The High Court · 2025

I leard J. Suresh Babu, learned counsel lbr the appellants and Sri M' Ranra ltaju, learned counsel for respondent No'l Perused the entire recot'd

2. Uoth the patlies i.e., appellants and respondent No' I along with their respective counsel are present. I A No'1 of 2025 is filed under Order XXIII Rulc 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908' as the Inatter has been courprornised ar-nicably between the parties' As per the terms of comprotnise, the appellants have agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 19,50,000/- to respondent No l and out of said amount Rs2'00'000/- rvas paid on four occasions by the appellants and dernand dralt bearing No.579794 dated 25.08.2025 drawn on State Bank ol Indian in tavour of \ \ i RY,J sA lil 2024 respondent No. I for an amount of Rs.7,75,000/- r,,.r ; handed over to respondent No. I by the appellants. The balance amouni rl'Rs.9,75,000/- is agreed to be paid by the appellants on the date olregist- tion to respondent No. I 3 . In view ol- pavment of afbrententioned amount s respondent No. I agreed to cxecute reqistered salc deed in lavour of the, ppellants and also acknowledged that the suit scl-redule property is in :rossession of thc appellents lrom the date ofagrecment ofsale.

4. ln view, of'the abovc, the I.A.No. I of 2025 is allor cd and in remrs of aforernentioned compromise, the Second Appeat is disp rscd of in terms of complomise. Therc shall be no order as to cost . Miscellaneous applications, if any. pending shall stand closed SD/- lr r'.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA JOINT REGISTRA -7 //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER To, \./ 1 2 4 The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba G ldwal. (With records rf any) One CC to SRt. J SURESH BABU Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRt. MANTENA RAMA RAJU Advocate [OF r C] Two CD Copies (Along uith the copv ol'the Cornpromise.) W HIGH COURT DATED:0111212025 JUDGMENT SA.No.111 ot 2024 DISPOSING OF THE SECOND APPEAT, IN TERMS OF COMPROMISE 46 .rT 1,b I ,c.( z. 4., oR Tl-lE SIc 1 3OJAilM f.i \..* ^ \\:'--' _\:.. - \ $ '\\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD i. A, No. of2025 IN S. A. No. 111 of2O24 BETWEEN: Dodla Rami ReddY and 4 others AND R. Naveen Krrmar ReddY And another ....'APPELLANTs/ RtrSPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS ...... RESPoNDtrNTs/ APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF/ DEFENDANT No'3 PETITION FILED U/Or' 23 R' 1 & 2 cPC' TO RECORD COMPROMTSE The petitioners and the respondents herein beg to submit this compromise Petition as follows: 1' I submit that the respondent No' t herein filed a suit i'e' 1. O. S. No. 11of 2O10 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge Jogulamba Gadwai, erstwhile Mahaboobnaga-r District' ' declaration of Title ,for recovery of possession and also claiming damages of Rs' 69'900l- as Mesne Profits against Sy. No. 255 the lald admeasuring to an extent of Ac'4'O1 d extent of Gts.; Sy- No. 255/3 the land admeasrtnn i 'n6d*A h !1, n vLe / ? a'*d N\ -^T B 5 \*" t<, ,-\ ,wbb :ii i,i ,lrl :iil '..| I i i l:il i i :: ti, :tll $t ,ii t, r'i u E t t $ {i B D F ;. & E Tj I i I lL- Ac.0.O3 Gts.; ald Sy. No. 256/AI having an r: rtent of Ac.l-29 Gts.; situated at Uddandapuram Village, llikya_la Mandal, Joguiamba Gadwa-l, erstwhile Mahabubnag: r District from defendants /respondents herein. It is further submitted that pending the suit the respondent No.2 expire i and his 1egal heirs are brought on record as respondent ltr r. 4 to 6 herein and contested the suit by filing ivritten Sta',, lnent we have taken a plea that " the partition deed is onl1. r ominal and it is created for extracting money from the pur :hasers as the properties already sold au,ay by the father of .he plaintiff and he purchased properties at Atmakur and c: nstructed a big House and we also taken a'plea that the sui: is barred under Order 23 Rule 1 R/w Sec. 12 of C.P(l It is further submitted that the defendants are in posser sion of the suit scheduled properties all these years and u: have taken a specifrc plea that the suit itself barred by lirnil rtion. 2. It is further submitted that after goin I through entire evidence on record the learned senior Civil ..udge dismissed the suit on27-12-2018. Against the said jucl11 nent and decree dated 27-12-2018 in O. S. No. 11 of 2010 :n the hle of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jogulamba (l tdr,rral preferred "tr&3 , R ,nA#a- -.) ( slnt'..Ar,a r\r.' t? -n u,- IL{&,'L'. 5 \) Appeal i.e. A. S. No. 31 of 2Ol9 on the hle of the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Jogulamba Gadwal , Jogulamba Gadwal District. The appellate court after hearing both the parties reversed the well-considered judgment and decree dated 27-1,2-2018 of the lower court in dismissing the suit ald decreeing the said suit vide Judgment and Decree dated 28-12-2023 by holding that the defendants are directed to vacate and handover the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of the Judgment". It is further submitted that aggrieved by the sarne now we have filed present second appea-l i.e. S.A. No. 111 of 2024 in this honourable court which is pending for adjudication. It is further submitted that, while the matter is pending

