The High Court · 2025

34.Atheti Srinivas, S/o Balanarsaiah aged about^39 years Occ business R/o - ij.r.r".z:6+,-Di6lpriM, Mandal Gaj-wel, Dist' Siddipet 502103 35. Mrs. Palle Arpita, Wo Kamalakar Reddy, 1g^qd^4] Years' Occ Housewife R/o -- H. flo. I -i -l sb tza, Ramnagar, Hyderabad-500020 *'r1139:,T3ru,lh3,f [i',iJ:['fi :Bl?,.?"iyJ#r'ffi s?,133EBxr"E',3c",* ijiJ"i ot. i-to-zois in i.R.rlo. 4 or 2023 )

37.Konda Ravinder, S/o Papaiah, aged 53 years' Occ Business R/o 4-3-84' "' ij;i;6,;;SiieLt, Siooiqp"t rown-and District 502103 38. Vutnoori Prabhaker, Sio Mallaiah, aged 48 years' Occ Business Rig - . ^^ H. No. 1 0- 1 -266, rvrangi;mrlhol; itrE"t, siolipet Town and District' 502 1 03 'MJndal, Siddipet District'so2103 iJ No.iS-zz, Ctreriala viiragd ind

39.Ms. Peddi Nagarani, Wo Anlalah, aged 44 years' Occ Housewife' R/o -- 40. Bejlgao Kondalah' S/o Malleshasm, aged 47 yeirs Occ Business R/o H No l-45, v""nrr"niriri"rg""]'Critihl"rvr'na't' sioaipet District-So2103 4'1 . Chakkarahi Yethiraju, S/o Venkat Raju, aged-60 years' Occ-Retd Employee -' ili" ii.r.rriz-ii ilsh;;;ara Ai"tt.b"tl 1 flooi, opp Dr' Bhasker Rao' 42.Chandhi Reddy Prabhaker R9!{y, S/9 Na-r1m[a Reddy'-aged 43-.vears' Occ '- noriirrti,iu, n/6 H.No.ir-c-i0-0/5iA. Khaderpura street, SiddipetTown and District.502103 Siddipet Town and District-502103 -T o' H:[:n.,?,,'',j,,]'I!'Eiil;ij?Xfi,j,1[jiw1?8fl,r,l 5tiii.i?3E,f ii ;urture R/o 3l H.No.1 1-1-Sgt.tt2. Bharathnagar

44. Mrs. Yella .rarr trna Wo-Ramreddy, aged^4g.years, C)cc l_lous _.wife, R/o "i,ion"V,-SiOOhli

46. Mrs. Ranra:h H.No.11-1-:J iovrn arrd D strict. 45.Mrs. Malkacur;rrr Ratnam^ala, Wo Satish Reddy, aged 45 yea.s, Occ HousewiJe R/: H No l7-68tr, Sri*gii;oloni,tlOtp*rtTcwn i,nd Dist -axmi. Wo Balalah, aged 70 years. Oce Fous, ,wife, R/o '''" arathnagar St, Siddipet Towri and Dis*rict 4T Chakiram fular e's;ham. S/o Bhoomarah aged about 50 years oc: Business R/o H.No. 3-4-78, f,atetpura Street, SiOOipeff"*,ir.O Mandal 50j 103 48. Naseem tJr ni:;:;;1. W/o {9 { younus. aged 47 years. (Jcc ,lou .ewife R/o H.No '1 'l-:)-()4 ,l-Ctass-27, Mat6p;,y,1;;;b;it blrnc. Hydera rad_500028 l.ggq 55 years, Occ: Ho,rsewife R/o

49.Mrs. Siliganr Laxmi WJg..t_31m1rajyam., H.no. 1 1 -2 -67 t,t'It, Bharathnaga, direei SiOo-,p-J it*n and,l istr :t. ibb- -50-l

50. Mrs. Lakk re,dc r Uma .Wo Narender Reddy, aged 36 year;. O .c Housewife R/o Gamthira,j pet vilase ant vrJrorilXrliii,Y,irlar Dist 5()50( 1 " ?.! ! #lil! r " ; l;l.i,,s il,o,l?'f,ilfi %?il1J,?l[]s B!?,',' " " s R/o H N o 1 7-

52. Mohd. Abrlu Sanrada R/o H No.:2-:t-i:vilA Sajidpur;;t;.;;i b;j;il;iil*, and t)istr rt-s02103 .S/o Mohd. Abdul Rauf, aged 60 years, ( cc Business

53.Mrs. Aisula \/riir\/;tlar.l Ptot No 1 0 1 S r j' a kshmi Apartments. ChifiZ-o-prf-f Vl nvoeraO f ^Di9 Subba rao, aged 52 years, Oc: Hc tsewife. R/o Bl"t;;.&l*

54. Mrs. Mallisettv S triatha, Wo M.L.Narasimha rao, aged 53 y=ars Occ R,b rr ivo r i_z<zrloliri, tiiriiT",ig:jicotorry siddip et rown and 55' Mrs Papptr ['a> rri Annapurna, wio Srinivas, aged 4g years. occ Houswife R/o H.No 1-7-43r; r, c,t No.7.1, Ra;e;;;;i;;;,'S,Yitaari, rranrrakc rda 56. T. Srinivas, S,/o \/ that Agg{ qbout 51 years, Occ Business Ft/o I .No. 274911 , Near HMTi rr)p_ ,loronyl uvoeiJ6J.j_666bi2"* " 57. Mrs. C.H. \'iiav:rlaxmi Wo Rajdharmareddy, aged 50 years. Oc ; Housewife R/o H.N 12.5 4 - o vioyanatir c;t..-s;firp,"i+:;n ard Distric .502103 58. Mrs. Asmathr n,,risa Beeum,ly'V/o Mohd.all, aged 66 years. Occ lousewife R/o H.No.9.4 5€;ra. ChirwaOan street, Siddiept Twon and D stric . 502103 59. Balla Naravar,a tj/o Narsaiah, aged 70 years. Occ agncjulture R, I H.No g_68. Na raya n ra o pet vi' I a ge s id d i peiM, 60. Mrs. Rachh : ...a i1l- a 1ry7o,grinivas aged E0 years, Occ lJous;ewir -. R/o H.No.17 - 1 2 t .Sri r1;lnar cotony SOOipttli*i:rli Oi.trir:t 50 2 I 0, u'3Yuo"'?H1:li"^;i'1i;ffi Jr l""ii itsir"iJt. s oz r oa "o 1311,.s,3f; [ifl"1,9,r,r"r."Bti..Bi:&,,..T**,"

62. Chukka Naoaverrrj.-,r S/o pedda Bairiyah, aged 54 years,, Occ ag .iculture, Alwat viltage, t,4ircc,ddi Mandat. Oisi. SiOOipei_SiIjd" R/o

63. MettamKomralah, S/oEllaiah, aged 54 years, Occ Agriculture R/o Baswapur village, Mandal Koheda, Siddipet District 502103

64.Thurunahari Madhusudhan Swamy' S/o Venkatnarsalah, aged- 6-6 -y-e^ars' - netireO teacher, No 12-2-112, Moinpura St., Siddipet District 502103 65.Tatioamula Shankaraiah, S/o Bhoomalah, Aged 55 year, Occ Business Rio Occ Baswapur(V), Koheda(M), Siddipet Dist.502103

66.Tallapalil Balkishan Goud, S/o Anjalah Goud, aged gg ygq':,^9.":^Business - R/o Baddipadga village, Mandal Nagnoor, Siddipet District'502'103

67.Mrs, Gogulotu Sunitha, Wo Shankerlal, aged 45 years, Occ Housewife, R/o - Khammam O!sJr1c1 - CiOOirriiguodam village, Singareni(M), t0;00T i-C--67J'smisieo as fier Couri ord'er daied 11'10-2023 in l A'No 5 of 2023) -Vayakarpalli,

68.Mrs. Gogu Lalitha, Wo Rajireddy, qg-.d 91 Srinagar"colony, Siddipet iown and District.502103 y-e^ql9,^Occ reattor, R/o H.No 17-56

69. Mavana Dhioambhar, S/o Vithal, aged 56 yuears, Occ Business R/o 1 1-1- - iitZ. Bharatihnagar Street, Siddipei Town and District'502103

70.lvlrs. S. Suguna, Wo Pratap Reddy, aged 55 years, Occ Housewife R/o - H.r.lolz-OZ, Srinagar Colony, Sidd'ipelTown and District 502103 71 Kaiiam Sriramuluv, S/o Narayan, aged 55 years, Occ Business R/o H'No 5-3- 106, Parupally Stieet, Siddip-et Town and District-s02103 T2.Mrs.SafivaSulthana,WoMd.tvluqtar,aged50years,R/oH'No19-168/A Srinivas Col., Siddipet Town and District-502'103

73. Mrs. Vemula Saraswathi, Wio Srirangam, aged 70 years, Occ Hous-ewife R/o - H.No.1O-1-r96, Mangammathota Sidiipet Tbwn and District-s02103

74. Mrs.Gogu Rajitha, Wo Sathyam reddy,aged 45 y1ars, Occ Ho-u-sewife R/o i1-i sC enaiatnnagar stredt, siddipdt Town and District 502103

75.Vanga Linga Reddy, Sio ChandraredOy, qS-+.!S.V-"ars, Occ Business R/o 19- - iiCiZ, Srinlvas Colony, Siddipet town and District'502103 !}

76.Mrs. Subba Jayanthi, Wo Sudhaker, aged 37 Lears, Occ Housewife Rl/o - i'. r',lo.zz- t olz2iMA, Sitaramnagar, Naiedmet, R' R District

77.Mrs. Mekala RamHna, Wo Srinivas Reddy, aed 41 year,-Occ Housewife' R/o poinr""rp"t(V), Bachanapet Mandal, Diat Jangaon-506167

