The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order and Decree Passed by the Principal district Judge at Jangaon in CMA.No.49 of 2022, dated 14.06.2022 in LA.No.2O9 of 2022 in O.S.No.185 of 2022 on the file of the court of the Principal Junior civil Judge-cum-J ud rcial fiIagistrate of First Class, Jangaon. (r ESFi "i=j/ ".-rE d ,'::r. / Between: Syed Khaja Hasnuddin, S/o. Syed Khaja Moinuddin, A:ted about. 60 years, Occ Rtd Govt Employee, R/o. H.No. 14-4-90, [\4an jiltazar, Warangal City and Drstrict. ...Petition !|r/ AppellanUAppellant AND Baddipadiga Samba Shiva Reddy, S/o. Late Raji Redc 7, Aged about. 62 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Ashwaraopally Village,'R;;fi- unahpally l\4andal, Janagoan Distrir:t. ...RespondenUFl e::;pondenUDefendant lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under f]ection 151 CPC praying that in the r; r'r;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rrr:y be pleased to stay all further proceedrngs in O S. No. 18512022 on the file of Prl Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SATYANARAYANA PULL.Ultu Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI K RAGHUVEER REDD\/ The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CML REVISION PETITION Nos.S4O and,62U^ of 2A25 COMMOM ORDER: Since CRP.Nos.S40 ar-d 620 of 2025 arise out of the same issue, they are being heard together. For corrveniencc, facts in CItP.No.540 of 2025 are discusscd hcrcu rrde r. CI?P.No.540 ol 2O'2it is liled :rggrieved by order, Cal.ed 20.1O.2022, passed in CMA.No.48 of 2022 on the lile of I)rincipal District Judgc, .Iangz:on. CM:\.No.48 of

2.022 is tiiccl by- r'cvision petitioncrr 1-rr:r'g11, aggrievccl b1. ordcr, claterl 11.06.2022, passed in I.A.lrlo.2 lO cf 2A2) in O.S.No.187 ol 2022 on thc filc of Principal .-lunior Civil ..Iudgc-cum -.ludicial lt4agistratc of First Class, .Iangaon

3. O.S,No.187 ol 2022 uras filed by revisiorr petitioncr hr:rein seeking declaration of title zrnd consequential rrLjunction. T.A.No.21O ot2022 in OS.No. I8'7 at2022:,vas filcd undcr Ordcr XXXIX Rulc I and 2 of CI)C bv ll-rc 2 JAI(,.] . .) 5/+0 & 620 2025 petitioner/plairrLiff sceking tetmporary ir unction in favour of pctitior-rcr and thc samc rvas rltsmissed on t4.06.2022

4. Learned counscl for revrsion petitior ri r submittcd that lanci lreing claimed by responde:rt is of the pctitioner ar-ld that original pattadar had -1 c.72.22 gts That responclcnt's lzrthcr claims to havc y r, rctrased the same by u'an' ol sa cl;r sair: dccd. It is lurt ir r ,r. submittcd that the trral Court has not appreciatr:d thr: act that the original patl,adi:r registcrcd a GI,A virlc document No.4377 of 2OO7 dati:d 03.09.2007 a rrl that the ownership l Las flou,n to the pelitione : . It is aiso submitted tlrat simple salc deed was r,:ltuiarized on

03.06.2009

5. Learned counscl submittcd that Lhe ,.: is no room for imaginarl, boundaries and that respr. r-c1ent herein has not bccn able to demonstrate with rc.;pect to the boundaries p,ertaining to land purchased 1.r,,' him to an extent of Ac.ll.1O guntas. 'fhat simple sale r: eed rvas not 3 JAI(, J crp 540 & 620 2025 filcd and revenue documents have been htecl. It is fr-r rther submitted that on the basis of revenue records, bounclar-ies cannot bc shou,n. It is also submitted that thcrc is no suppression of fact(s) with regard to injunction order, datcd 25. I O 20lB (passed in I.A.No.303 o{'2018 in O.S.No.9) ol 2018) ancl that peLiLioncr uzlnc to knour only when a ri,ritten statement was hled by respondent in the suit (preferrcd by revision petitioner :;r'r:kir-rg declaration o1 litlt: :rnd injunction i.e., suit ircarirrg O.S.No.187 of 2022 on the file Junior Civil ..ludgc at Jangaon)

6. I)ctitr,rner in CIll).No.5,lO o| 2025 purchasecl lancl to ar-r cxtent of Ac.1.1B guntas, pctitioner in CRp.No.620 of 2025 purchased Ac.1.20 gunLas on the same day i.e .,

