Contempt Case No. 1489 of 2019 · The High Court · 2025

Bollavaram Bhaska Rao, S/o Naarsinga Rao, aged g3 years Occ. Agriculture Bollavaram Sridhar Rao, S/o B.Bhaskar.Rao, aged 54 years Occ. Agriculture Both r/o Kalvacherla (V) Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar'District ...Petitioners/Appellants/Defendant Nos.,l & 2 AND 1 2 |, 4 Kusumba Ranga Rao (died), No address (lsumba Hemavathi, W/o Ranga Rao Aged 75 years, Occ Household r/o C/o 201 flat. Surendra Apartments Adlacent o'f Vrnclty nospita . Oh eow;palfy''" Secunderabad Kusumba Sride-vi Wo Krishnashastrula Subramanyam, aged 56 years, Occ Househotd tro cto z0i frat, surendra npartmentJ Ai;icbnior vrniitv Hospitir, Old Bowenpally Secunderabad Kusumba Srilatha, W/o Vishnudas Surender Rao Aged 52 years, Occ Household rlo Cto 2O1 ftar Surendra Apartmenti Ad;acJn: i,tVi.iclty Hospitat, Old Bowenpally Secunderabad Kusumba Sri Rama Rao. S/o late Ranga Rao Aged 51 year:;, Occ private SfirJXrfSJJ: fl8"r3,]"tj?if#'j,dra A[ar-tments"r,a;acrinl o,vincrty uospitar. 6 Kusumba Krishna Murthy, S/o late Ranga Rao Aged 48 years, Occ Prrvate Employee ilo Clo 201 flat, Surendra Apartments Adjacent of Vincity Hospital, Old Bowenpally Secunderabad 7 Kusumba Srivani, Wo Vishnudas Jagan Mohan Rao Aged 46 years, Occ Househotd o Clo 2O1 flat, Surendra Apartments Adjacent of Vincity Hospitat, Old Bowenpally Secunderabad ... Respondent Nos. 1 to /Plantiffs Counsel for the Appellant in Appeal suit and Contempt Case : representing SRI P RAJA SRIPATIII RAO MS. B NISHITHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in Appeal suit and Contempt Case i SRI M JAGANNATHA SARMA The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT -7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENIiKA YARA APPEAL SUIT No.2l of 20 l9 (;ONTEMPT CASE No.t 489 of 201 9 COMMON JUI)GMENT: Heard Sri P. Raja Sripathi Rao, Ieamed Senior (',rtrnsel representing Ms. B. Nishitha, Iearned counsel lor the appellants and Sir.i M. Jagannatha Sarma, leamed counsel for respondcnt Nos.2 to 7. [):rused the entire record

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/de li n Cant Nos.l and 2 aggrieved by the.judgmenr and decrcc dated 10.10.20 I8 in O.S.No.33 of 2012 passed by thc learned Vl Additional District Jud*e, Godavarikhani, ('trial Court'), r.vherein suit filed seeking declaration or'ritle, recovery of possession and rcturrd of cornpensation arrount has been rlecreed in favour of the respondenr N.s. I to 7/plaintiffs. 'Ihe parties arc r,:l'erred as they are arrayed in the su it.

3. During the pendency of the present appeal, this ('our1 granted order of status quo on 13.02.20 l9 pending disposal of the appcal. when the said order was in lbrcc. plaintiffi/r'espondent Nos. I to 7 dug rhr-ee bore wells in the suit schedule propefty. out ol- said three bore wels permission was *)q.rr"o lbr only one bore well. During the opcration or'rhc' orcler of status \ As-21-2019 and cc I489-20t9 quo as the ptaintiffs dug the bore wells, the appellants/defendant Nos. l and RY,J 2fitedContemptCaseNo.l48gof20]rgbeforethisCourtwithaprayerto punish the plaintills. Brief facts of the case:

4.ThebrieffactsofthecasearethatPlaintiffNo.llrledsuitagainst defendant Nos. I to 5 seeking declaration of title' recovery of possession and refund of compensation amount which deGndant Nos'l and 2 received for the landed property acquired by the Govemment for the construction of Sripada project. The suit is tlled with respect to land in Sy'No 409 to an extent of Ac. I -07 guntas, Sy.No'4I 0 to an extent of Ac'7 -28 guntas' Sy.No.433 to an extent of Ac.l - l4 guntas, Sy'No'434 to an extent of Ac'0- 39 guntas, Sy.No.435 to an extent of Ac'7-39 guntas' Sy'No'436 to an extent of Ac.3-32 guntas and Sy.No'555 to an extent of Ac'0-15 guntas of Kalvacherla Vitlage shivar of Kamanpur Mandal (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule proPertY' ).