78. P.B. Raia Goud, S/o Vittal Goud, aged 70 years, Occ Business R'/o Dubbaka village dnd Mandal, Dist. Siddipet. 502108 Tg.Mandoja Narender, S/o Rajesham, aged 50 years' Occ Business R/o Godda-m road, KamareddY 50311'1

80. The Sub .Regir;trar, Urban, Siddipet. 8'1. The Mun icipa I ()ornm;sslsner, Sididipet. 82. The Urban De ,r,eloor parties Bi)-il2 ' nent Authority, Siddipet. . Respordents/ t roposed (Responoents l{os ; ) oiz,ao" I d" ( :;",,,",, # 8Ii,,T,frx.:i?.,Ei6 p,fx :o,.i: " I i if i,,l;ii ye, rs R /o - - 83. Naheeda pilrve en. \A j irrl :'; ri ru i ; il,r l U,,,._ "" jl? "i *1|,?:1,: [l fr i#::,i,erJ ;; l : J 34 Kasheef r-ryrre, . li/o Late Rafeeq Hyder, Aoed abot,t tz, va.fa ) t^ u' 8-14511 , ealvn.r Janauma. yakuhpura, Hya"rro3Slt34 vears l/o H No.'17- H'lH, 13 :l' n! I ye r rs, R,o "6 r1o L" t; I*::VXLlfJ,:yTreo";,il i,3 o

86. Mohd. Tauseel lJvder H rur r i-e: rI rE, ; I ffii;iJ:,5i: #i,'."."1.Hff1; ig;s?ffJ:, 1 ea rs, R/o "[iH;+[{rr,l:"d,rititi,l,i","i153:tel#:;:J;{.*X}"'^

88. Asmath Na ze,er (ausr Rro H r.r o t7 a _ o ; ;, "n 89. Mohammec llarxrem F [/j; [?li $.,x.^[i I,""?.,,3 lfj fl ffi :,.:,,,::1 47 y e a rc, H yearsRro-urii;;;-;;u;r",tr1"a,.g:"y3i.".Xf -.r yea rs Rro

90. Mohammeo Karr .an i:,[iffi t,.irlif,T;:i: i ; i ; I d {? 3ii x". :ei:yfjr.; IiL1 #Jfl?; l, ? l,s: tt# " f{8;A:[,:,]i ilhh:l"f::??Xili"#fl,is,:"0,#, years R/< H No 17-8- " ,i ffi J " * y-,"Atitiiil::',1;;-t":?#i".,::'i",1r,il,?r,!er, Ased about 45 y,:ars, R/o i ii; m |ai ii,{,$;.1,t,,:i#:H: i i,ns : i H"Tgrfi;fl3j I "Tl,; :

94. Mohammed rjufuil r Hvd

95. Mohammed Sih bz l Hvdr ,ru]"p;*iifjiil#.B,;jF-:iti{Jj#,#jffi i'f:f ,H{*ff !'d;? ffi t% jd+;itr;il#rtsip:llf#i#fi.tmt'fsfr ,#,: j.1;ff !.dr? g6.Tameema Naaz, D/o. Late Liyaq Hyder, Aged about 12 years, is.being ^^ reoresented bv Natural Guardian and mother, the party Respondent No.93, Rio 17-84151itA, Bagh-e-Jahan Era, Yakutpur, Hyderabad'

97. Loweza Naaz, D/o. Late Liyaq Hyder, Aged about 11 years, is bging -. ^^ reoresented bv Natural Gu'ardian and mother, the party Respondent No.93, Rio 17-8a15lilA, Bagh-e-Jahan Era, Yakutpur, Hyderabad.

98. Rabda Naaz, D/o. Late Liyaq Hyder, Aged about 1 0 years, is b"i.ng . . . ^^ reoresented bv Natural Guardian and mother, the party Respondent No 93' Rio 17-B415titA, Bagh-e-Jahan Era, Yakutpur, Hyderabad'

99. Fariya Naaz, D/o. Liyaq Hyder, Aged abgut I years,. is beingrepre-sented- by. NatJrat Guaidian and niot'her, the-party Resp6ndent No.93, R/o 17-84151114, Bagh-e-Jahan Era, Yakutpur, Hyderabad

100. Wafiva Naaz, D/o. Late Liyaq Hyder' Aged aboutT years, is being^^ reoresenteti bv Natural Guardian and mother, the party Respondent No'93, Rio 17-8a15tilA, Bagh-e-Jahan Era, Yakutpur, Hyderabad' ( Respondent No. 5 Liyaq Hyder - Died per LRs RR - 93 to 100)

101. Zeenath Nazneen, D/o. Late Hyder Moinuddin, Aged about 58 years - R/o. H.No. 17-8-415t1tA,Bagh e-Jahira, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad lO2.AsmathNazeen,D/o.LateHyderMoinuddin,Agedabout55.yearsRl/o' - g.tto. 17-8415t1tA, Bagh e-Jahara, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad 'l03.RafathNazneen,D/o.LateHyderMoinuddin,Age!about49yearsR/o H.No. 17-8-415/1iA, Bagh e-Jahara, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad (. tt-espondent t,lo. 6 f.taze.r. Hussain Blegum - Died per LRS -RR - 101- to '103 Respondent Nos. 83 to 103 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Resbondent Nos. 2,3,5 &6 as per Coirt Order dated 09-08-2023 vide l.A. Nos. 1, 2 3 & 4 of 2022 in A.S. No. 1020 ot2012l )

104. Smt Vadlakonda Sujatha' Wo. Srinivas Reddy, Age{ about 53 years'. '- occ Household. R/o. H.No. 18 66/3G, 2nd floor, Haripriya Nagar, opp RDo s Guest House, SiddiPet.

105. Anantaqiri Yadagiri, S/o. Chandraiah, aged about 46 years, Occ' Washerman, fuo. 5 3 20. Dhobhighat, Siddipet. (ResoondentNos',104&l05areimpleadedasperCourtorderdated9-10- )ozsride t.A.No. 1 ol 2023 inA.Q.No. 1020o'(2012) ( RR 36, 104 and '105 are dismissed as per C O dt' 9-10-2023 vide l'A No 4 ot ZOZI in A.S.No. 1020 ol 2012) t

106. Sirikonda Srirama Rao S/o. Damodar Rao,, Occ Agriculture' R/o H No' 1-g-295t14, street No. 7, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad

107. Smt. Ramagiri Amuktha Wo. Kartheek Rao,, Wo' Kartheek Rao' Aged - 35 Yeais, OccAdv6cate, Rlo H.tttO 2-10-258' Jyothinagar, Karimnagar' District Karimnagar. "*i",",,iil. i . #;ffiffifu Apt-A, Nera,ar< CA '_9 ffili,i"1Jfl;;i)l[:?# i, -, o *E,'\II i l;l : I yJ: ffi ii*fi*I r:g i]j.,,# hf fl ?X :.,[ffi :i o cr : H o sewire, R,o H* #1 ,l i:ii,i#[Hh':n,y,il# *,,tAnnf .ffi :i,r[**;", o n ' " "'A n o rli l? rl,: : j i g,1i,E3l,g.fi,"S#j,IiTk S,i i?Jir:",. ire, R,o { lffi.-.,,' I i, 12. Meruptrla I,laveena @ Kotagiri Kavitha Wo. yadagiri age 16 years, Occ: House,ri,e ll/6 3_4_, Chinnagundavelly, Mandal Srddipet D st. ?u"f ? Jl J,?,i lgf,J::i8!.,:IiJ E, i R,Ss,B?iffi , ", 1 "o