26.09.202I lrom one Mr. Domala prabhakar, who in tt.trn purchased thc land from thc proprietor of Akshara Clrit ll'ur-rd s namely I).Srr'nivas Rao. It is pertinent to note thirl O.S.No.92 ol 20 18 ri,as lilcd b1, respondent herein arg:rinst revision petitione r's vendor,s vendor p. Srirrivas 1 ..tr\ K, .l ,,10 & 620 2025 Rao. I.A.No.303 ol 2018 in O.S.No.92 of 2i)',8 is liled by rr:sponde n1 lrcrcirL. Injunction order, datc:. 25.10.2018 p;,rssed in L..\.No.303 ol :)Olil in O.S.No.9., rf 2018 n,as macie absolutc. 7 Lcarnccl c'orutscl frtr rcspondcnt c( rr cnclcd tl-rat u'l-ri1e both tlrr: CI?1)'s arc pcnding. P.Srir-i,as l?ao h:rd sold the propcrlv to l)omala Pr:abhakar, u,1 Lr, in lurn sold it t.o pctiti()ncl' O.S.No 92 of 2018 ,,i,:; lilcd br. rc:spondcnt l-Lcrcrn sceking permancnt inj Ltr rction to an extent of Ac.ll.l O guntas in Sy.No.404lAl ,' 'lhough the szrid propcr-tir:s u,crc pur-cltascd b.\, a siml- r saler decr,ls tl.rc szunc \\ cro rcguLarize d unde r the ; i -ovisrons of Tc'langana Rights ir-i Lar-rd ar-rd Pattadar Pa:,sbooks Act, 1971 (for short "thc ROR Ar:t . 197 l\ ancl F r tt L3(b) and I :3 (c) were issucd in lavour o[ respondent':; . ather in the vcar 2009 B Flr:ard lr:arr-tccl colu-rscl, pcruscd th:' r-er.ord :u-rd considered thc rivzrl submissions 5 JAK, J crp_540 &\ 620-2025

9. Petitioner filed O.S.No.l87 ot 2022 for declaration of title and conscquential permanent injunction '1n respect of Lhe suit schedule property. Later petitioner llli:d I.A.No.21O ot 2022 tn O.S.No. 187 of 2022 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent. 'lria1 Court by order, dated 14.06.2022, dismissed the said LA., aggrievcd by order, dated 14.06.2022 (passed 1n I.A.No.2lO ol 2022 in O.S.No 187 of 20221, petitioner filed a CMA.No.48 of 2022. Ttre trial Court by order, dated 20.10.2022, dismisscd thc said CMA. In the order, dated 20.1O.2022, passed in CMA.No.4B of 2022. learned Principal District .Iudge held as follows: " As rightLy sakl bu tlLe learncd .lunior Ciuil Juclge tLte Lrtlunctton it I.A.No.3O3 of 2O1B is gronLecl ort 25.10.2018 is extended from time to lime tiLL furlher orders. 'l'he matter is sub-judice before the Court oJ' Senior Ciuil Judge and Lherefore, it i.s al.so noted that the Special l'nburtctL, .Ja.nqaon Di.slricl in .-.rzse number LP/ 56.3/ 2 O2I /rrz.s -sel asid,e th.e order of the Reuenue Diuisional OfJlcer, Jangaon and confirmed mutation proceedings of Tahsildar bg order dctted 23.06.2021 in fauour of the respondents. lt is furth.er informed by the resportdents Llnt the subsequent purchasers 6 JAK, .J 1 540 & 620 2025 haue c.t.L.so .lil,ed su.it in. O. S Ao. 185 o.f 2O., . arLcl 187 ctf -1022 in t.he Cou.rt oJ' l)rirtcipaL ,Jrtrti:t . Cit:i.i Judge, .Ictnglcton seelting declo.ratiort of li.'l': anci consequ ential iryuncl.ion against tl'te resyto t!.ents on 22.O.3.2022 an.d th.eg utere penclitq be1',t. the Courl oj l)nnl:ipal. Ju.nior Ctuil Judqe. 13t,,.t, the aboue scLid focts LDere not ret ,'o.Led bg lhe oppellants and suppressed l. , t th.e appellcut-ts and therefore, the CotLrt holt::; tha.t the Ciuil Miscellaneous Appeal ftled ,l:'i, the Appelkut.t i.s deuokl o.[ nu:nls rtn.r.l. I e:n.<:e di-smi.s-s,:,:J ".

10. It is specificaily held that petitioner sL.rl)pressed the fact with rcg€rrd to the rn3unction grant(:d i-r OS.No .92 ol 20 1 B. It is also observe d from lhc rec:o 'd tl-rat the Tr.OP.No.l r>f 2023 carne to be filcd befor.r, thc lcarned Plincipal Dislrict Judge at Jangaon and t r,r said Tr.OP r,r,as disposecl of on 16.08.20211. staling thrr r.).S.Nos.18.5 and L87 ol 2022 are $,ithclra\^/n from re Principal Junior Civii ,Judge's Court, .Jangaon and .r,rnsferred to Scnior Civil .Judgc's Court, Jangaon. It v.,,r s also made ciear that thr: Senior Civil Judge was at 1i1:,rrt1, to take a decision either to club the suits or pr-,: nol'rncc the judgment(s) separatcllr or by urav of a corrrlr', rn judgment 7 .JAK, J crp 540 & 620_2025 and further directcd the l)rincipal .Iunior Civil Judge to transmit the entirct records in both suits to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, .Jangaon. On a keen perusal of the cntire record, it is observed that aflter dismissal of the C\4A by learned I)rincipal District Judge, Jangaon, the 'lr.OP was filed and suiLs are clubbed together

11. l'his revision pctition is filcd after a period of 2 years and 4 months. 'l'here rs no explanation lorthcoming for the deia5, i11 approaching this Court.

