Telangana High Court
L. Yadi Reddy vs Sri Ananth Saraogi on 22 April, 2025
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, P.Sree Sudha
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.628 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Order
dated 28.11.2024 in I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.364 of 2024
passed by the learned XI-Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. Respondents/plaintiffs have filed an application vide
I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.364 of 2024, against the
appellants/defendants, for granting of ad-interim injunction
restraining the appellants/defendants and their men from
interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over
the petition ‘B’ schedule property, pending disposal of the suit.
The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides
and also the evidence on record, allowed the application.
Aggrieved by the said Order, respondents therein/appellants
preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2
3. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants
mainly contended that respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit
for partition and separate possession, as such the question of
granting injunction in their favour does not arise. The trial
Court has wrongly concluded the entries made in the revenue
records as family division (Kutumba Vibhajana) under Ex.P75.
He also contended that respondents/plaintiffs have pleaded
themselves that suit schedule properties are not partitioned in
the plaint and Ex.R5, but the trial Court wrongly concluded the
same. Moreover, the entries made in Exs.P53 to P65 and Ex.P75
are misunderstood. The trial Court passed the Order without
going through Exs.R1 to R8, as such it is liable to be set aside.
He further contended that the trial Court passed the injunction
Order against the co-owner. The trial Court erroneously gave
the finding that respondents/plaintiffs are in separate
possession of the suit schedule ‘B’ property, pending disposal of
the suit. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the
impugned Order passed by the trial Court.
4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire
evidence on record.
3
5. Parties herein are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants
as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S.No.364 of 2024, for the
sake of convenience.
6. Initially, plaintiffs have filed a suit vide O.S.No.364 of
2024, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule
property by demarcating their entire extent of land admeasuring
Acs.10 – 26 gts including an extent of Acs.8 – 25 gts (mentioned
as suit – B Schedule property) out of Acs.14 – 14 gts and also
requested the Court to appoint Advocate Commissioner and to
grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with the suit B-Schedule property. During the
pendency of the suit, plaintiffs have filed an application vide
I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.364 of 2024, for grant of
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit B-Schedule
property, pending disposal of the suit. Plaintiffs No.1 to 19 are
represented by their GPA holder Bhumireddy Venkata
Malikarjuna Reddy, plaintiffs No.22 to 31 are represented by
their GPA holder M/s.Ashoka League Projects and plaintiffs
No.20 to 21 and 32 to 35 are represented in their individual
capacity. Defendants No.2 and 3 are son and wife of defendant
No.1. The family pedigree is illustrated as follows:
4
FAMILY PEDIGREE (Acs.14 – 14 gts.)
KISTA REDDY (Acs.7 – 07 gts) CHENNA REDDY (Acs.7 – 07 gts)
CHANDRA REDDY RAM REDDY SHARAVA REDDY SANGA REDDY
(Died issueless in 1978) (Died in 1980)Kista Srinivas Pratap Bal Ram Reddy
Reddy Reddy Reddy Gopal Reddy Yadi Reddy Chandra ReddyAshok Rama Chandra
Reddy Reddy(Sold vide Sale Deed Doct.No.2018/1997 Bal. Ac.0 – 24 gts is sold to (39/2007 dt.05.10.2006)
Dated:24.07.1997 – Acs.2 – 39 gts)L.Amrutha L.Kistamma L.Sulochana L.Sanjeev L.Arjun Reddy
w/o.Yadi Reddy w/o.Gopal Reddy w/o.Chandra Reddy s/o.Yadi Reddy s/o.Gopal Reddy
5
7. The brief facts of the case are that originally the lands in
Sy.Nos.15, 16, 17, 20, 22 and 23 together admeasuring
Acs.14-14 gts belongs to one late Kista Reddy and late Chenna
Reddy, who are brothers and later their legal heirs names were
entered into the revenue records as per the ROR Act and ROR
rules and individual pattadar passbooks and title deeds were
also issued in their favour prior to the year 1990.