114. 8-4-12 3-19t2, 'I 15

116. H.No. 45/N1 , 117 . H.No

118. H.No. Soma Etikr;.t3pathi S/o. Chandraiah Age 43 years Oc<;: Br siness, R/o 6, Burujr Rrad Town and District, Siddipet _5012103 Yadagyrr Up erndar S/o. Chandraiah, age 35 years ()cc Brrs ress, R/o. Baddip,rd3a. Mdl. Nangnoor, Siddipet District. Sriran ft1arr:har S/o. late N 1 4.. 3 R:1e e,,n.r;;r;";;:fil,1;ll"^lllli:,,:;: ;I ::"' "" Achula Fajrt tr S/o. Kistaiah, Age 54 years, Occ: Business, F /o.34_ SajeeJp rra, Town and District Siddipet. Arige Ravi l( I rrar S/o. Veeraiah , age 3g years, Ocr:: Br- sine ;s. R/o. 3067 Bak.ictr:oyal, Mandal Siddipet, Dist. Siddipet Dama S;urritlt I W/o. Shankaraiah , age 30 years, Occ: Businr ss, R/o '1- l 1 Khan.larr prally Viilage , Kondapak Mandal of Siodipet Dis :. ( RR 11 to 2g8 arc impleaded as per court dated 4-7-2024 in l.A.No. 2 of 2024 in A.S.No. 1020 of 2012) (RR265,266,298,59, 1',l3, 132, 145, ',149, 150, 159, 178, 180, 181,192'202'203' 21 2, 21 4, 21 5, 235, 236, 238, 248, 27 3, 27 4, 27 5, 27 9' 296, 294' 1 3, 1 5' 44' 45' 48,70,75,106, 1907, 108, 109, 110 & 'l 11 are compromised vide l A Nos' 3'2024 4 of 2024, & 5 t2024 in A.S.No. 1 020 of 201 2 respectively LA. NO: 1 OF 2012(ASMP. NO: 305I OF 2012) ' Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to pass an order of iniunction restraining the respondents from ,fie'n"tri the suit schedule property land in Survey No.S3iAA admeasuring Ac. 17=i l gis situate at ponnala Viilage of Siddipet mandal, pending disposal of the above appeal or pass- Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. S. GANESH RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8,10' 30, 53, 60, 120, 125, 128, 135, 158, 164, 173, 193, 194, 231, 225, 240, 241, 242,245, 255, 263, 27 6, 284, 296 & 297 : SRI DILEEP KUMAR BOMMENA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 24&147 : SRI SINGAM BHAGAIAH Counsel for the ResPondent No. 67 : SRI JOGRAM TEJAVATH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 59, 113, 132,445, '149, 150, 178, 180, 181,189, 192, 202,203, 212, 214,215, 235, 236, 238,248' 273,274,275, 279,286 & 294 :: SRI METTU SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5, 36, 58 & 104: SRI P' MADHUSUDHANA KUMAR Counsel for the Nos" 7,16, 18'20,21'22' 23, 27, 28,34, 35, 38, 39, 42, 50, 51, 52' SS, SO, SS a ZZ ::: SRI P' RAJA SRIPATHI RAO Counsel for the ResPondent Nos. 13, 15, M,45,48,70,72,75, 106' 107' 10b, 109, 110 &111 i i sRl v. RoHITH The Court delivered the following Judgment t ITO.N'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPA]:(A A.S.No. to2ooF 20,-2 JUDG MI}NT Ihis is plaintiffls Appeal filed unc er fier:l tn 96 of CPC, irrg,u11 ring the Judgment and Decree of dismis al dated 06.01.2) 2 pirssed by the learned Senior Civil -udge at Siddipet rn O.S.ffo ,.:\ of 2OOT. 2 Firr brevity, the parties are referred to ils tj ey were .)l;Lintiff and father of arrayed in C). LNo. 123 of 2OO7. 3. Defendanl s 1 rc 5 are biologiorl rrri hers ond are sons of Late Abdul Flasool u ho died in 7952. A.rtr.r. the death of Abdul Rasool, Reve;rue Aut rorities mutated thr_, rame of plaintiff and father of Defendar ts I to S in Shikmi c.(,hlr.n and pattadar column uid,,- f)rcJc, edings No.A1/5/ ):a I ): /D,2/53, in the revenue records in res,pec of the agriculruri.J l. rrJs in Survey No. 53/AA admeasu"rrrg A,: I7.11 Gts, of po6 q6 l ; Village, Siddipet Mandal, Medal: Distric t. The above merLrirtr r rl property is the Suit Schedule prc pert 1.. 4 . pl;r r rtiff re{uested Defendants to par ltio ,r r L : suit schedule pr(,por.1y by meets and bounds, personal y al.rcl s I also through merlii:tcrs, however, Defendants were p()stp,)nrr g the same on or.c pr( rext or other and finally, plaintiff on 2rt.()7 2OO7 had requeste ,1 fcr partition ,,vhich was refused b-.,. Dr:Icn lants aa- a 2 :. .\J 1 and having no alternative, Plaintiff hled the above suit for partition of the suit schedule property' In the written statement, defendants admit the 5. relationship between themselves and Plaintiff' however' deny theclaimofPlaintiffthatsuitSchedulePropertyisMatruka Property. It is specific case of Defendants that suit schedule property is the self- acquired property of father of Defendants 1 to 5 and husband of Defendant No 6 The suit schedule property never belonged to Late Abdul Rasool at any point of time even prior to or after 1952' Khasara Pahani reflects the name of l,ate Hyder Moinuddin as pattadar having purchased the same from private individuals' Late Hyder Moinuddin died in 1977 and after his death, names of Defendants were mutated in revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property and nowhere Plaintiffs name was re{lected in the revenue records' Defendants also challenged the nature of emplo5,ment of Plaintiff and had denied that Plaintiff was in employment with Electricity Department and are vocal in stating that Plaintiff was in employment with Panchayat Raj Department and worked as Civil Engineer' Earlier there was partition suit being O.S.No. 22O of 1991on the f1le of the Junior Civil Judge and the same was decreed and hnal decree was also pf"".a vide 1.A.No.519 of 1999' In tJle said partition suit' 7 J Plaintif.' r, ni Dcfendants were parties, however, suit_ property rr []e present /rs, was not the Subject rnall schedule :r o[ the aforemt.r-r tir: rrrrd suit. 1 is the specific case of Defendan is r schedulc l) - lperty was self-acquired prot)ert) o raL suit Hyder Moinucllin ar:d he sold the same to washermen erncl I ;hermen commu;ti v atrd that said land was never in ph,r,siczrl i_rc ssession of the cl:cla;'irrts in C.C.No. SPT/2645/75 on th,r file ot- Reforms 'l'ri tr nal as such, the said lands were deleterl holding or rtL,: Hyder Moinuddin. State Gover-rment. l Appeal irs aqainst the order of the Tribunal, howeler I Tribuna }rarl r:onhrmed the order of the Land Rr_.forrns l Thus dr- rr nE t he period 1 959-60 to 197 4-Z S , ttLe sr.ri t : property \r'ati I rot in possession of the declarant ;lnd sc z Plaintiff. I'ft: : the disposal of the Land Reforrns l)rcic Defenda-rt:; t o 5 have re-purchased the lands n SJr,,( he Land iom the referred ppcllate ribunal. chedule lso with 'edings, v No.53 from thr: r),t'rrr'-s and possessors. I t is srated, Plaintiff had earlier hlerl O . S. \r .2O9 of 7978 for p,rr it.on claiming share in agricultural lanc s it: Survey Nos. 1757|i,. 1','41tr,54, and 55. In the said suit, Def,:ncli arrayecl as l):fendants. The said suit was de<;reeri :rr decree u.a ,. a I so passed. The suit schedule F ropcrtv present srr I is not subject matter of the first parlitlor) su L nts are d final in the , oh* O.S.No.2O9 of 1978, hence, Plaintiff cannot file a second suit for partition. 6 The trial Court, after considering the pleadings, had framed the following issues

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of sched-ule property into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to him? 2. Whether plaint schedule property in Sy-No 53/AA of an extent of lTacres and 11 guntas is ancestral property of ptaintiff and defendants? plaint schedule property is self acquired property of father of g. WhL1t ". 4. Whether the Judgment and Decree in O S No 209 / 1978' passed' the defendaats no.2 to 5 and husband of D6? bars the suit, in view of Order II Rule 2 of C P C ?

5. Whether suit is not maintainable in l^aw? 6. Whether suit is bad for non joinder of proper ald necessary parties? 7. Whether the proceedings in CC.No SPT 12645 /75 before Land Reforms tdUunaf holding that objection purchaser of land and " ;f'otalttg of Hyder Moinuddin is binding deletion of the same from it on the plaintifP 8. Whethei the Judgment and Decree in O'S No 22 1 of 199 1 ard 9- Whether court fee paid is insufhcient? 1 0. subsequent proceedings are binding on the plaintifP To what relief:2 An additional issue is framed whether the suit is barred by Limitation? In the above suit, Plaintiff examined two witnesses 7. including himself as PW 1 but subsequently the same was eschewed ald Plaintiffs son Nazeer Mohiuddin was examined as PW2 and got marked Exs. A1 to A33' Defendant No'2 was exarnined as DWl and Exs.Bl to 834 were marked' Defendant No. 1 was set ex parte. The trial court had dismissed the above suit on Cl6.11.2072, with no costs' Irnpugning the said disrnissal of the suit, Plaintiff preferred this Appeal' - x f ) 8 '-he trial Court after considering rhe plea lings and docum:rLtz: r r evidence had held Issue Nos. I to 6 favour o ' l) : fe r-rdants and Issue Nos. 7, g, Acldrti:rna favour I I P]a i nr.iff and dismissed the suit. 9. lezrrned counsel for appellant Srr S. (]ar submirr] r ha t r.he Trial Court disregarded Ex. A23. O-S.No.2tlC. ,)f lggl, wherein Defendants s;rared 1 schedulc prr)-)erty is Matruka propert5r of Late A:du The trial ( to;11 [461 erroneously held that suit s,]hectule is the r;eL[-.t:quired property of Hyder Moinuddjrr br Record tl Ri,S tts and revenue entries. The trieLl Court consider Elx.I. 1 Registerd Sale Deed pertaining to srir r properLv )\. .nd 9, in Issue in esh Rao )laint in rat suit Rasool. property slng on dicl not chedule )laintiffs father on 3l Aban I 333 Fz sli and ExA-23. It is argued that he tria Court admissic n .r i commitl_cd e-,.or in holding that suit is not maintainabl Order 1 1, .?L_ l: 2 and 3 of CpC. The trial Court erroneou that suit sr^edule property is self acquired l)rop Moinudcl ;-r, .r lrereas Ex. Ai 1 establishes that sr-Ltt s, proper[,. s ri. (l rired by the father of plaintiff. The trral co given unclr,rr:.r.portance to Khasara pahani which do not any title to sui _ schedule property. 10. He: rd Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel, Sri Sreepathi [.,:rr:. learned Senior Counsel on behali ol. Sri 'under ;ly held 'rt1- of hedule rrt had confer '. Raja Dileep 6 Kumar Bommena, learned counsel and Sri Jogaram Tejawat' on behalf of respondents. It was urged by Defendants that since Plaintiff had 11. not stepped into the witness box, as evidence of the Plaintiff examined as PWl was eschewed, an adverse inference has to be drawn as against him. PW2 who is the son of Plaintiff was nowhere in the picture all through the period of proceedings till hting of the evidence was allowed by the trial court to be examined on the ground that since the health condition of the Plaintifi is bad. PW2, in his cross-examination' admitted that 12. Plaintiff had earlier hled suit for partition and the same was decree and that said proceedings and details were not mentioned in the present suit; plaintiff sold away the lands fell to his share in Survey Nos' 174, I75, 54 and 55 of Ponnala Village; there is no mention of suit schedule property in the earlier suit; name of Hyder Moinuddin is shown as possessor and purchaser in the Khasara Pahani; Plaintiff did not hle any document to prove that Plaintiff and Hyder Moinuddin are in joint possession of suit schedule property; in Ex'A20' LRAT Judgment, it is mentioned that Hyder Moinuddin had sold away suit schedule lald to 17 persons and that their names are mentioned Column of Ex. A3 tg A5' Defendant No 2 had frled O.S.No.221 of 1991 seeking partition of suit schedule lands and \l 7 7 that prt:U rlr I r;tn. decree was passed on 17 -O:3_199!l and the same \\,'.rs l:rlto\ved by passing of frnal decree on 29_ )2_2OO;. PW2 hilc r.rrrihed the encumbrance certilicate I led by Defenda:rts . to 6, wherein 67 transactions are rel} cted as against hr: srril schedule property and that Irlainttfl Cid not make thonl :r:; parties to the suit; further, in Ex. 833 rame of the pattra(la. ol lands in Survey No. 53 is shorvn zts E elreddy Hanumant'r ?er1dy, (admittedly, he is not made z party defendan: t,r it: suit)

