Partly allowed

Akula Mallesham v. Guda Mahender Reddy

Telangana HC14 Nov 2025CRP/2551/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted Civil Revision Petitions filed against an order granting temporary injunction. The Court directed both parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit properties to balance equities and avoid pre-empting the trial court's determination on title and possession.

What did the court decide?

Direction to maintain status quo with respect to possession and alienation of the suit schedule properties until disposal of the suits in O.S. Nos. 178 and 179 of 2019.

Akula Mallesham Vs Guda Mahender Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t3217 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2551 and 2561 OF 2025

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2551 ot 2025

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Order Dated 07 .02.2025 (wrongly typed dt: 07 .02.2024) passed in CMA.No.2 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District Judge at Karimngar in Decree and Order dated 21.11.2019 Passed in l.A.No.18 of 2019 in O.S.No.178 of 2019 on the file of Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile)-cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimngar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Akula Mallesham, S/o.Kanakaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H No.6-4-70, Gandhi Chowk, Karkhanagadda Locality, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶11

... Petitioner/RespondenUResponenUDefendant

¶12

AND

¶13

Guda Mahender Reddy, S/o.Satyanarayna Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.1-1 0, Shivaji Nagar, Bommakal Village, Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶14

...RespondenUAppel lanUPetitoner/Plaintiff

¶15

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶16

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 suspend the operation of Decree and Order dated 0710212025 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2020 on the file of the court of the lll Additional District Judge at Karimnagar which was reversed by the Decree and Orderdated 2111112019 passed in l.A.No. 18 of 2019 in O.S.No. 178 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of

¶17

First Class (Special Mobile)-cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, pending disposal of the above Revision petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VADLAKONDA RAVI KUMAR REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B.SHESHU KUMAR

¶20

GIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2561 of 2025

¶21

Petition under Article 227 o'f the Constitution of lndia, against the Order Dated 07.02.2025 (wrongly typed dt. 07.02.2024) passed in CMA.No 3 of 2O2O on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District Judge at Karimngar in Decree and Order dated 21.11.2019 Passed in l.A.No.19 of 2019 in O.S.No.179 of 2019 on the file of Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special tVlobile)-cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimngar.

¶22

Between:

¶23

Akula Mallesham, S/o.Kanakaiah, aged about 70 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.H.No.6-4-70, Gandhi Chowk, Karkhanagadda Locality, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶24

... Petitioner/Res pondenURespondenUDefendant

¶25

AND

¶26

Varala Srinivas, S/o.Papaiah, aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.2 -1814, Shivaji Nagar, Bmmakal Village, Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶27

... RespondenUAppellanUPetitioner/Plaintiff

¶28

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶29

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 suspend the operation of Decree and Order dated 07-02-2025 in C.M.A.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the court of the lll Additional District Judge at Karimnagar which was reversed by the Decree and Order dated 21-11-2019 passed in l.A.No.1g of 2019 in O.S.No.179 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile)-cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, pending disposal of the above Revision petition.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VADLAKONDA RAV| KUMAR REDDY

¶31

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B.SHESHU KUMAR

¶32

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶34

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2551. and 2561 of 2025

¶35

COMMON ORDER:

¶36

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the common orders dated 07.02.2025 passed in C.M.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2020 on the file of the learned lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.

¶37

Since the issues involved in both the revisions are intertwined, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.

¶38

Heard Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, and Sri B.Seshu Kumar, learned counsel for the respondenUplaintiff.

¶39

4.1. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that C.M.A. No.2 of 2020 was filed against the order dated 21.11.2019 in l.A. No.18 of 2019 in O.S. No.178 of 2019, and C.M.A. No.3 of 2020 was filed against the order dated 21.11.2019 in l.A. No.19 of 2019 in O.S. No.179^of

¶40

¶41

¶42

4.2. The revision^{petitioner is the defendant in both suits filed by} the respondenUplaintiff seeking^{perpetual injunctionin respect of} the suit schedule^{properties, and the interlocutoryapplications} were filed seeking temporary^{injunctionrestraining the} petitioner/defendant from interfering with the^{peaceful possession} and enjoyment of the respective^properties.

¶43

4.3. The schedule^properties are described as^{land in Survey} No.78, measuring 603.55 square^{yards (506.98sq. meters)and} 902.22 square yards (757.5G sq.^{meters) situated.at Bommakal} Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District.

¶44

4.4. The trial Court, after hearing both sides,^{held that the issue} of title claimed by either^party could not be^conclusively determined at the interlocutory stage and^{directed both parties to} maintain status^{quo pending} disposal of the^suits.