3. before this Hon'ble Court the said Appea-l' has been compromised between the parties in front of village elders and the respondent herein entered into Compromise dated 14-05- 2025 as follows:- 3a. It is submitted that, the appellant No.1 and 2 are own brothers. The appellant No.3 is the wife of the deceased appellant No.2 ald the appellants No. 4 and 5 are the children of the appeliants No.2 ir hat, the appellants No. 1 i -0-fr? F ("-,t" dl,/.@da7' A/ R,Cf. t.,J,.il0,r\. R s h 1", r,.J \ It and 2 have purchased the suit schedule protr erty bearing Sy. Nos. 255 and 256 Tota,l Extent Ac:6-00 un-er agreement of sale dt 07-05-1996 from the father of ResJ,, ,ndent by name Kishore Kumar Reddy. The said Kishore I{L mar Reddy has received entire sale consideration of the said t greement of sale from the appellants No. I and 2, but on i re advice of the elders, the appellants have agreed to pay an,--,her some of Rs. 19,50,0OO/- (Rs. Nineteen Lakhs fifty thour; rr-rd only) to the respondent in addition to the sale cons r icration of sale agreement dt. 07-05-1996. No e respo.-:lent is ratifying the said agreement of sa-le dt. 07-05-199(t l--r r, the appeliarrts E herein are exclusive owners and possessor ol' ,he "rrit f"rrfffr" ,.lL sole respondent is no way concern with thr: suit land. It is further subrnitted that, the 2"d respondent/ defendant No.3 remained exparty throughout the proceerl ngs right from original suit to Second Appeal and hen< e he is not a necessary party to the compromisi --j 3b. It is submitted that, due to over sighr the respondent has shown extent Ac:4-Olgts in Sy.No.255, <:.:rent Ac:O-03 gts in Sy.No.255, and extent Ac: l-29 gts, in 51 No. 256/Al the boundaries in the plaint schedule is East: Lit td in Sv.No.2S1. id ),T' & 5 \^"Jul 3 $A@Ad lir' ,.r1\, A( -<hr"'\"1 ,l,- ,# tz,tq 7,1'""- 6 West: Land in Sly.257, North: Land in Sy'No'254 and South: Land belongs to R. Ashok kumar Reddy in Sy'No'254' In fact' Ge suit land. has covered the followrng boundaries: East: L t and of Venkateshrn'ara Reddy and Srinivas Reddy' West: LandsofKatamRaviar-rdJakkulaRaju,North:landsof Parmeshwar Reddy, Sivakumar Reddy and Kavitha South: Sreenivas Reddr-and Jakkula najf 3c. It is submitted that, at the time filing of the suit' the land bearing Sy. No'256/A1 extent is Ac:1-29 gts shown in the suit schedule and there after the said lald is recorded to an extent Ac;1-20 gts in the name of the respondent' now at present Ac. O-09 gts in Sy' No256/A1 is missed in the revenue record. in the name of respondent' For which the respondent shall take steps to add the said Ac 0-09 gts land in Sy' No' 256 lAlto his revenue account before registratio4 3d. It is submitted(?hat, being lhe Kartha of the family and on behalf of the appeliants No' 3 to 5' the appellant No' 1 shall pay Rs. 19,50,OO0/- (Rs' Nineteen Lakhs FiftY Thousand' rupees onlY) to the resPondent and the resPondent also agreed the said amount' Now g. appellant No.1 out of compromise amount r'e Rs.i9,5O.,000/- Rs. Nineteen Lakhs 3" 3" \"r* B fiAd*eb /?, M ,b?4 3a) ,-1 ,t /(.s[,io,L= =t"\ \b Fifty Thousand rupees only) have paid thror gh phone pay various amounts on various