13. t. ( tenclant No. 2 was examined as. D\V a _rd his version is tl-Lar lris father (Hyder Moinuddin) had turc has :d suit land in 1!r.J.2 rarsli and in year 1953, his father sc,ld suir and to FishermerL l)r rr munity and there was compromise in ( .S.No. 22O of lgttt

14. *. Isrsiue Nos.4 and 5: ll s the case of defendants that suit scl edule properb' is r t vtathruka propertlr of Abdul Rasool, as suc r, the same was not irr:ludert in O.S.No.209 of lg7g fileC b1. plz intiff. Per contro p air riff contends that though once pitrtitiolt .akes place in a -rc ir t family, the occasion to seek furlher p,r ition would arise . ll r trial Court had negatived the sai<l submi ;sion of Plaintifl .h :r1 r r is nor the case of plaintiff that Suit Sch, dule ProperLy r.r,a s kr p :rside during the earlier partition anri th rugh the burden o[ prrrf is on plaintiff to prove the sam,:, hr: dir not 8 discharge the same so also did not explain the reason as to why he has not included suit schedule property in O.S.No. 2O9 of 1978, if the suit schedule property is Mathruka property of Plaintiff and Defendants. The trial Court considering the pleadings, evidence and law had concluded that present suit is hit by Order 2 Rule (3) of CPC, therefore, Plaintiff cannot seek partilion of suit schedule property and held that suit is not maintainable under law. These two issues are answered as against Plaintiff.

15. Issue No.8: It is noticed by the trial Court, the suit number is wrongly mentioned as O.S.No.221 of 1991 instead O.S.No.22O o[

1991. This seems to be typographical error. Certihed Copy of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.22O of 1991 is marked as Ex-B24 and Certihed Copy of the final decree is marked as Ex.B25. It is the contention of Plaintiff that since he is not parff to suit, the said decree is not binding on him. The trial Court had accepted the said contention of Plaintiff and answered Issue No.S in favour of Plaintiff. This Court is not in acceptance of the said conclusion of the triai Court and this aspect is discussed infra. \6. * Issue No.7:- It is the categorical case of Defendants that suit schedule property is not Mathruka Property of Plaintiff and Defendants and Defendants relied upon Land Reforms -7 9 proceedin,:ls rleclaration dated 11.O4.Ig76. Bas ng on the declarat o r I lecl by the father of Defendants Lancl ?eforms Tribunal t arl 1>assed orders on 14.10.19Z6, Exrs. B l7 z nd B1g, Certified (iop r of the Judgment. As against the sai,1 -ju lgment, governrt3rLt l-zLd preferred Appeal which was di:;missecl Orders passed trv tLL,r Land Reforms Tribunal are binding on ,laintiff. Hoq.ever :,l:Ljr.tilf contends that he is not bound br. ,he said orders as. lre irl not having knowledge of the same . t-1. 'l'lr: trial Court though had taken inlo ccnsir eration that pub.;c r:(,1ice was issuecl under Rule (b) of thr: A. ). Land Reforms (Cei irg on Agricultural Holding) Rules, 191,4 a_rd had held thar f ,roceedings in C.C.No.SpT/2 (,45 /TS dated 14.1}.79're l t.lore the Land Reforms Tribunal and delt tion of the name ot 1,t:'rer of Defendant from the holding, is not rinding on plainti[1. Tris hnding of trial Courl is erroneous. lA. kisures 1 to 3: Trt main Defendant.s tl crefore, schedule Ilr( J)(rrlv is contention of Plaintiff rs th.z r suit ancestral property of plainti. - and he is entitled to seek prtrtition of the same. On h,. other hand, Defendants deny t_re said claim h,t r suit schedule property is self_acquireJ pr tpert5z conte ndin I rr' Defendants 1 to 5 and husband of Defr ndant No.6. PlairLrill h:d relied upon Exs. A3 arld A5, wh,:rerr. na nes of i ancl that of plaintiff are mentionerl as pat. edars Defendants 1 t() of the fathe r l0 \-1 \ - However, in Ex.A8 proceedings of MRO dated 22.03.2000, names of Defendants and three others are mentioned as pattadars, in this Exhibit name of Plaintiff is not mentioned- Ex. A32 is the crucial document, which is Khasara Pahani wherein the name of Hyder Moinuddin is mentioned as pattadar. This being fundamental document, is having a bearing on the adjudication of this Appeal' A new angle had cropped up from Exs'A13 and 14, 19. which show that one Balje Nagaiah alienated land of Ac' O3-20 Gts in Survey No.53/A in favour of wife of Plaintiff' Admittedly the total extent of land recorded in Survey No'53/A is Ac.2O-31Gts., thereby the balance land that is available is an extent Acs. 17-11gts, which is being claimed by Defendants ln this scenario, iL was not explained by Plaintiff as to how his father had purchased lands in Sy. No.53/A, when Plaintiff admitted that his wife had purchased land from Balje Nagaiah' This aspect clears the mist created by the Plaintiff the suit land is not Mathruka Property of Plaintiff and Defendants' The trial Court discussed the Exhibits in detail and

20. had come to the conclusion that suit schedule property is not the ancestral property and in view of the conduct of plaintiff lrling O.S.No.2O9 of 1978 and mentioning the same in the present suit, is not entitled to claim any right over the suit schedule property and had accordingly, decided Issues 1 to 3 against Plaintiff and in favour of Defendants (t. r-*=t*::111.'i: *-*..a:=:1 2l [ssues No.6 and 9: _)ese lssues are technical in naturr: an I si rce other issues ert, <l scussed elaborately, they are not beirrg c scussed by this co tr. lt the light of the aforesaid slrbm ssrc ns, the following poirls would emerge for determination, narnely are Jo rnt imi11 properties? 1) Whet re.. t re Appellant / plaintiff has established :hat the r :lit lands 2) Wh-.tlrer lre claim of the Respondents/ Defendants thal fhe s tit is not rnainti lL. i)le for partial partition as the ancestral agri<ullu al lands of tlre car.tes rvere alread_v partitioned in O.S.No. 2C9 ol l9.,rt q,herein sUit s, h(, r le properly is not included in the said suit? Whrtlrcr rhe Appellant/ plaintiff has establishcd tlrat he suit sche dt rle I r)roperties are liabl e for partition and he is erLtitie to half share .h(lr: n.) 3) 1re impugned judgment and decree of he trlal .ourt is 4) Whclt _-r susttur aL l: ) 5) To rl, ra r r.. i,rp 27 Poi nt Nos. lto 4 Since all thel;e grejn 5 a1s rnextricabli i .r t:r_twined and inter_linked, the,y zrre being decided to5le h rr .

