R.Srujan Kumar Reddy Vs R.Kala Bai — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

R.Srujan Kumar Reddy Vs R.Kala Bai — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both Civil Revision Petitions Nos.1442 and 1422 of 2024 allowed; the common order dated 19.03.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.2527 of 2022 and 3884 of 2023 in ASSR.No.14339 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar set aside; consequently the applications I.A.Nos.2527 of 2022 and 3884 of 2023 in ASSR.No.14339 of 2022 stand allowed; the First Appellate Court directed to adjudicate and dispose of the Appeal on its merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in this Order; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants (revision petitioners, third parties to the suit) can be permitted to pursue two parallel remedies - the pending suit O.S.No.550 of 2022 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and the appeal ASSR No.14339 of 2022 challenging the decree in O.S.No.1604 of 2006 - though for distinct reliefs, in respect of the same subject property. +1 more

Court's answer

Though the suit O.S.No.550 of 2022 and the appeal relate to the same schedule property, the reliefs sought in the two proceedings are entirely distinct; hence pursuing both is not the impermissible 'same relief in two forums' scenario on which the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

The First Appellate Court lost sight of the fact that even if the appellants succeeded in O.S.No.550 of 2022 and were declared owners, the preliminary decree in O.S.No.1604 of 2006 would continue to stand against them; the decree in the declaratory suit could not be enforced and vice versa, and the course taken would lead to multiplicity of litigation.

Key takeaways

The rights of the appellants in the suit schedule property are adversely affected by the decree in O.S.No.1604 of 2006; as respondent Nos.2 to 7 instituted the suit without making Naveen Valipireddy (in whose favour they executed as many as seven sale deeds through their AGPA holders) a party, and the defendants therein remained ex parte, the decree obtained appears to be a collusive one; therefore the appellants are entitled to challenge it by filing an Appeal.ratio¶151
Fortifying its view with H. Anjunappa and Others v. A. Prabhakar and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 183), wherein the Supreme Court summarized the principles governing grant of leave to appeal - including that where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the Court's leave, and a person aggrieved must be one whose right is affected by the judgment and decree sought to be impugned - this Court held that the appellants squarely fall within those principles and are entitled to file an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1604 of 2006.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

COMMON ORDER - Civil Revision Petitions Nos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 (High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, 09.09.2025) under Article 227 Constitution. Revision petitioners - buyers (registered sale deed Doc. No.413 of 2022 dt. 11.02.2022 from Naveen Reddy Valipireddy, whose vendor bought from respondent Nos.2-7 through AGPA holders respondent Nos.8-9 by sale deed No.4367 of 2003 dt. 30.06.2003) of portions of the suit schedule property - were third parties to partition suit O.S.No.1604 of 2006 (preliminary decree 12.07.2007 with defendants ex parte; final decree allowed 26.07.2022 after Commissioner's division into sixteen shares). They filed declaratory suit O.S.No.550 of 2022 (pending) and appeal ASSR No.14339 of 2022 with leave application I.A.No.3884 of 2023 and delay-condonation I.A.No.2527 of 2022. The Principal District Judge dismissed the appeal as abuse of process (prosecution before two forums for the same relief). The High Court held: (i) the reliefs in the suit and the appeal are entirely distinct, so parallel pursuit is not impermissible; (ii) the appellants' rights are adversely affected by the O.S.No.1604 of 2006 decree, which - with defendants ex parte and the transferee-vendor excluded despite seven sale deeds - appears collusive, so they are entitled to challenge it by appeal; (iii) relying on H. Anjunappa v. A. Prabhakar (2025 SCC OnLine SC 183), a person prejudicially affected by a judgment/decree though not a party may prefer an appeal with the Court's leave, and the appellants fall within those principles. Counsel-cited Apex Court authorities on limitation for suits on registered documents, appellate decree superseding trial decree, recall of judgments obtained by fraud on Court (Section 151 CPC route), and the preliminary/final decree interplay were assessed as not relevant/inapplicable (acquiescing only in Sital Prosad's general proposition). Finding illegality and infirmity, both CRPs were allowed, the impugned common order set aside, both I.As allowed, and the First Appellate Court directed to decide the appeal on merits uninfluenced by these observations.

