Dismissed¶66

Alahari Venkata Rajagopal v. Kalakota Venkatrama Narsimha Chary

Telangana HC16 Feb 2026CRP/3369/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court CRP No. 3369 of 2025 (decided 16.02.2026, Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.): revision against refusal of Advocate Commissioner appointment (I.A. No. 218 of 2025) in declaration-of-title and injunction suit O.S. No. 3 of 2023, Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon; identification of Sy.No.642/C; 660 sq. yards purchase under Document No. 241 of 2012; trial court order upheld for want of material on location, shape and size of Sy. No. 642; CRP dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

This Court endorsed the trial court's conclusion that there was no material to show the location of the total extent of Sy. No. 642, its shape and size with measurements, making the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner unwarranted. ¶64

Alahari Venkata Rajagopal Vs Kalakota Venkatrama Narsimha Chary — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3369 OF 2025

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of CPC, aggrieved by the order dated 2410712025 passed in l.A No. 218 of 2025 in O.S No. 3 of 2O23 on the file of the Court of Principal Sesslons Judge, Jangaon District at Jangaon.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Alahari Venkata Rajagopal, S/o Late Ramanujachary, Age: 53^years, Occ: Govt. Servant, R/o H.No.1-71, lppagudem Village, Ghanpur Station Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶10

...Petitioner /Defendant No.2

¶11

AND

¶12

Kalakota Venkatrama Narsimha Chary, (Died)

¶13

Kalakota Ranga Chary, S/o Late K.Krishnamachary Age: 75 years, Occ: Govt. Employee,

¶14

Kalakota Attullayamma, Wo Late Venkatramnarsimha Chary, Age: B0 years, Occ: Housewife.

¶15

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are R/o of H.No.669, Ghanpur Station Village and Mandal, Jangaon District, Presently Residing at H.No.'t -2-365/4, Domalaguda, Hyderabad.

¶16

Chinthakuntla Narender Reddy, S/o Late Pedda Ranga Reddy, Age: 69 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.8-23, Ghanpur Station Village and Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶17

Chinthakuntla Narsimha Reddy, S/o Late Madhava Reddy, Age: 62^years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.6-76, Ghanpur Station Village and Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶18

Kolakota Srinivasa Charyulu, S/o^{Late K.V.N.Charyulu, Age: 42 years,} . Occ: Poolari,^{R/oH.No.5-1-110/1, Ranganayakula Gutta, Bhadrachalam Village} and Manclal, Khammam District.

¶19

Kolakota Yadagiri Charyulu, S/o Jagnmada^{Chistryulu,Age: 38 years,} Occ: Pri!ate Employee, R/o H.No.4/187/1,^{GundlapallyVillage,Yadagingutta} Revenue Mandal, Nalgonda District^{(Died) per} Lrs.,^{(Defendant No.6 and 7)}

¶20

B. Kalakota Shoba Devi, Wo Late Yadagiri Charyulu,^Age: 36^{years, Occ:} Household, R/o. H.No.4/187/1. Gundlapally Village, Yadagirigutta^Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶21

Kalokota Aruna, S/o Late Yadagiri Charyulu,^{Age:20 years, Occ:Temporary} Employee, in Sri Laxmi Narsimha Swamy Devasthanam,^{Yadagirigutta,R/o} H.No.4/1ti7l1 Gundlapally Village, Yadagirigutta Revenue Mandal,^Nalgonda Diskict.

¶22

l0.Kalakota Narsimha Chary, S/o Narayana Chary, Age: 40^years, Occ:^Poojari, R/o. H.No.2-6-539, Nagole, LB Nagar. Hyderabad.

¶23

1 1. Kalakota llamana Chary, S/o Narayana Chary, Age: 35^years, Occ:^{Poojari, R/o.} H.No.2-6-539, Nagole, LB Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶24

'l2.Vankur Ramchander, S/o Rajanna, Age: 58 years, Occ: Govt Employee. R/o. H.No.4-8l1, Madikonda, Kazipet.

¶25

l3.Anumula Kumar, S/o Sailu, Age: 34^years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.2-39l1. Eeravennu village, Palakurthy Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶26

14.Year Komuraiah, So Yadaiah, Age: 53^years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Eppagudem village, Ghanpur (Stn) Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶27

Gatla Malla Reddy, S/o Gopal Reddy, Age: 48^years Occ: Agriculture,^R/o. Eppagudem village, Ghanpur (Stn) Mandal, Jangaon Diskict.