8. As per the family pedigree, L.Kista Reddy branch is
entitled to an extent of Acs.7 – 07 gts. As L.Kista Reddy is
having two sons namely L.Chandra Reddy and L.Ram Reddy,
they are entitled to Acs.3 – 23 gts each out of Acs.7 – 07 gts.
The land of Chandra Reddy is divided among his three sons
namely Kista Reddy, Srinivas Reddy and Pratap Reddy. Later,
Ram Reddy transferred his land to his son Bal Ram Reddy. The
said Bal Ram Reddy sold the said Acs.3 – 23 gts through two
different registered sale deeds. He sold the land to an extent of
Acs.2 – 39 gts to L.Amruthamma W/o.Yadi Reddy, L.Kistamma
W/o.Gopal Reddy and L.Sulochana W/o.Chandra Reddy
through registered sale deed vide document No.2018 of 1997,
dated 24.07.1997. The said Yadi Reddy, Gopal Reddy and
Chandra Reddy are the children of second branch of Chenna
Reddy family. Bal Ram Reddy sold the remaining land of
Ac.0 – 24 gts out of Acs.3 – 23 gts to L.Sanjeev Reddy S/o.Yadi
6
Reddy and L.Arjun Reddy S/o.Gopal Reddy together jointly
through registered sale deed vide document No.39 of 2007,
dated 05.10.2006.
9. Similarly, Chenna Reddy branch is entitled to an extent of
Acs.7 – 07 gts. The said Chenna Reddy is having two sons
namely Sharava Reddy and Sanga Reddy. As the said Sharava
Reddy died issueless in the year 1978, the entire property is
succeeded by his brother Sanga Reddy, who died later in the
year 1980 and the said Sanga Reddy is having three sons
namely Gopal Reddy, Yadi Reddy and Chandra Reddy.
Accordingly, the said property of Acs.7 – 07 gts is divided among
three brothers i.e., Acs.2 – 15 gts each. Accordingly, individual
pattadhar passbooks and title deeds along with 1-B (ROR)
records are issued in favour of all the land owners.
10. All the legal heirs of both the branches obtained the
physical possession over the said schedule property in the
presence of elders and are in enjoyment of their respective
extents without any third party interference. The landowners
approached the developer through local mediators and the
developer agreed to develop the land for construction of villas.
The developer agreed to develop Acs.4 – 18 gts on out rate basis
and Acs.6 – 08 gts for development out of Acs.14 – 14 gts and
7
the remaining land of Acs.3 – 28 gts belongs to defendants,
which is already in their possession, in which they have
constructed some sheds long back and doing horse riding
business with a compound wall. As per the understanding
between the land owners and developer, all the land owners
together jointly sold their lands to an extent of Acs.4 – 18 gts
through several registered sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs No.1
to 21 and for the land admeasuring Acs.6 – 08 gts, the land
owners i.e., plaintiffs No.22 to 34 entered into a registered
development agreements cum general power of attorney in
favour of plaintiff No.35.
11. Immediately after registration, the land owners delivered
their physical possession to the purchasers to an extent of
Acs.10 – 26 gts out of Acs.14 – 14 gts. Accordingly, plaintiffs
together removed all bushes, temporary sheds and cleared the
land admeasuring Acs.10 – 26 gts and proceeded with the villa
project for approvals and sanctions. Later, defendants offered to
sell their land at an exorbitant price to the purchaser, but the
purchaser refused to buy the land, as such defendants raised a
dispute stating that there is no real partition took place between
all the brothers and plaintiffs cannot proceed with the
development process. Defendants are enjoying their land
8
measuring an extent of Acs.3 – 28 gts without any interference
or interruption by the plaintiffs.
