.3 of 2025 in AS.No.528 of 2006.

¶18

...Respondent Nos.2 to s/Vacate Petitioners

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2006(ASMP. NO: 1827 OF 2006)

¶20

Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 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 temporary injunction order restraining the RespondenUDefendant, his agents and servants from causing interference in the use and enjoyment of the petitioner/AppellanUPlaintiff over the suit schedule

¶21

¶22

property being No.'l-92l'1 , Plot No.6, Bhavani Nagar, Nacharam, R.R.District in OS No.22 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil^judge, R.R.District.

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to vacate the interim injunction granted on 22-09-2006 in ASMP No. 1827 of 2006ⁱⁿ AS No. 528 of 2006

¶24

Counsel for the Appellant :SRl A PULLA REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R A CHARY

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE^{K. SUJANA}

¶28

APPEAL SUIT No.528 of 20O6

¶29

ORAL ORDER:

¶30

Challenging the decree and^judgment dated 30.06.2006 passed in O.S.No.22 of 1997 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, the present appeal suit is frled.

¶31

Heard Sri A. Pulla Reddy, learned counsel appearing^for the appellant, and Sri R.A. Chary, learned^{counsel appearing} for the respondents.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the^appellant and the respondents that, during^{the pendencyof the present} appeal suit, the parties have arrived at a compromise.

¶33

Vide order dated 01.04.2025, this Court directed the parties, along with their respective counsel, to appear before the Secretary, High Court^Legal Services^{Committee, High} Court for the State of Telangana,^{Hyderabad,for identification} and to submit a. report.

¶34

sKs,J 4.S.No.528 of 2006

¶35

Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the parties, i.e., the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 4, appeared before the Secrctary, High Court Legal Services Committee. The Secretary identified the parties and submitted a report dated O3.O4 .2025 , which has been placed on record. However, respondent Nos.3 and 5 u'ere not identified. In support of their compromise, the parties filed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) vide I.A.No.3 of 2025 on 10.03.2O25.

¶36

The terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding are as foliows

¶37

That in pursuance of thc abovc said undcrstanding, both the parties agreed to settle the issue and the 2nd party agreed to forego/relinqursh all their rights and interests in and over the House bearing No. i.e., H.No:4-1 9211, Plot No:6, Bhavani Nagar, Nacharam, St No:2, Hyderabad. Which is subject matter, in A,S.No.528/2006 on thc file of the Ilon ble High Court, Telangana. And in the said appeal the 1.t Party rs the appellant.

¶38

Thal in pursuance of the above said understarding, both the parties agreed to settle thc issue and the 1s1 Party agreed to forego/relinquish all their rights and interest in and over the agricultural lanrl in Sy.Nos: 16 & 25 to an extent of Ac.9.27 Guntas situated at Azmapuram village, p.A. Pally Mandal which belongs to 2nd party. Which is

¶39

SKS,J A.S.No.52E of 20()6

¶40

subject matter, in OS.No.248/2024 on the^{ltle of the} Senior Civil Judge, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District, Telangana.

¶41

That in pursuance of the above^said understanding the 2"d Party shall^get mutated^the House bearing No.4-l 9211, Plot No:6, Bhavani Nagar, Nacharam, St No:2, Hyderabad in to^the name of the Smt. T.Aruna (i.e., First wife of Late T.Narender Reddy) and also agreed to co-operate with the mutation proceedings before the municipal authorities if needed and also^before any authority so as to enable to get a clear and undisputed title over the House property.

¶42

T}],aL in pursuance of the above said understanding the l"t Party agreed to^pay Rs.8,0O,OOO/-^(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) for full and hnal settlement to the 2"d party, and the l"t party shall pay Rs.4,00,000 (Rupees Four Lakhs only) to the 2"d party after closing the cases/matters before the lorver Court and as well as Hon'bte High Court, and the remaining^{Rs.4,00,0OO (Rupees} Four Lakhs only) the l"t party shall^pay to the 2'd^party after mutating the name of the 1"t party in^respect of the House Property.

¶43

\ \

¶44

Out of the above said settlement both the^parties agreed to file the Memo of Compromise before the Hon'ble High Court in AS.No.528/2O06 and in OS.No-248/2O24 on the lile of Senior Civil^Judge, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District, Telangana to withdraw the above said cases.

¶45

Out of the above said settlement both the parties agreed not to interfere/claim in respect of the said

¶46

¶47

SKS,J A.S.No.52E of 2006

¶48

propertres each other in future also and also agreed not to claim any other properties of both the parties.

¶49

Thc 1"t Party also agreed and stated that thel, have no claim in respect of the property of Plot No:46 in S1'.No:1256 admeasuring 300 Sq^yards srtuated at Shamirpet village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distfl.t, H)derabad and also furlher st.rled that they are not having any link documents in r.'spect of thc said property.

¶50

B. The 2"d Party agreed to handed over the link documents to the lst Party in respect of the llouse property i.c., H.No:4-1-92/1, Plot No:6, Bhavani Nagar, Nacharam, St No:2 at the time of mutation in favour of the 1.t Partv.

¶51

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the Memorandum of Ur-rderstanding entercd into by the parties, and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides; this appeal suit is disposed of in tr:rms of the compromise. There shall tle no order as to cosls.

¶52

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, are hereby

¶53

clg_sed.

¶54

SD/- K.^SAILESHI JOINT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY'/

secrh$brrrcen

To,

1 The I Additional^{Senior Civil Judge' Ranga Reddy(With records'if any)} 2 d" i;i;aRln^{purm REDDY' Advocate[oPUC]} J 5,nI;;^{io snr n A CHARY,Advocate[oPUC]} 4 Two CD^CoPies

S ADK/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410412025

ORDER

AS.No.528 of 2006

.:<br>1li F- STAI.r
/.,.!,::.<br>r-)
(-) 2 I JUL 2025
t: ,;i
'1
:J
,/
.'li ^
---'*'

¶65

DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL SUIT

¶66

WITHOUT COSTS

¶67

¶68

6
M qw

Smt T. Aruna v. T. Narender REddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt T. Aruna v. T. Narender REddy

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

Pilli Bala Mallesh Vs Sri Sai Swetha Realtors and Promoters Pvt. Ltd, situated at

Gaddala Ramakrishna Vs The State of Telangana

Yadagiri Dasari Vs The state of Telangana

Swapna Ulhas Kumar Shinde Vs The State of Telangana

Imran Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Amit Aswani Vs The State of Telangana