dates i.e' Rs'80,000/-, Rs.50,OOO/-, Rs.50,0OO/-and Rs.20,000/- wl-rL':h comes to Rs' 2,OO,0OO/- (Rs. Two Lakhs)f1n addition to the above amount of Rs.2,O0,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs only), m arrror-urt of Rs.7,75,OO0/- (Seven Lakhs Seventy Fifty Tho rsar-Ld only) out of Rs. 19,50,000/- will be paid, to that affecl an amount of -i\--' ..:, t'll Rs.7,75,OOO/- (Rs. Seven Lakhs Seventy- Five thousand only) through Demand Draft drawn on Statt Bank of India, Singapore Township (Sanskruthi Township) Branch on 25- Oa-2O21o which will be handed over to resp( I -derlt beforc the court to the respondent and the respondent tckllowledge the .^m".{,.The appellant No.1 shall pay the renr r.nit-tg amount of Rs.g,ZS,OOO/- (Rs. Nine Lakhs Seventy fivr: lhousands only) at the time of registration to the sole respol ' tent.'l There after the respondent shall execute the sale deeds i rr the entire suit lald to the appellants as stated below. 3e. It is submitted that, (ifr" ,""pot dent -'ea11 execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant No.1 bearing Sy. No. u 255 lEL to an extent of Ac. L-24 gts, the Sy. tro. 255/tr3 to an extent of Ac. O-O4 gts, the Sy. No. 256lAl tc an extent of Ac. : m6ag6e$ ,,Q *^-il-aaa, D".l' M ti^,.n't a o \2- A ar"rt4-':|" 1-29 gts totally admeasuring Ac. 3- lVJt tf 17 gts tlee.said.land is. o4e-- t' Li i+\+ t East : iand of omlTron boundaries eornpaet-bl Venkateshwar Reddy and Srinivas Reddy, West : iand of Katam Ravi and Jakkula Raju, North : land of the appellant loY No.3 and South : lands of Jakkula Raju and Srinivas Reddy' 3f. It is submitted that, the respondent shail execute the sa-1e deed in favour f ,n. appellant No'3 bearing Sy' No' 2SSlEl to an extent of Ac. 2-16 gts. tlre boundaries'ef,-the said-la{id+y East : land of Venkateshr'var Reddy, West : land of Katam Ravi, North : lands of Kavitha, Shiva Kumar Reddy *'k Lr ' and Parameshwar Reddy nnd South : land of appellant No' 1' It is submitted (ttrat, as per the settlement, the 39. respondent shail execute the sale deed in favour of the appellants for the suit schedule land with correct boundaries within three months from today on *,tJ"i,'ff" appellant No'1 fee for the shall bear the entire stamp duty a,d' '{iJtttio" land of the appetlant No.3.i [The --,1 L was delivered bY the father appellants, at the time of agreernent of sale' Now possession of the suit land of the respondent to the e suit land is in possession of the appellants' .J I T_J,? h 5 y"xtt, s nM6E R, fr-'-l*tY +,&st^lrr'* 4r I l i i I I i I t t : I I E t Ii ! I I t'il ,i t J : ! I I J,\ It 2 1 I t "i f \8 Hence in view of the said settlement, ff e parties herein pralr that this honourable court be pleasecl t I record the said Compromise and a1low the appeal i.e. S A I o' 111 of 2024 io terms of this Compromise without any costs, by modif5'ing the decree passed in A. S. No. 3l of 2Ol9 on tlrl fiie of the court of t1-ie Principal District and Sessions Jlrrl 3e at Jogulamba Gadn,al , Jogulamba Gadwal District., and cass such other decree in the interest ofjustice. ]I 'SPONDENT 1 R7a! ee It I U,{ tt- t<urnadFl'*a lL'd'n" " ' , -I t PETITIONERS -r]-'g" a h

