The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant the injunction restraining the respondents, their men & agents from alienating the suit land to 3rd parties or changing the nature of suit schedule and pending disposal of the appeal Counsel for the Appellants : Sri M V Raj Kumar Gabriel Counsel for the Respondents : Sri A Narasimha Reddy The Court delivered the following: / HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAT 4 KA APPEAL SUIT No. 1844 OF 1998 JUDGMENT: 1'his appcal is [ilccl aggr-icr.r'cl lrr tire'iLr r,r'tr.lt irnrl (l('( r('(' ll:rssc<.| irr OS No. 780 o[ i9c)(> ()n tll(] rr ril tltc Il Aciditional Scni,ri Civil .-ludgt:, Il.R Distrit't iil S;iri)i)r, r,,.rr'. rliited Ll4-E 1()98 2 Tlrr: r;err[ics as rrrr.rr crl in tirt SLilt.1I( i ,li(i,.al lItt s:urrc 1].]ilnlrr'r'in this Altpt'lrJ 3 Aplrcllanls hcrein arc pltrirriills i:t ilrr -ilii ir hich \\':ls iltcd fbr rlcclaration of lillc artrl ocr;rr,tr-rzrl ir(rlt i)1 itgriculturc izll-tr: s :rdmeasurinrl .irl:s. LJg- 1(i rllnlrts irr : L l r r:r No 103/o situateci a1 Shamshabzrcl Viliage, [?irngir I?L.r 'I'hr: saicl prop,.rr-l\, herein is r.cic: '-eil r1, irs :rr l)toJ)()r(,\''. Tire i|ilri Cor-rri ciisrllisstri iirc iti;or,,: suri I)istrict :,. rIr-llc rii {llranL anci rlecrcc dzrtccl Ll4-O8-!cr98.. tr't Lrt:h is inrnii,. Appcrl l 4 []rir I irrcts of the ,. lst' ulr: I'lui ttii'l,s clairn th,rt rltr'il rr'sr;r t i;..'r. Ycrtgir Redtlv Vlirkat Ri:dd.1', iJ,'rr S,:i ii,.'rirl... r.ltil | :, ii{ [c \ irnga Redrh, Nar,r].an Ilt'ddv. Sli'o ,'lai ltcCd.,, it;rr.'i'.l.,in[]i I trrr.lrase.cl sttit st-iir',.1ttle Llirtrls [i orrr l-rr'.,. j', r,r it,r'cij,li ('ircrrn.r ' ,]ri' '''1 .1o R:ri llicltlr r.r'itg :s rilr: 6,.,"1r,,,,,, .,i l-ti': 'tt,:l.rl:l l!r: t irr ; i':rtlrt'r.l Dclendeints 2 to l and Kuclrir-cclrlr Nartn.anarn Reddy, S/o Bal \ Reddv s,ho is lather ol Delerrclant Nos. 5 to 8. Both o[ them are thc natural brothers and urc [)illt('(lars irncl posscssors of Suit Schedule I-arnds. Thc rcspcctivc tirt[-rcrs ol Plaintifl.s h.rvc jointll' purchasecl fro n'r thc husbzrr-rcl ol- I)r'li'ncl.rnt No. I zrncl farther of Defendants 2 ro 4 suit schedlrk' r)ropertv bv pat,inq thc sale consideration ofRs 600/ on 27 I-2 1q60 and got posscssion oi said land on the samc dzrr. 'l ht prt'dccessors of dcl'cr-rd:rnts executed a simplc salc deecll [.iiun:rrna in favour ol' lathers of plaintiffs or-r a stamp pal)cr ()r) 27 l2 1960. 'fhc revcnue ilutlloritie s rccognizing riq['.ts ol' i)lir Lntilf lathe r zrnd al-tcr thcir death had rccorded lhe n:rrncs ol- Plaintiffs in LIte revenue records more spccificall-t in l)erharrics rinder the posscssion column. It is the furtirer cusc ol Plarntilfs th:rt thc,y are in physical posscssion of suit st'hc'cltrle lands liom the date of purchasc ',r'ithout interruption lr-olrr ilnr bodr'. Whiic thc matter stood lhus, in Dece mbcr 1995, Dclcncl:rnLs lriecl to interfcre with the possession of Plaintil'l'ovcr thc sr-Lit schedr-rlc property. I In vielv ol thc sard interfercnt'r'. rrrt'cliatior-r hers bcen donc in the prcscnce o[ village vcndors u hcrcin, it rt'ers dccided that Plaintiffs havc to pa1' Rupees Fivc I Iundred onlv to Dcfenclant Nos. 1 ancl 5 1o 8 iind the same rr rrs rcccived br,' saicl Dcle ndernts ancl havtnq rc<:r'ivccl ti-re s:ricl .rrl()Llnt, Del'crrcl:rn ts arc otrligated to cooperat(' q itlr Plaintiffs for gctting theLr n:rrnr"; r 'r'orrl,-'cl rrt []re rcvcnuc, r,.'('()rds as o\\,ncrs :rr.rd posscssor-s , I lr(' sLlrl schedLllc lzrn<ls. Ilori'cver. clcfcnclirnts havr: onct' ,-i, rl 1o intcr-fcr-c lrncl rlisturb possession oi suit schcdul(' )-, ,l)1 1'r\ on 16 12 l(-)96. Irr r.'iew of the sarmc. Plaintrl!- lilerl ir srrir lirr dcclnratiorr ol litle and conscquenLial relit--f I)( i'i)i'tual rnJ unct rorr

4.1 [)rrr-srr:rnt to sen,icc of sLLrnrnttns,I I)l l u r tltL' suit, Delendants lllcd their appcarzrr-rcc zlnd contc: I !irl suil Thr: cot-ttcntion of Dcfendants is thal thc husbancl l)( (.1)(lilltr No. 1 and [aL[rr r ol Defcndants dicl not ailicnatc sr .r ir, rlrrlt propertJr and the claim of Plaintiffs is fzrlsc I I rlcniecl Dcfencliurts in .riltcgorical terms have disputcci lltr rrtlrlr'sali: clcc<l clartcrl 27.1'2.1960. In othcr r.r.r<t rcl s, De[encl;r :lrslrrrLt'd :rlicnation of s;uiL schedule Property undcr BtLi rrrrr clrrtect )7'12 1960 lirr s:rle consideration ()l'Rs. rlOO/ ( (:(liinls are also dt:n.ying ancl disputing that thcy havc trit i r r listulit the plirrsical posscssion ol suit sr.lrcdlrlc propFrri\ i ,rrti rl.lilg that takinU adva n t.rge o[ illegal ellt ries and possr:s' r oliunn of Pzrhzrnics, [)l:rintiffs have put ttp a u'ror-ig cl I I r i:t the Defendant to krrock as'at' the propcrtv of Deferrc'lir n . rrntl ir is Plaintiffs r.r.ho hrrvt'tricd to disposscss Delcndauts 'I I I -l

