Writ appeals challenged a common order allowing the writ petitioner's claims, alleging he suppressed pendency of three civil suits and invoking lis pendens under Section 52 TPA. The court found no material proving the petitioner knew of the suits when filing the writ petition and held Section 52 operates in a different field.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[34461
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL NOs: 409 410 & 414 0F 202s
WRIT APPEAL NO: 409 OF 2025
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.
Between:
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
...APPELLANT
AND
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to restrain the respondent no.3 in making constructions over the subject property pending disposal of the writ Appeal in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.PRABHAKAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI G.BHASKER REDDY
-..1:i-:lr.'*:.
Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI E.VENKATA REDDY, GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN OEV
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.SIDDARTH REDDY, SC t:OR MCPL
Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI CH.RAVINDER
WRIT APPEAL NO;410 OF 2025
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 Coirt.
Between:
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
..APPELLANT
AND
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
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,
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.PRABHAKAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI G.BHASKER REDDY
Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI E.VENKATA REDDY, GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.SIDDARTH REDDY, SC F'OR MCPL
Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI CH.RAVINDER
i I
WRIT APPEAL NO: 414OF 2025
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.
Between:
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
.,.APPELLANT
AND
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to restrain the respondent no.3 in making constructions over the subjectproperty pending disposal of the writ Appeal in the interest ofjustice.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.PRABHAKAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI G.BHASKER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI E.VENKATA REDDY, GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.SIDDARTH REDDY, SC FORMCPL
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI CH.RAVINDER
The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT
'j@-
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIET JUSTICE SUJOI' PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT, JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.4O9 4lO &,414 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Just,ce Sujog Paut):
Sri .i. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel represents
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
2 Re51a:,1 being had to the similitude of tI Le questions involved, tlres': matters were analogously heard on arlmission
2
amounts to "suppression of fact" and in view of suppression, no relief was due to the writ petitioner
:-EEry
3
l
Senior Counsel for the appellant that the writ petitir>n was filed suppressing tl-re material fact could not be substantiated.
interlo:utory applications, if any pending, shall also
stanci closed
To,
SO/-K.SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r^.. 1 _='- -- SECTION OFFICER rl
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
1H r-s r,i €
(
I
.,1
30 AP 2fl25 o )
*
-r''.\ri'. lo6' rlr s--O
--;-===_=
DISMISSING ALL THE WRIT APPEALS,
WITHOUT COSTS
?\ ,ilL6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge erred by granting relief despite alleged suppression of pendency of O.S.Nos.52, 53 and 280 of 2022 by the writ petitioner?
Whether Section 52 Transfer of Property Act creates deemed knowledge of pending suits on the writ petitioner?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Karra Ganapathi Reddy
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development
The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation
Thota Thirupathi
Sujoy Paul
Renuka Yara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