23. l,{r:sl important and crucial aspect in adjlrclir ating this Appeal i,; r lr,: conduct of plaintiff in filing suit for par ition seeking par ti.ior of suit schedul. p.op..ty.#ppres;singJ thr f261 of filing of O S l{ r.2O9 of 197g on the file of Dislricr M u rsiff, Siddipet, u,rre -e;r r he sought for partition of agricult.rrar rar_r rs in Sy. Nos. 17.t, 1 ) 54 "# 55 of Ponnal Village Conspicuo Lsly, t2 - X i I l there is no pleading in the Plaint about earlier partition. The aforesaid partition suit was decreed and final decree was also obtained by Plaintiff and suit schedule property therein were partitioned by meets and bounds. Subsequently, Plaintiff had sold away lands fallen to his share, in the aforementioned suit and now cannot be permitted to approach the Court seeking another partition more so in respect of the property which was not included in earlier suit, without seeking leave of the Court in the hrst suit being O.S.No.209 of 7978. If the version of PWl and his hling of O.S.No.209 of 7978 without including the present suit schedule property are viewed in the context of the legal principles, the irresistible conclusion that would emerge is that plaintiff hled O.S.No.2O9 of l97a without making the suit schedule property herein, on his own volition and with full knowledge admitting and acknowledging that he has no right in suit schedule property. This is one dimension of the matter. The approach of Plaintiff in fiting the second suit is by design. This court is taking serious view of the said conduct of plaintiff. Plaintiff is guilty of deliberate suppression of facts which are material in adjudicating the lis. The suit of Plaintiff is hit by Order II, Rule 2 and 3 of CPC and trial Court had rightly held the suit is not maintainable and had rightly dismissed the suit. 24. Plaintiff had approached the Court seeking partition of suit schedule propert5i and burd$r of proof is on Piaintiff to / I _.i prove h s c;t:;,r that suit schedule property is l\{atrtrka property of Abdu I R,t scol. plaintiff canno[ rely upon t he ,i,ea lness of defensc s( 11- l) bv Defendants. Once again, the r,ric, lonr uct ancl approao -'t of I, aintiff plays a crucial role. In vierv ol- sup tression of [he f rc: cf earlier suit, plaintiff cannot explair.r a, to the reasons u r1. ;uit schedule property was not inch-rder in the earlier s,rit :i() ledule properties. plaintifl by not rnrrlnd ng suit schedule Ffoltrtv in the earlier suit by his concucr hac rvaived off his r g)'Lt I any over the suit schedure pro Derr.i. .I re said conduct o' j)irrintiff is hit by Doctrine of estopp,_I. hereby Plaintiff is lr,r rred from fiiing a second suit for pr rtrtion. Furthermot.e. r is settled principle of law that there c.rr not be partial partiti,r: or multiple partitions between th: sa-nc;,arties. 25 Ncr,,, coming to the first ground which is p. inciple ground ol a :trr : k of plaintiff in this Appeal is tht. con tt.r.r ron in the Plaint ri.ecr rry Defendant No. 2 against the ottrer [)cr-e rdants therein and rhi -,r parties being o.s.No. 22o of r9g) orr thr rrle of the Junior (ii',i Judge ar Siddipet. plaint of O.S.No.2ltO o 1991 is markec a-. lx A23, wherein, it is mentioned tha Suit Schedule )roprrt]' is Matruka property of Abdur Rasoor This suit is lrlect zLft--r the deciee was passed in O.S.No 2O9 of l91g, dated 30. 12. lat', 3, Ex.B2 I and so after the final rlecr,:e p rssed on 24 .O7 .1 )i 9 E)x822. From the said sequence of everr ts , t can be undersroorl lr ..lt plaintiff having come to know o. the ple rding t4 t'. I '-.1 ( made in O.S.No.220 of 1991 taking advantage of the same' had hled the present suit for partition overlooking his own claim madeino.S.No.2OgoflgTS.ThisCourtdeprecatestheconduct .and approach of Plaintiff and neither is ready to observe the submission of Plaintiff that Defendant No 2 having pleaded that suit schedule properq/ as Matruka property of Plaintiff and that of Defendants now cannot deny the same' This Court is not inclinedtoreceivethesaidlineofargument.Plaintiffinfiling the present suit has not approached the Court with clean hands. F;x.A23 cannot be termed as conclusive in terms of ?6. Sections 17, 5a,91 and 92 of the Indian trvidence Act' Plaintiff nor his son PW2 are parties to OS No'220 of 1991 as such' no inference can be made that Ex'A23 is conclusive proof and would not operate as estoppel against Defendants Relying on the settled . principles of law, this Court is of the view that plaintiff has failed to prove that suit lands are ancestral/ Mathruka property of Plaintiff and Defendants and more so for the reason that suit schedule property was not included in the earlier suit O'S'No'209 of 1978' 2f . In the case on hand, admittediy' the proceedings of LandReformTribunalplaysVeryimportantrole.The observations and findings of the Land Reforms Tribunal were conhrmed by the Appellant Tribunal in the Appeal hled by the # 7 C .l Govern rr:)nt Admittedly, plaintiff did not have a.rv sri, against t re: !r1ds1 of Land Reforms Tribunal, thereby proceeding-. e rc binding on plaintiff, for the reas(,n t party r.gttri uere created over suit schedue prop, Plaintifl Crd tot chailenge the same. These cir:umstat order ol th( l-and Reform Tribunal proves th:rt sr-111 property i ,; -r: t Matruka property of Abdul Rasool and Plaintiff is no. entitled for any relief. 28. A:i discussed supra, vance as the said )at third rtY and ces and chedule thereby the obser', a tic r and conclusion r_ I triai Court that Judgment of the t,irncl Reform Tribunal rsr :ro , binding on plaintiff is erroneous. .l Lrdg nent of the Lanc I?e f crms Tribunal is passed under a sl.atu e al.ter following t re rlue procedure. plaintiff, if is aggrrc.;cri by the same, shor rlr: ltave taken steps as against the sarte Ver ther there is a rr u 1r.sper in the plaint, more so, when hrs i.ire claims to have 1>u r-c:1- zLsed the land in Survey No.53/A. lleliz nce is placed b.' D:f,:ndants on the Declaration given lx. gy6.. Moinuddin ,,Ls ,r.ell as the objection filed. This Colrrr accer,ts the Declaration ol tee Hyder Moinuddin made beforr: thrr f1 6r,,rr., as conclur;l e a ccordingly, the finding of the jurlgm:rrt. rf the Trail Court r n r l- is aspect is negatived. Lg. ,\ ,:rrSconsideration of the submissionsr n-iz Ce on behalf of pta nr il.'. what is deducible is that an adrnission rnade by a partl' lr i)tlter suit cannot be regarded as c()ncltls j\r and X ) can be shown to be wrong. If the factual matrix of the present case is analysed with reference to these principles, it is apparent that suit under Ex.A23 which is OS No. 22O of l99l is not filed against plaintiff, at this stage, coming to the recitals under Ex' A23 and the testimony of PW I in this suit, it is evident that plaintiff has not satisfactorily offered any explanation as to why he has not referred the suit lands in his earlier suit being O.S.No.209 of 1978, in the present suit. If really the suit lands were ancestral property, plaintiff would have certainly mentioned the suit lands in O.S.No.2O9 of 1978 and would have challenged the Order of the Land Reforms Tribunal contending that Suit schedule property belongs to his family holding' Therefore, plaintiff is estopped from making a turn

30. around with reference to hling of O.S.No.2O9 of 1978 which is binding on him. Plaintiff has not discharged his initial burden to establish that suit lands are Matruka. 3l . Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and on a careful conSideration of the factual matrix of the present case with reference to the principles of law, this Court has no hesitation to hold that plaintiff on whom the initial burden lies to prove that suit Iands are Matruka property, has failed to discharge the same and therefore, it cannot be said that plaintiff is entitled for suit relief. The trial Court on appreciation of the facts and material on record, had rightly dismissed the suit' In f I vlew ol l1(. natter, this Court has no hesitatior-r to rolcl that judgme n I r Ld decree of trial Court is su stajnabl . and 1S confirrrrr:,'t lr z dismissing t he Appeal of Plaintiff Tht:se . ,oints are ans\.,er3c :rr:c ordingly.

37. point No.S: In the result, this Appea. rs, ismissed by confrr;lng; the judgment and decree passed in OS I o. 123 of 2OO7 ca erl 06.01.2012 by the learned Ser ior Crv 1 Judge, Siddipe:. l\o r osts.

33. (lonsequently, miscellaneous ApplicatioL-r: , if any shall stirr-.,1 cI rsed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD,.MOHD.ISMAIL DEPU TY REGISTRAR ir/ol{ oFFrcER SE( TI

1. The Senro C i'r'l Judge, Siddipet , Medak District. ( wrth recorr s ) 2. One CC to S til. S GANESH RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to S: I DILEEP KUMAR BOMMENA Advocrrte [r]PL Cl 4. One CC to S: I Singam Bhagaiah, Advocate [OPU(]I 5. One CC to Si I IVIETTU SHANKAR, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to S; I V ROHITH Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to S'i ,logram Tejavath, Advocate (OPUC) 8. One CC to S-i llaj Sripathi Rao, Advocate (OPUC) 9- One CC to S-i Ir, IVIADHUSUDHANA KUMAR, Advo<;ate ,OPr lC) 10. Two CD (io :ies P KUL/PSL * .*- r"b) w ' ri,l I ,- <i HIGH COURT DATED:28/05/2021i + Decree J udgment AS.No.1020 of i20'l 2 -.- R THi l: i .t.. t. t o .\ I ,-\\ o 'J ,-:, t| 1 '.1-. .,_.-l:- - ;_ ._i_,.-:-.._:. '1"-'lt "ii i li \ /,/ DISMISSNG iI I- .'.I'PE-AL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS \ blr( t a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA APPEAL surT NO. 1020 0F 2012 Appeal Under Section 96 of CPG aggrieved by the Judgment and- Do'cree dt. 6-11'-i012 passed in O.S.f'ro' 123 of-i}O7 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet, Medak District Between: 1 . Asad Moinuddin (died) per LRs Appellants 2 to 8 S/oAbdulRasooloccRetd'EmployeeR/oH.No.12-4-98lE/l,Naseernagar' Siddipet town.

2. Mohd. Kareemuddin S/o. Late Asad Moinuddin 3. Sarwar Mohiuddin S/o. Late Asad Moinuddin 4. Ghouse Mohiuddin S/o. Late Asad Moinuddin 5. Maqdom Mohiuddin S/o. Late Asad Moinuddin' Presently R/o UAE 6. Afzal Mohiuddin S/o. Late Asad Moinuddin, Presently R/o' UAE 7. Nazeer Mohiuddin S/o. Late Asad Moinuddin B. Yaseen Begum S/o. Late Asad Moinuddin

2.3,4,7 and 8 are R/o. H'No' 12-4-98lE/1 ' Naseer Nagar Colony'Siddipet' Medak District ( Appellants 2 to 8 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Appellant as per C.O. dt. 17-07-2018 made in A S'M P No' 3025 of 2017) AND ...APPELLANT/ Plaintiff i+'

1. 9lglqgt Hyd:r S/o Late Hyder Moinuddin occ Business, Rio H.NO.17_8_ 415111A, Baga i Jahanuma, yakutpura, UyAer"Ura.

