Dismissed

Sri. Karra Ganapathi Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Apr 2025WA/410/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeals alleging the writ petitioner suppressed pendency of civil suits at Karimnagar and invoking lis pendens doctrine to deny relief. The court found no material showing awareness at filing time, rejected the deemed-knowledge claim, declined admission and dismissed all three appeals without costs.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ appeals dismissed without costs and pending interlocutory applications closed.

Sri. Karra Ganapathi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁶¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NOs: 409 410 & 414 0F 202s

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 409 OF 2025

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Lefters Patent preferred against the order dated 2710212025 in W P No. 35105 ot 2024 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sri. Kana Ganapathi Reddy, S/o. Saireddy, Aged. 67 Years, Occ.A griculture, R/o. H.No.10-4-46ll, Vavilalapally, Karimnagar Town and District, T. S

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar rep. by its Commissioner, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶15

Thota Thirupathi, S/o. Thotalingaiah, Aged about. 50 Years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o.H.No. 4-46, Venkatraopally Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

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 restrain the respondent no.3 in making constructions over the subject property pending disposal of the writ Appeal in the interest of justice.

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.PRABHAKAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI G.BHASKER REDDY

¶20

-..1:i-:lr.'*:.

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI E.VENKATA REDDY, GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN OEV

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.SIDDARTH REDDY, SC t:OR MCPL

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI CH.RAVINDER

¶24

WRIT APPEAL NO;410 OF 2025

¶25

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the Order dated 27-02-2025 in V/ P.No.35 l15 of 2024 on the file of the High Co^irt.

¶26

Between:

¶27

Sri. Karra Ganapathi Reddy, S/o. Saireddy, Aged. 67 Years, Occ.Agnculture, Rl/o. H.No.10-4216/1 , Vavilalapally, Karimnagar Town and Distrct, T. S

¶28

..APPELLANT

¶29

AND

¶30

1 The State of Telangana, Rep., by it's Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶31

2 The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar rep. by it's Commissioner, l(arimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶32

Thota Thirup:rthi, S/o. Thotalingaiah, Aged about. 50 Years, Ctcc. Agriculture, R/o.H.No. 4-46, Venkatraopally Village, Ramagundam L4andal, Karimnagar District.

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶35

Petition under Section^'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumr;tances stated in the affidavit filec irr support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent no.3 in making constructions over the sr.bject property pending disposal or thr: writ Appeal in the interest of justice,

¶36

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.PRABHAKAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI G.BHASKER REDDY

¶37

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI E.VENKATA REDDY, GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.SIDDARTH REDDY, SC F'OR MCPL

¶39

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI CH.RAVINDER

¶40

i I

¶41

WRIT APPEAL NO: 414OF 2025

¶42

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against Order Dated 2710212025 in WP No 35096 ot 2024 on the file of the High Court.

¶43

Between:

¶44

Sri. Karra Ganapathi Reddy, S/o. Saireddy, Aged. 67 Years, Occ.A g riculture, Rl/o. H.No.10-4-46/1 , Vavilalapally, Karimnagar Town and District, T. S

¶45

.,.APPELLANT

¶46

AND

¶47

1 The State of Telangana, Rep., by it's Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶48

The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar rep. by^it's Commissioner, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶49

ThotaThirupathi, Sio. Thotalingaiah, Aged about.50 Years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o.H.No. 4-46, Venkatraopally Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶50

...RESPONDENTS

¶51

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶52

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 restrain the respondent no.3 in making constructions over the subject^property pending disposal of the writ Appeal in the interest of^justice.