¶45

4.5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondenUplaintiffs^{preferredC.M.A.} Nos.2 and 3 of 2020 before the first appellate Court.^{The learned} \ \ Ilt Additional District Judge, upon consideration of the^{record and} observing that the Revenue Divisional Officer's^proceedings

¶46

¶47

confirmed the title and^possessionof the^{plaintiffs' vendors, Gali} Yakub and Gali John, modified the trial^{Court'sorder and granted} temporary injunction restraining^{the defendantfrom interferingwith} the plaintiffs'^possession. The^{petitioner/defendant,being} aggrieved, preferred the^present Civil^{RevisionPetitions.}

¶48

5.1. Learned counsel for the^{revision petitioner submitsthat the} first appellate Court erred in concluding^{that the plaintiffs' vendors} were in possession of the^{property. Such findings, accordingto him,} amount to a^prejudgment of the^{issuesthat ought to be determined} at trial and constitute an excess of^{jurisdiction.}

¶49

5.2. He further contends that^{the appellateCourt failedto} appreciate the ambiguity concerning^{the extent of land in the} documents relied upon by the^{respondenUplaintiff,namely Exs.P1,} P4, and P5, and ignored the absence^{of any categorical assertion} that the plaintiffs' vendors were in^{possession of the disputed} property. lt is urged that the appellate Court did not^properly consider the documents fited^{by the petitioner/defendant and, by} drawing conclusions on^{possession and title, transgressedthe}

¶50

¶51

¶52

limited scope of enquiry under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC He, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be set aside

¶53

6.1 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondenUplaintiff submits that the revision petitioner has disputed the extent of the land, and the issue was already adjudicated by the Revenue Divisional officer (RDo), who confirmed the title and possession of the plaintiffs'vendor over an extent of Ac.2.11 guntas in survey No.78. The contention that the vendors sold non-existent land has, therefore, been duly rejected in those proceedings.

¶54

6.2. He contends that the respondents/plaintiffs are lawfur successors in possession of the said land and that the first appellate Court, while relying on documentary evidence and administrative findings, rightly concluded that the plaintiffs were in possession and entitled to protection. As the property in question is open land, and as title and possession stand prima facie established, the appellate Court's order granting temporary injunction is legally sustainable. Accordingly, he prayed for \ \ dismissal of the revision petitions.

¶55

¶56

I have perused the material available on^{record and} considered the rival submissions of both^{learned counsel.}

¶57

B. lt is well settled that for the^grant of temporary^{injunction, the} applicant must establish (i) a^{prima facie case, (ii) balanceof} convenience in his favour, and⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾ irreparable^{injury likely to be} caused if the injunction is not^{granted.(Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad} Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719; Wander^{Ltd. v. Antoxlndia Pvt. Ltd-,} 1990 Supp SCC 727).

¶58

ln the present case, the respondenUplaintiff^{has claimed title} over Ac.2.11 guntas in Survey No.7B,^while the^{scheduleproperty} in both suits is shown in square^yards, leading^{to discrepanciesin} identification and extent. Though the revenue^{authoritiesappear to} have confirmed title in^general terms,^{no conclusivematerial has} been produced to correlate the specific^{portions claimedin the suits} to the land covered under those^proceedings.

¶59

At this interlocutory stage, the^{burden lies on the plaintiffto} establish^prima facie^{possessionand correlationof the schedule} property with his title documents. ln the^absence of^{such clarity,}

¶60

¶61

¶62

and considering the conflicting claims of both parties, it would be inappropriate to draw definitive conclusions regarding possession or ownership.

¶63

ln similar circumstances, the Hon'ble supreme court in zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. sfafe of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 scc 3gg, cautioned that courts must refrain from recording findings on tifle or possessir:n at the interim stage, as such findings may prejudice the trial.

¶64

Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that the proper course would be to direct both parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit schedule properties, so as to preserve the subject matter of the suits pending adjudication. such an arrangement would balance the equities and protect the rights of both sides without preempting the trial Court's determination on merits.

¶65

ln view of the foregoing discussion, these civil Revision Petitions are allowed in part, modifuing the orders of the courts below. Both the revision petitioner/defendant and the

¶66

¶67

¶68

respondenUplaintiff are directed to maintain status quo with respect

¶69

to possession and alienation of the suit schedule properties until

¶70

disposal of the suits in O.S. Nos.178 and 179 of 2A19 on the file of

¶71

the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶72

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.