1. DODLA Rr\MI REDDY n4qd6 3 . DODLA PADMAVATHAMMA@ M.Padmavirthi W/o. AYYaPu ReddY, 4, DODLASIREESHA@ 'i{ltl'o{\4

5. Dodla Babu @ Siva Shenkar ReddY @ M.Vamsi Shankar ReddY, ,. lrr^Jt \" ,,il^^"^, Counsel for petitioners 1,3 to 5 Counst . for the IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENU,KA YARA SECOND APPEAL NO: 111 OF 2024 Between

1. DODLA RAMI REDDY, S/o. Dodla Venkat Rami Reddy, Aged about 51 Years, Occ. House wife and cultivation, R/ o. Uddandapuram Village, Itikyala Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District erstwhile M'Nagar. 2 DODLA AYYAPU REDDY (DIED per L.R's, Appellant Nos.3 to 5) 3. DODLA PADI/AVATHAIVMA, Wo. Dodla Ayyapu Reddy, Aged about 45 Years, Occ. House wife and cultivation, R/ o. Uddandapuram Village. Itikyala Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District erstwhile M'Nagar

4. DODLA SIREESHA, D/o Dodla Ayyapu Reddy, Aged about 19 Years, Occ. Cultivation, Rio. Uddandapuram Village, ltikyala Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District erstwhile M'Nagar, 5, DODLA BABU @ SHIVA SHENKAR REDDY, S/o. Dodla Ayyapu Reddy, Aged about 14 Years, Occ. Student, Rep. by Mother & Natural Guardian Appellant No.3 R/o- Uddandapuram Village, ltikyala Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District erstwhile M'Nagar. Appellants/Petitioners in l.A.No.1/2025/ Respondent Nos. 1,4 to o/Defendant Nos.1,4 to 6 AND 1 R. NAVEEN KUMAR REDDY, S/o. R,Kishore Kumar Reddy, Aged about 26 Years, Occ. Private Employee, Rl/ o. Uddandapuram Village, ltikyala Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal Diskict erstwhile M'Nagar. ... Respondent No,1/Respondent No.1 in l.A. No. 1 /2025/AppellanVPlaintiff

2. DODLA PARMESHWAR REDDY, Sio. Dodla Venkat Rami Reddy, Aged about 41 Years, Occ. cultivation, R/o. Uddandapuram Village, ltikyala Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District . ... Respondent No.2/Respondent No'2 in l.A.No.1/2025/ Respondent No.3/Defendant No.3 (Respondent No.2 is not a necessary part), as he was set expall( r both the courts belorv. Hence. no notice is necessary to him in this Second Ap r al Second Appeal under section 100 C.P.C., aggrieved b/ the judgment and District a nrl Sessions Judge, dt. 28-12-20,) , in reversing the 27-12-2AiA I rssed by the court decree on the file of the Jogulamba Gadwal in A. S judgment and decree rn O. S of the Senior Civil Judge at Jogulamba Gadwal court of Principal No 31 of 2019, No. 11 of 2010 dr. IA NO: 10F 2025 Petition under Section 151,cpc praying that in the crrc(.r rstances stated in the affidavir filed in suooort of the peiitio; ihL' Utgf,.,borrr r ay be pteased to record the said Compromis" .na ,lto**in. ,or"?,',15'ai No 11 of 2024 in terms or this Compromise wrthout Ty 9o.jl: o},_rirl,fving d'; decree passed in AS No il,il#l: 3: JI",l'il:[ffj,& ji*i,,J;;;;i B :i;", ..d ;;;;;; j,iJ.", ;; The Second Appeal and l.A 1 of 2025 coming this da for orders as to compromise in the presen.€ of Sri J. Srr".n sri;,"nrovocate or the Appellants and of Sri Mantena Rama Ralu Adv;"rl;t"o"r;#';;oi},o"n, N( l, the appelants and respondent Not 1 through tn"i, i""i".nr"';ir"o"5""t". havi- I fited in LA.No.1 te c,, ip;i;e,;;i;;,j fl13t"tJ::1",.^,:l: *i.;Jja" or tne r-o*e.' io-r; ;il ;i""illusins the srounds appeal, juc'r ;";l;;;;;;;;; ; H ; ;,il:I"":':ff ?[I ;if T:,?"iT 1., f :: m: :::;l o y tn e p a r, e J appearing there from that the pr.ti". t,"r.ii-t,"r"'*""*o int r compromise and * " " '" settled the matter out of court in terrs tnereof; p,.. , a!.i""I" t"',* "r -"-n "r whereof is fired in the said r A]r-o-l and DorH in terms dectare, oRDER iri-oEiatHll t,,o*. This Court Doth Record.the terrns of the said of comprl nise, the original zols ,"j ,"""py"whereol ; annexed hereto 1 . That l.A. No. 1 a,f 2O2S is altowed and the Second Appe ,i I is disposed in 2. That appeltant Nos. deceased appellant appellant No,2. 1 and 2 arc own brothers, appellant I o.3 is the wife of No.2 and appellant Nos. 4 and 5 : r ) the children of terms of compromise. That appellant Nos.1 and 2 have purchased the suit schl tule property i.e. Ac.6-00 in Sy.Nos.255 and 256 under Agreement of Sale r ated 07.05.2996 l i lli-,, from the father of the respondent No. l by name Kishore Kumar Reddy; that the said Kishore Kumar Reddy has received entire sale consideration under the Agreement of Sale from appellant Nos.1 and 2, but on the advice of the elders, the appellants have agreed to pay another sum of Rs.19,50,000/- to the respondent No.1 in addition to the sale consideration under the Agreement of sale Dt:07l05/1996 and the respondent No.1 ratifies the said Agreement of Sale;