5. After service of summons in the suit, defendant Nos' I and 2 made their appearance, but dcf'endant No' l alone hled the written statement and defendant Nos.3 to 5, who are officiat pafties remained ex parte' / / 2 7 RY.J AS 2t 2019_ and cc 1489 2019

6. The case ol the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No. I is the absolute owner and possessor ol'the suit schedule property, while so, he addressed a letter to defendant No.i on 28.1 2.2005 to not to change the :ntries with rcspect to the suit schedule property in lavour of the tl.rird tarties. By taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff No. I during the vear 2007-08, defendant No.I on the basis of thbricated documents try colluding with official defendants and managed to mutate the suit schedule property in his favour. Plaintil I' No. I never sold the suit schedule pr,)t)erty in favour of anybody. After lcaming about the mutation in favour of def'endant No.l, plaintiff No. I filed an application before defendant No.5 leading to enquiry vde proceedings No.8/635/08, in which notices were issued to plaintiff No. I as well as dcf'endant No. I . Plaintiff No. I subnritted to defendant Nos.3 to 5 that def-endant Nos. I and 2 have illegalty cla nred compensation of Rs.5,3 1,350/- with respect to land in Sy.Nos.4l0 and 435 admeasuring Ac.0-34 guntas and Ac.l-24 guntas, which was airarded b1, the Land Acquisition Of,llccr, Manthani, while acquiring land Lrr Sripada Project Plaintiff No.l clainred that the compensation amount (,ught to have been deposited before the Court for adjudication of the rnatter under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. However, the same rvas illegally paid dcl-endant Nos.I and 2. Ptaintiff No.l got issui:d legal notice to 3 RY..I As_21_2019- and cc 1489 2019 defendant Nos.l to 5 on 09. 11.2010 lor return of compensation amount along with interest. 'l'hereafter, a public notice was issued cautioning general pubtic not to purchase the suit schedule property' While so' defendant Nos. t and 2 refused the notice, but have got issued reply notice with false allegations. In the circumstances, the suit under appeal has been filed.

7. The written statement tiled by delendant No l is to the effect that plaintiff No. I is owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from one Manohara Bai long back enjoying the same up to the year lgg0 and the said lands were sold to dcf-endant No. I on 16.05.1980 for valuable consideration ol Rs.8500/- through an unregistered simple sale deed in the presence of Komuraiah Gopal, Sailu and Lachaiah' Further' possession was handed over to det'cndant No. I and ever since, defendant No.l is enjoying the property as absolute owner and possessor' The Govemment has acquired some portion of land from Sy'No'410 and compensation was paid to def-endant No' t ' Delendant No' l ' who was owner and possessor ol land to an extent ol Ac 7-39 guntas in Sy'No'435 waspaidcompensationbytheGovernmentafteracquisitionofthesaid land. Ptaintiff No.l after selling thc suit schedule property was residing at HyderabadandnevervisitedtheKalwacherlashivarvillageforabout30 ,./ ,o ITY,J As 21 2019_ and ('('1489 2019 years. On account of increase in the land value, plaintifl'Nlo. I developed greedy eyr: and is tlying to grab the land as well as the cornpensation paid to defendant No. I by the Covemment. 'l he enquiry orde'r:rl by def'endant Nos.3 to 5 was kept in cold storage after verifuing the rccords. Further, it is pleaded that defendant Nos.3 to 5 conducted spot enquir-v by examining the neighbours of the suit schedule property and lound thrrt plainti[f No. I has no claim and therefore, paid compensation to dct-enclnt No. l. The nanre of defendant No.l was mutated in the year 200i-08, though he purchased the land way back in the year I 980. The reven -r(] records were mutated in his favour and pattedar passbooks and title tl,.:cds arc issued. The unregistered sale deed was lost in transit and policc r:onrplaint was given. Defendant No.I contended that plaintiff No. I ought to lrav'e filed an appeal before the I{evenue Divisional OfUcer, Marrthani, seeking cancellation of the pattedar passbooks and title deeds and l3-ll and l3-C ccrtificate issued to defendant No. I . Plaintilf No. I had knou'ledge about possession and enjoyment of land by delendant No. l, for 10 years he kept quiet and suddenly flled suit. All the documents of defenrlz.nt No.l show that plaintiff No. 1 sold suit schedule property and th,-'r elbre, sought dismissal of the suit 5 RY,J As_2 l_201 9- and cc 1489 20t9 8. On the basis of the facts and pleadings by both the parties, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court: "1. Whether the plaintifls are entitled to dcolararion of title to the suit land?

