Sollu Ajay Varma Vs The District Legal Services… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Sollu Ajay Varma Vs The District Legal Services… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - both writ petitions (W.P.Nos.26223 of 2023 and 13064 of 2024) dismissed without costs; as a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed; petitioners' remedies against their vendor left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Lok Adalat Awards dated 29.03.2019 (Lok Adalat Case No. 250 of 2019 in O.S. No. 220 of 2012) and dated 23.08.2017 (Lok Adalat Case No. 1052 of 2017 in O.S. No. 4 of 2011), contended by the third-party purchaser petitioners to be outcomes of fraudulent acts to defeat their interest over the schedule property, ought to be set aside. +2 more

Court's answer

The Awards were not disputed by the respondent No.2/vendors of the writ petitioners, who raised no contention at least in the present writ petitions.

Ratio / Principle

Under the Award dated 29.03.2019 in O.S. No. 220 of 2012, the writ petitioners' vendor accepted the relinquishment deed and the right of plaintiff No.10 over the property, to the extent of his interest.

Key takeaways

As per the Award in O.S. No. 4 of 2011, the respondent No.2/vendor of the petitioners executed as many as six registered relinquishment deeds - one each in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and four in the names of different persons - and accepted the rights of the defendants.ratio¶16
Since the respondent No.2 had abdicated his rights over his property at the earliest in 2009 through his GPA and thereafter admitted the transactions and relinquishment deeds, execution of sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioners in the years 2015 and 2016 stands without foundation.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Third-party purchasers who had acquired portions of Sy.Nos.16/A-16/D, Seetharampur Village, Karimnagar from Mohammad lbrahim (their vendor) sought, under Article 226, writs of certiorari to set aside two Lok Adalat Awards - dated 29.03.2019 in Lok Adalat Case No. 250 of 2019 (arising from O.S. No. 220 of 2012, I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar) and dated 23.08.2017 in Lok Adalat Case No. 1052 of 2017 (arising from O.S. No. 4 of 2011, Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar) - alleging fraudulent and collusive conduct. Per Justice N. Tukaramji (common order), the Court held that fraud, deception or misrepresentation by the vendor on the purchasers is distinguishable from fraudulent and collusive action between the vendor and his adversaries in the suits, and that a mere settlement between suit parties or vendor-side deception does not conclusively establish that an Award was obtained by playing fraud against the purchasers. The vendor had abdicated his rights at the earliest in 2009 through his GPA and thereafter, under the Awards, admitted the transactions, ratified the documents of 2009 and 2015, executed six registered relinquishment deeds and accepted the adversaries' rights; accordingly the petitioners' sale deeds of 2015-2016 stand without foundation. Absent any tenable ground showing a deceptive act or fraudulent deed among the suit parties, the plea that the impugned Awards were vitiated by fraud could not be sustained. Both writ petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs, pending miscellaneous petitions closed, and the petitioners' remedies against their vendor left open.

a

[^337e ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION NO: 26223 OF 2023 AND WRIT PETITION NO: 13064 OF 2024

WRIT PETITION NO: 26223 OF 2023:

Between:

Smt. Yachamaneni @^{Boinpally Nirosha,Wo. Boinpally Abyudaya,Aged} about 32 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 7-4-1991313, Jagithyal Town and District - 505327.

2 Smt. Yachamaneni @ Annamaneni Niharika, Wo. Annamaneni Prakash Rao, ASed^{57 years, Occ. Business,H.No. 2-471313,SeetharampurVillage,} Karimnagar, Karimnagar and District.

...PETITIONERS

AND

1 The District Legal Services Authority, rep. by lts Secretary, District Court Complex, Karimnagar - 505001 .

Gujjula Anantha Reddy, S/o. Late Madhava Reddy, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Business, Ri/o. H. No. 3-7 -593, Vavilalapally, Karimnagar Town and District.

Nampelli Rani, W/o. Nagarjuna Chary, Aged about 45 years, Occ. House wife, Rl/o. H. No.8-4-18111, Ganeshnagar, Karimnagar Town and District.