4.'2. Delendants, in catcgorir:al 1rrms, rlcnicrl l)aymellt o[ Rs.500/ itv Pia nt f^". Plainril'ls ll colluclinq u.ilh revcnue officizrls got illegal enrries in thc [)aharrics ancl tlrost: cntrics are the basis ftrr liling present suit so :rlso orr tl-rc. cnrirted and fabricatecl tsainama/ Simpk: salt' d,:cd cl:rrr.cl 27-12 1960. Defendants further assert that tht:ir nzrrnes ut.re t'ntered in revenue rccords as PatLcd:rrs :rrrcl sLtccessi()lt \\ irs {rllnt(,(l :rnd their names u,ere recorded ir-r the Pahanics lirr l()t35-tl€r 1994 95 as PaLtcdars ancl posst:ssors. Fronr 1q8:] on\\.ilrds, defendants did not cultivate suit lancls duc to financial c:onstraints and since the-\, zrre :rl)s()lLltc ()\\'n(.r s irrrcl 1t<lsscssors o[ suit schcdulc Propcrtr', no injunction c:rn bL' glar)t(](1.

5. Based on the said pleaclir-rgs, lhe folkrvving issues arc framed: 1) Whclher Ll're plaintiff is cntitlccl frrr perpeLu:rl in.lur-tcrion as praycd for? 2) To u,hat relieP Additional issues arc also farnrcd r,'. hir:lr are irs u nd er: Y 1) Whether the plaintiffs arc enlitlcd to be clecl:rrcd as o\1,ners and possessors of tltc' sr-tiL sclreciulc y;ro1;r'rt-1 -/ 3) Whethcr suit sale dccd is zr forged docuntcnr anc.l is lrit br, Section 47 of A.P. (Telangztna) Tenancv arrd Agri<:rrltural Lzrnds Rcvcnue Act 1950 ernd a void tr.fnsa( tion? 6 Dr-r-irtq the course ol trierl, oral cvidcncr '.:rs lcrl br rhc p:Lrtics ,.r,lrr:rt in PWs.1 to 3 rr,r're examinecl lrc lrrril oi PlarnLills ;rntl I'-rs.Al Lo All rt'crc' marked. Or l:t ltrr f oi- defendilnts, D\,,tv s. I ar-rd 2 r'r.ere examincd and Exs. I i llI7 ucre m2rrked 7 Thr trial Court, aftcr :rppreciatin;. .r.rrl lrncl docttmcrrtiin t"'irlencc, dismisscd lhe suit br' ,Ju. ,rrcnL rrnai I)ccrce lr nrlc r A rpr:irl 8 'l'hr' pr<:senL Appeal is filcd on the gror-rr r tltrrt triaL Court rnisintcrl)r'ctcd Section 47 ol' thc A.P ('lela. l rrrir Ai-rrrl Tet-ran<:r :ttrrl Ag r-iculture, Act 1950 (hcreinafter rr I ;r:rl trr .rs 'Act') :rnd thcrcl ,r t:ommitted an error in dismissing , su ir I Artctltr-'r ground tahcn bv Plaintifls in A'r', I is ti.riLl thc in'rpugned .jrrclgment anrl decrcc is toterlh, r;,scrl ()n :rpplicatron of SccLion 47 of the Act. 'lhc fincling r: t r-ilrl cLrlrrt that srrbje( t s.ll(' lrilnsacLion is hit bt, Section .17 0 ltr' ,\r'r is againsl Lhe scttlt'd principals of las'. Thus, Section i is nol u barr for selling 1)rc agriculture lilnds u,ithout prior p r rrssion of 'lahsildar. The .ritLl Court has also overlooked Ex:, \l to A l0 ri ith rcqzrrd to p,rsscssion of suit schcduled propcrti 10 'l-h j:, Court havi:'rg t:onsidercd thc ,1,'irilings, rlocuments on r ccord and oral cvidencc of rvit r . ;:,r's ancl I I I (r considcring thc contents of impugnccl juclgmerlt, frarncs thc lirllorvi ng issues for acl.jud ic:t tion ol- prcscn t appci-tl. I ) Whethcr tirc simplc salc decd d:rtcd 27 12 lc)a;O ufuk: Ex. A I I is valid to grant tl-re rclief c.r f clcclarzrLion itt (avor:r of Plaintiffs. 2) Whe thcr trxs. A I to A I O can bc rciied lirr gretntitrg injunction in lavour of Plaintifis b-v o"'cr-lool<ing/ not <:onsidering trx. Bi R17 pahatt'tics. I l. As incntioned suprit, lhc llasis firr Plairlrill's Lo [ilc' the suit is trx. A11 - tsiiir-rama/ simple salc clt'ccl clatt:cl 27 1'2 1960. Thc trial Court had cot-tsiclcrecl Lhis aspccl tn Parge No. 8 in Para 5 of the imprLgncd judgn'rcnt. PWs. -2 atrd 3 are .rttcsting witnesses and thcy rt,crc examillcil trl prol'c sale tr:rnsaclion uide Ex A1 1. A pcrusal o[ trx- A I I re llects t"r'o lallacics in document. The stamp paper on tvhich Ex A 1 I wzrs r:ngrossccl doesn t have the officiaI seal ancl cloc's nl]l r( llcct ils to ri hir:h Authorit) had issucd t}'re same. This .isprccl \\'as llol. t'xplained b.v Plaintiffs, though thcrc is some am()urll ol- cross- cxamination. That apart, trx. A 1 I also does tlot hitvt: thc dct erils of namc of purchaser and from rr"'hom the sztid stamp palper ulas purchased. At this iuncture, it is neccsszrn to cclt'lsiclcr the slatcmenL gir,.en bv- PW 2 $'ho had plc:rdccl ignoratrce of cletails ers to u ho had purchascd tl'rc stamp paper ancl in u l-,ich platcc. l'Wllracl furthcr statcrl alier tl'tt' setle trilnsricl iorr u'as rcclut--ccl ./ irr u riting on the stamp paper tl-rc p:rrtics havc app i :r,: ht'ci l'rim ttt jtts housc lo' illlcstltq thc sirnrt'. Iirorn t]rc stlid (- i iunc e, it is 1,1'n r:lr'i) r th.rt PW 2 bcing onc ol- thc wi[ncsses to F \ A I I clocs not hat'e thc knou.ledge of secr-tring Ex. A I I starr , plpcr zrn rl Iirr rr hrrm arrd n( ithcr is [-r:rving I<non,lcdgc of tht, r o -tl-(:ltl,S of Ex. A I l. l'hus, cvidence of PW2 is o[ no help to P r,i r tifli more so u hcrr starn[-- I)i1pcr lacks dt,'tirils. That aparL, fr(.I -r thr L- ro ss criLrrirratirirr ol PWs. I ancl 3. it is clicitcd tl.rat tl r: t herr,c rto knor.r lt'clqc at;ottt Lhc terms oI salr: trzutsaction. l'2. l'r,rrn thc chronological events witlt rr:g;rrd to prtrt'hirsc of sl:Lmp papcr and dzrtc o[ szrlc transac ) r, thcre is sLrfllcicnt time g:rp. This creatcs sLrspiciolt abot-lt ,. rc su b ject sirl(' tr:rnslctior-r and this gap is sullicient enough r |eluso ta) grar-ir rt'licls to Plaintiffs. Furthcrntorc, PW 1 rvas r )[ prcscnt rror is li u itnt:,.,s ro trx. A 1 1 , thr:rcllr, hc has no L r, ,r,'lcdge ol lcrrns ()l szrlc lr;rnserction aborrl Ex. A11. Likcu,ise. Ir.\, s. 2 ancl 3 I)l('zl.l('(l ignorirLcc rvith regarcl to (ito t('rms of sale r 'lhus. lir. A I 1 r:rinnot be relrecl Lrl)on to grant {t I rrtsa r: tiott. -rr:lief [ri Plerinlil'l-s.