[³³⁸³ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 1442 and'1422 oF 2024

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 1442 of 2024

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia against the Order dated 1910312024 Passed in 1.A.No.2527 of 2022 in ASSR No.14339 of 2022 on the fite of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

Between:

R.Srujan Kumar Reddy, S/o Kodanda Rami Reddy, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, RJo Plot No.12, Alkapur township, Puppalaguda village, Manikonda Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

Gudiseva Mahankali Rao, S/o Gudiseva Pandu Ranga Rao, Aged about 42 yerrs, Occ. Business, Rt/o H-No.1-5, Panchayat Office Road, Komallapudi village, Karuthivennu Mandal, Krishna District, A.P.

Chagalakondy Guru Rohith Kumar, S/o C. Guru Prasad Rao, Aged about 40 years Occ. Employee, Rl/o Flat No.408, 14-LH, LANCO Hills, Manikonda village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

4 Katam Reddy tt/allikarjuna Reddy, S/o Katam Reddy Ramana Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ. EmpJoyee, Fl/o Flat No.102, Mohan Surya Reaideacy, Hanuman Nagar, Manikonda village, Gandipet [,4andal, Ranga Reddy Districi, Telangana State.

Smt.Chamala Jaya Lakshmi Reddy, W/o Chamala Brahmananda Reddy, aged about 52 years, Occ. House wife, Rl/o D.no.10-2-28711/A and B.2, Flal No.406, Vijaya Towers, Masb Tank, Hyderabad.

... Petitioners/Appellants

AND

1 R.Kala Bai, Wo R.Balajee D/o Sheethal Singh, Aged about 82 years Occ. House hold, No 1-21 , Puppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...RespondenUPlaintiff

Bharath Singh, S/o Sheethal Singh (died per LRs)

Bhansi Singh, S/o Sheethal Singh, aged about 75 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Puppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict.

Raghuveer Singh, S/o Sheethal Singh, aged about 62 ye:e rs, Occ. Business No 2-23144, Puppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mand tr Ranga Reddy District.

Lakshmi Bait, W/o Rameshwar Singh, aged about 84 ye,rr ;, Occ.House Hold R/o 1 -4lA, Nekhanampura, Hyderabad.

Pulsingh, S/o Culab Singh, aged about 51 years, Occ. Bu ;iness R/o 13-1552/2, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

Kamal Singh, S/o Gulab Singh, aged about 42 years, Occ Busirress, R/o 131 -55212, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

S.tndrasena Reddy, S/o S.Raju Redy, aged about 60 ye:r ., Occ. Business R/o 3-5-'1 70lA/3, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

L P.H.Ram Mohan Rao, S/o P.H.Narendra Rao, aged aboul 60 years, Occ. Business Rt/o Plot No.'175, Sreeram nagar Colony, (Secre ariat Colony) Puppalaguda, Hyderabad.

10.Rajesh Singh, S/o Late Bharath Singh, aged about 36 ye a s, Oc,;. Business Rl/o 1-116, Puppalaguda, Ranga Reddy District.

Gora Singh @ Sita Ram Singh, S/o Late Bharath Singh, A.1ed atrout 34 years, Occ. Business FVo 1^-'1 16, Puppalaguda, Ranga Reddy C i: trict.

12.Prabha Bai @ l\4unna Bai, W/o Rajan Singh, Occ. Unknc'r n R/o 14-1O-129, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

Munni Bai, Wo [r4adan Singh, R/o 1-57-26, Puppalagude ,^{-lyderabad-75.}

...Resp c rdents/Defendants

(Respondents 2 to 13 not necessary in this rl lP)

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:.1422 of 2024

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia ag a rst the Order dated 1910312024 Passed in LA No.3884 of 2023 in ASSR No.1 4339 c 2022 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District: t LB Nagar.

Between:

R.Srujan Kumar Reddy, S/o Kodanda Rami Reddy, A3:d about 44 yearc, Occ- Business, R/o Plot No.92, Atkapur township, [)r ppalaguda village, Manikonda Municipality, Ranga Reddy District

Gudiseva Mahankali Rao, Sio Gudiseva Pandu Ranga F ao, Aged about 42 years, Occ- Business, R/o H.No.1-5, Panchayat Office, Load, Komallapudi village, Karuthivennu Mandal, Krishna District, A.P.