Chitmalla Amar, S/o. Bhadraiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 8-5-304i20lA, Laxminagar, Karimnagar Town and District.

Nampelli Nagarjuna Chary, S/o. Uppalaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, Ri/o. H. No. 8-4-18111, Ganeshnagar, Karimnagar Town and District.

Kanakuntla Rama Krishna, Sio. Satyanarayana, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, No. 1-4-'112, Padmashali Street, Karimnagar Town and District.

7- Bodla Laxman, S/o. Sambaiah, Aged about 49 years, Business, Fl,/o. H. No. 7- 2-510, Mankammathota, Karimnagar Town and District.

8- Konda Ramesh, S/o. Ramulu, Aged about 47^yearc, Occ. Business,^{Rl/o. H.} No.4-1-12, Osmanpura, Karimnagar Town and District.

Thatikonda Srinivas, S/o. Dasharatham, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 2-9-30, Mukarampura, Karimnagar Town and District.

'10.Gujjula Madhavi, W/o. Rama Krishna Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Occ. House Hold, R/o. 106, Kammarkhanpet Village of Dharmaram Mandal Karimnagar District.

11.Alla Kondal Reddy, S/o. Rarn Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 6-2512, Cherlabuthkur Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District.

l2.Chandra Bhoopal Reddy, S/o. Janardhan Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Business, RUo Nancherla Village, Pegadapally Mandal, Karimnagar District.

Mohammad lbrahim @ Nawab, S/o. Gulam Dastagir, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 7 -2-255, Mankammathota, Karimnagar Town and District.

Mohammad Abdul Raouf, S/o. Not known, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Advocate Rl/o. 7-3-189, Kashmeergadda, Karimnagar Town and District

..RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for record in Lok Adalat Case No. 25O of 2019 in O.S. No. 22O o'f 2012 on the file of I Additional District Judge at Kariimiagar consequently set aside the impugned Award dated 29.03.2019 passed in Lok Adalath Case No. 25O of 2019 in O.S. No. 22O of 2012 on the file of I additional District Judge, Karimnagar by the 1 et Respondent declaring the same as fraudulent, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice as well as Lok Adalat Act.

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 grant leave for filing this writ petition challenging the impugned award passed in Lok Adalat Case No. 25O of 2019 in O.S. No. 220 of 2012 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar by the Lok Adalat Bench at Karimnagar.

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

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 suspend the operation of impugned award dated 29.03.2019 passed in Lok Adalath Case No. 250 of 2019 in O. S. No. 220 ol 2O12 on the fite of I Additional

District Judge, Karimnagar by the Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VEMUGANTI MAHESH KUMAR

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SHASHT KTRAN PUSLURI (SC FOR TSLSA)

Counsel for the Respondent No.3,5 & 11 : SRI Y. RAMA RAO

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2,4,6 to 10, 12to14;----

WRIT PETITION NO: 13064 oF 2024;

Between:

'1 . Sollu Ajay Varma, S/o. Rajaveeru, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Ganukula Kondapur Village, Ganneruvaram Mandal, Karimnagar District.

Smt. Yachamaneni @ Boinpally Nirosha, Wo. Boinpally Abyudaya, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Housewife, Rt/o. H.No. 7-4-1991313,^jagittiyal Town ;nd District - 505327.

Smt. Yachamaneni @ Annamaneni Niharika, Wo. Annamaneni Prakash Rao, Aged 57 yegrs, Occ. Business, H.No. 2-471313, Seetharampur Village, Karimnagar, Karimnagar and District.

...PETITIONERS

AND

,| The District Legal Services Authority, Rep. by lts Secretary, District Court Complex, Karimnagar - 50500'1 .

2 lVlohammad lbrahim, S/o. Gulam Dastagir, Aged 57 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 7-2-255, Mankammathota, Karimhagar.

Bollam Laxman, Sio. Anjaneyulu, Aged 33 years, Occ. Business, H. No. 10-276117 , Vidvanagar, Karimnagar.

Chittumalla Amar, S/o. Bhadraiah, Aged 30 ybars, Occ. Business, Ri/o. H. No. 8-5-3041201 A, Laxminagar, Karimnagar.