2. Whether thc plaintilfs are cntitled to possession of the suit land?

3. Whether the plaintifls are entitlod to recovcry of Rs.5,3 1,350/- lrorn delcndant Nos. I and 2?

4. To what rcliefl" 9 The plaintiffs got examined P.Ws.l to 3 and got marked Exs.A-l to A-20 and defendants got examined D.Ws. I to 3 and got marked Exs.B-l to B-19.

10. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit leading to filing of the present first appeal. Grou nds of Ao al:- I l. In the grounds ofappeat, it is pleaded that rhe burden of proof is on the ptaintiffs, but the said burden is shifted to defendants and thereby, the suit has been decreed. The land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Lary! Acquisition Act, 1894, and the au,ard has become final, as the plaintiffs never qucstioned the vatidity of the award. Defendant Nos. I and 6 / I f 2 are absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and even RY.J AS 2t _2019 and c'c ll89 2019 proceedings initiated under the Telangana fughts in l-and and Pattadar l)assbooks Act, 1971, ('ROR Act') became final as n(] appeal or revision has bccn fi led against the said orders. Non-presentation of ROR fi le was held against def-endant Nos. I and 2, when it is duty of rhe plaintif ts to take ncccssary steps to produce the record. Defendant Nos. rrnd 2 have atready prodr:ced evidence under E.xs.B-8 to B- l9 for which there is no rcbuttal evidence. The prayer for correction of revenue records is not maintainable and the procedure prescribed under ROR Act has to be fbllowed. There is an crroncous finding by the trial Court that the plaintitls have substantiated thcir title having observed that the plaintifls did not e'n,en produce the sale deed though, it is purchased from Manohara Bai. Onll on the basis of the admissions made by defendant No. l, the suit has been decreed. On the basis ol the aforementioned grounds, it is prayed tl-at the irnpugned j udgrnent and decree be set aside. Il. Now, the points for consideration in the present lirst appeal are as Io llows: l. Whether the findings given by the trial Court in r:spect ol'the three issues are sustainable? l. .fo what leliefl 7 RY.J As 2l_2019 and cc 1489 2019 i I l Ar uments of the appellants:-

13. During the arguments in the appeal, leamed counse[ lor the appellants/defendant Nos. I and 2 submitted that in any case the burden of proof of title is on the plaintiffs. Whereas, only in the instant case the said burden is shifted to defendant No. I and adverse inference is drawn against defendant No.l for failure to provide the said record. In that regard, the fbltowing findings of the trial Court are emphasized: *28. ...Defendant No. I is not able to produce any record to show that he has paid the requisite registration charges before he obtained the alleged mutation proceedings."

14. On the basis of observation of the trial Court, it is contended that there is an error committed in placing the burden of proof on the shoulders of the defendants, when it is the burden of the plaintif-fs to prove their case for declaration of title.