¶53

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.PRABHAKAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI G.BHASKER REDDY

¶54

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI E.VENKATA REDDY, GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.SIDDARTH REDDY, SC FOR^MCPL

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI CH.RAVINDER

¶57

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶58

'j@-

¶59

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIET JUSTICE SUJOI' PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT, JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶60

WRIT APPEAL Nos.4O9 4lO &,414 of 2025

¶61

COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Just,ce Sujog Paut):

¶62

Sri .i. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel represents

¶63

Sri G. Bh.as r<ar Reddy, learned counsel for th: appellant; Sri E. Venk.ar-a Reddy, iearned Government Pleader lor Municipal Administratior-r and Urban Development, for resp,rndent No.1 and Sri F.. Siddarth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Ni;.2

¶64

2 Re51a:,1 being had to the similitude of tI Le questions involved, tlres': matters were analogously heard on arlmission

¶65

The :;r ngular point raised by learned Senior Counsel for the appeilant is that the learned Single Judge l Las erred in passing thr: ir:rpugned common order dated 27.O2.2)25 ignoring the fact that the writ petitioner (respondent No.3 her-ein) has not disclosed the act of pendency of O.S.Nos.52, 53 and 28O of 2022 on the fil: of Principle Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. Learned Sr:nior Counsel for the appellant submits that this

¶66

¶67

amounts to "suppression of fact" and in view of suppression, no relief was due to the writ petitioner

¶68

The other point raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that as per the provisions under Section 52^of the Transfer of Property Act, 1 882 (for short, 'the Act'), it^is deemed that the writ petitioner had the^knowledge of^pendency of the suits.

¶69

On a repeated query from the Bench as to^whetherthere existed any materia-l to show that the writ^{petitionerwas aware} of the pendency of aforesaid civil suits and^{yet he has not} disclosed the same, no cogent material^{could be placed before us} by learned Senior Counsel for the appellalt to^{highlight the} same. The only document on which reliance is^{placedis at page} No.173 in W.A.No.4O9 of 2025 i.e., a^{plair-rt copy} under^Order XXVI r/w Order VII Rule 1 and 2 of^{Code of Civil Procedure.} This plaint was filed before the Principal Junior^{Civil Judge at} Karimnagar after frling of the writ petition.^{No material could be} pointed out to highlight arld establish that by the^{time the writ} petition was filed, the writ petitioner was aware^{of pendency of} aforesaid civil suits. Thus, the contentions^{raisedby learned}

:-EEry

Senior Counsel for the appellant that the writ petitir>n was filed suppressing tl-re material fact could not be substantiated.

¶74

So fzrl as the contention of learned Senior ,lounsel for the appellar-^.t that as per the provisions under Sectir:n 52 of the Act, it is der:rned that the writ petitioner hhd the krrowledge of pendency of the aforesaid suits, in our opinion, Section 52 of the Act operates; rn a different fie1d for a different purp ose ald no deemed kncrr,r,ledge can be assumed on the ba:;is of this provision.

¶75

For l,he aforesaid reasons, we find no reason i_o entertain these appeals Tl-rc admission is declined and acco.dingiy, the appeais are dismissed. No costs.

¶76

interlo:utory applications, if any pending, shall also

¶77

stanci closed

¶78

To,

¶79

SO/-K.SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r^.. 1 _='- -- SECTION OFFICER rl

¶80

One CC to SRI G BHASKER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶81

One CC to Sttl^{(IH.RAVINDER,} Advocate [OPUC]

¶82

One CC to SRI K.SIDDARTH REDDY, SC FOR MCPL IOPUC]

¶83

Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADIVIN URBAN DEV, High Court frtr the State of Telangana al Hyderabad [OUT]

¶84

Two CD Copres BSR LS Ig.

¶85

i I i I I II I t I I I

Il I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1610412025

COMMON JI.'DGMENT

WA.Nos.409, 410 & 414 ot²⁰²⁵

¶91

1H r-s r,i €
(
I
.,1
30 AP 2fl25 o )
*
-r''.\ri'. lo6' rlr s--O
--;-===_=

¶92

DISMISSING ALL THE WRIT APPEALS,

¶93

WITHOUT COSTS

¶94

?\ ,ilL6

Sri. Karra Ganapathi Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Karra Ganapathi Reddy v. The State of Telangana

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

The State of Telangana Vs Sri a S R Prasad

M/s.Chintoos Food Vs The State Tax Officer

M/s Solpro Automation Systems Vs Commercial Tax Officer and 4 Others

M/s.Suraj Kiran Renewable Resources Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Karra Ganapathi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Golden Constructions Vs The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)