2. Rafeeq tlyder S/o Late Hyder Moinuddin, occ Govt limptoyer 3. Rayees llyde,r, S/o Hyder Moinuddin, occ Business, 4. Anees Hycer S/o late Hyder Moinuddin, occ Business. 5. Liyaq HyJe,r, S i c late Hyder Moinuddin occ Business 6 Nazeer Fruss:r r Beorm, wo Late Hyder Moinuddin occ riour ehord 2 to 6 are R/o H No 7.t.41si1ars" Jrhinr#;, y;i;ip;;; Hr'der;abat 7. Mrs.Ameer a Eeoum. Wo Syed Abdul Rahman aged 4g years Occ Housewire, Rt) j_3_163/1, tvia;,d Lin", i a.lilgrl, Hyo"rrbad 500070 8. Mrs. Kya.h;rrr Shailaia @ Gaddam Shailaja. Wo Amar.aged i 2 years, Occ Housewiferr/c 17-107, s-rinagar c"t"ni slobid"i ro*n and Di trict-502103 9. Mrs. Thinrn 'ire:;lretty Rama Devi. Wo Ramulu, aged li4 y€,ars, Occ Housewif:, R/c i-4-39/3. Ramnagar-sir;iril5bilp.t trwn and District-S,2.r03 10. Mrs. KhurnLrh;r,r Suo,na, Wo Balreddy, aged 67 yea.s, Ccc l_.ousewife. R/o 1 1 . Chikotti Nairare j S/o Anjaiah..aged 43 years, Oc Employee R/, H. No.B_2_ "is,otip"iilir.'oj Jnd Disrrict 502 103 H.No.2-30 Rz rrpur Viilage 68/6, Shir,aji N:rcyar Cotony, Siddip;t io;;;;J6i.tri",_So: rOs

13.Smt. Srikc,nrja flrishri l2.Kotagiri K.isnrir Murthy, S/o Hemadri, agsdTl years. Occ Ret( . employee R/o H.No. 1 t'-39/ 2 shivajinaga, coto..iv, "sooip"i"io*,- anc drs. -ict-5021 03 ftsmeshwar Rao, aged ab,rut t,5 ye ars, Occ SilEltrooioet t.owr and Distric! 'l4.Mrs.Kolla Arune. Wo Devender Reddy. aged 54 Vears. Oc: Hc tsewife. R/o Housewife, rr,r - i -+-ogl5 502.103 H.No.19-151,. ti r vajinagar cot, siJoipLiil-tin-rn,J oistr,"t_s -BhE;r;;;A; ^Ws 15 lt{lt Am-arverth . \V/o Harikishan Rao, aged 54 years, C)cc Flous:..wife R/o tnoranrasnt'a Api"rtme-ni,'riJior',"'i^ rr"or, ,'Stl"J;",gra", 1,I3.!;tr.iKi{};18' '16.Mrs. Rodda ihaovataxT.i:_\ Teacher. Fyc h io 18_21a. shivajinagai6ii.diSitoipur Town rnd District.5Olt l l3 {g.Ramchander Reddy, aged 4.1 ye rrs, Occ

17.Mohd. Afs;rr, S,c, Shams-uddin, Sajidpura f)t S cctipet Town and-District.tbrlOi-- * "" '18. Mohd. Arif Al , s/: yakubali, qS^+ ?6 years, Occ Business R/o 2 342t1tA, Sajidpura, Sidd 6,et Town and"oiitn"t:502ib3 ?Sl?d.?3 y_qe-ars, Occ Br.rsiness Fro2_3_41t7, " Vil" JYffi :il l i ; l ilT Sj?,ili ffi,i,;,'"T rrp.,yi?f.li,t H <, u s e vi re R/o 2 0 -6, 20. Guduri Prasarna. Wo Ajay Kumar,Aged about 42years, Oc:c Le:turer R/o H.No.4-1-7tt',:tsC1. B_Btoci(,-_S^{r}ig i;;ilH;frarpuri Corony, ..lacharam, Uppal-Mallap.rr,rtyderabad_S0OOZO - -' 21 . Galwel Anand Reddy, S/o Ramchander Reddy, aged 42 years, Occ Teacher, R/o 2-88, Bandram village of Kondapak Mandal and Siddipet District.

22.Edaboina Sidda Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, aged 70 years, Occ agriculturist R/o H.No.1-38/A, Ramavaiam village of Husnabad Mandal and Siddipet Dist-

23.Mrs. Shabana, Wo Rafeeq, aged 35 years, Occ Housewife R/o H.No.10-2- 1/1 , Vemulavada villageof Sirsilla Diskict.505302

24.Mrs. Gangapuram Tara, Wo Satyanarayan, aged 31 yea.rs, R/o H.No:2-76, Bakrichepyala (V) ofSiddipet Town and dist.502103 -Occ Housewife

25..Mrs. Madugulla Padma, Wo Kankalah, aged 32 years, OccHousewife, R/o H.No.2-9911, Nancherpally (\Q,Siddipet Town and dist.502103

26. Nagamalla Santosh Kumar, S/o Kutalah, aged 31 years, Occ Business R/o 2- 28,-shankernagar st., Siddipet town and dist.502103

27. Nasreem Fathima, Wo Md.Azeemuddin, Aged 41 .years, occ Housewife R/o H.No. 1 0-'l -1 8 1 /1, Mangammathota, Siddipet Town and District.S02'l 03

28. Rekupalli Linqa reddy, S/o Narsareddy, aged 46 years, Occ Teacher R/o H.No:4-76, A-nkireddypally village of Kondapak Mandal and Siddipet Dist 502372

29. Makkisa Harish Reddy, Sio Pashi Reddy, aged 33 years, Occ Private Employee R/o H.No.3-32, Medipally village of Chinnakodur(M) and Siddipet District,502103

30.Abdul Khuddus, S/o Vall Mohammed, aged 36 years, Occ Employee R/o 94- 497, Sapthagiri Colony, Karimnagar Town and District.505001

31. Mrs. Kondapally Jyothilatha, Wo Lakshman, aged 37 ye.a1s, Occ Housewife R/o H.No.17-1 Sj/1 Sivajinagar colony, Siddipet Town and Dist

32.Mrs. Panyala Jayaprada, Wo Eshwar Reddy' aged 51 years, R/o H No T-1 65/16/5, flat t,to.2o+, Saroja Apts, D.K. Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.l6 33. Shivva Kashinath, S/o Gopal, aged 41 years, Occ Business, R/o 4-3112, P S road, Narsapur(V) and (M) Medak diskict.

34.Atheli Srinivas, S/o Balanarsaiah aged about 39 years .Occ business R/o H.No.2-54, Dilalpu(V), Mandal Gajwel, Dist. Siddipet.502103

35. Mrs. Palle Arpita, W/o Kamalakar Reddy, qSed 11 years, Occ Housewife R/o H.No.'1-1-759128, Ramnagar, Hyderabad-500020

36. Pandula Ramulu, S/o Raiaiah, aged about 41 years, Occ Business R/o -- n-r.ro.7-g+3, Qutubnullapur, R.R:District-soooss(DlsMlssED AS PER Court Order dt. 9-10-2023 in l.A.No 4 of 2023 )

37. Konda Ravinder, S/o Papaiah, aged 53 years, Occ Business R/o 4-3-84' Patelpura Street, Siddiqpet Town and District 502103

38. Vutnoori Prabhaker, S/o Mallaiah, aged 48 years, Occ Business R/o -- H.rGlb-t-206, Mangammathota street, Siddipet Town and District'502103

39. Ms. Peddi Nagarani, Wo Anjalah, aged 44 years, Occ Housewife, R'/o -- ff.fifo.Za-zz, iherialb Villageand Mandal, Siddipet Diskict 502'103 40 Bejlgao r(r,nrlzrlah S/o Malleshasm , aged 47 years, Occ llusi ress R/o H.No. 1-2.5 Ve chareni village, Cheriat illandall SijO'ipet D;stric,5-02ib3 41. Chakkar:i Yerhrra ju. S/o Venkat Raju, aged 60 years, Occ F :td. Emolovee Rr/o H Nrr '7.i' . Riohauendra Ap-artme;t] rl-"i,i oi,"p 5:'e'r ili"i'FiStlr=' Siddipet Tow- .rnd district-sOZtfjs 42 Chandhi RedCy Prabhak"j B^.!9_y, S/o Narsimha Rectdy, age<r 43 years, Occ Agricutture F/: H No.12-3-1o}tsiA, rnaoerpJrisiieet; Si,i'oil et-ftwnZriO-- District.5li' 1 (r:t

43. Merugu fihiv:rl ngam, S/o R.ajalingm. aged 70 years. ,)cc agrir ulture R/o Rebarthi vi tar): of Maddur M'anO5t, Wi"ringat 6irtri-"t.soOflOr

44. Mrs H.N . Ye_ll;l .llruna, Wo Ramreddy, aged_4g years, Crcc l-lous:rwife, R/o o. 1 1 - 1 - 59 r,t,'2 Bharathnagar c-oton"y, SiaOipet ib",nl ri j O rtrict. 45. Mrs. Mal[,:acu.ilm Ratnamala, Wo Satish Reddy, aoed 45 years, Occ Housewife R/: ti.No.17-68/1, Srinagar cotony tiaai.t ror.in r,nir -oist. 4O Vtq Rarra,:hil L.axmi, Wo Bjlalah aged 70 years. O:e Housr wife, R/o H.No.1'l-t-rt. it arathnagar St Siddip"ei iovv,iinjb,.trict 502 103 4T chakilam rv'a, € sha,m, s/o Bhoomarah aged about 50 Tear:; oc ; Business R/o H. No. 3-4-78. F'atetpura Street, Siddipet'io*n ini"ff/onOat. 50: .l 03

48. Naseem tJr nir; H.No.11-ir-t)4, ir,^Wo !19 d Younus, aged 47 years, ()cc r-.loulewife R/o I -Class-27, Mailepaily, f6otbail'Grounc, tiVi"ij rjo:EfjOoZA 49. Mrs. Silig_anr Laxmi Wo.Laxmirajyam, gged 55 years, Occ Hor sewife R/o H.no.11-2-67t,t Ir, Bharathnaga, di,e"i Sid;,p"i+;*n ,rnd rJislp 1.

