Telangana High Court
M/S. Drs Infra vs M/S. A.R. Resurgence Resources Llp on 21 May, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.221 AND 230 OF 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.Tukaramji)
We have heard Mr.V.Ravinder Rao, learned Senior
Counsel, argued on behalf of Mr.Arvind Geedipelly, learned
counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.2 and 3;
Mr.A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel, argued on behalf of
Mr.Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1/plaintiff and Mr.K.Durga Prasad, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2/defendant No.1.
2. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 221 of 2024 has been filed
by appellants/defendants Nos.2 and 3, challenging the order
dated 19.03.2024 in I.A. No. 125 of 2023. Similarly, Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No.230 of 2024 has been preferred by the
same appellants, contesting the order dated 19.03.2024 in I.A.
No.126 of 2023.
3. As both appeals arise from orders passed in related
interlocutory applications within O.S. No.150 of 2023, before the
IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar,
2 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.221 and 230 of 2024
and since the reliefs sought are similar, they are being heard and
adjudicated together in this common judgment.
4. These appeals are brought by appellants/respondents Nos.
2 and 3/defendants Nos.2 and 3, challenging the decrees and
orders dated 19.03.2024 in I.A. Nos.125 and 126 of 2023 in O.S.
No.150 of 2023. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, had allowed the
applications of respondent No.1/petitioner/plaintiff, granting a
temporary injunction restraining respondent No.3/defendant No.3
from altering and alienating the petition schedule property.
Brief Facts:
5. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit seeking a
declaration as the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule
property i.e., Ac.1.09 guntas in Sy.No.299, Puppalaguda,
Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and to declare the
sale deeds dated 29.12.2022 (executed by the respondent
No.2/defendant No.1 in favour of appellant No.1/defendant No.2)
and 16.01.2023 (executed by appellant No.1/defendant No.2 in
favour of appellant No.2/defendant No.3) as null and void and not
binding on the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks recovery of
possession.
3 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.221 and 230 of 2024
6. For facility of reference, hereinafter the respondent
No.1/petitioner/plaintiff is arrayed as ‘the petitioner’ and the
appellant Nos.1 and 2/respondent Nos.2 and 3/defendant Nos.2
and 3 as ‘the respondent Nos.2 and 3’ respectively, in
accordance with the I.A.Nos.125 and 126 of 2023.
7. The petitioner claims title to the schedule property through
a registered sale deed dated 07.07.2012 and an exchange deed
dated 30.03.2013, executed by the vendors Nagula Sattemma
and others.
Originally, the land in Sy.No.299 (Ac.13.01 gts.) was
classified as evacuee property, with Nagula Sathaiah, Nagula
Srinivas and Nagula Swamy as tenants over Ac.10.01 gts. Upon
application, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, allotted this
land to them on 16.12.1994, by issuing a sale certificate, whereby
conferred title.
Subsequently, Nagula Sathaiah and Nagula Swamy
executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of
M.Subba Rao in 1994. Acting on their behalf, the attorney
executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 for
Ac.7.20 gts. on 08.02.1995. Additionally, the remaining
Ac.2.20 gts. was sold to Smt. Sandeepa on 03.07.1997. Due to
4 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.221 and 230 of 2024
an error in the northern boundary description in respondent
No.1’s sale deed, a registered rectification deed was executed on
23.05.2007.
After the demise of Nagula Sathaiah and Nagula Swamy,
their legal heirs, along with Nagula Srinivas, filed O.S. No. 60 of
2000 before the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy
District, seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 08.02.1995,
alleging it was executed without their consent. During the
proceedings, the parties reached a compromise: respondent
No.1 relinquished his title over Ac.3.19 gts. (including Ac.1.00 gts.
acquired by HUDA) and agreed to execute a relinquishment deed
in favour of the plaintiffs. In return, the plaintiffs relinquished their
rights over Ac.4.03 gts. (including Ac.1.00 gts. acquired by
HUDA) in favour of respondent No.1. This compromise was
recorded in a Lok Adalat Award on 16.12.2008. Pursuant to
execution proceedings, the plaintiffs executed the agreed
relinquishment deeds on 09.05.2011, making respondent No.1
the title holder of Ac.3.03 gts. in Sy. No.299.