¶28

Madida l3oopal, S/o Mallaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Akkapallylyudem, H/o Eppagudem village, Ghanpur (Stn) Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶29

17.Ya.a Sarldahana, Wo Komuraiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household. R/o.Akkapallygudem, H/o Eppagudem Village, Ghanpur^(Stn) Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶30

18.Pogula S;rrangapani, S/o Not Known, Age: 55^years, Occ: Sarpanch, R/o Chagallu /illage, Ghanpur (Stn) Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶31

19.Pogula Karthik, S/o Pogula Sarangpani, Age: 31^years, Occ: Student, R/o. Chagallu \rillage, Ghanpur (Stn) Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶32

Veeraboin a Parushuram, S/o. Not Known, Age: 53^years, Occ: Dish W Business, R/o. Ghanpur (Stn) Village and Mandal, Jangaon District.

¶33

...Respondents/Defendants Nos.1 and 3 to 20

¶34

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025

¶35

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 stay of all further proceeding in O.S No. 3 of 2023, on the court of the Principal Sessions Judge, .langaon District at Jangaon, pending disposal of the above CRP.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Kambalapalli Sravan Kumar Reddy

¶37

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri J. Venkateswara Reddy

¶38

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶39

IN T]IIE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAIIGANA AT I{YDERABAD

¶40

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAITIAVARAPU RAJESITWAR RAO

16th Febmaryr 2o.26

CTVIL REVISION

No.3369 OF 20.25,

Between:

Alahari Venkata Rajagopal

¶46

...Petitioner

¶47

AND

¶48

Kalakota Venkatrama Narsimha Chary and others

¶49

...Respondents

¶50

ORDER

¶51

Thi:s Civil Revision Petition is frled to set-aside the dismissal order in I.A.No.2L9 of 2025 in O.S.No.3 of 2023 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Jangaon District at Jangaon.

¶52

Heard Sri Kambalapatli Sravan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dharavath Bhaskar and Sri J. Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶53

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the defendant No.2 in O.S. No. 3 of 2023 which was filed for declaration of title and injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner frled I.A. No. 218 of 2025 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features and identify the petition schedule property and to find out whether it is situated in Sy.No.642f C or not.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner purchased plot measuring 660 sq. yards forming part of Sy.No.642/C, uide registered sale deed document No.24l of 2012, dated 27.01.2012 and petitioner constructed a house thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.2 who was examined as PW- 1 denied in his crossexamination that the petitioner constructed his house and compound wall in plot measuring 660 sq. yards forming part of sy.No.642 /c and that the said house is not at all in existence. As such, he filed the said I.A. But, the trial court dismissed the said I.A. by order dated 24.07.2025 without any reasons or findings and without considering the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the presegl{Jvil Revision Petition is frled.

ii l,/

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the plot admeasuring 660 sq. yards under the alleged registered sale deed document No.241 of 2Ol2 dated 2Z.Ol.2Ol2 is a post suit document as the suit was filed by the plaintiff No. 1 in the year of 2O1O and the structure was made during the pendency of the suit.

¶61

ka::ned counsel for the respondents further submits that the schedule property i.e., 660 sq. yards is not part and parcel of the suit schedule property i.e., 2 acres 1 1 guntas. Once the property is not part and parcel of the suit schedule property, question of appointment of Advocate Commissioner does not arise. In the said circumstances, the learned trial court observed the same and dismissed the I.A.

¶62

A p,:rusa] of the record shows that the said I.A. was dismisse{ by the learned trial Court by observing that to identify of the lanil in which the house of the petitioner/Defendant No.2 is located, there is no material to show the location of total extent of Sy. No.6421, it's shape and size with measurements, the location of each sub-rliyision of Sy. No.642 and their shape and size with measuremi-.nts. In the said circumstances, it will be a futile exercise to appoint an Advocate commissioner. The trial court

¶63

¶64

rightty came to the conclusion that there is no material to show the location of total extent of sy. No.642, it's shape and size with measurements.

¶65

In that view of the above observation of the trial court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the trial Court in I.A.No .2L8 of 2025 in O.S.No.3 of 2023 dated 24.07.2025.

¶66