3. That the appellants herein are exclusive owners and possessors of the suit schedule land and respondent No.1 is no way concerned with the same; 4. That respondent No.2/defendant No.3 remained exparte throughout the proceedings from the original suit to Second Appeal and hence he is not a necessary party to the compromise:

5. That due to oversight in the suit schedule property respondent No.t has shown Ac 4-01 gts in Sy No 255; Ac.0.03 gts. tn Sy.No.2S5 and Ac 1-29 gts. in Sy.No.256/A1; and the boundaries in the Plaint Schedule are as East: Land rn Sy No.251, West. Land in Sy.No.257, North. Land in Sy.No.254 and South: Land belonging to R. Ashok Kumar Reddy in Sy.No 254.

6. That in fact the boundaries of the suit schedule land are : East: Land of Venkateshwara Reddy and Srinivas Reddy; West: Lands of Katam Ravi .and Jakkula Raju, North: Lands of Parmeshwar Reddy, Sivakuar Reddy and Kavitha; South: Sreenivas Reddy and Jakkula Raju;

7. That at the time of filing of the suit, the Land in Sy.No.256ll was shown as Ac.1-29 gts, but thereafter the same is recorded as Ac.1-20 gts. And therefore respondent No.1 shall take steps to add the missed out Ac.0.09 gts to Ac.1-20 gts ln Sy.No.256/,41, to his revenue account before registration;

8. That being the Kartha of the family and on behalf of appellant Nos.3 to 5, appellant No.1 shall pay Rs.19,50,0001 to the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 agreed for the same;

9. That out of the compromise amount of Rs.19,50,000/-, appellant No.1 has paid through PhonePe various amounts on various dates i.e., Rs.80,000/-, Rs. 50,000/-, Rs.50,0001- and Rs 20,0O0/- which comes to RS.2,00,OOO/-; that in addition to the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, ,re appellants have handed over demand draft bearing No.579794, dt 25.08.2025 for an amount of Rs.7,75,0001 drawn on State Bank ) lndia, Singapore Township (Sanskruthi Township) in favour of responder No.1, I0. That appellant No. l shalt pay the remaining amount : Rs.9,75,OOOi- and thereafter respondent No.1 shall execute (i) (ii) sale deed tn favour of appellant No.1 in resper t of Ac.1-24 gts. in Sy.No.255/E1; Ac.0.04 gts. in Sy.No.255lE3 rnd Ac 1-29 gts.in Sy.No.256/41, totally admeasuring a compac: block of 3-17 gts., with the following common boundaries East: Land of Venkateshwar Reddy and Srinivas Reddy; \rl,r st: Land of Katam Ravi and Jakkula Raju, North : Land of appell;t t No 3 and South . Lands of Jakkula Raju and Srinivas Reddy; (ii) sale deed in favour of appellant No 3 in res J ect of Ac.2-16 gts., in Sy No.255/E1 with the following boundarte I - East. Land of Venkateshwar Reddy, West : Land of Katam i tvi; North Lands of Kavitha. Shiva Kumar Reddy and parameshwar Reddy; and South . Land of appellant No.1.; I l. That as per the settlement, respondent No.1 shall ex: rute the sale deeds in favour of the appellants as mentioned above wit I correct boundaries 'within three months from today,

12. That appellant No.1 shall bear the entire stamp duty a r r registration fee for the sale deed to be executed in favour of appellant No . ,

13. That the possession of the suit land was delivered ty the father of the respondent No.1 to the appellants at the time of agr,ement of sale and now the appellants are in possession thereof.

14. That there shall be no orders as to costs. . *@7 . .,. ,/ //TRUI.]COPY' SD/. A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA JOINT REGIS CTION OFFICER To

1. The Prrncipal District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal 2. Two CD Copies. ry- HIGH COURT DATED:011'1212025 DECREE SA.No.1'11 o12024 DISPOSTNG OF TIIE APPEAL Lv