Chagalakondu Guru Rohith Kumar, S/o C. Guru Prasad f^'ao, Aged about 40 years Occ- Employee, Fi/o Flat No.40B, 14-LH, LANO( ) Hills, Manikonda village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangar r Stater.

Katam Reddy Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o Katam Reddy Ra nana Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ- Employee, Rl/o Flat No.102, Moha, Surya Residency,

Hanuman Nagar, tt/anikonda village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

Smt.Chamala Jaya Lakshmi Reddy, W/o Chamala Brahmananda Reddy, aged about 52 years, Occ- House wife, R/o D.no.1O-2-28711lA and 82, Flat No.406, Vijaya Towers, Masb Tank, Hyderabad.

...Petitioners/Appel lants

AND

1 R.Kala Bai, W/o R.Balajee D/o Sheethal Singh, Aged about 82 years OccHouse hold, Rlo 1-21, Puppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...RespondenUPlaintiff

Bharath Singh, S/o Sheethal Singh ( died per LRs)

Bhansi Singh, S/o Sheethal Singh, aged about 75 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o Puppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Raghuveer Singh, S/o Sheethal Singh, aged about 62 years, Occ- Business Rlo 2-23144, Puppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Lakshmi Bail, W/o Rameshwar Singh, aged about 84 years, Occ-House Hold F/o 1 -4lA, Nekhanampura, Hyderabad.

Pulsingh, S/o Gulab Singh, aged about 51 years, Occ- Business R/o 13-155212, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

Kamal Singh, S/o Gulab Singh, aged about 42 yearc, Occ- Business, R/o 131 -55212, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

B. S.lndrasena Reddy, S/o S.Raju Redy, aged about 60 years, Occ- Business R/o 3-5-170/fu3, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

P.H.Ram fVohan Rao, S/o P.H.Narendra Rao, aged about 60 years, OccBusiness Rl/o Plot No.175, Sreeram nagar Colony, (Secretariat Colony) Puppalaguda, Hyderabad.

Rajesh Singh, S/o Late Brarath Singh, aged about 36^years, Occ- Business R:/o 1-'1 16, Puppalaguda, Ranga Reddy District.

1 1 . Gora Singh @ Sita Ram Singh, S/o Late Bharath Singh, Aged about 34^years, Occ- Business Fl/o 1-1 16, Puppalaguda, Ranga Reddy District.

12.Prabha Bai @ Munna Bai, W/o Rajan Singh, Occ- Unknown No 14-10-129, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

Munni Bai, W/o Madan Singh, No 1-57-26, Puppalaguda, Hyderabad-75. (Respondents 2 to 13 Not necessary in this CRP)

... Respondents/Defendants

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the ( rrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cotrr may be pleased to suspend the Preliminary Decree dated 12-07 -2007 passed n O.S 1604/2006 and Final Decree and order daIed2610712022 passed in l.A No. 1 '112o(tg in O.S 1604 /2006, pending disposal ofthe above CRP

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 13:

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

r)

HON'BLE, SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

CIVIL ITEVISION PEll l'lON Nos. 1442 and 1422 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1442 and 1422 of 2024 are filed challenging the common order dated 19.03.2024 passed ln I.A.Nos.2527 of 2022 and 3884 o1'2023 in ASSR.No.I4339 of 2022, respectivcly, on the tllc ol' the Principal Distlict Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar

Since the issues involved in both the Revisions are interconnected and theil oLrtcome is interdependent, both the Rcvisions arc heard togethcr and ale being disposed of by this common older'

Heard Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for the petitioners. No reprcsentation on bchall ol respondent Nos.l to 13 despite service of notice, therefore, the matter is adjudicated basing on the material available on record

The revision petitioners herein are appellant Nos. I to 5 in the appeal before the Iower appellate Court and third parties to the suit

LIA.J '()\ ,'.!! ' ,i I1): ol20:1

l

in OS.No.1604 of 2006 on the filc of I Additrr,r rl Se,rior. Civil Judge, Rrnqa Reddy District. Respondent \ r.l trercin is responden' \o.1 in Llie appeal, ar.rd plaintifi r thc suit, and Responderrl \os.2 to 13 hclein are respondeuts in hc r\ppeal and dclcndants in the Suit