13. Corr-lLng to anoLher issur: r,r'ith regard t() : p.lication ol- St'r'tron 47 oi Lhc Act, the LIial CourL h.rd held i t l lrere is pr<rhil;itit>n uncler Section 47 for alir:tr:rtion of agric L L r-tre I:rnd s A 8 \\iithout prior permission of Tahsildar. ln olhcr t'ords, i1 ts requiremelrL urrdcr lau' to obtain prior pcrmission l'rotn Lht' 'lahsiltltrr tbr :rlienation of agriculture larnds, hcrt< t', sttlr.ject s;Llc Lrans.tctiun is hit bl' Se ction 47 of thlc Act. [t is also ltclcl I;r' thc trial Court that even othe rw,isc, subjecL sale trans;tr:liotts Lttldcr tix. A I I is asslrmed to bc correct; the said transilcti()lt is lrit bl non validation o[ Scction 50(b) ol the Act. This C]ourt is ol tht' vieu thiit '.hc snicl finding of trial CoLlrL is il(,t f , )l rt ( I 'lenlrncv erncl Agriculture, Act 1950 is rcpcaled u'il ltoLtt ltnr sa'"'ing clausc. 'I'hereb1 , there is no requiremcnl ttnilCr llrrr lilr obt:rining prior pcrmission of Tahsildar ibr :rlicttirtiorl ol- agric:ulture lanrls, This Court opines that apprcciatir>rl ol triul Colrrt i,ller aliri Sect ions 47 and, SO(b) is not correct an<l tht rcbr'. this Court holds Seclion 47 as not applicable to preserlt cztst' lbr the rt:asor-r that bl rhe date of filing of suit, Section '17 ts not in cxistcrlce ancl repealed "r'ithout an1' saving clause. Whilc corlrittg to this conclttsion, this Court had rclied uporr Lhc lau' laicl (l()\\'n in Mohd. Qutubuddin os. Aziz.I(han (clecided on i5. 03.2()02) n hit'lr is r'xlra(led under., ' lrr ltrc liglrl of lhe tbrt:going discussion, u,c 1.-ol(l til.rl lhc sale i1] Ii1\'oui ol i\'irirrc<:r.:r Sultana, thc firsl. plaintift. or) 28.7.1()b+ l)err(i('rrlc' iitc Ll tlr(] Url natul Rashccra Bcgurn, tllc ou'ncr o[ the l:rrtr], is not lrit l^ Sectrort 47 of the lonal('\' Aat irs no possr:ssiorr \\:rs rlclive,crl to tltc' i) lirst p)arntifl irt tlri,rl stage Fl-\ tlre liltl(. ttte (lispLllCS o\1 i tlr l)rol)crt\ al{' settl('(1. D. lirr,r Scction 47 trirs otr stiltUt('bool( n(rl L lllIe lrntjl firt<l lirr getti rt th( ;rliellalion (.ouplt.<l $irlr 1t<tsscssiorr ! tLl(lrlLed l)\ [ollorrinq llte Irtoccrlrrrc 1tr-cscriltcrl un(i(r Sc( tiol] .rO ts ) lj,t rrcL \r'ils arrrrlrrbl. We'r r', . thcrClorc, ol tlt( opilti()tt lhirt thc lritnsal t n rs rtot ltil b-r Scctior +7. I i)r tlt( sakc of argrrmcnt evcn il it rs assl i :(l lltat rl is hit lrr Scction 17, I lrc nrr<:hincrr pr.oviderl under Sc< r .r SO-B lor \ali(l.rtinq llrc ll|gal trirtrsactioo rrs ralirj $as not avirilalrlr r ,(l ir canltot bt lrclrl that (lr(, tnlnsactton hits to ltc trcille(l as \.or( ol. \\ant of san(-tion. Ilt-r.r'. lltc Iu(lSDtent itI]rl rlccree passr'<l it-r I .,]]r'ri Sinqlt. Jttrir,,t'in (l.C (' \ No 28 ol 199 I is conlirrnerl on a differ, .r r(..rsonrng T]r( i-cttcrs [)rtr rtr,\PPeal No. 131 o[ l(]()9 is (lismisscal.'1 I , e rrrll lte no ()r1l, r a.s l() ( ():1 , l4 ('orrrir-tg to thc aspect oI physical I rsst,,ssion, Plaintil-1.s r-eli('.1 up()n Exs. Al to A I I . Pcr contra ..litndants rclio(l Llp()n i'\s Il l B l5 pitlranit's s.hich arc- li; thc r.ezu.s 1983 84 to 1()()S 99 ancl so zrlso. Iix. B 16 which ir c orrjers of mutzrl.i()n an(l Iix. [J 1 7 arc photographs. Plainti hzrvc not ch:rllcngccl rnrrtati()n J)rocccding uide trx. lilb bcfore compctent zlutltoritv. This act of omission of l)lairr i ls t-r'flects on [hcir'(]oltdr.r( I thr:r-clx' the, slrid ntutlrtion or(lers, I c lrrr-rding ( on thcrr. I-ikcu isc, Pzrhanie s rclicd on bv Irlarr-, ilt's irre frrr l gg0 g 1 to I c)()-_96. [t is not explained b_r, plainti. i ils to wh-y there u'ert' n() ( lttrt(:s in rcvc'nue recorcls \\'llen r,L b-icL:t salcr transaction \\-rs of 27 12- 1960. 'lhis silencc r r Itcr- non- cxplallltltion irr rlreir ltlearlings ancl cvidcnce is latt I ) tllL, cas(l of PIirintil-l.s P;rhilrric.s [axs. A4 to A1O clcirrlv .r llecr th:rt I -t i() K.Chinnzi llccicl-r, ancl Nara,\'una Rccld5, are Pattedars and that Plaintil'l-s' n:llnes are rellcctecl in posscssion cr-,lumn ol P:rhanics. Non-produc(ion ol records for the period 19(rO l98l is suspicio'"ts aryJ ri'ill cive ndvcrse prcsumptiun :rgair-rst Plaintiffs. tix. A 1 is land revcnue passbooks r.thich gcnr-rintv is undcr r:loucl :rncl l-inclir-rg o[ trial Court that fen,pages o[ Ex. Al hirr.c bcen irrserlcd is vr:n.crucial. In the grounds of Appc:rl, tl.rc said l-incling v,'as not pu1 to challengc ncither- an.1 subnrissir>ns ucrc rnaclc at thL' time of hearing.'lhus, lix. Al is also sr.rspicir>us and cannol bc lelicd upon. [n the vier.l'of tlrc al>ovc discr-rssion the condur:t of the Plaintilfs is not borxt fi.cLe J 'l'his Court considering all the aspects as cliscusscd abovr', fincls that tircrc is no me rit in the Appeal. The Appeal ti-rerelirrr', is riisrnisst'cl rvhile conhrming thc .ludgmcnt :rnd l)ccrcc o1'thc tr-riii court. No costs 1('> Consc<1ucntlr, the miscellaneous Applicirrions. I rrrv shir]l st,rncl clo>i'ci SD/- P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 4y, L/PSL l The llnd Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District. (With records) 2. One CC to Sri IVI V Raj Kumar Gabriel, Advocate [OPUC] 3 one CC to Sri A Narasimha Reddy, Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies \ .ll-q,-iT! t: 'r :r iiii 2SE ( + HIGH COURT DATED:03/09/2025 JUDGMENT + Decree AS.No.1844 of 1998 DISMISSING THE APPEAL r,t 7 tD IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA APPEAL SUIT NO: 1844 OF 1998 Between:

1. Yenaga Reddy, S/o Y. Venkata Reddy, Occ: Agril. R/o Shamshabad Vill.and (M), R R Dist

2. Y. Chandra Reddy, S/o Y Venkata Reddy (Died per LRS Appellant Nos. 7 & 8)

3. Y. Balvanth Reddy,, S/o Y Venkata Reddy, Occ: Agril. R/o Shamshabad Vill.and (M), R.R.Dist

4. Y. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o late N. Narayana Reddy, Occ: Agril. R/o Shamshabad Vill and (M), R R.Dist.

5. Y. Chalma Reddy, S/o late N. Narayana Reddy, Occ: Agril. R/o Shamshabad Vill.and(M),RRDtst

6. Y. Shiva reddy, S/o late N. Narayana Reddy, Occ: Agril. R/o Shamshabad Vill.and (M). R.R.Dist

7. Angareddy Kamalamma, W/o. Late Y. Chandra Reddy, Aged about 63 years, R/o. H.No.6-125h. Kapu Gadda, Aravind Colony, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District - 501218.

8. Bandari Mangamma, Wo. Bandari Malla Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Plot No.156, Flat No.402, Gokul Flats, Venkataramana Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 072. Appellant Nos. 7 & 8 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Appellant NO. 2 as per Court Order dated 04.'10.023, Vide l.A. No. 3 of 2023 in AS No. 1844 of 1998. ...Plaintiffs/Appellants AND

1. K.Satyamma, W/o Late K Chennareddy, Occ: Household, R/o Nedunoor (V), Kandur (M), R.R Dist

2. Smt. Galamma, W/o Prathapreddy, Occ: Household, R/o Nedunoor (V), Kandur (M), R.R.Dist,

3. Proddutur Kalavathi, Wo Balreddy, Occ: Household, R/o Nacharam Vill., Keesara (M), R.R.Dist.

4. K. Bharatamma,, Wo Balavanth Reddy, Occ:Household, Rio Nedunoor (V), Kandur (M), R.R Dist.

5. Kuchireddy Buchireddy, S/o late Narayan Reddy (Died per LRs RR 9 to 11)

6. K. Gopal Reddy, S/o late Narayan Reddy, Occ. Agril. Fr'; Snamshabad (V) and (lV), R R.Dist

7. K. Mahipal Reddy, S/o late Narayan Reddy, Occ: Agril t,o Shamshabad (V) and (lt/), R R.Dist

8. K. Narsimha Reddy, S/o late Narayan Reddy, Occ. Agri I1/o Shamshabad (V)and(M),RRDist.

9. K. Susheela, Wo K. Buchi Reddy, Aged about 62 year., Occ Housewife

10. K. Balagovardhan, S/o. K. Buchi Reddy, Aged about 20 years

11.K. Akhila, D/o. K. Buchi Reddy, Aged about 25 years FI(-9 to 11 are R/o. H.No 6-85, Arvind Colony, Shamshabad Vitlage and Ma n lal, Ranga Reddy District. Respondnet Nos. I to 1 1 are brought on record as LRlj cf deceased Respondent Nos. 5 as per Court order dated 04 10.20')-\,,ide lA. NO. 6 of 2023in AS No. 1844 of 1998 Appeal Suit under section 96 of C.P C., aggrieverl by the decree and judgment dated 04.08.l 99B passed in O S No. TB0 of 1996 cr the file of the Court of ...DEFENDE T\ITS/RESPONDENTS the llnd Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R District This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing tl e grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the matr:'iirl papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M V Raj Kumar G; tt iel, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri A Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for the : espondents SD/- P.C]II.NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR a //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The llnd Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District \Vrth records) Two CD Copies To, 1 2 w HIGH COURT DATED:03/09/2025 DECREE AS.No.1844 of 1998 DISMISSING THE APPEAL \ / L0