Respondent No.1 subsequently sold Ac.0.18 gts. to
B.Madhusudhan Reddy, and on 09.05.2011, sold Ac.2.19 gts. to
Nagula Sattamma and others. Nagula Sattamma and others then
5 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.221 and 230 of 2024
executed a registered sale deed dated 07.07.2012 in favour of
the petitioner for Ac.1.00 gts., and conveyed Ac.1.02 gts. to third
parties, retaining Ac.0.17 gts., of which Ac.0.13.5 gts. was
acquired for the Outer Ring Road. M.Renuka and two others
executed a registered ratification deed on 09.08.2012.
Additionally, B.Madhusudhan Reddy conveyed Ac.0.09 gts. to the
petitioner vide a registered sale deed dated 30.03.2013. After
further Government acquisition, B.Madhusudhan Reddy retained
Ac.0.08 gts. in Sy.No.299.
At the petitioner’s request, Mr.Madhusudhan Reddy
executed a registered exchange deed dated 30.03.2013 for
Ac.0.08 gts., making the petitioner the owner and possessor of
Ac.1.09 gts. Conversely, after these transactions and
acquisitions, respondent No.1 was left with less than Ac.2.15 gts.
The petitioner constructed a compound wall and a
watchman’s room on the property, maintaining peaceful
possession. However, on 06.01.2023 and 10.01.2023, agents of
respondent No.2 allegedly demolished the watchman’s room and
attempted to take possession. When the petitioner approached
the Police, they declined to act, citing the civil nature of the
dispute. Meanwhile, the respondent No.2 filed W.P. No. 920 of
6 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.221 and 230 of 2024
2023, alleging Police interference, and the petitioner filed W.P.
No. 961 of 2023, challenging the respondents’ actions.
Despite knowing he did not possess Ac.3.03 gts.,
respondent No.1 allegedly executed a fraudulent sale deed on
29.12.2022 in favour of respondent No.2, followed by another
sale deed from respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 on
16.01.2023. On 19.01.2023, respondents allegedly encroached
upon and dispossessed the petitioner, prompting the present suit
to challenge these actions and protect the petitioner’s rights.
Arguments:
8. Counsel for appellants/respondents Nos.2 and 3 contends
that the schedule-B property belongs to them, and the petitioner
has failed to establish a prima facie case. They argue that the
petitioner’s own pleadings and the Lok Adalat settlement show
the disputed property is different from what the petitioner claims,
and that after acquisition, respondent No.1 retained only
Ac.2.15 gts. The appellants further assert that the petitioner has
not clearly identified the exact location of Ac.1.09 gts. claimed.
They also pointed to revenue records and the issuance of a
pattadar passbook in favour of respondent No.2, and question the
trial Court’s reliance on the Lok Adalat Award and other
7 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.221 and 230 of 2024
documents. The appellants claim that preventing them from
developing the property would cause irreparable loss.
9. Conversely, counsel for the petitioner argues that the trial
Court properly considered the pleadings and evidence, and that
the impugned orders were necessary to preserve the status quo
and prevent multiplicity of litigation. The petitioner maintains that
the property’s location is clear and that the efforts of respondent
Nos.1 and 2 to complicate the matter are unfounded. Therefore,
the appeals lack merit.
In support, the petitioner cited following judicial authorities:
(i) Mahawarlal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot v. Baldev Dass
(Manu/SC/0912/2004); (ii) Wander limited & another v. Antox
India Private Limited (1990 (Supp) SCC 727); (iii) Behari Kunj
Sahkari Avas Samiti v. State of UP ((2008) 12 SCC 306); (iv)
Tirumala Venkata Reddaiah Chowdary and another v. Potla
Krishna Prasad (Manu/AP/0852/2008); (v) Gurbax Singh v. Kartar
Singh (Manu/SC/0144/2004); (vi) K.Ravi Prasad Reddy v.
G.Giridhar (Manu/AP/0075/2022); (vii) Corporation of the City of
Bangalore v. M.Papaiah & others (AIR 1989 SC 1809); (viii) Dalip
Singh Sachar v. Prabodh Chander Puri (Manu/DE/8037/2007);
(ix) Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mahomed Haji Latif and others
8 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.221 and 230 of 2024
(Manu/SC/0168/1969) (AIR 1968 SC 1413); (x) Mohan Overseas
Private Limited v. Goyal Tin and General Industries
(Manu/DE/3071/2009).