15. An objection is taken on examination of General Power of Attomey ('GPA') holder as P.W.l. In that context, a ref-erence is made to the judgment in T. Penchalaiah v. Jaladanki Sarojar, wherein it is held as under: ' zooo 1o; nro soo / l- ..,, RY..I AS 2t 20 t9 and cc 1489 2019 "16. ...lhough a pcrson can reprcsent a l)itrt) to thc suit proceedings as GPA, such GPA or Spccial Power ol'y',ttornev holdcr cannot dcposc on bchallofthe party, whom heishc is roprcsenting but can deposc as a separate rvitness speaking to thc Ircts. whrch is pcrsonally as arc ol.'' | 6. It is furthcr argued that no value can be placed or ovidence of p.W. l, *,ho is GPA h.lder and therefore, the suit ol the plaintifls shoutd fail. Lastly, it is argued that the appellants/defendanl \os.l and 2 have suttlcient e"'idence on record to show that the suit scl,c:lulc property was purchased by defcndant No. I from deceased-plaintiji No.l and ample [e!c'nue record is produced in proof of the ownership rrnd possession ol' delendant No. I arrd thcrefbre, sought to set aside the in-pugned .judgrnent and dccree ol thc trial Court. Arguments of the res pondents:- l7 Learrred counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7/plrrintifT Nos.2 to 7 ar'-plued that the deceased-plaintiff No.l had purchaserr rhe suit schedule propefty in thc year t965 fiom one Manohara Bai. whc, rs sister-in-law of def'e.da't No. I. 'lhis fact is admitted by defendant \o. I himsell both through pleadings as well as evidence. While so, takinq advantage ol his position as Sarparrch of village, defendant No. l, on the b;rsis ol fabricated documents got issued l3-B and l3-c certificates in his lrvour arrd also got ur\ j I RY,J As 2l_20r9_ and cC 1489 2019 his name mutated in revenue record with effect from the year 2007-08. Further, on the basis of said false entries compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Oflicer, Manthani, while acquiring land in Sy.Nos.4l0 and 415 admeasuring Ac.0-34 guntas and Ac.I-24 gunras, fbr Sripada Project was taken by defendant No.l. It is argued that though titte deed is not produced by plaintiff No. l, the very admission of sale of suit schedule propefty by Manohara Bai in favour of ptaintiff No. I by delendant No. I as D.W. I is sufficient to prove the title of plaintiffs. It is argued that the admitted facts need not be proven as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Once the title of the plaintiffs is established rhe onus shifts to def'endant No. l to prove that plaintiff No.1 has sold suit schedule propefty under an unregistered sale deed and show the basis for issuance of l3-B and I l-C certificates and mutation. In the instant case, def-endant No. I is clairning that he has lost the unregistered sale deed which was exccuted by plaintifl No. I . Not only there is failure to produce the unregistered sale deed, but there is also failure to examine any witness allegedly in whose presence plaintiff No. I executed unregistered sale deed. Except the revenue records, which are fabricated by defendant No.1 by abusing his position as Sarpanch, there is no evidence whatsoever in l-avour of delendant No. [, as such it is argued that there are no grounds to interf'ere 10 , with the findings gir en by learned trial Court and as sucli sought dismissal RY.J AS 21 2019 errd (lc 1489 2019 ofthe appeal Find ings:

18. When thc rccord is perused, it is seen that plaintif' \o. I is claiming that he is absoltrtc owner and possessor of the suit schedu e property having purchased thc sanrc liom one Manohara Bai. This fact s not disputed by the contesting dclcndant Nos.l and 2. Exs.A-13 and 14 are original pattedar passbook and titlc deeds filed by the plaintiffs to prove that the suit schedule propcrty r,"'hich was purchased by plaintiff No. I frorn Manohara Bai stands in his narrre . Dclendant No. I also admitted that plaintilT No. I purchased thc suit schedule propefty from Manohara lJai in the written staternent Rclcvant plcadings are extracted and produced t,elow: -'1. ....l he pla int i1'l' purchased the suit lands above menti<,ned fiom one Manohara llai. W o.Radha Kishan Rao long back and he enjoyed the sanrc upto l9ti0. firat tlrc plaintiflon l6-05-1980 sold a',r,av thc suit lands aborc rncntioncd to the delendant No.1 fol a valuablc considcration ol' I{s.ti500/- vide a simple un-register,:c[ sale deed executcd in thc prcsence of one Komuraiah Gopal. Sailu and [.achaiah. S/o.lltjaiah and handed over the possession olthe srLit lands to thc dclcrrdant No. I on the datc olsale itself."