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant the injunction restraining the respondents, their men & agents from alienating the suit land to 3rd parties or changing the nature of suit schedule and pending disposal of the appeal Counsel for the Appellants : Sri M V Raj Kumar Gabriel Counsel for the Respondents : Sri A Narasimha Reddy The Court delivered the following: / HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAT 4 KA APPEAL SUIT No. 1844 OF 1998 JUDGMENT: 1'his appcal is [ilccl aggr-icr.r'cl lrr tire'iLr r,r'tr.lt irnrl (l('( r('(' ll:rssc<.| irr OS No. 780 o[ i9c)(> ()n tll(] rr ril tltc Il Aciditional Scni,ri Civil .-ludgt:, Il.R Distrit't iil S;iri)i)r, r,,.rr'. rliited Ll4-E 1()98 2 Tlrr: r;err[ics as rrrr.rr crl in tirt SLilt.1I( i ,li(i,.al lItt s:urrc 1].]ilnlrr'r'in this Altpt'lrJ 3 Aplrcllanls hcrein arc pltrirriills i:t ilrr -ilii ir hich \\':ls iltcd fbr rlcclaration of lillc artrl ocr;rr,tr-rzrl ir(rlt i)1 itgriculturc izll-tr: s :rdmeasurinrl .irl:s. LJg- 1(i rllnlrts irr : L l r r:r No 103/o situateci a1 Shamshabzrcl Viliage, [?irngir I?L.r 'I'hr: saicl prop,.rr-l\, herein is r.cic: '-eil r1, irs :rr l)toJ)()r(,\''. Tire i|ilri Cor-rri ciisrllisstri iirc iti;or,,: suri I)istrict :,. rIr-llc rii {llranL anci rlecrcc dzrtccl Ll4-O8-!cr98.. tr't Lrt:h is inrnii,. Appcrl l 4 []rir I irrcts of the ,. lst' ulr: I'lui ttii'l,s clairn th,rt rltr'il rr'sr;r t i;..'r. Ycrtgir Redtlv Vlirkat Ri:dd.1', iJ,'rr S,:i ii,.'rirl... r.ltil | :, ii{ [c \ irnga Redrh, Nar,r].an Ilt'ddv. Sli'o ,'lai ltcCd.,, it;rr.'i'.l.,in[]i I trrr.lrase.cl sttit st-iir',.1ttle Llirtrls [i orrr l-rr'.,. j', r,r it,r'cij,li ('ircrrn.r ' ,]ri' '''1 .1o R:ri llicltlr r.r'itg :s rilr: 6,.,"1r,,,,,, .,i l-ti': 'tt,:l.rl:l l!r: t irr ; i':rtlrt'r.l Dclendeints 2 to l and Kuclrir-cclrlr Nartn.anarn Reddy, S/o Bal \ Reddv s,ho is lather ol Delerrclant Nos. 5 to 8. Both o[ them are thc natural brothers and urc [)illt('(lars irncl posscssors of Suit Schedule I-arnds. Thc rcspcctivc tirt[-rcrs ol Plaintifl.s h.rvc jointll' purchasecl fro n'r thc husbzrr-rcl ol- I)r'li'ncl.rnt No. I zrncl farther of Defendants 2 ro 4 suit schedlrk' r)ropertv bv pat,inq thc sale consideration ofRs 600/ on 27 I-2 1q60 and got posscssion oi said land on the samc dzrr. 'l ht prt'dccessors of dcl'cr-rd:rnts executed a simplc salc deecll [.iiun:rrna in favour ol' lathers of plaintiffs or-r a stamp pal)cr ()r) 27 l2 1960. 'fhc revcnue ilutlloritie s rccognizing riq['.ts ol' i)lir Lntilf lathe r zrnd al-tcr thcir death had rccorded lhe n:rrncs ol- Plaintiffs in LIte revenue records more spccificall-t in l)erharrics rinder the posscssion column. It is the furtirer cusc ol Plarntilfs th:rt thc,y are in physical posscssion of suit st'hc'cltrle lands liom the date of purchasc ',r'ithout interruption lr-olrr ilnr bodr'. Whiic thc matter stood lhus, in Dece mbcr 1995, Dclcncl:rnLs lriecl to interfcre with the possession of Plaintil'l'ovcr thc sr-Lit schedr-rlc property. I In vielv ol thc sard interfercnt'r'. rrrt'cliatior-r hers bcen donc in the prcscnce o[ village vcndors u hcrcin, it rt'ers dccided that Plaintiffs havc to pa1' Rupees Fivc I Iundred onlv to Dcfenclant Nos. 1 ancl 5 1o 8 iind the same rr rrs rcccived br,' saicl Dcle ndernts ancl havtnq rc<:r'ivccl ti-re s:ricl .rrl()Llnt, Del'crrcl:rn ts arc otrligated to cooperat(' q itlr Plaintiffs for gctting theLr n:rrnr"; r 'r'orrl,-'cl rrt []re rcvcnuc, r,.'('()rds as o\\,ncrs :rr.rd posscssor-s , I lr(' sLlrl schedLllc lzrn<ls. Ilori'cver. clcfcnclirnts havr: onct' ,-i, rl 1o intcr-fcr-c lrncl rlisturb possession oi suit schcdul(' )-, ,l)1 1'r\ on 16 12 l(-)96. Irr r.'iew of the sarmc. Plaintrl!- lilerl ir srrir lirr dcclnratiorr ol litle and conscquenLial relit--f I)( i'i)i'tual rnJ unct rorr

4.1 [)rrr-srr:rnt to sen,icc of sLLrnrnttns,I I)l l u r tltL' suit, Delendants lllcd their appcarzrr-rcc zlnd contc: I !irl suil Thr: cot-ttcntion of Dcfendants is thal thc husbancl l)( (.1)(lilltr No. 1 and [aL[rr r ol Defcndants dicl not ailicnatc sr .r ir, rlrrlt propertJr and the claim of Plaintiffs is fzrlsc I I rlcniecl Dcfencliurts in .riltcgorical terms have disputcci lltr rrtlrlr'sali: clcc<l clartcrl 27.1'2.1960. In othcr r.r.r<t rcl s, De[encl;r :lrslrrrLt'd :rlicnation of s;uiL schedule Property undcr BtLi rrrrr clrrtect )7'12 1960 lirr s:rle consideration ()l'Rs. rlOO/ ( (:(liinls are also dt:n.ying ancl disputing that thcy havc trit i r r listulit the plirrsical posscssion ol suit sr.lrcdlrlc propFrri\ i ,rrti rl.lilg that takinU adva n t.rge o[ illegal ellt ries and possr:s' r oliunn of Pzrhzrnics, [)l:rintiffs have put ttp a u'ror-ig cl I I r i:t the Defendant to krrock as'at' the propcrtv of Deferrc'lir n . rrntl ir is Plaintiffs r.r.ho hrrvt'tricd to disposscss Delcndauts 'I I I -l