50.Mrs. Lakk re,dc'r.Uma W,o Narender Reddy, aged 36 year:;. O, c Housewife R/o Gambhira,i'er viitage

51.PIN.fr/urthy. S/r p.V. gy.OUq,:o aged 48 years, Occ Bus,nes R/o H.No..t7_ "ilt 1 65,Srinaoa. cc l,tny. Siddipet Town"and OiJtn.i. d& r C e ,""oiilirii,i,Yr?, D st 5()50. 52 Mohd Abdu S;rrada. S/o. Mohd AbdulRauf, aged 60 years, ( cc Business R/o H.No :z- i-1'rr"1/A. sajidpura street. sioarpi:iiown and t)istr x-502i03 53. Mrs. Aisura \/iii'raraxmi D/o subba rao,.aged 52 years oc: Hc .rsewife, R/o Ptot No.'l 01 S i akshmi Apa,t."^G,c[irr.l"oia-riy]Lyoerab I

54. Mrs. Malliseltv S,triatha Wo M.L.Narasimha rao, aged 53 years Occ Housewife nlb rr iqo r i-z-+zlloliri, Snlri'rirJriliJoro,'v siddil et rown and District.

55.Mrs. Papprr r.a:rrr i Annapurna, w/o srinivas, aged 4g years. occ Houswife R/o rf ai;1iii ,0"r""'"" '.," H. No. 1-7-431t. l),ot No.71 , ner"nr" 56 T Srinivas sr/o'/ithar Aged about 51 years, occ Business */o t .No. 274gr1 , Near HMT, tt)pL sotonyl HyueraoJa 5odbii-" "" 57.Mrs. C.H. \,iiirvir axmi W/o Rajdh_armareddy, aged 50 years. Oc; Housewife R/o H.N 12-5.4 r .o vidvinas;,. C"i,-si&ii,p'"ii=o"*i, ,ro Distric -s02103 58. Mrs. Asmathtrnn sa Beoum,l1y76 Mohd. All, age{66 years. ()cc lousewife R/o H No.94.5r) t, ChSruvadan str"et, SiiiiEtiii6n a,lo Distrir:. 502.103 "oiony]'Sr"O'"Olii., t

59. Balla Naravana. S/o Narsaiah, aged 70 years, occ agriculture R/o H.No 9-68, Narayanraopet village, Siddipet Mandal and district 502103

60.Mrs. Rachha Lalitha, Wo Srinivas, aged 50 years, Occ Housewife R/o - - ft-tto.tZ-t27, Srinagar colony, Siddipet Town and District'SO2103 61. Gudupu Ashok Kumar, S/o Swamy, aged 60 years, Occ Business R/o - H.ttoib-+, Sivaiinagai Col., Siddilet town and District-S02103 62- Chukka Naoavender, S/o Pedda Bairiyah, aged 54 years, occ agriculture, R/o - Alwal villag6, Mirdoddi Mandal, Dist. Siddipet-S02103

63.MettamKomralah,S/oEllaiah,aged54years,OccAgricultureR/oBaswapur village, Mandal Koheda, Siddipet District 502103

64. Thurunahari Madhusudhan Swamy, S/o Venkatnarsalah, aged- 66.yslars ' Occ " i;il;;e];;her, Rio 12-2-112, Moinpura St., Siddipet District'502'103

65.TatioamulaShankaraiah,s/oBhoomalah,Aged55year,OccBusinessR/o Baswapur(V), Koheda(M), Siddipet Dist.502103

66.Tailapatit Balkishan Goud, S/o Anjalah Goqd,.aged 99 vgqr:'-99r.Fusiness "" nrcHaOA,pragi uiffag", Mandal Nagnoor, Siddipet Diskict'S02103 "' 6T.Mrs.GogulotuSunitha,WoShankerlal,.aged45years,OccHousewife'R/o ciiai""-''"UrdJam virlage, Singareni(M), Vdyat<arpitti, Khammam District- - 50io0i i"R 2023) dismisiei! ai "per ccjui ord'er dated 11-10-2023 in l.A.No. 5 of -67

68.Mrs. Gogu Lalitha, Wo Rajireddy' gS-e.d q1 y-qqlglOcc realtor' R/o H No'17-56 - - Siinagar"colony, Siddipet Town and District 502103

69.Mayana Dhigambhar, S/o Vithal, agqd 56 yuears, Occ Business R/o 11-1- -" isli, Bnr*t"nnigar Street, Siddipet Town hnd District 502103 70.Mrs. S. Suguna, Wo Pratap Rqddy, aggd 55 years, Occ Housewife R/o ' - ij io] z-oil5tii,rg"r. Colonv, SidtiipelTown ind District'5021 03

71.Kaliam Sriramuluy, Sio Narayan, aged 55years,. Occ Business R/o H'No 5-3- ' iO6, F"iJprlly Stieet. Siddip'et Town and Diskict-5o2'103 7? i ts. Safiva Sulthana, Wo Md. Muqtar' aged 50 years, Rl/o H'No 19-168/A -'Siinirrs Col.lSiddipet Town and District-SO2103 73.Mrs. Vemula Saraswathi' Wo Srirangam, aged 70 years' Occ Housewife R/o H. No. 1 0- 1 - 1 96, rvr"ngrr;rihota Sia"oipei ftwn an'd District-so2 1 03 74. Mrs.Gogu Rajitha, Wo Sathyam reddy, aged 45 years' Ocr- Ho-u-sewife R/o il-i-e+] anaiathnagar Stredt, Siddip€;t Town and District'502103

75.Vanga Linga Reddy, S/o Chandrareddy, ag-ed 55.years' Occ Business R/o 19- ' - 1iCil.Siinlrrt Colonv, Siddipet town and District 502103

76.Mrs. Subba Jayanthi, Wo Sudhaker, aged 37.1e1s' Occ Housewife R/o ' " n. No. z7-1 o nii I'l t l, sitar am na g a r, N ared met, R' R' District

77.Mrs. Mekala Ramana' Wo Srinivas Reddy, aed 41 year'^O. cc Housewife' R/o ' ' i;"in'i'"n'rp"ifvl, archrnrpet Mandal' Di6t Jangaon-506167 78 P B Raia Goud. S/o Vittal Goud, aged 70 years, Occ Business R/o Dubbaka - vitlage dnd Mandal, Dist. Siddipet 502108 T9.Mandoja lrlarerder, S/o Rajesham, aged S0 years, Ccc Busir:ss R/o Goddarn r,)a,J Kamareddy-S0311 1 -

80.The Sub-F'egristrar, Urban, Siddipet. Bl . The Mur icip:rl rlommissioner, Sididipet. 82. The Urbjln D-:velopment Authority, Siddipet. .. Respondents/ )roposed Parties 80 82 $gs^non le nt; Nos. 7 to 82 are impleaded as per Court Order Cated 17_02_ 2022vide A t,tos. 1 of2018 in tA. No l of2b2}int\.S fJo tiiO otiOii

83. Naheeda-F arveen, Wo. Late Rafeeq Hyder, Aged airout 51 y :ars, R/o. H.No.17-8. 144/1 , Bagh-e-Jahauma, yakuhpurS, Hyderabad 84 Kash_e.ef Hl,rdr: , S/o. Late Rafeeq Hyder, Aged about 34 years R/o. H.No.17_ 8-145/1. Bagh.r;-Jahauma, yakuhpura, iJyJerabad

85.Mohd Wasrf -yder, S/o. Late Rafeeq.Hyder, Aged atrout 33 y;ars, R/o. H.No.17-8-14Sl1, Bagh-e-Jahauma, Va(uhpural Hydt:rab;rd

86. Mohd..Ta^u:;eyi' Hy_der, S/o Late Rafeeq Hyder, Aged abort 3 years, R/o. H.No. 17-3-'45ll, Bagh-e-Jahauma, yaku6pura. tiydr-.rabad

87. Roana G.rk:hir. D/o. Late Rafeeq Hyder, Aged about 29 y,-ars Rio. H.No.17- yakuhpura, Hyderabad. I n"ifroni=;i N;.)'" " 8-145t1 .rJagi-e-Jahaum4 Rafeeq HY, je- [)ied per LRs - RR- 83 to 57) EB.Asmath .Nla.ze,-.r Kausr, Wo. Late Mohd. Rayees Hyder Aged about 47 years, R/o. H.Nr, 17-3-.11511tA, Bagh-e_Jahan Ara, yakuth'pura. l_t"yoe abad. , 89.Mohammec Fe seem Hyl_e1 $/o. Late Mohd. Rayees Hydr:r, A ;ed about 25 years, R/o H \().17-8r[15/1/A, Bagh_e_Jahan Ar'i yatLittrctira "iid;,"6;;. 90. Mohamm':c Kanrran Hyder, S/o. Late Mohd. Rayees llyde.r. A, ed about 24 years, R/. .J.\c.17-84'15i1lA, Bagh-eJahin Air-yrnrtf..,frr., ifVO"r"O"O. 91.Ariba Rayee,:s, l)/o. LateRafeeq Hyder, Aged about 2.t yee..s.lilo. H.No..l7_B_ 4 1 51 1 I A, []agh- -. -Jahan Ara, yakuthpuia, Fyaeiania

92. Nu.zah .Ray5:es;. l)/o. Late Rafeeq Hyder, Aged about 2tO ye,ars, R/o. H.No.17_ 8-41511/A [tary r.e-Jahan Ara, y;kuihpura,"HyOeriOao t'nesp ,nOeni liJ.i' Rayees Hycer -- Died per LRs RR 88-'92 )' '-- --

93. Moazamurr is:;,r Beoum,.W/or_Late- Liyaq Hyder, Agec abcut 4 i years, R/o -iar,itdrr.,'iio"rr*0, 17 -8-41 5 t 1 t A. 3 agh-i-Jahan Era i e4 llglgTT:d-_Slli?l Hy9q. S/o Late Liyaq Hyder, Ased about 7 years, is oernq repres:er'ted bv Naturar Guardian and mother, ihe party F esiondeni No.93, Ri<r '7.E-41st1tA, Bagh-e-Jahin-eir, iiriripu Hyd6.a iJ- --"' 95. Mohammed Strjban Hvder, S/o Late Liyaq Hyder. Aged about 4 years, is being- repr:sert3l by ilatural cuirolan'a,io .ioi^"i, tnu paly F:spondent No.93, Rk. 17-3-.+15/1tA, Bagh-e-Jahin Eo, Vjriribg Hyddra i 96.Tameema Naaz. D/o. Late Liyaq Hyder, Aoed about 1:t vears i, heinrr represented bv rraturar Guardian ahd moflier, tne part! hei,po. lJn'i i.r'o.sg. Rt o I 7 -8-4 1 !; t i r,t s3st-r-6-.J jri;; Er", i;i;ipli,'iio.,, ur.