I'he lacts of the casc, in blief, requircd Ib. rd judication ol the prcscnt I{,.-r'ision Pctitions, alc that the appc I nts. ri ho u,er.e uot partics to the original suit. llled an appeal l,rfirr.c rhc Fir.st Appellate Court. along with two applications orrc seeking leavc to fLle appeal and anothel to condone dc r , nl tiling the Appeal ag;rinst the judgment ancl decrce dated l- t7.2007 passed in O.S.No 1604 ol 2006 on thc lile of I Additicrr rl Scnior Civil .Itrdge, Ranga lteddy District

The case of appellant Nos.l to 5 is that I rL / ale absolute owncrs ar,d ltossessors of thc sr"rit schedule I)r )polt) . having purchased the sarne from one Naveen Reddy Valipir.,dd), Lhrough a registered salc deed bearing document No.413(. rf 2022 dated 11.02.2022; tliat their vendor pulchased the suit s,rl edule propefiy liom re spondent Nos.2 to 7 r'epresented by thcir Agrc:ment ol

L'll.J CRPNos 1412 & la22 of2A21

.f

Sale-cum-General Power of^{Attorneyholdersi.e., respondent} Nos.8 and 9, vide registered sale deed bearing document^No.4367 of 2003, dated 30.06.2003. While so,^{r.r,henrespondentNos.} I^and3 to 7 attempted to trespass into the suit schedule^properly and disturb the peaceful possession of thc appellants, they^lodgeda on cornplaint with police, which was duly acknowledged 27.09.2022.

The lurther case of the appellants is that on enquiry, they came to know that respondent No.l, in collusion^{with respondent} Nos.2 to 7 (defendants), instituted a suit in O.S.No. 1604 of²⁰⁰⁶ tbr paftition and obtained tiaudLrlent^{preliminarydecree on} 12.01 .2007 and later, filed I.A.No.l2l of 2009 lor^{passing a final} decree, which was allowed on26.07.2022.'lhat immediately,^the appellants filed O.S.No.550 of 2022 on the llle of I^Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at^{L.B.Nagar, fbr} declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, which is the subject matter of suit-OS.No.1604 o12006, and the said suit is pending. That apart, the appellants^also filed an application vide I.A.No.3884 ol 2023 seeking^{leave to file}

I.NA..I \os. t111& 1122 o.f 201 4

an appeal rlgainst thejudgment and decree dated 12 07.2007 passed lll O.S.No.1604 of 2006, along with an rr ltlicarion vide I.A.No.251l7 t'tf 2022 to condone the delay in filing^. re Appeal

Opposing the alorcsaid applications, r.espon lent ),,1o. I filed counter, rvhcrein il is inter alia averred that []t, suit schedule propert-y is the ancestral propefty ol Sheetltr L Singh; that lespondent n-os.1 to 7 are legal heirs ol Shectl-;a Sinqh and as sLrch. they have equal right in the suit schedulc p opertv. lt was fufthcr averred that the vendors of the appellants ha e no valid title to pass on to the appellants. Respondent No.I h r hel denied the averment of appellants that the decree was fraudul-.r Lly obtaincd in OS.No. L 604 ol 2006 and in fact, decree was passeC rn the said suilafter it rvas contested for more than l5 vears.

Respondent No.l has specifically averred rat she is the absollrte owncl of her respective share of the suit s,:l edule propefty and has been in peaceful possession thereof sil, c the date of delivery of possession. She futher averred that tht: \ppeal is filed by the appcllants only to defeat, ovemeach and ob truct the final declee order passed in OS.No. I 604 of 2006.

t.^"7.J C&PA/or. /Jl:^(t I t22 of202l

5

The lower appellate Court, considering the^{pleadings put} forth by both thc pafties and on hcaring thc learned counsel appearing lol them, passed thc impugned orcier, disrnissing the Appeal. In the impugned order, the [iirst Appellate Court observed as hereunder:-