Nampelli Nagarjuna Chary, S/o. Uppalaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, Riio. H. No. 8-4-181 , Ganeshnagar, Karimnagar Town and District.

Konda Srinivas, S/o. Late Konda Ramulu, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o. H. No. 4-1-8, Osmanpura, Karimnagar.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for record in Lok Adalat Case No. 1O52 of 2017 in O.S. No. 4 of 2011 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar consequently set aside the impugned Award dated 23lOBl2O17 passed in Lok Adalath Case No. 1052 of 2017 in O.S. No. 4 ot 2011 on the file of

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar by the 1st Respondent declaring the same as fraudulent, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice as well as Lok Adalat Act.

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

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 suspend the operation of impugned award dated 2310812017 passed in Lok Adalath Case No. 1052 of 2017 in O.S. No. 4 of 2011 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar by the 1st Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VEMUGANTI MAHESH KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SHASHI KIRAN PUSLURI (SC FOR TSLSA)

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI Y. RAMA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4:^- - - -

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

,)

HONOURABLE SR!JUSTIGE P. SAM^KOSHY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{N. TUKARAMJI}

WRIT PETITIO N NO. 26223 0F²⁰²³ AND WRIT PETITION NO . 13064^{0F 2024}

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'bte Sri Justice N. Tukaramii)

We have heard Mr. Vemuganti^{MaheshKumar'learned} counsel for the^{petitioners. Mr.Shashikiran Pusluri,learned} Standing Counsel for Telangana^{State Legal Services} Authority/respondent No.1 in both^{the writ petitionsand} tVlr.Y.Rama Rao, learned^{counsel for respondentNos.3,5 and} 'l 1 in W.P.No.26223 of 2023 and for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.13064 of 2024.

W.P.No.26223 of 2023^{has beenfiled for issuance of writ} in the nature of writ of^{Certiorai callingfor record in Lok} Adalat Case No.250 of 2019^{in O.S.No.220ot 2012 on the file of} the I Additional District Judge^{at Karimnagar and to set aside} the Lok Adalat Award dated^29.03.2019.

W.P.No.13064 o't 2024 has been^{filed for issuance of writ} in the nature of writ of^{Cediorari calling for record in Lok} Adalat Case^{No.1052of 2017in O.S.No.4 of 2O11 on the file of}

PSKJ & NTRJ w P s 26223 _21) 23& 1306./, _2024

2

the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and to set aside the Lok Adalat Award dated 23.08.2017

The writ petitioners are third parties to the respective suit proceedings

W.P.No.26223 ot2O23: The suit O.S.No.220 of 2O'12 was filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 12 herein seeking perpetual injunction against the respondent Nos.13 and 14 herein in respect of the suit schedule properties in item Nos.l to V, total admeasuring Ac.03.18 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/,4 to 16/D situated at Seetharampur Village of Karim.nagar Mandal and District.

ln the suit, Mr.AIla Kondal Reddy/the plaintiff No.10 and Mohammed lbrahim @ Nawab/defendant No.1 (vendor of the writ petitioners) have amicably settled the issues in respect of item No.ll and lV of the suit schedule property i.e 4c.01.27 quntas in Sy.Nos.16/4 to 16/D situated at Seetharampur village of Karimnagar Mandal and District. whereby the defendant No.'l admitted the title and possession of the plaintiff No.10 over the suit schedule property of ltem Nos.ll and lV. Accordingly, on 29.03.2019 an Award has been passed

PSKJ & NTR] wk 26223 2023&13064 7024

3

)

W.P.No.'|3064 of 2024: The^{respondent No.2 herein} as plaintiff (respondent No.13 in Writ^{PetitionNo'26223ot 2023} and defendant No.1^{in O.S.No.22O of 2012) filed suit vide} O.S.No.4 of 2011 against the^{respondentNos 3 to6} herein/defendant Nos.1 to^{4 seeking declarationof title and} perpetual injunction and also to^{declarethe sale deed dated} 25.09.2009 as^{null and void and not binding on him in respect} of the suit schedule^{propertyadmeasuringAc.01 .08 ountas in} Sv.No s 16/4 to^{16/D situated at Seetharampur Village of} Karimnagar Mandal^{and District}