4.'2. Delendants, in catcgorir:al 1rrms, rlcnicrl l)aymellt o[ Rs.500/ itv Pia nt f^". Plainril'ls ll colluclinq u.ilh revcnue officizrls got illegal enrries in thc [)aharrics ancl tlrost: cntrics are the basis ftrr liling present suit so :rlso orr tl-rc. cnrirted and fabricatecl tsainama/ Simpk: salt' d,:cd cl:rrr.cl 27-12 1960. Defendants further assert that tht:ir nzrrnes ut.re t'ntered in revenue rccords as PatLcd:rrs :rrrcl sLtccessi()lt \\ irs {rllnt(,(l :rnd their names u,ere recorded ir-r the Pahanics lirr l()t35-tl€r 1994 95 as PaLtcdars ancl posst:ssors. Fronr 1q8:] on\\.ilrds, defendants did not cultivate suit lancls duc to financial c:onstraints and since the-\, zrre :rl)s()lLltc ()\\'n(.r s irrrcl 1t<lsscssors o[ suit schcdulc Propcrtr', no injunction c:rn bL' glar)t(](1.

5. Based on the said pleaclir-rgs, lhe folkrvving issues arc framed: 1) Whclher Ll're plaintiff is cntitlccl frrr perpeLu:rl in.lur-tcrion as praycd for? 2) To u,hat relieP Additional issues arc also farnrcd r,'. hir:lr are irs u nd er: Y 1) Whether the plaintiffs arc enlitlcd to be clecl:rrcd as o\1,ners and possessors of tltc' sr-tiL sclreciulc y;ro1;r'rt-1 -/ 3) Whethcr suit sale dccd is zr forged docuntcnr anc.l is lrit br, Section 47 of A.P. (Telangztna) Tenancv arrd Agri<:rrltural Lzrnds Rcvcnue Act 1950 ernd a void tr.fnsa( tion? 6 Dr-r-irtq the course ol trierl, oral cvidcncr '.:rs lcrl br rhc p:Lrtics ,.r,lrr:rt in PWs.1 to 3 rr,r're examinecl lrc lrrril oi PlarnLills ;rntl I'-rs.Al Lo All rt'crc' marked. Or l:t ltrr f oi- defendilnts, D\,,tv s. I ar-rd 2 r'r.ere examincd and Exs. I i llI7 ucre m2rrked 7 Thr trial Court, aftcr :rppreciatin;. .r.rrl lrncl docttmcrrtiin t"'irlencc, dismisscd lhe suit br' ,Ju. ,rrcnL rrnai I)ccrce lr nrlc r A rpr:irl 8 'l'hr' pr<:senL Appeal is filcd on the gror-rr r tltrrt triaL Court rnisintcrl)r'ctcd Section 47 ol' thc A.P ('lela. l rrrir Ai-rrrl Tet-ran<:r :ttrrl Ag r-iculture, Act 1950 (hcreinafter rr I ;r:rl trr .rs 'Act') :rnd thcrcl ,r t:ommitted an error in dismissing , su ir I Artctltr-'r ground tahcn bv Plaintifls in A'r', I is ti.riLl thc in'rpugned .jrrclgment anrl decrcc is toterlh, r;,scrl ()n :rpplicatron of SccLion 47 of the Act. 'lhc fincling r: t r-ilrl cLrlrrt that srrbje( t s.ll(' lrilnsacLion is hit bt, Section .17 0 ltr' ,\r'r is againsl Lhe scttlt'd principals of las'. Thus, Section i is nol u barr for selling 1)rc agriculture lilnds u,ithout prior p r rrssion of 'lahsildar. The .ritLl Court has also overlooked Ex:, \l to A l0 ri ith rcqzrrd to p,rsscssion of suit schcduled propcrti 10 'l-h j:, Court havi:'rg t:onsidercd thc ,1,'irilings, rlocuments on r ccord and oral cvidencc of rvit r . ;:,r's ancl I I I (r considcring thc contents of impugnccl juclgmerlt, frarncs thc lirllorvi ng issues for acl.jud ic:t tion ol- prcscn t appci-tl. I ) Whethcr tirc simplc salc decd d:rtcd 27 12 lc)a;O ufuk: Ex. A I I is valid to grant tl-re rclief c.r f clcclarzrLion itt (avor:r of Plaintiffs. 2) Whe thcr trxs. A I to A I O can bc rciied lirr gretntitrg injunction in lavour of Plaintifis b-v o"'cr-lool<ing/ not <:onsidering trx. Bi R17 pahatt'tics. I l. As incntioned suprit, lhc llasis firr Plairlrill's Lo [ilc' the suit is trx. A11 - tsiiir-rama/ simple salc clt'ccl clatt:cl 27 1'2 1960. Thc trial Court had cot-tsiclcrecl Lhis aspccl tn Parge No. 8 in Para 5 of the imprLgncd judgn'rcnt. PWs. -2 atrd 3 are .rttcsting witnesses and thcy rt,crc examillcil trl prol'c sale tr:rnsaclion uide Ex A1 1. A pcrusal o[ trx- A I I re llects t"r'o lallacics in document. The stamp paper on tvhich Ex A 1 I wzrs r:ngrossccl doesn t have the officiaI seal ancl cloc's nl]l r( llcct ils to ri hir:h Authorit) had issucd t}'re same. This .isprccl \\'as llol. t'xplained b.v Plaintiffs, though thcrc is some am()urll ol- cross- cxamination. That apart, trx. A 1 I also does tlot hitvt: thc dct erils of namc of purchaser and from rr"'hom the sztid stamp palper ulas purchased. At this iuncture, it is neccsszrn to cclt'lsiclcr the slatcmenL gir,.en bv- PW 2 $'ho had plc:rdccl ignoratrce of cletails ers to u ho had purchascd tl'rc stamp paper ancl in u l-,ich platcc. l'Wllracl furthcr statcrl alier tl'tt' setle trilnsricl iorr u'as rcclut--ccl ./ irr u riting on the stamp paper tl-rc p:rrtics havc app i :r,: ht'ci l'rim ttt jtts housc lo' illlcstltq thc sirnrt'. Iirorn t]rc stlid (- i iunc e, it is 1,1'n r:lr'i) r th.rt PW 2 bcing onc ol- thc wi[ncsses to F \ A I I clocs not hat'e thc knou.ledge of secr-tring Ex. A I I starr , plpcr zrn rl Iirr rr hrrm arrd n( ithcr is [-r:rving I<non,lcdgc of tht, r o -tl-(:ltl,S of Ex. A I l. l'hus, cvidence of PW2 is o[ no help to P r,i r tifli more so u hcrr starn[-- I)i1pcr lacks dt,'tirils. That aparL, fr(.I -r thr L- ro ss criLrrirratirirr ol PWs. I ancl 3. it is clicitcd tl.rat tl r: t herr,c rto knor.r lt'clqc at;ottt Lhc terms oI salr: trzutsaction. l'2. l'r,rrn thc chronological events witlt rr:g;rrd to prtrt'hirsc of sl:Lmp papcr and dzrtc o[ szrlc transac ) r, thcre is sLrfllcicnt time g:rp. This creatcs sLrspiciolt abot-lt ,. rc su b ject sirl(' tr:rnslctior-r and this gap is sullicient enough r |eluso ta) grar-ir rt'licls to Plaintiffs. Furthcrntorc, PW 1 rvas r )[ prcscnt rror is li u itnt:,.,s ro trx. A 1 1 , thr:rcllr, hc has no L r, ,r,'lcdge ol lcrrns ()l szrlc lr;rnserction aborrl Ex. A11. Likcu,ise. Ir.\, s. 2 ancl 3 I)l('zl.l('(l ignorirLcc rvith regarcl to (ito t('rms of sale r 'lhus. lir. A I 1 r:rinnot be relrecl Lrl)on to grant {t I rrtsa r: tiott. -rr:lief [ri Plerinlil'l-s.