"The appellanls are third pctrties to the suit and thev ore affectetl b), the decree in O.S. No. I 601 of 2006. Hov'ercr, it is to he noted that the appellants have already Jiled O.S. Aro. -i-t0 of 2022 aguinsl rcslxtndenl Nos.l to l2 seeking decloration o/ the title und perpeltrul of injunc'tion. Tlte appellonls dtc lr.t'ittv lo pt'osL'(ttte proceedings before two forunts .fbr the same relief. This is nol permissible under latt. Tlte Appellants hatl tlrc option of either Jiling an appeal agoinst tlecree duletl 16.()1.2006 be/bre this Court or Jiling a suit before the triol L'ourt for cleclaration, bul tlte ,4ppellants hutc elecletl lo file both the suit and an oppeaL be-fore tltis Cou't for the same remed1,, v'hich is on abuse of process of law. Therefore, even though the Appellants ure alfectcd parties, this abuse of'lhe process tl'law cannot be permitted."

I l. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suitOS.No.550 ol 2022 was filed lor declaration of title and perpetual IN injunction, and that apaft, as regards the decree passed

f

/-,:1./ ?P.\or /^r,/l.t l1:) of)0)1 6

',I+i*s

O.S.No. 1604 of 2006, the appellants ar.e entit c I to ,-,ither seek cancellation of tl-re decrce or pref'er an appeal.^'l l r {ppeliants l-rave opted fbr the Iatter remedv being rnorc clficacioL s rnd f-ilcd appeal in ASSIi.r.\o.11339 ol 2022.1Ie l.urtl.reL submit.re.l rhat O.S.No.550 ol 2022 ar.rd ASSR No.14339 of 2022 ar.c fileil ;br rrvo distinct relicls, one to protect their. orvnership rights .rnd anothcr. l_o challc.ge thc clccr.ci: rvhich aclversely aflectcd lieir rir:hts and thercf orc, thc qr-restion ol availing only one remedr does rlot arisc

Learucd counsel lor appellants lurther srrl rnitterl tliat the vendors ol thc appellants have valid title; that th , appcllants arc hono /ide purchascrs of'the suit schedule proper an(l as such. thcir rights afc advcrscly aftected by the jud-l r- ,'nt ancl clccrce passed in OS.No. 1604 of 2006, wherein their vcr ( )r was also not nradc a part\ to the said suit and hencc, the Ap r at l,il;d bv thc appellants is utaintainable

l-earned counscl lor appellants fufther subrrit ed tl.r:rt thc sale nrade by the.ioint ownet.s, i.e., respondent Nos.2 7 represcnted by their GPz\ holders-respondent Nos.8 and 9, r favour ol' the vendor of the appellants is vatid under law a rd hc:nce, the

L,"1.J (:RPNos IJJ) & t12) oIl|tt

7

appcllants are entitled to work out equities by secking allotment of the land sold to their vendor and protect their title and interest in respect thereo[. Learned counsel liuthcr subrnitted that lespondenL Nos.2 to 7 herein remained ex-parte in the suit, which suggests that the prelirninaly decree in O.S.No. 1604 of 2006 is obtained collusively and by ptaying lraud on the Court, without amaying the appcllants herein, much less, the vendor of the appellants as a paft), to the said suit, admittedly, in whose favour respondent Nos.2 to 7 have executed registered sale deeds, through respondent Nos.8 and 9, who are their AGPA holders and as such, the said decree is liable to be set aside and accordingly, prayed this Courr to allow thc present Revisions

I-earned counsel lor appellants, in support of his atbresaid contentions, has relied upon the follorving judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court:-

(1) Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Olhers Vs Shrimant Chhatrapati Utlayan Raje Pratapsingh Maharoj Bhosle and Olhers.t

'^{202{SCC,OnqreSC 3844}

l,\A. t P.',).. 1, ./l d llt)of202J

\di i- "e

{t

1!

(2) Slote Bonk of India, Settipolle brutch, Tir rpoti rep. b.y its Chicf Mana,ger l/s P. l/e erotrnrnynna.,

(-7) My Ptlace Mulutll.y Aided Co-operttit e Sttciett, Vs. Il.Mahesh und others.3

(4) Sinl l,rashad vs. Kisltorilol.a

15.^-fhc .iudgment^{ol-thc Hon,ble} Apex Courr t. Shri Mukund

Blttt'ttrt 7'rusl's casc (citccl supr.a) is as r.cgards thr. eolnntcI]Ce nter]t of period o1'limitation lirr tiling a suit in r.espe:r ol- a rcgistered docuurent.