12. Thereafter, plaintiffs No.22 to 31 have filed an application
for sub-division of their lands along with F-line application
through Mee-seva. Basing on the said applications a notice was
issued by the AD-Survey and M.R.O on 12.12.2023 to all the
members, who are holding the land in the above survey
numbers stating that demarcation will be conducted on
18.12.2023 at 10:30 AM. On receiving the notice for
demarcation, defendant No.3 filed a suit for partition and
separate possession vide O.S.No.886 of 2023 and obtained
status-quo Order in I.A.No.987 of 2023 on 12.12.2023. The said
suit was filed on 11.12.2023 and Caveat was filed on
06.11.2023. The defendant No.3 made a representation to the
AD-Survey and MRO on 15.12.2023, requesting to stop the
demarcation as there was Status-Quo Order and accordingly it
was stopped. Later, second notice was issued by the AD-Survey
to all the parties on 15.04.2024, stating that survey will be
conducted on 27.04.2024. When AD-Survey along with his staff
went to the site for conducting survey, defendants approached
the site and abused the AD-Survey, as such police complaint
was filed by the AD-Survey against the defendants and the same
was registered as Crime No.373 of 2024, dated 29.04.2024,
9
under Section 353 and 506 of IPC and the same is pending.
Again third notice was issued on 23.05.2024 for conducting the
survey on 30.05.2024 and accordingly survey was conducted.
Immediately after the survey, the defendants along with 10 to
12 anti-social elements trespassed into their property and
threatened them, as such plaintiff No.23 filed a criminal case
against the defendants and the same is pending.
13. Plaintiffs stated that out of total land admeasuring
Acs.14 – 14 gts, Acs.2 – 39 gts is left aside as per the directions
of the trial Court in O.S.No.886 of 2023, in which defendants
are having Ac.1-00 gts and the remaining extent of the land
which remains to the defendants is Acs.2 – 28 gts out of
Acs.3 – 38 gts, which is already in their possession and
constructed sheds and doing business, but still defendants are
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs No.1 to 21 and 35 have purchased the land
admeasuring Acs.4 – 18 gts and entered into registered
development agreement for the land admeasuring Acs.6 – 08 gts
and the land holding by defendants i.e., L.Yadi Reddy and his
family is Acs.3 – 28 gts out of Acs.14 – 14 gts.
14. Plaintiffs further stated that one M.Lalitha, who is the
daughter of Sanga Reddy in collusion with defendant No.1 filed
10
a suit vide O.S.No.644 of 2023, for partition, though her
marriage was performed prior to the year 1985. The Defendant
No.2 had also filed another suit for partition vide O.S.No.78 of
2024 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0 – 12 gts out of
Ac.0 – 24 gts. Defendants instead of filing a single suit for
partition in respect of the entire extent of land admeasuring
Acs.14 – 14 gts filed several suits suppressing several material
facts. Defendants are interfering with the remaining land
admeasuring Acs.8 – 25 gts, which exclusively belongs to the
plaintiffs, with a mala fide intention. If at all, the said lands are
not partitioned previously, how can the defendants construct a
room and sheds for horses and even a compound wall to an
extent of Acs.2 – 28 gts and even electricity connection was
given to the said land. Only after the registration of the land
admeasuring Acs.10 – 26 gts by the developer, defendants
started creating trouble to get huge price for their land.
15. Defendants sought for injunction for the land
admeasuring Acs.8 – 25 gts shown as Schedule – B property.
There is no title dispute in regard to the suit schedule property.
Plaintiffs approached the Rajendranagar police to provide police
protection over the suit B-Schedule property, but they simply
denied stating that as the matter is civil in nature, directed to
approach the Court, as such they preferred the suit.
11
16. In the written statement filed by the defendants they
stated that originally land admeasuring Acs.14 – 24 gts belongs
to Late Kista Reddy and Late Chenna Reddy, who are the real
brothers, subsequently their names were entered in the revenue
records as per ROR Act. The land admeasuring Acs.14 – 19 gts
was orally partitioned between the branches of Late Kista Reddy
and Late Chenna Reddy. In the said oral partition, Late Kista
Reddy branch got Acs.7 – 09 ½ gts, and Late Chenna Reddy
branch got Acs.7 – 09 ½ gts. Accordingly, their branches have
been separately enjoying their respective lands.