The suit was settled^{betweenthe parties and Award was} passed through Lok Adalat on^{23.08'2017 wherebythe} respondent No.2/plaintiff^{in the suit O.S.No.4 of 2O11 (vendor} of the writ^{petitioners/respondentNo.13in W'P'No'26223 of} 2023 and defendant^{No.1 in O.S.No.220ol 2012) had executed} registered deeds relinquishing^{his rights in favour of the} owners of the^{propertyand the defendant No'3/Nampally} Nagarjuna Chary^{and Bukka Poshetty and affirmed registered} agreement of sale-cum-GPA^{dated 04.07.2012in favour of} Nampelly Ravikanth,^{S/o.Nagarjuna Chary andthe}

I

PSKJ & NTRJ WPs 26223 2023&13064²⁰²⁴

4

relinquishment deed^{on 15.12.2015Additionallyexecuted} four registered^{relinquishment deeds and accepted that the} suit schedule^{propertyhas to be enjoyed by the defendants'}

Briefly stated the^{relevantfactsare that the petitioners} (inW.P.No 13064of^{2024\ had purchased24444 squareyards'} 201.66 square^{yards and 215 square yards from Mohammad} lbrahim/respondent^{No.2 (defendant No 1 in O S No 220 of} 2012 and^{plaintiff in O.S.No-4of2011 hereinafter 'the} defendant No.1')^{under registered sale deeds dated} 30.01.2015,^{24 08.2016and14.09-2016respectivelyin} Sy.Nos.16/4. to^{16/D situated at Seetharampurvillage of} Karimnagar mandal^{and district.The suit O S No'220of 2012} was filed by eleven^{plaintiffs against the vendor of the} petitionersidefendant No.1^{and one Mohd Abdul Ravoof} seeking^{perp6tualinjunctionover the suit schedule properties} in five items total^{admeasuringAc.03.18 guntas ln the suit' it} has been claimed that^{the plaintiffs 1 to 9 therein jointly} purchased Ac.O7.O2^guntas in^{Sy-Nos 16/,4 to 16/D for a} valuable consideration^{under registeredsale deed from the} original^{pattedar Mahboob Ali in the year 2008.Subsequently} to meet their necessities^{they sold Ac.01.0'1guntas in favour}

PSKJ & NTRJ wPs 26223 m23&r3064 2024

5

of Gujjula^{Ram KrishnaReddy and five others' Ac'0'19 guntas} and 42 square^{yards to Bukka Poshetty, Ac 0'12 guntas and75} square^{yards to K.Rama Krishna in total Ac'1'33 guntas and} remaining^{property ofAc.03.'18 guntas was intheir} possession. Subsequently^{that propertywas sold to A'} Kondal Reddy and^{C.Bhoopal Reddy/plaintiff Nos'10 and 11} and another^{under registeredsale deed'However'the plaintiff} Nos.1 to^{9 are continuing in possession'Furthercontended} that the defendants^{therein includingthe vendor of the} petitioners herein and^{anotherare interfering with their} possession. Their^{further case was that the vendor of the} petitioner/defendant^{No.1 herein had executed registered} general^power of^{attorney(GPA)in favour of Bollam Laxman} on 18.01.2008,^{whereuponthe GPA settled the dispute by} execution of^{a registered relinquishment deed on 25'09'2009} in favour of^{the plaintiffs, admittingno right, title or interest} over the suit^{schedule property by receiving Rs'50'000/-} towards expenses^{and also stood as attestorfor the} registered^{sale deedexecuted by the pattedars in favour of} the^{plaintiffs.Accordingly the suit was settledbetween} Kondal Reddy/plaintiff^{No 10 and the vendor ofthe}

ta&---:il!:.-. @*.i.

PSK] & NTR] WPs 26223 2023&130 2024

6

petitioner/defendant No.'l in respect of Ac 0..,l2 gutnas/item No.ll and Ac.01.'1 5 guntas/item No.lV in Sy.Nos.'16/4 to i6lD.

