The High Court · 2025

M/s. K.M.R.Estates and Builders Pvt. Ltd., A Company lncorporated under Companies Act, having its Office at Plot No. 32, Park View Enclave, Manovikas N_agar, Borivenpally Secunderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri K. Madhaval Reddy, S,,o Sri K. Gal Reddy. aged;bout 75 yea-rs,-Occ. Business. ...Respondents/petitioners 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 vacate the interim orders dated 24-04-2024 in lA No. 2 0f 2024 in AS No. 1gg of 2024. in the interest of justice Counsel for the Appellant :Sri Srinivas Velagapudi Counsel for the Respondents: GP for APPEALS The Court delivered the following: Judgment I I I I a?, THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT No.188 of 20.24 JUDGMENT: This appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 05. lO.2O2O in O.S.No.212 of 2OI3, passed by the leamed Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC/ST (pOA) Act - cum - MI - Additional District Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The suit uide O.S.No.2 L2 of 2Ot3 was filed by the appellant/ plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule propert5r. p.W.1 was examined on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff and got marked Exs.Al to A42 on their behalf and D.W.1 was examined on behalf of the respondents/ defendants and got marked Exs.Bl to 84 on their behalf. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and arguments of both sides, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, appellant/plaintiff preferred the present appeal.

3. The examination of the pleadings of the parties and both documentary and oral evidence on record and also the I I I 2 submission made by the counsel for the appellant and respondents and appreciation of the evidence shows that one B.Lingamma was the original pattedar and possessor of the land in Sy.Nos. 1 to 5,7, a, t2,72,74,25,78,98,99, 101, 1O2, 111, 126,42,31,41,39,69, 103, tO6, 113, 70, and parr ot 23 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District. The said B. Lingamma filed a declaration under Section 6(1) of the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act and the same was dealt with by the special offi<:er, U.LC, Hyderabad and after enquiry orders were passed under Section 8(4) of the Act determining the declarant as surplus holder.

4. The Special officer, ULC, Hyderabad passed orders under Ex.A15 uide Proceedings No.Hl/5306/26 dated t5-O3-1995 stating that declarant B.Lingamma is. a surplus hoider of 1,44,012.39 sq.mts in the above said survey numbers which includes Sy.No.2. However the Special officer, ULC, Hyderabad issued Ex.Bl-Proceedings No Ht/5306/76, dated 2t-tt-2OOT stating that an errata is issued for correction of discrepancies and Sy.No.2 which was erroneously included as surplus land was deleted by application of general exemption granted in terms of G.O.Ms. No.733 (ULC) dated 31- 10- 1988. The surplus land was re-cletermined as 1,26,778.29 sq.mts. The government ) therefore issued Ex.A4l-Gazette notihcation dated 1g-Ol-200g clearly stating that instead of 1,48,012.39 sq.mts an extent of |,26,778.29 sq.mts is determined as .surplus and land in Sy.No.2 was deleted from such surplus extent of land. The Ex.A41 i.e., Gazette notification is not in dispute.

5. The respondents relied upon Ex.B2 dated 10-03-200g, which is notice issued under Section lO(S) of the Urban l,and Ceiling and Regulation Act by the Special officer, . .ULC, Hyderabad which shows that the possession was only an extent of 1,26,778.29 sq.mts in the above said survey numbers excluding Sy.No.2. The respondents therefore admitted that Sy.No.2 was not declared as surplus by virtue of Ex.B2.

6. The E;x.A42 dated 1 t -03-2008 in proceedings No.Hl/5306/76 is a panchnama with regard to taking possession of surplus land of L,26,778.29 sq.mts. This panchnama shows that possession of land admeasuring Ac.l-27 gts in Sy No.2 was not taken. However, an extent ofAc.l-14 gts in Sy.No.7 was taken, which is also the suit propert5r.