The said .iudgurent is neither relevant nor a rplicable kr thc instant case- inasrnr-rch the qucstion ol lirnitat.c, is r.aisccl bv neither of rhe parties to thc case.

l7 . In P. L'eero naro)tln( 's casc (cited supra), t r, Hon,ble Apex

Court observed as hereundcr:

''(iencrall.t, speaking, thc dcct cc of the appet.t, ,e (otfft strperseclt,.s tJrc decree o/ the trial courl even vhen il t'onfirrns lltat clecree ottd tlrcr.r,fttre it is well-s,,i red tJ:at

:2013 SCC Online AP 932 r 2022 SC C Onlilt, SC 1063

'^{1967SCC OnlincSC 262}

L,\ 1,J CAPtt'a: 1112 & lJ2) ol)DJ

9

only the appellale courl can amend the^{decree thereafter.:} [see^{Muhammad Sulaiman Khan v. MuhammadYar Khan,} (1888) rLR Ail 267 (FB)J

..-.... Further, it was observed in tJrc lust case tl'tat whare 0n dppellote Courl sets oside or vories a prelintinor.t, decree it ccrrt, ttnd indeed could. sit,e direc'tiott Jbr the setting osi(.le or vor}'ing of the Jinal decree, if tlte existence o/ the final decree is brought to its tlotice as in oll coses^il ought to be.^"

Thc cotc issue belore this Court in the prescttt Revisiotrs^is whether the appellants can be permitted to pursue two parallel rerncdies, though fbr distinct reliefs, in lespect of the sante subject prope(y. Therefbre, thc aforesaid^judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Coult is not lelevant fbr dcciding thc said issuc

ln Mlt^p11111r, Mutuallu Aided Co-operalive Society's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apcx Court held that the^judiciary in lndia possesses inherent power', specially, under Section l5l CPC, to recall its^judgrnent or order if it is obtained by lraud on Court. In the case of tiaud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Coun may dilect the affected pafty to file a separate suit for setting aside the declee obtained by tlaud..."

L

1,,'.1..t ?P\r r / /i',i ii::ot)0.1J l0

2.0.^'fhe casc of the appcllants is that respon( e rt No.l illed the suit-OS.No. 1604 of 2006 by colluding with resp<. rdent Nos.2 Lo 7 herein-de f-enclants, w.ho renrairrccl c.r l).7/.te, and ob .rined ll'audulent prclit)linary,lecree. hasecl orr rilriclr. final decrte ,r is ltas scd.

It is apt to note that in the saicl suit, ,l -'re^\'as neither represcrtt:ition nor. ntisrcprcsentation of. the case ,n bchalf ol- thc del-endants befbr.c the tr.ial Cour.r. therclore, the q.r stion of playing fi'aucl on thc Lrial Cor-rrt lor.obtaining decree does r)t al ise. Hencc. the alorcsaid judgrnent does not conle to aid oltitc ppellants.

In Situl proshul's case (cited supra), the Hon.ble Apex Court obsr'rved as hercunder

'Tltere ctut. itr our oltirtiort, ht, tto doLrbt tlnt i/ i, crplse , thc prelininort,dccree is ret,t,t..;t,tl, the .final tkt ee lntrsl Jall^{tt, tlte gr.otttttl} .[or thert, is no prelintirtrt,. de c'r ec tlt t'.a/ia, itt stt1tp111.1 ttl it. lt t., )tt,t De(t,SSat.l.itt , t. I d cat,te Jbr^{tlrc defendant} lo go lo tltc L.ot.trt passing the Ji,t, , tlecr:e ond ask it lo set aside rhe.final decree. Ere , if tirc defbndent doe.c not fi le on apltl icotion to tl.t(, ( turt .fiir selting aside tlte.final clecrce y,ithin three yertr.: \ecou.;e llrc pre.lintinarl, decrec ho.s ht,cn reversed. tlt,, Jec:re,: - holder cartnot get the right to exectie the fitt,r de c'rc e tt,hich ha.s no preliminorl, dct.rcc in.\upport ol

LNA J CRPi\os 1112 & 1122 oJ2021

ll

execution petition is made on such a Jinal decree^even though more than three years afler tlrc decree in appeal h.as been reversed, the defendant has simply to osk the court, where the execution petition is made, to refuse to cxecute the decree on lhe ground thal the pr.eliminary decree in support of it has been set aside.^"

There is no quanel with regard to the above proposition of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

In the case on hand, the appellants sought leave to file Appeal against the prelinrinaly decree passed by the trial Courl, though final decree has becn passed.