On the other hand, the vendor of the petitioners/defendant No.1 in O.S.No.220 of 2012 filed suit O.S.No.4 of 2011 seeking declaration of tifle and perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.O1.0g guntas in Sy.Nos.16/4 to 16/D of Seetharampur village, Karimnagar mandal and district by pleading that originaily the land belongs to tr4ohd.Ankoos and others and through the general power of attorney of the owner, Garvandula Srinivas, himself and one Patnam Venugopal purchased land admeasuring Ac.01.'l 0 guntas and Ac.0.20 guntas respectively under registered sale deed on 28.06.2007. Later he sold Ac.0.02 guntas to one Asma Parveen on 09.08.2007 through registered sale deed and on 18.01 .2008 he executed registered general power of attorney in favour of Bollam Laxman/defendant No.1 therein. Later he came to know that on 23.07.2010 that his general power of attorney executed relinquishment deed dated 25.09.2009 admeasuring Ac.01.10 guntas in favour of Chittumalla Amar, Nampally Nagarjuna Chary and Konda Srinivas/defendants Z lo 4 therein. Thereupon contending

PSK] & NTR' W P s _26223 _2023&t]ln]6'4' 2024

7

that the deed of general power of attorney was unconversant language of English and after sale of Ac.0.02 guntas to Asma Parveen he was in possession of Ac.01 .0g guntas and the execution of relinquishment deed by his general power of attorney is a fraudulent act and as he did not ratify, the relinquishment deed as such that deed is not binding on him, prayed for declaration and injunction. As the defendants remained absent an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs on 29.04.201'l . Subsequenily on an application vide 1.A.No.1435 of 2015 and order dated 23.08.2017, the ex pafte decree was set aside and matter was restored to file and upon petition to record the setflement between the parties, the suit was referred to Lok Adalat and decree was passed in terms of the settlement. Whereby relinquishment deeds executed by the plaintiff (vendor of the writ petitioners) on 15.12.2015 in favour of the son of Nampelli Ravi Kanth son of Nampelli Nagarjuna Chary (defendant No.3 in OS No.4 of 2011), Chittumalla Amar (defendant No.2 in OS No.4 of 2011), Goli Chandra Bhupal Reddy, Kanukunfla Rama Krishna, Bukka Srinivas and affirmed the general power of attorney executed by him in favour of Bollam Laxman/defendant No.1.

PSKJ & NTRJ WPs 26223 2023&130ff, 7024

B

a

ln this factual position, the writ petitioners, contending that the Lok Adalat settlement in both the suits are outcome of fraudulent acts to defeat their interest over the schedule property, prayed for setting aside the Awards

ln contrast, learned counsel for the defendants pleaded supporting the Lok Adalat Awards. Further submitted that the petitioners are third parties to the proceedings and their vendo r/respo n dent No.1 had voluntarily agreed for settlement, signed on the Award and executed the relinquishment deeds, in addition validated his earlier general power of attorney in favour of Bollam Laxman and the transactions done by him. Therefore, the conclusions recorded in the Awards are perfectly valid. Furthermore except pleading that there was a fraud or deception in settling the matter, the petitioners failed to make out any fact or circumstance proving such connivance in the settlement recorded by the Lok Adalat. lf at all the petitioners have any grievance in respect of their transaction, they can contest against their vendor but setting aside the Lok Adalat Awards would prejudice thelr rights and

PSKJ & NTRI wqs 26223 2023&13064 2024

9

would disturb^crystalised rights^{in their favour- Thus prayed} for dismissal of the writ^petitions

We have carefully considered the^{submissions of the} learned counsel and perused the^{materials on record.}

A careful reading of^{pleadings in the suitsparticularly} the suit filed by the respondent^{No.2/vendor of the writ} petitioners i.e. O.S.No.4 of 2011, it is evident^{that he claimed} right over Ac.01.10^{guntas in Sy.Nos.'16/4 to 16/D by virtue of} registered sale deed dated^{28.06.2007with an admission that} he sold Ac.0.02^guntas from^{out of that property in favour of} one Asma Parveen under^{registeredsale deed. He further} claimed that he executed^{general powerof attorney in favour} of Bollam Laxman/defendant^{No.1 .} Correspond ing ly, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.220 o'f 2012 had claimed^{that Bollam} Laxman had settled the^matter and^{executed the registered} relinquishment deed dated^{25.09.2009, though the execution} was admitted, the writ^{petitioners vendor disputed the deed as} he did not ratify the same.