97. Loweza Naaz, D/o. Late Liyaq Hyder, Aged about 11 years, is being represented by Natural Guardian and mother, the party Respondent No.93, Rio 17-841511/4, Bagh.e-Jahan Era, Yakutpur, Hyderabad.

98.Rabda Naaz, D/o. Late Liyaq Hyder, Aged about 10 years, is being represented by Natural Guardian and mother, the party Respondent No.93, No 17-8415tilA, Bagh-e-Jahan Era, Yakutpur, Hyderabad.

99.Fariya Naaz, D/o. Liyaq Hyder, Aged about 9 years, is be-inglepr-e-sqnlqd-9y^ Natural Guaidian an? mother, the party Respondent No.93, R/o 17-84151114' Bagh-e-Jahan Era, Yakutpur, Hyderabad.

100. Wafiya Naaz, D/o. Late Liyaq Hyder, Aged aboutT years, is being^^ represented by Natural Guardian and mother, the party Respondent No'93. Rio 17-8415tilA, Bagh-e-Jahan Era, Yakutpur, Hyderabad. ( Respondent No. 5 Liyaq Hyder - Died per LRs RR - 93 to 100)

101. Zeenath Nazneen, D/o. Late Hyder Moinuddin, Aged about 58 years R/o. H.No. 17-8415111A, Bagh e-Jahara, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad '102. Asmath Nazeen, D/o. Late Hyder Moinuddin, Aged about 55 years R/o. H.No. 17-84'15/1/A, Bagh e-Jahara, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad

103. Rafath Nazneen, D/o. Late Hyder Moinuddin, Aged about 49 years R/o H.No. 17-8-415/1/A, Bagh e-Jahara, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad ( !-espondent No. 6 Nazeer Hussain B.-eg um - Died per LRS -RR - 101- to 103 ) Respondent Nos. 83 to 103 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Resiondent Nos. 2,3,5 &6 as per Court Orde-r dated 09-08-2023 vide l-A. Nos. t, 2 3 & 4 of 2022 inA.S. No. 102O ot 20121

104. Smt Vadlakonda Suiatha, Wo. Srrnivas Reddy, Aged about 53 years, Occ Household, R/o. H.No. 18 66/3G, 2nd floor, Harlpriya Nagar, Opp. RDO's Guest House, SiddiPet.

105. Anantagiri Yadagiri, S/o. Chandraiah, aged about 46 years, Occ. washerman, R/o. s 3 20, Dhobhighat, Siddipet. ( Respondent Nos. '104 & 105 are impleade-d as^per Court Order dated 9-10- 2023 vioe t.A.No. 1 of 2o23 in A.S.No. 1020 ot 2012 ) ( RR 36, 104 and 105 are dismissed as per C.O. dt. 9-10-2023 vide l'A'No' 4 of 2023 in A.S.No 1020 ol 2012)

106. Sirikonda Srirama Rao S/o. Damodar Rao,, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o' H'No' 1-9-295114, street No. 7, Vidyanagar' Hyderabad

107. Smt. Ramagiri Amuktha Wo. Kartheek Rao,, Wo. Ka.{heek Rao, Aged 35 Years, OccAdv6cate, R/o. H.NO. 2-10-258' Jyothinagar, Karimnagar, District Karimnagar.

108. Sagi Srijaya Wo. Venugopal Rao,. Aged :58 Years' Occ House Wife - ilo. H.r{o. 2lz-lananno, - lirdraprashtra Colony Pedda Amberpet, Hvderabad. Presently residinq at C/o. Anudeep Jakilati, 36857, Newark Bivd, -Cn '-g+SOo, -nep Spl. Power of Attorney-Smt. Ramagiri ;\ii-A,- Ndark Rinudfra Wo. Kartheek Rao, Aged 35 Years, Occ Advocate, R/o' H No' 2-10- 258, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar, District Karimnagar.

109. Kotha Re jrsri Wo. Srinivasulu,, Aged 55 Years, Occ Hou;ewife, R/o. 17-14512, SrinarJ rr Colony, Siddipet Town and District. 110, Gundam \/anya Reddy Dio. Venkatnarsimha Reddy,, Ag€ I I years, (Minor) Re6, :ry L'er guardian Smt. Vanga Chandrakala W/o. Linr a Reddy, aged 55 Years, ()r:c Housewife, R/o. H.No. 19-16812, S'inivasan tgr, Siddipet Town and [)is,tri:..

111. Jella Tharrr Wo. Balaiah, Aged 44 Years,, OCC llous,e \\ fe. R/o. H.no. 8-2-'1 )3 Silr vajinagar Colony, Siddipet Town and District ( Respondent N cs. 106 to '1 11 are impleaded as per Court ()rde ' dated 06- 12-2023 vice ll, lrlo.2of 2023 inA.S.No. 1020of 2012, ...RESoONDENTS

112. Meru pula \aveena @ Kotagiri Kavitha Wo. Yadagiri age )6 years, Occ: Housew fe F./o. 3-4-, Chinnagundavelly, Mandal Siddipet t ist.

113. Som,a lil s hapathi S/o. Chandraiah Age 43 Years;, Occ B rsiness, R/o. 8-4-126, Buruju Fload Town and District , Siddipet -5012103

114. Yadagiri lJpendar S/o. Chandraiah, age 35 years Occ: Bu ;iness, R/o. 3-19/2, BadCiraJEa, Mdl. Nangnoor, Siddipet District.

115. Srirarr M:rohar S/o. late Narayan , age 43 years, Oc:: Br siness, R:/o. H.No. 14-1! , rla j(rvnagar Mustabad Mandal, Rajanna tlircilia Di lrict 1 16. Achula R;r. ulu Sio. Kistaiah, Age 54 years, Occ: Elusirress R/o. 3-4- 45/4"/1 , Sajeredp J.a, Town and District Siddipet.

117. Arige F ar, i liumar S/o. Veeraiah , age 39 years, Occ. Busr ress, R/o. H.No 3067 Bakr i:,repyal, Mandal Siddipet, Dist. Siddipe,t 1 18. Dama liu r tha Wo. Shankaraiah , age 30 years, 3cc: Bus 'ness, R/o. H.No. 1-1 1 Khariempaily Village , Kondapak Mandal of Siddrpet list. E ( RR 11 to 298 are inrpleaded as perCourt dated4-7-2024 in LA Nc,. Z<f 2024in A.S.No. 1020 ol 201','.) (RR265,266,298,:i9 13, 132, 145,149, 150, 159, 178,180 181 ,19t,202,203, 212, 214, 21 5, 23!, it3(i 238, 248, 273, 27 4, 275, Z7g, 296, 2e4, 1 :J 1 a 44, 45, 48,70,75,106, 19C7'1r)3, 109,'1 10&11'l arecompromisedvirletl\Nc;.3,2024, 4 ot 2024, & 5 12024 n ,A 'l.No. 1020 of 2012 respectivety l ,i I I I : I Advocate for Respondent Nos' 24' & 147 The appeal coming on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed in the Appeal' the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S' Ganesh Rao, Advocate for the Appellants and SRI DILEEP KUMAR BOMMENA' Advocate forthe Respondent Nos' 8"tO' 30' 53' 60' 120' 125'1.2a' 135' 158' 164' 1fi, 1g3; 1g4, 231, 225', 240' 24'.1' 242',245', 255' 263', 276', 284', 296 & 297 and SRI SINGAM BHAGAIAH ' And SRI JOGRAM TEJAVATH' Advocate for the Respondent No' 67 and Sri METTU SHANKAR' Advocate for the Respondent Nos' 59' 113' 132' 145' 1 49, 1 50, 1 78, 1 80, 1 81' 1 89', 1g2',202' 203', 212', 21 4', 2',15' 235', 236', 238', 248' zfi, 274, 275, 27g' 286 & 2s4 and SRI P' MADHUSUDHANA KUMAR' Advocate for Respondent Nos' 5' 36' 58 & 104 and Sri P' RAJA SRIPATHI RAO' Advocate for Respondent Nos' 7' 16' 18' 20' 21'22'23'27'28'34'' 35' 38' 39' 42' 50, 5,1,52,55, 56, 69 & 77 and Sri v. RoHlTH, Advocate forthe Respondent Nos. 13, 15,4,45'48'70'72'75' 106' 107'108' 109' 110 & 111' This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed' 2. fhatthe Judgment and decree passed in O'S'No' 123 of 2OO7 dated 06- 01.2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet be and hereby is confirmed.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal' SD/- MOHD,ISMAIL DEPUW REGI TRAR 6ec N OFFICER To The Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, Siddipet Dist' ,| 2 Two C.D.CoPies Kul/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:28/05/2Ct2li * Decree AS.No.1020 ot 2012 DISMISSING TFtr r\ )FII.{L SUIT WITHOUT COSTS 6 I0r(