Respondent No.l herein filed a suit vide O.S.No.1604 o1' 2006 against respondent Nos.2 to t herein for partition of the suit schedule propefty and as the said respondents remained ex parte, preliminary decree was passed on 12.07.2007. Respondent No.l filed an application vide l.A.No. l2l of 2009 to pass a final decree; that an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court in I.A.No. 122 of 2009 to conduct survey and divide the schedule property by metes and bounds as per the preliminary decree; that the Advocate-Commissioner, accordingly, surveyed tl-re suit

LN.1,,.t tPio.,; M2.L 1122 o:[ )A2 4 12

rl

;] i

schedule propcrly and divided the same into si< t6) equal shares and submitted a repoft to the trial Court on 22.01 : )22.

The case of the appellants is that they car : to knor.v about passing of the final decree in O.S.No.1604 I 2O0ri only on 03.11.2022 and immediately, they fited a suit vid , O.S.No.550 of 2022 on the flle of I Additional Senior Civil JurLg:, Ranga Reddy District lbr cleclaration of title and cor.rscclrr,,tia[, reLier- or perpetual injunction in respect of thc suit schedr"rl: rropcrty and the same is pt.nd ing ad.judicarion.

The Appellants also filed an appeal vide iSSR No.l43 j9 of 2022 rieeking to set aside the preliminary J cree passcd in OS.No.l604 ot-2006 along with an application virii l.A.NIo.3gg4 of 2023 seeking leave to file such an Appeal ar.rd ar L rpplicatior.r vide I.A.No.25:27 of 2022 to condone the delay in filinll he z\prpeal.

Thus. liom the above, it is eviden that though the suit-OS.No.55O of 2022 and rhe Appeal filed b the appellants are in respect of the same schedule property, the .i iefs sought for in both the above proceedings are entirely distinct.

LNA,J CRPNos I 11) & l1)) ol20)t

13

The First Appellate Courl lost sight of the fact that even if appellants succeed in the suit-OS.No.550 of 2022 filed by them, thereby, declaring them as owners of the suit schedule propefty, inasmuch as the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No. 1604 of 2006 would be staling at them, the decree passed in the suit-OS.No.550 of 2022 cannot be enlorced and vice versa, and further, it would lead to multiplicity of litigation

The appellants are clain.ring to be in possession of Plot Nos.ll and 12, which arc paft of suit schedule property ln O.S.No. 1604 of 2006, as of now

Frorn the above analvsis ol the lacts ol the case. it is discernible that the rights of the appellants in respect of the suit schedule propefty are adverscly affected by the decree passed in OS.No. 1604 ol 2006 and further, in view of the tact that respondent Nos.2 to 7 lited the said suit without rnaking Naveen Valipireddy, in whose favour they executed as many as seven sale deeds, through their AGPA holders, as a party to the said suit and also the fact of the defendants therein remaining ex parte, it appears that the decree obtained in the said suit, as alleged by the

.l i

! i

( '.:t).; l,/;) & 11)2 ol)024LN,4,J

t4

appellants, is a collusive one. Therefore, the appcl rnts are entitled to challcnge the same by r.vay ol filing an Appeal.

The aforesaid view of this Court is fortit ed b.r a rccent jtrdgment of thc Hon'ble Suprcme Courl in h. lnjunappa and otlters Vs. A.Prabhakar and others5, whereirr thr. I ,rn'blc Suprerne Court has sumrnarized the principles goven-ring th, grant of leave to appeal. which inter alia, includes that it is oL,il1, n4rcr.e a .iudgrnont^{and decrec pre judicialll,} aflects a pcr.rr rr ri.lr,-.r is not a pafty to the proceedings, he can preler an appeal r, ith th: lcave of the Courl and a person aggrieved, to file ar-r appe l. rnust be one rvhose riglrt is affected bv reason ol- tl-re judgrr c .t and clccr.ec souglrt to be irnpugned.