On the other hand,^{the O.S.No.22Oof 2012 was amicably} settled among the^{parties on 29.03.2019'As per the Award, the}

PSKJ & NTR] wPs 26223_.1023&13064 2024

10

writ petitioners' vendor accepted the relinquishment deed and the right of the plaintiff No.'t0 over the property, to the extent of his interest.

lt is pertinent to note that, as per the award in O.S.No.4 of 2011 the respondent No.2/vendor of the petitioners had executed as many as six registered relinquishment deeds one each in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and four in the names of different persons and accepted the rights of the defendants.

The relevant paras in the Award in O.S.No.4 of 2011 read

as follows

"1 . Thereafter, the plaintiff executed a registered relinquishment of disputed nght deed in Doc.No.12383/2015 dated 15.12.2015 in faovur ofh te aboue said purchaser and GpA Holder Nampelly Ravikanth S/o NagarjunaChary. That the plaintiff furiher executed a Regd. Retinquishment of disputed rights bearing document No.l2328/2015, dated 15.12.2015 in favour of the defendant No.2 by receiving the amount towards expenses. Similarly, the plaintiff executed regd. Relinquishment of disputed ights in favour of other owners of the land. Thereby the parties tothis suit have agreed between themselves to have the suit settted and there is no necessity of the case being tried.

PSK] & NTRJ wPs 26223 ZOZ3&130@ -2024

11

2.ThattheptaintifffuttherexecutedotherRegd.Relinquishment of disputed^{right deeds inDoc'Nos 1)12329/2015' dated} 15.12.2015, 2)^{12330/2015dated 15'12 2015'3)} 12331k1/2015^{dated1512'2015 and 4)1233U2015dated} 15.12.2015 in^{favour of Goli Chandra BhupalReddy' S/o}

JanardhanReddyandotherretinquishmentofdisputedright deed beaing^{No.12326/2015dated 15'12.2015 in favourof} Kankuntla Rama^{Kishna, S/oSatyanarayanaand} retinquishment^{ofdisputedright deed document} No.12327/2015,^{dated 1512'2015 in favour of BukkaSrinivas}

S/o Bala Narayana^{and relinquishment of disputed right deed} No.12325/2015,^{dated 1512'2015in favour of Kadaparthy}

Prakasha^{RaoS/o KoteshwarRao'}

That the^{both parties to the suit have no issues lo be settled} between^{hem in respect of suitschedule propeftyand the} defendants^{can enioy theirrespectiveland'purchasedby} them being^{the absolute ownerand possessorswlthout} interference or^{hindrancefrom any body in any nature' That} the regd.^{Agreementof sale cum G P.A'No-6347/2009' dated} 25.Og.2OOg^{executedin favour of defendantNo 1 stands good}

and valid."

Thus the settlement^{in the award is demonstratingthatthe} documents^{of 2009 and 2015 including the general power of} attorney in^{favour of BollamLaxman in 2008 hasbeen} admitted^{and ratified under the award and settled the rights of} the parties^{by way of executing registered relinquishment} deeds by the^{writ petitioners' vendor' The documents}

PSK] & NTR) v'lPs 26223 2023&730€/, 2024

72

('

admitted are even before the sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioners.