Point for determination:
10. Whether the impugned orders of interim injunctions are
sustainable under the facts and law?
11. The petitioner asserts ownership and possession of the
schedule property based on a series of sale and exchange
deeds. Conversely, respondent Nos.2 and 3 (the appellants)
claim title to the same property through subsequent sale deeds
and supporting revenue records. A central issue in this dispute is
the validity of the sale deeds dated 29.12.2022 (executed by
respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2) and 16.01.2023
(executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3).
Whether these sale deeds are genuine and binding, or fraudulent
and unenforceable against the petitioner, will be pivotal in
determining the outcome of the suit.
12. Significantly, both the petitioner and respondent No.3
assert possession over the schedule property. Therefore, it is
crucial to ascertain whether the petitioner was in peaceful
possession and subsequently dispossessed by the appellants, or
9 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.221 and 230 of 2024
whether the appellants were lawfully in possession. This factual
determination is a key issue for adjudication.
13. Another important consideration is whether the properties
claimed by the petitioner and the respondents are clearly
identified and whether they are, in fact, distinct parcels of land.
Thus, the identification and precise localization of the property will
have a material bearing on the case.
14. Additionally, the effect of prior legal proceedings-including
the compromise recorded in O.S. No. 60 of 2000 and the Lok
Adalat award-on the present rights and titles of the parties, as
well as any alleged discrepancies in the boundaries and extent of
the property, require careful scrutiny.
15. These complex factual and legal issues can only be
thoroughly examined and resolved through a detailed trial.
Accordingly, there exists a prima facie case warranting further
adjudication.
16. During the pendency of a suit, it is a well-established
principle that the status quo regarding the suit property should
ordinarily be maintained, unless the defendant demonstrates
exceptional circumstances warranting permission to raise
construction or alienate the property.
10 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.221 and 230 of 2024
17. Considering a similar situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot v. Baldev Dass
reported in (2004) 8 SCC 488, wherein held that,
“10. Be that as it may, Mr. Sachhar is right in contending
that unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage
is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not
permit the nature of the property being changed which
also includes alienation or transfer of the property which
may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party
who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to
multiplicity of proceedings. In the instant case no such
case of irreparable loss is made out except contending
that the legal proceedings are likely to take a long time,
therefore, the respondent should be permitted to put the
scheduled property to better use. We do not think in the
facts and circumstances of this case, the lower appellate
court and the High Court were justified in permitting the
respondent to change the nature of property by putting up
construction as also by permitting the alienation of the
property, whatever may be the conditions on which the
same is done. In the event of the appellant’s claim being
found baseless ultimately, it is always open to the
respondent to claim damages or, in an appropriate case,
the court may itself award damages for the loss suffered,
if any, in this regard. Since the facts of this case do not
make out any extraordinary ground for permitting the
respondent to put up construction and alienate the same,
we think both the courts below, namely, the lower
appellate court and the High Court erred in making the
impugned orders. The said orders are set aside and the
order of the trial court is restored.”
11 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.221 and 230 of 2024
18. In the light of above observation, when the facts and
circumstances of the present case are considered, pending
adjudication of aforementioned factual issues, we are of the
considered view that the petitioner would suffer irreparable harm,
if injunction is not granted, and does the balance of convenience
favour maintaining status quo. In this view, if the property was to
be alienated, it would likely result in a multiplicity of legal
proceedings. The trial Court recognized this risk when it granted
interim relief. Furthermore, any alteration to the nature of the
property during the suit could similarly give rise to additional
litigation. Given these considerations, the trial Court’s decision to
grant a temporary injunction-restraining the defendants from
alienating or altering the property was both justified and
appropriate.
19. Upon review, and in light of the aforementioned principles,
this Court finds that the trial Court’s exercise of discretion in
granting the temporary injunction in favour of the
petitioner/plaintiff is neither illegal nor perverse. The order is
found to be just, proper, and does not warrant any interference.
12 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.221 and 230 of 2024
20. For the afore-stated reasons and in the absence of merit,
the appeals i.e., C.M.A. Nos. 221 and 230 of 2024 are liable to be
and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
stands closed.
_______________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_______________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 21.05.2025
svl