The case of the appellants squarely falls urc:r.rhe alorcsaid principles and as such, they are entitled to file an \pperrl against the^judgment and decree passed in OS.No.l604 of I )06

In view of the above discussion, in consi,l, r.ecl opinion of this Couft, the impugned order suffers fiom illegalLr and infirmity,

'2025 SCC Online sc 183

r@:.:.,.

1

L'"1'l ( RI'.\os t1t2 .\ tJ2)oI202J

I5

which wamants interf'erence by this Court and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside

In the resulr, CRp.Nos. 1442 of2024 and 1422 of2024 are allowed and the cornmon order dated 19.03.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.2527 of 2022 and 3884 of 2023 in ASSR.No. 14339 of 2022, respectively, on the fi le of the principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, is set aside and consequently, the applications-l.A.Nos.252j ol 2022 ancl jgg.l of 2023 in ASSR.No. 14339 of 2022 stand allou,ed. How,ever, it is rnade clear that the First Appellate Courr shall adjudicate and dispose of the Appeal basing on merits of- thc case, uninlluenced by any of the observations rnade by this Court in the prescnt Order.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. No costs

i

Sd/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR G

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar 2. One CC to Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies

,iy)(, .

I

ABK,&am

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0910912025

ORDER

CRP Nos.^{1442and1422OF2024}

17rrr 125 j
\oi.....
-'4.: --
..:<

ALLOWING BOTH^THECRPs

C,
q.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common order dated 19.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.2527 of 2022 (condonation of delay) and I.A.No.3884 of 2023 (leave to file appeal) in ASSR.No.14339 of 2022, dismissing the appeal preferred by the revision petitioners (appellant Nos.1 to 5, third parties to the suit) and holding that prosecution of proceedings before two forums for the same relief is not permissible and an abuse of process of law.¶68
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar · 19.03.2024
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 (plaintiff) filed O.S.No.1604 of 2006 before I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against respondent Nos.2 to 13 (defendants) for partition of the suit schedule property; the defendants remained ex parte and a preliminary decree was passed on 12.07.2007.¶134
Prior proceeding
Final decree stage: plaintiff filed I.A.No.121 of 2009 for passing of final decree; trial Court appointed an Advocate-Commissioner in I.A.No.122 of 2009, who divided the suit schedule property into sixteen (16) equal shares and submitted a report on 22.01.2022; final decree was allowed/passed on 26.07.2022.¶80
Prior proceeding
Appellant Nos.1 to 5 claim to be absolute owners in possession of Plot Nos.11 and 12 (part of suit schedule property), having purchased from one Naveen Reddy Valipireddy through registered sale deed Document No.413 of 2022 dated 11.02.2022; their vendor had purchased from respondent Nos.2 to 7, represented by their Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney holders (respondent Nos.8 and 9), vide registered sale deed No.4367 of 2003 dated 30.06.2003.¶76
Prior proceeding
Appellants came to know of the final decree in O.S.No.1604 of 2006 only on 03.11.2022 and immediately filed O.S.No.550 of 2022 before I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar for declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property; that suit is pending.¶139
Prior proceeding
Appellants (third parties to the suit) filed appeal ASSR No.14339 of 2022 before the First Appellate Court seeking to set aside the judgment and preliminary decree of 12.07.2007 in O.S.No.1604 of 2006, along with leave-to-file-appeal application I.A.No.3884 of 2023 and delay-condonation application I.A.No.2527 of 2022.¶140
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 filed a counter opposing the applications, averring that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of Sheethal Singh, that respondent Nos.1 to 7 are his legal heirs with equal rights, that the appellants' vendors had no valid title, and denying that the decree in O.S.No.1604 of 2006 was fraudulently obtained, contending it was passed after contest of more than 15 years.¶83
Prior proceeding
IA No.1 of 2024 (under Section 151 CPC) was filed in the CRPs praying to suspend the preliminary decree dated 12-07-2007 in O.S.1604/2006 and the final decree and order dated 26/07/2022 passed therein, pending disposal of the CRPs.¶60