17. Defendants further stated that their branch have been
jointly enjoying Acs.7 – 09 ½ gts., without any partition by
metes and bounds. In the said Acs.7 – 09 ½ gts, the defendant
No.1 is having undivided 1/3rd share, Lankala Gopal Reddy is
having undivided 1/3rd share and Lankala Chandra Reddy is
also having undivided 1/3rd share, but their sister by name
Lalitha, filed a suit vide O.S.No.644 of 2023 for partition and
separate possession claiming 1/5th share. In the said suit,
defendants have filed their detailed written statement claiming
1/3rd share. Defendants have shown the family tree of Late
Lankala Chenna Reddy, as follows:
12
FAMILY TREE OF LATE LANKALA CHENNA REDDY
Lankala Gopal Reddy Lankala Yadi Reddy Lankala Chandra Reddy Amruthamma Malli @ Lankala Lalitha
L.Arjun Reddy L.Balwanth Reddy L.Sulochana
L.Bhasker Reddy L.Sanjeeva Reddy L.Narasimha Reddy
L.Srikanth Reddy
Smt.D.Sri Vani
13
18. Defendants have admitted the sale deeds executed by
L.Balaram Reddy, regarding his entire extent of land and there
is no dispute regarding filing of O.S.No.78 of 2004 by defendant
No.2. Defendants also stated that in the both suits i.e.,
O.S.No.886 of 2023 and O.S.No.78 of 2024, plaintiffs admitted
that no partition was effected by metes and bounds, filed the
suit for partition and separate possession and obtained ex-parte
interim injunction against them, which is erroneous and also
stated that it is a settled principle of law that “No injunction can
be granted against co-owner”. It is also stated that mere
obtaining pattadar passbooks and title deeds does not confer
any exclusive rights to the plaintiffs and in the revenue records
no boundaries were mentioned. The entries made in the
pattadar passbooks and title deeds do not mean that properties
were partitioned by metes and bounds. Plaintiffs did not file a
single document to prove that their vendors were in possession
within the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds and
irrevocable GPA’s and thus no partition was effected among the
sharers.
19. Defendants further stated that when the matter is sub-
judice before the trial Court, the question of surveying the land
through Mee-seva does not arise. Plaintiffs have no locus standi
to leave Acs.2 – 28 gts to them as per their wishes and they
14
have no right to file the suit when once the matter is sub-judice
before the other Courts for partition of 1/3rd share of defendant
No.1 and thus leaving of Acs.2 – 28 gts does not arise. It is also
stated that there is no partition effected in respect of the suit
schedule properties among the sharers, as such the question of
giving separate tables does not arise and plaintiffs falsely
alleged that they have constructed a compound wall to an
extent of Acs.2 – 28 gts, as a matter of facts, they have
constructed a room and cattle shed in and over Acs.7 – 09 ½ gts
of land. Already suits are pending before the concerned Courts
for partition by metes and bounds, as such the question of
purchasing by plaintiffs No.1 to 21 and 35, through alleged
registered sale deeds and development Agreement-cum-GPA
does not arise and they are false, bogus and created documents.
The legal heirs of Lankala Chenna Reddy have not yet
partitioned their land admeasuring Acs.7 – 09 ½ gts and they
are enjoying the property without any partition by metes and
bounds, but the plaintiffs knowing all these facts, filed a
speculative suit for partition without adding necessary parties,
as such the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and
it has to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
20. The learned counsel for the defendants gave material to
show the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds filed by the
15
plaintiffs under Exs.P1 to P46. His main grievance is that
specific boundaries to the said extents were not mentioned and
boundaries of Acs.14 – 14 gts were not mentioned. In all the
cases, boundaries are shown as neighbours land, owners land
and similar boundaries were mentioned in Exs.P37 to 46.
21. As the defendants in the suit raised objection regarding
the partition of the property between the sharers, which was
happened way back in the year 1989, the trial Court discussed
all the documents at length and stated that there was allegation
regarding family division/partition (Kutumba Vibhajana) and it
goes to show that there was division of properties between two
branches and other issues are to be decided in the main suit
and during the pendency of the suit, it is for the Court to
protect the rights of the parties and accordingly granted
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the
possession of the plaintiffs over the suit B-Schedule property.