19. F urthcr. de li'ndant No. I as D.W. I in his cross .exarnination has admitted thc titlc ol plaintil'l- No. l, the relevant portion of the evidence of D. W. I is cxtractcd ancl produced be low 11 \. \t -- .F*e{ I RY.J As 21 2019 and cc 1489 2019 l I l .i ''lr is true that plaintiff No.l purchased the entire property that fell t the share of Manohara Bai. He purchased the propertl, in 1965. The property includes thc suit schedulc property. Thc i" piaintilf obtained mutation of the property and he cultivated and enjoyed the propcrty.,.

20. From the above pleadings and evidence, firstry there is admission about the title of plaintiff No.1, not only is there admission of the title of ptaintiff No. I, but defendant No.l is also claiming title from the same plaintiff No. I under an unregistered sale deed. According to def'endant No. l, ptaintiff No.l enjoyed the property up to the year l9g0 and then sold the suit land in favour of defendant No.l. The said unregistered sale deed was allegedly executed in the presence of Komuraiah Gopal, Sailu and Lachaiah. However, none are examined to prove the factum of execution of said unregistered sale deed by plaintiff No.l in favour of defendant No. l. To conclude, there is failure to produce the unregistered sale coupled with failure to examine the witnesses to the saie deed.

21. when the document itself is lost and when the titre deed is not produced, the only option available to ascertain title is circumstantial evidence. when such circumstantial evidence is examined, it is seen that ptaintiff No. 1 produced pahanies from the years 1996-97 ro 2007-0g marked under Exs.A- I to A-9. These exhibits have to be considered against the backdrop of alleged sale of suit schedule property by plaintiff t2 RY.J AS_21 2019 . and cc t489 2019 No.l in favour of det'endant No.l. When the sale toc,k place in the year 1980, the question arises as what prevented defendant lrlo.l from getting the sarne mutated ir.r his favour up to the year 1996-97 i .e., after 16 years As per Section ,{ ot'the ROR Act, when there is transfe:i of property, the mutation has to be ellected in 90 days time frame. Di:fendant No. l, who worked as Sarpanch should have knowledge about this fact, but still continued to resign himself to lnactron for nearly 16 long years after alleged purchase. I he absence of the unregistered sale <leed coupled with inaction for 16 long r,ears in rxutation further compounds the case of defendant No. l.

22. It is the case of dct'endant No. I that there was allep,ed enquiry in file No.B/635/2008, initially, on account of the application rrade by ptaintiff No.1 against delendant No. I fbr mutation of suit schedule property in his name without notice to plaintiff No. t. On one hand, it is alleged that enquiry was kept in cold storage and on the other hand it is atleged by defendant No. I that when enquiry was conducted at the time of acquisition of land, he was lound to be absolute owner and posseilsor and therefore, compensation was ltaid to him. Such being the case, the enquiry report which is in lavour of def'endant No. I ought to have br:en produced by i 13 RY.J As_21 2019 and cc 1489 2019 e i J defendant No. l, in order to prove the sale of the suit schedule property ln his lavour.

23. In addition to the aforementioned anomalies' tl-rerc is another instance which raises doubt about the genuineness of the version presented by defendant No.1 i.e., when plaintiffs sought to get information about the proceedings in fite No.B/29 0212005 under Exs'A- 19 and A-20' the revenue authorities have issued reply stating that there is no such record available' ln the circumstances' the documents produced by defendant No'l before the revenue authorities become suspect giving rise to a genuine doubt about det'endant No. I managing revenue authorities to get mutation of the suit schedule property in his name' Further, the record about enquiry conducted by the revenue authorities before awarding compensation is not produced' Therelbre, the leamed trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that plaintiff No. I was original owner and therefore, decreed the suit followed by consequential retief of recovery of possession and the refund of compensation amount awarded'