13. Corr-lLng to anoLher issur: r,r'ith regard t() : p.lication ol- St'r'tron 47 oi Lhc Act, the LIial CourL h.rd held i t l lrere is pr<rhil;itit>n uncler Section 47 for alir:tr:rtion of agric L L r-tre I:rnd s A 8 \\iithout prior permission of Tahsildar. ln olhcr t'ords, i1 ts requiremelrL urrdcr lau' to obtain prior pcrmission l'rotn Lht' 'lahsiltltrr tbr :rlienation of agriculture larnds, hcrt< t', sttlr.ject s;Llc Lrans.tctiun is hit bl' Se ction 47 of thlc Act. [t is also ltclcl I;r' thc trial Court that even othe rw,isc, subjecL sale trans;tr:liotts Lttldcr tix. A I I is asslrmed to bc correct; the said transilcti()lt is lrit bl non validation o[ Scction 50(b) ol the Act. This C]ourt is ol tht' vieu thiit '.hc snicl finding of trial CoLlrL is il(,t f , )l rt ( I 'lenlrncv erncl Agriculture, Act 1950 is rcpcaled u'il ltoLtt ltnr sa'"'ing clausc. 'I'hereb1 , there is no requiremcnl ttnilCr llrrr lilr obt:rining prior pcrmission of Tahsildar ibr :rlicttirtiorl ol- agric:ulture lanrls, This Court opines that apprcciatir>rl ol triul Colrrt i,ller aliri Sect ions 47 and, SO(b) is not correct an<l tht rcbr'. this Court holds Seclion 47 as not applicable to preserlt cztst' lbr the rt:asor-r that bl rhe date of filing of suit, Section '17 ts not in cxistcrlce ancl repealed "r'ithout an1' saving clause. Whilc corlrittg to this conclttsion, this Court had rclied uporr Lhc lau' laicl (l()\\'n in Mohd. Qutubuddin os. Aziz.I(han (clecided on i5. 03.2()02) n hit'lr is r'xlra(led under., ' lrr ltrc liglrl of lhe tbrt:going discussion, u,c 1.-ol(l til.rl lhc sale i1] Ii1\'oui ol i\'irirrc<:r.:r Sultana, thc firsl. plaintift. or) 28.7.1()b+ l)err(i('rrlc' iitc Ll tlr(] Url natul Rashccra Bcgurn, tllc ou'ncr o[ the l:rrtr], is not lrit l^ Sectrort 47 of the lonal('\' Aat irs no possr:ssiorr \\:rs rlclive,crl to tltc' i) lirst p)arntifl irt tlri,rl stage Fl-\ tlre liltl(. ttte (lispLllCS o\1 i tlr l)rol)crt\ al{' settl('(1. D. lirr,r Scction 47 trirs otr stiltUt('bool( n(rl L lllIe lrntjl firt<l lirr getti rt th( ;rliellalion (.ouplt.<l $irlr 1t<tsscssiorr ! tLl(lrlLed l)\ [ollorrinq llte Irtoccrlrrrc 1tr-cscriltcrl un(i(r Sc( tiol] .rO ts ) lj,t rrcL \r'ils arrrrlrrbl. We'r r', . thcrClorc, ol tlt( opilti()tt lhirt thc lritnsal t n rs rtot ltil b-r Scctior +7. I i)r tlt( sakc of argrrmcnt evcn il it rs assl i :(l lltat rl is hit lrr Scction 17, I lrc nrr<:hincrr pr.oviderl under Sc< r .r SO-B lor \ali(l.rtinq llrc ll|gal trirtrsactioo rrs ralirj $as not avirilalrlr r ,(l ir canltot bt lrclrl that (lr(, tnlnsactton hits to ltc trcille(l as \.or( ol. \\ant of san(-tion. Ilt-r.r'. lltc Iu(lSDtent itI]rl rlccree passr'<l it-r I .,]]r'ri Sinqlt. Jttrir,,t'in (l.C (' \ No 28 ol 199 I is conlirrnerl on a differ, .r r(..rsonrng T]r( i-cttcrs [)rtr rtr,\PPeal No. 131 o[ l(]()9 is (lismisscal.'1 I , e rrrll lte no ()r1l, r a.s l() ( ():1 , l4 ('orrrir-tg to thc aspect oI physical I rsst,,ssion, Plaintil-1.s r-eli('.1 up()n Exs. Al to A I I . Pcr contra ..litndants rclio(l Llp()n i'\s Il l B l5 pitlranit's s.hich arc- li; thc r.ezu.s 1983 84 to 1()()S 99 ancl so zrlso. Iix. B 16 which ir c orrjers of mutzrl.i()n an(l Iix. [J 1 7 arc photographs. Plainti hzrvc not ch:rllcngccl rnrrtati()n J)rocccding uide trx. lilb bcfore compctent zlutltoritv. This act of omission of l)lairr i ls t-r'flects on [hcir'(]oltdr.r( I thr:r-clx' the, slrid ntutlrtion or(lers, I c lrrr-rding ( on thcrr. I-ikcu isc, Pzrhanie s rclicd on bv Irlarr-, ilt's irre frrr l gg0 g 1 to I c)()-_96. [t is not explained b_r, plainti. i ils to wh-y there u'ert' n() ( lttrt(:s in rcvc'nue recorcls \\'llen r,L b-icL:t salcr transaction \\-rs of 27 12- 1960. 'lhis silencc r r Itcr- non- cxplallltltion irr rlreir ltlearlings ancl cvidcnce is latt I ) tllL, cas(l of PIirintil-l.s P;rhilrric.s [axs. A4 to A1O clcirrlv .r llecr th:rt I -t i() K.Chinnzi llccicl-r, ancl Nara,\'una Rccld5, are Pattedars and that Plaintil'l-s' n:llnes are rellcctecl in posscssion cr-,lumn ol P:rhanics. Non-produc(ion ol records for the period 19(rO l98l is suspicio'"ts aryJ ri'ill cive ndvcrse prcsumptiun :rgair-rst Plaintiffs. tix. A 1 is land revcnue passbooks r.thich gcnr-rintv is undcr r:loucl :rncl l-inclir-rg o[ trial Court that fen,pages o[ Ex. Al hirr.c bcen irrserlcd is vr:n.crucial. In the grounds of Appc:rl, tl.rc said l-incling v,'as not pu1 to challengc ncither- an.1 subnrissir>ns ucrc rnaclc at thL' time of hearing.'lhus, lix. Al is also sr.rspicir>us and cannol bc lelicd upon. [n the vier.l'of tlrc al>ovc discr-rssion the condur:t of the Plaintilfs is not borxt fi.cLe J 'l'his Court considering all the aspects as cliscusscd abovr', fincls that tircrc is no me rit in the Appeal. The Appeal ti-rerelirrr', is riisrnisst'cl rvhile conhrming thc .ludgmcnt :rnd l)ccrcc o1'thc tr-riii court. No costs 1('> Consc<1ucntlr, the miscellaneous Applicirrions. I rrrv shir]l st,rncl clo>i'ci SD/- P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 4y, L/PSL l The llnd Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District. (With records) 2. One CC to Sri IVI V Raj Kumar Gabriel, Advocate [OPUC] 3 one CC to Sri A Narasimha Reddy, Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies \ .ll-q,-iT! t: 'r :r iiii 2SE ( + HIGH COURT DATED:03/09/2025 JUDGMENT + Decree AS.No.1844 of 1998 DISMISSING THE APPEAL r,t 7 tD IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA APPEAL SUIT NO: 1844 OF 1998 Between:

1. Yenaga Reddy, S/o Y. Venkata Reddy, Occ: Agril. R/o Shamshabad Vill.and (M), R R Dist

2. Y. Chandra Reddy, S/o Y Venkata Reddy (Died per LRS Appellant Nos. 7 & 8)

3. Y. Balvanth Reddy,, S/o Y Venkata Reddy, Occ: Agril. R/o Shamshabad Vill.and (M), R.R.Dist

4. Y. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o late N. Narayana Reddy, Occ: Agril. R/o Shamshabad Vill and (M), R R.Dist.

5. Y. Chalma Reddy, S/o late N. Narayana Reddy, Occ: Agril. R/o Shamshabad Vill.and(M),RRDtst

6. Y. Shiva reddy, S/o late N. Narayana Reddy, Occ: Agril. R/o Shamshabad Vill.and (M). R.R.Dist

7. Angareddy Kamalamma, W/o. Late Y. Chandra Reddy, Aged about 63 years, R/o. H.No.6-125h. Kapu Gadda, Aravind Colony, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District - 501218.

8. Bandari Mangamma, Wo. Bandari Malla Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Plot No.156, Flat No.402, Gokul Flats, Venkataramana Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 072. Appellant Nos. 7 & 8 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Appellant NO. 2 as per Court Order dated 04.'10.023, Vide l.A. No. 3 of 2023 in AS No. 1844 of 1998. ...Plaintiffs/Appellants AND

1. K.Satyamma, W/o Late K Chennareddy, Occ: Household, R/o Nedunoor (V), Kandur (M), R.R Dist

2. Smt. Galamma, W/o Prathapreddy, Occ: Household, R/o Nedunoor (V), Kandur (M), R.R.Dist,

3. Proddutur Kalavathi, Wo Balreddy, Occ: Household, R/o Nacharam Vill., Keesara (M), R.R.Dist.

4. K. Bharatamma,, Wo Balavanth Reddy, Occ:Household, Rio Nedunoor (V), Kandur (M), R.R Dist.

5. Kuchireddy Buchireddy, S/o late Narayan Reddy (Died per LRs RR 9 to 11)

6. K. Gopal Reddy, S/o late Narayan Reddy, Occ. Agril. Fr'; Snamshabad (V) and (lV), R R.Dist

7. K. Mahipal Reddy, S/o late Narayan Reddy, Occ: Agril t,o Shamshabad (V) and (lt/), R R.Dist

8. K. Narsimha Reddy, S/o late Narayan Reddy, Occ. Agri I1/o Shamshabad (V)and(M),RRDist.

9. K. Susheela, Wo K. Buchi Reddy, Aged about 62 year., Occ Housewife

10. K. Balagovardhan, S/o. K. Buchi Reddy, Aged about 20 years

11.K. Akhila, D/o. K. Buchi Reddy, Aged about 25 years FI(-9 to 11 are R/o. H.No 6-85, Arvind Colony, Shamshabad Vitlage and Ma n lal, Ranga Reddy District. Respondnet Nos. I to 1 1 are brought on record as LRlj cf deceased Respondent Nos. 5 as per Court order dated 04 10.20')-\,,ide lA. NO. 6 of 2023in AS No. 1844 of 1998 Appeal Suit under section 96 of C.P C., aggrieverl by the decree and judgment dated 04.08.l 99B passed in O S No. TB0 of 1996 cr the file of the Court of ...DEFENDE T\ITS/RESPONDENTS the llnd Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R District This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing tl e grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the matr:'iirl papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M V Raj Kumar G; tt iel, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri A Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for the : espondents SD/- P.C]II.NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR a //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The llnd Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District \Vrth records) Two CD Copies To, 1 2 w HIGH COURT DATED:03/09/2025 DECREE AS.No.1844 of 1998 DISMISSING THE APPEAL \ / L0