22. There is no dispute regarding the total extent i.e.,
Acs.14 – 14 gts and also regarding the oral partition between
the two brothers i.e., L.Kista Reddy and L.Chenna Reddy. Kista
Reddy property was divided among his two sons Chandra Reddy
and Ram Reddy admeasuring Acs.3 – 23 gts each. The Chandra
Reddy property was divided among his three sons, whereas Ram
16
Reddy transferred his share of property to Bal Ram Reddy. He
sold his share of property to the extent of Acs.2 – 39 gts to
L.Amrutha W/o. Yadi Reddy, L.Kistamma W/o. Gopal Reddy
and L.Sulochana W/o. Chandra Reddy and also sold the
remaining extent of Ac.0 – 24 gts to L.Sanjeev S/o. Yadi Reddy
and L.Arjun Reddy S/o. Gopal Reddy, who are the family
branch of Chenna Reddy. If at all, there was no partition by
metes and bounds among two brothers and their legal heirs,
why the family members of Yadi Reddy, Gopal Reddy and
Chandra Reddy purchased the property from Bal Ram Reddy to
the total extent of Acs.3 – 23 gts was not explained anywhere.
The Chenna Reddy has two sons and both of them died, as such
Gopal Reddy, Yadi Reddy and Chandra Reddy stated that each
of them are entitled to Acs.2 – 15 gts, but their sister filed the
suit claiming 1/5th share in the said property. The defendant
No.3 i.e., wife of Yadi Reddy has also filed another suit and so
also defendant No.2 had also filed another suit for his Ac.0 – 12
gts of land.
23. Plaintiffs contended that defendants filed several suits for
different extents, but a comprehensive suit for the total extent of
Acs.14 – 14 gts was not filed by anyone. Admittedly, there was
division of property between two brothers in the year 1989 and
later it was devolved upon their children and the partition was
17
conducted between the branches of both sides, as such they
executed registered sale deeds in favour of several other
members who are arrayed here as plaintiffs. There was no
dispute regarding the title or division of property among two
branches. Now, the problem had arisen when the land was
entrusted to the developer for constructing villas, defendants
opposed the same. Instead of developer filing the suit against
the defendants, all the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition
against defendants for partition of entire extent of the land,
whereas defendants admitted oral partition occurred way back
in the year 1989, but submitted that there was no partition by
metes and bounds. The entire extent of the defendants is only
Acs.3 – 28 gts and they have constructed sheds, running horse
riding business and also constructed a compound wall, but
surprisingly, defendants raised objection stating that they have
constructed shed in Acs.7 – 9 ½ gts, but not Acs.3 – 28 gts.
When Sharava Reddy died issueless in the year 1978, his share
was devolved upon his brother Sanga Reddy. When Sanga
Reddy died in the year 1980 itself, the property was divided
among his sons equally. Therefore, it cannot be said that there
was no partition at all of the extents to be possessed by each
sharer. However, respective share has not been delineated by
metes and bounds. Only in view of hike in prices of the
properties, several suits were filed from the same family for
18
different extents. It is for the said reasoning, in the sale deeds
executed by the plaintiffs, the boundaries mentioned are that of
the total extent of land of Acs.14 – 14 gts and not that of each of
the sharer.
24. In the interlocutory application, injunction is sought for
regarding suit B-Schedule property. Plaintiffs/petitioners in the
said application requested the Court to restrain the defendants
from interfering with their possession in the B-Schedule
property. B-Schedule property was shown as suit B(I) to B(VI) in
different extents. The same relief was sought for in the suit
itself. It is one of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit.
Therefore, relief granted in the interlocutory application
amounts to granting of the said relief in the suit without
adducing any evidence by both sides. Therefore, the Order of the
trial Court is patently erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
However, considering the fact that plaintiffs and defendants are
no other than cousins and the objection is raised only by
defendant No.1 and his family, this Court finds that it is just
and reasonable to grant an order of Status-Quo, since parties
claim to be in possession of land falling to their extent. Thus,
the plaintiffs and defendants are restrained from the interfering
with the property of others. They should continue their
19
possession in their own property and accordingly Status-Quo is
granted.
25. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by
setting aside the Order dated 28.11.2024, passed by the trial
Court in I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.364 of 2024 and both the
parties are directed to maintain Status-Quo. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 22.04.2025
tri
[ad_1]
Source link