12. Be that as it may, thc ground raised by the revision petitioner is that purchases made on 26.O9.2021 during lis pcndens can be considcrcd, as Lhcy were not aware of thc proceedings, its Lhc_y purchased the properties from Domala Prabhakar, urho ir-r turn purchased the property lrorn P.Srinivas Rao against whom suit for injunction is lilcd. The said conLention can ah,v:rys be raised before the trial Court wherc all the three suits have been tagged on Tr.OP., order 8 JAK, J cr ) .t40 & 62Q 2025 13- Learnecl counscl for rcvision peti r,rncr placed rcliance on the judgment of thc Hon'ble .11 cx Court in the case oI Amit Kumar Shaw qnd Anotnttr u. Farida Khatoon and Anotherr and statcd that t Lre litrgalion must be onc in wl-iich right to immoval-. c property 1S directly and specilically in question, rvl-ricl L s a priman, elcnrent to consliLut.e Lis pendens. It is a lr::t submitted tl-r:rt in thc absence of clcar identilir::rIior-r ci the property involvcd, it. i,.; difhcult to dran, a conclusior.L :.hat tl-rc salc \\,asr not 1-ri1. by Sr:ction 52 of 'l'rar-rs1i:r- of Propcrty AcL, 1882. l,earned counsel has placer, reliance on judgrnent of High Court of Karnataka i:r Lhc case of B V Rgarakatti u Sattappa Sharnbapp a Gornadi2 and also pl:rr:ed rcliancc on the judgment o' Higl-r Court of Bomba.v in thc case ol Gouri Dutt. Maharaj U Sheikh Sukur Moharnme d3 r (2005) i 1 scLr .1113 , 2003 SCC online Kar 3.15 3 1918 SCC onlinc PC 27 I I i ! I .J,AK, J cfp 540 tn 620 2025

14. This Court, having considered Lhe said judgments and in the facts of the case, is of the considered opinion that zlll thcse grour-rds calt l.re rzrised bv rcvl s ton pctitioner bcfore thc cor.npetcrrt Court as Lhis Court is not inclined to interferc u'ith the lindings of lcarned [)rincipal l)isrrict ..ludge . l-carned Princ--ipal Dislrict Judge 1n its ordcr, dated 20.1O.2022, passed ln CMA.No.4B of 2022 has elaborately dealt with the issue raised and has givcr-r a lincling thal rcvision petit-ioner' has approached u,ith unclcan Itands b), .rot disclosing about the injunction order granted by the Court of Scnic,r Civil .Jr,rdgc in ().S.No 92 oI 2O 18.

15. C)n considering the entire factual matrix of the case, this Court is of thc opinion that C.R.P.No.540 of 2025 is dcvoid ol rncriLs. It is also to bc noted that revision petition is filed after more Lhar-r two (2) years and there is no pr<tper r:xplzrnation lorthcoming for the <lcla-r' in prcfr:rring tltc (-'RP. ()n this grounc,l too, CRP is Iiablc to be dismisscd. t0 .J.,\l(..1 .,4 O ,i 620 -2(l12:r

16. Witl-i tlrr: abovc obselations, CRP.NT .\1O of 2025 is disn-risscd. In rrir:u' of pronolrnccmcllt oI r. l]P.No.i>40 ol 2025, CRP.No.620 ol 2025 shall stand ,l ;missccl. I\,lo order ets to c()sts NIis<;c11:rncous applicatior-rs pcndir-ru. r anr'. shall siand closcd SD/. K.AMMAJI r)EPUTY REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Pnncipal District Judge at Jangaon. 2. The Princiial Junior Civilludge-cuh-Judicial magistr'rt:r of First Class, Jangaon.

3. One-CC to Sri Satyanarayana pulluru Advocate IOP( {: ] 4 One CC to Sr K Raghuv'eer Reddy, Advocate [OPU(-:] 5 Two CD Copies W NVB/I'St- HIGH COURT DATED:04104t2025 io 1 tr r -\_:. tLr1t, i: s $ J3 ,i, !;:,:',i:tlj" A ; .,,; ti: o U- ,& COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.S40 and 620 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE BOTH CIVIL REVISIOT\J PETITTONS 1 \i) q