24. The appreciation of facts as well as the contents of the documents by the trial Court are togical and based on sound reasoning' Once title of plaintiff No.l is admitted, during the year 1965 upto 1980' the person c lai,,#ng title liom the year 1980 has the burden to prove the same' In the 14/ -, i l i -.'. ,,. RY,J AS 21 2019 ald cc 1489 2019 instant case, plaintiff's are claiming to be the owners ancl tossessors of the suit schedule property denying the sale of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos. I and 2. Oncc defendant No. I adrnitted the title of plaintiffNo.l, the burden ol proving the purchase of the suit schedule property is on defendants. Furlher, det-endant Nos. I and ll are claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule property from the rear 1980, but are unable to produce any documents to prove the possession up to the year 2005-06. Whereas, the ptaintif ls are claiming to be absc,lute owners and possessors and in that regard have produced pahanies frorn the year 1996- 97 to 2001-08 till the said date, when wrong entries u/,rre made in the revenue record in favour of def'endant No. I and ever sin,:e, the plaintiffs made complaints to the revenue authorities 25 . Another instance ol ptaintiffs approaching re\ enue authorities, objecting the mutation of suit schedule property in favour of defendant No. I is seen from exhibit under Ex.B-18. This factual situation coupled with documentary evidcnce shows that when the suit schedule property is mutated in favour of defbndant No. l, there is objection b;r plaintiff No. l. However, taking advantage of plaintifT No. I 's absence in the village, defendant No. I continued with false entry of his nam: in the revenue records and also managed to dran, the cornpensation whrch is clairned by 15 I l RY.J AS_21 2019 and CC t489 2019 plaintiff No. l. When attempts of the plaintiffs to recri$/ the entries by approaching the revenue authorities i.e., defendant Nos.3 to 5 failed. the present suit fbr decraration of titre along with consequeniiar rerief is filed. The documentary evidence in favour of plaintiffs is admitted by defendant No'l, whereas there is no foundation for the alleged title of defendant Nos. I and 2 under the exhibits marked under B series before the triar court. In the absencc of credibre evidencc, the only inference to be drawn is the documents produced in B series are on the basis of fabricated documents as plaintifl No. I is denying execurion of unregistered simple sale deed in favour of de lcndant No. I . 26' Lastly, this Court does not see any infirmity in praintiffs examining GPA holder as P.W. I as long as permission was taken lrom the Court for such examination as witness. 'rhere is no bar on examining the GpA holder as witness as long as he has knowredge about the facts of the case. Even otherwise, though GpA holder of the plaintiffs expressed lack of knowledge about the suit schedule properfy and about the facts of the case, the same does not become fatal as p.W.2, who is son of plaintiff No. l, was examined as witness

27. [n view ol thc foregoing discussion, it is seen that plaintifls havc convincing evidence in their favour not only in the rorm of Exs.A- r to A- 16 I{Y.J n s_21_2019_ 3nd (lc' 1489 2019

20. the same is stlengthened on the basis of admission: 'rf D W' 1 himself about plaintiff No. I acquiring the title and possession lhrrr his sister-in-law Manohara Bai. As is the existing law ol the land' admrt-ed thcts need not be proven. The aclmission of def-endant No' I proves lhe title of plaintilf No. I and conseque ntly, plaintilf Nos 2 to 7 as his lcq;rl representatives' Once plaintiffs' btrrden is discharged the onus shifts tc' def'endant Nos' l and 2 to prove their title. Delendant No l failed to prove his title by not producing the unregistered sale deed and failed to prorltrce any witness to the said document. Further, there is f-ailure to prod r<:e application and documents pertaining to I3-B and ll-C certitjcates' uhich rvere issued in favour of delendant Nos. t and 2 that to without noticc to plaintiff No' t ' ln the said circumstances, the documents exhibited undcl B series lose their evidentiary value and the ptaintiflis rvill succeed' Ihus' there are no grounds to interfere with the findings given by the lear rr:d trial Couft' The present appeal lacks merits and the same is liabte to bc dismissed' 2S.ContemptCaseNo.l4Sgol20lgisfiledbytlc'f'endantNos.land 2/appellants alteging that during the operation of sluur:; quo order granted by this Court in the present appeal threc bore wells ltave been dug out of which there is pelmission tbr only one bore well ln tlrir; regard' respondent 17 '- \RY I \ AS lt 20t9 and CC 1489 2019 ...i Nos. 2 to 4,6 and 7 herein/plaintiff Nos.2 to 4,6 and 7 filed their respect counters denying the allegations made in the contempt petition

29. Except making allegations that bore wells were dug during operation of status quo granted by this court and there is violation of such order, no evidence is produced belore this court to prove the contempt. In view of the same, this Court finds no merits in the present contempt case and the same is liable to bc closed.