Further, the Awards were not disputed by the respondent No.2/vendors of the writ petitioners or has not raised any contention at least in the present writ petition. Be that as it may, as the respondent No.2 had abdicated his rights over his property at the earliest in 2009, through his GPA and thereafter by admitting the transactions and relinquishment deeds, execution of sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioners in the years 2015 and 2016 would stand without foundation.

lt is relevant to note that, fraud or deception or m isrepresentatio n by the vendor on the writ petitioners is distinguishable from a situation .where fraudulent and collusive action by the vendor of the writ petitioners and his adversaries in respective suits, to defraud the writ petitioners. Mere settlement between the parties or f ra ud/deception/m is representation by the vendor on the writ petitioners will not make out any fact to conclusively

PSKI &^NTR1 w 26223_2023&130&^zo24

13

determine^{that the Award has been obtainedby playing fraud} against^{the writ} Petitioners

Therefore,^{in the absence of any tenable groundor} circumstance^{showing deceptive act or fraudulentdeed} among the^{parties in the suit/settlementin Award' the plea} that the impugned^{Awards are vitiated on the ground of fraud} cannot be^{sustained.ln effect, the writ petitions deserveto be} and are accordingly^{dismissed'Nonetheless'the petitioners'} remedies against^{their vendor available under law are left} open.

21 . ln the^{result,the W'P'Nos'26223oI 2023 and 13064 of} 2024 are^{dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs'}

As a sequel,^{pending miscellaneouspetitionsif any'}

stands closed.

SD/-s. AS$'th'i$+E*'"lSi[iR

//TRUE^COPY'/ EGTION^OFFICER

To i ?l;^{Es p"$$:HfiffitlrsHriffi#-'::^l:"*'} BN BS

Q-lz

lrl

A

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710112025

COMMON ORDER

WP.No.26223 OF ZO23 & 13064 0F 2024

-lrAis-
I
,
u
iC 0 'J I iB ?[i5 Ic
.l'
-t n6g onTCq (_c

DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT PETTTIONS WITHOUT COSTS

6
{
t 4

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Lok Adalat Award dated 29.03.2019 passed in Lok Adalat Case No. 250 of 2019 in O.S. No. 220 of 2012 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar; and Lok Adalat Award dated 23.08.2017 passed in Lok Adalat Case No. 1052 of 2017 in O.S. No. 4 of 2011 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar - both sought to be set aside as fraudulent, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and the Lok Adalat Act¶29
Lok Adalat Bench at Karimnagar · 29.03.2019 and 23.08.2017
Prior proceeding
The writ petitioners are third parties to the respective suit proceedings¶4
Prior proceeding
O.S. No. 220 of 2012 filed by respondent Nos.2 to 12 seeking perpetual injunction against respondent Nos.13 and 14 over suit schedule properties in item Nos.I to V, total Ac.03.18 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D, Seetharampur Village, Karimnagar¶5
Prior proceeding
In O.S. No. 220 of 2012, plaintiff No.10 (Alla Kondal Reddy) and defendant No.1 (Mohammad lbrahim @ Nawab, vendor of the writ petitioners) amicably settled the issues in respect of item Nos.II and IV; defendant No.1 admitted plaintiff No.10's title and possession; Award passed on 29.03.2019¶6
Prior proceeding
O.S. No. 4 of 2011 filed by the vendor of the petitioners (defendant No.1 in O.S. No. 220 of 2012) seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction over land admeasuring Ac.01.08 guntas in Sy.Nos.16/A to 16/D, Seetharampur Village, Karimnagar¶10
Prior proceeding
Ex parte decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 4 of 2011 on 29.04.2011 as defendants remained absent¶10
Prior proceeding
On application vide I.A.No.1435 of 2015 and order dated 23.08.2017, the ex parte decree was set aside and the matter restored to file¶10
Prior proceeding
Upon petition to record the settlement between the parties, the suit was referred to Lok Adalat and decree passed in terms of the settlement (Award dated 23.08.2017 in Lok Adalat Case No. 1052 of 2017)¶10
Prior proceeding
Per the Award in O.S. No. 4 of 2011, the vendor executed relinquishment deeds on 15.12.2015 in favour of Nampelly Ravikanth, defendant Nos.2 and 3 and other owners, and affirmed the GPA executed in favour of Bollam Laxman¶10
Prior proceeding
IA No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.26223 of 2023: petition under Section 151 CPC for leave to file the writ petition challenging the impugned award¶31
Prior proceeding
Suspension applications (IA No.2 of 2023 and IA No.2 of 2024) to suspend operation of the impugned awards pending disposal of the writ petitions¶33