30. In the result, rhe appeal in A.S.No.2t of 2019 is dismissed confirming the judgrnent and decrec dated 10. I0.20lg in O.S.No.33 of 2Ol2 on the file of the trial Court. Furlher, the Contempt Case No. l4g9 of 201 9 is closed. l'here shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, ifany, pending shall stand closed. SD/. A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Vl Additional District Judge, Godavarikhanr, Karimnagar District 2. One CC to SRI B NtSH|THA, Advocate [OpUC] 3 One CC to SRt M JAGANNATHA SARIMA, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies M, ADK/PSL t I i I HIGH COURT DATED:10110t202s /, -_=-i-ft*_ ie l) iniS -l\ \i it )'it i Nr\| lu 6lj . .:._ lt . f:,r/ -lr ,.il -.--; -/-/ 1;.5.^.: t.L.{.1;i,7 COMMON JUDGMENT AS.No.21 of 2019 AND CONTEMPT CASE NO.14B9 of 20 I * DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT AND CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS Do( U' \o 134421 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA APPEAL SUIT No. 21 oF 2019 Between:

1. Bollavaram Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Naarsinga Rao, aoed g3 vears. Occ. 2. Bollavaram Sridhar Rao, S/o. B. Bhaskar Rao, aged 54 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Kalvacherla (v), KamanpurlM), Karimn"agar Diskict. agriculture, R/o. Kalvacherla (v) Kamanpu(lr/) Karimnagir Dist. ' ...AppellantsiDefendant Nos.1 and 2 AND

2. J 4 5 E, 7 Kusumba Ranga Rao (died) as per LRS, Secunderabad. Kusumba^Hemavathi, Wo. Ranga Rao, Aged 75 years, occ. household, r/o. - -' - Qt9 ZO,.l flat, Surendra Apartme-nts, Adjac6nt of Vincity hospitat OiO Boinpally, Secundeabad-1 1 . Kusumba Sridevi, Wo Krishnashastrula Subramanyam, aged 56 years, occ. Household, rlo Clo 2O1 flat, Surendra Apartments. AOlace"nt of Viiciiy-' - -- hospital, Old Boinpally, Secundeabad-1 1 Kusumba Srilatha, Wo Vishnudas Surender Rao, Aged 52 years, occ. h.gus_ehold, r/o C lo 201 flat, Surendra Apartments, R-Olacent-ot Vincity hospital, Old Boinpally, Secundeabad-1 1 . Kusumba Sri Rama Rao, s/o late Ranga Rao, Aged 5i years, occ. private gr.npfoyee, rlo Clo 201 flat, Surendra Apartmenti. Adjac'ent oi Vincity hospital, Old Boinpally, Secundeabad-1 1. Kusumba Krishna Murtlry. Slo late Ranga Rao. Aged 4g years, occ. private gTployee, rlo Clo 201 flat, Surendra Apartments,-Adjaceht of Vincity hospital. Old Boinpally, Secundeabad-1 1. Kusumba Srivan_i, \^//o Vishnudas Jagan Mohan Rao, Aged 46 years, occ. hous_ehold rlo C-lo 2O1 flat, Surendra -Apartments, Old Boinpally, Secundeabad- 1 1. AdjacEnt of Mncity'hospital, ... Respondent Nos..l to Z/plaintiffs

8. The Tahasildar, Kamanpur, Karimnagar District. 9. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani, Karimnagar District.

10. The District Collector, Karimnagar. ...Respondents Nos.8 to 10/Defendant Nos.3 to 5 Appeal under section 96 R/w Order 41 Rule 1 & 2 o1'C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 10-10-2018 made in O.S.No.33 cl 2012 on the file of the Court of the Vl Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani, Karrmnagar District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing tte grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI P RAJA SRIPATHI RA.Cr representing MS. B NISHITHA Advocate for the Appellants and of SRI M JA(I,qNNATHA SARIMA, Advocate for the Res.oondent Nos-2 to 7. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: .1. That the Appeal suit be and hereby is dismissed confirmirg the Judgment and decree dated 10-10-2018 in O.S.No.33 of 2012 on the fl eof the Trial Court;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal_ SD/- A.PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// $Ecrroru oFFrcER To,

1. The Vl Additional Distnct Judge, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District 2. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL 4v HIGH COURT DATED:1011012025 COMMON JUDGMENT AS.No.21 of 2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT 1 l.D 10\