7. The Ex.B3 is also a panchanama dated I 1-03-20O8 in Proceedings No.H1/5306/76. Curiously this panchnama is also I \ 4 of the same date as that of Ex.A42. The extent of the surplus land in both the panchnamas i.e., F;x.A42 and Ex.B3 is recorded as 7,26,778.29 sq.mts. However, as regards Sy.No.2 the same was excluded in Ex.A42-panchnama, but shown as included in Ex.B3-panchnama. The Ex.B3-panchnama is contrar]. to the Ex-A4 l -Gazette notification whereby Sy.No.2 was specifically excluded and Ex.B2 notice caused under Section lO(5) of the Act and relied upon by the respondents. The responcients are not able to explain such glaring discrepancy. In any view the Ex.A41 Gazette notilication and Ex.B2 notice prevail upon Ex.B3 panchnama. In the circumstances there is no hesitation to conclude that Ex.A42 panchnama relied upon by the appellant in accordance with Ex.A4 | Gaz-ette notification and Ex.B2 notice relied upon by the respondents, but not Ex.B3 panchnama. Therefore, the Ex.B3 panchnama is unreliable and has no value. The evaluation of such evidence on recorcl shows that the court below failed to consider such documentary evidence on record with regard to Ac.l-2O gts of land in Sy-No.2 which is a part of the suit property. As the land in Sy.No.2 was never declared as surplus, the respondents never came into possession of the same and also never set up any adverse claim of title against the appellant in respect of the same. ) B. Admittedly, B.Lingamma was the original pattedar and possessor of the land in Sy.No.2. After the demise of B. Lingamma, Ex.A4 i.e., registered sale deed dated 18-06-19g3 uide document No.4675 of 1983 was executed by one B. Venkat Narayana and B.Satemma in favour of G.Vijayalakshmi in respect of land admeasuring Ac.l-27 gts in Sy.No.O2 of Gachibowli village. The said G.Vijayalaskhmi in turn executed Ex.A3-settlement deed dated 05-10-1994 in favor of her daughter G.Kusuma in respect of the land measuring an extent of Ac.1-20 gts in Sy.No.O2 of Gachibowli viilage apart from the land admeasuring Ac.O-37 gts in Sy No. 1. The said G.Kusuma in turn executed Ex.A2-Agreement of Sale cum GpA dated 1a-12-2OO2 in favor of KMR Estates and Builders pvt. Ltd in respect of the above said extent of Ac.1-2O gts in Sy.No.O2 and Ac.O-37 gts in Sy.No.Ol of Gachibowli village. Further on the basis of the said AGPA i.e., Ex.A2, the Ex.AI sale deed dated 25-O4-2OOS was executed in favor of the appellant. The appellant is claiming its title, rights and possession from its predecessor in title B.Lingamma through the above referred registered instruments. As admittedly B.Lingamma was the pattedar and the appellant perlectly sourced its title and possession from B.Lingamma, the same is clearly established. It is also a settled proposition of law that possession follows title. I I I I 6 \ The possession of the appellant is therefore clearly established' I It is also observed that by virtue of Ex.A41 Gazette notification and Ex.B2 notice which clearly show that Sy'No'2 was never declared as surplus nor possession of the same was never intended to be taken here is of no genuine denial of titlt: of the appellant over the land in Sy.No.02. The mere suit for perpetual injunction is maintainable in the facts of the present case' There is no necessity to seek declaration of title- g. As regards the land in Sy.No.O7, the same was admittedly declared as surplus in terms of Ex.A41 Gazelte notihcation' However, the Ex.A16 endorsement dated 07-06-2OlO in ftle No.Hl/5306 of 76 shows that the application No' H2/455/26512OO6, was issued by the Special officer, ULC, Hyderabad uide G.O.Ms.No.41 1 Revenue (Uc-lll) Department dated I 1-05-20 10, which is referred in the endorsement that the surplus land of an extent of 3035.13 sq.mts in Sy No'7 of Gachibowli village was duly regularized in the name of the said R.sadanand Rao i.e., vendor of the appellant after payment of regularization charges in terms of G'O.Ms'No.455, Revenue (UC) Department dated 29-O7-2O1O. There is another endorsement i.e., Ex.A17 dated 07-06-2O10 and the same shows as extent ol

1416.38 sq.mts in Sy.No.O7, which was regularized in the name 7 of B.Govind Rao, who is also the vendor of the appellant after payment of regularization charges. It is clearly mentioned in l both Exs.A16 and A17 endorsements that_ "the allotment made bg the gouemment shall be conclusiue proof of title of tke occupant ouer such excess land allotted" and further the ailotment made is exempted from stamp duty and registration. The respondents have not disputed the Exs.Al6 and A17 endorsements issued by the Special officer, ULC, Hyderabad, pursuant to the orders of the government referred therein. The respondents having admitted Exs.A16 and Al7 endorsements are estopped from raising any contrary pleas. Once the occupation of surplus land in Sy.No.O7 is regularized the possession of the appellalt and its predecessor in title stalds confirmed.

10. Admittedly, B.Lingamma was the original pattedar and possessor of the land in Sy No.07. After demise of B.Lingamma, Ex.A8 i.e., registered sale deed was executed by her heirs B.Venkat Narayana and B.Satemma through their GpA holder B.Ashok Kumar by virtue of registered GPA dated 23-11-IgB4 and 24-03-7984 in favour of B.Sadanald Rao in respect of land admeasuring Ac.O-2O gts in Sy.No.O7 of Gachibowli village. The said B.Sadanand Rao executed Ex.AT sale deed dated I '...1 8 28'02'2006 in favor of appellant in respect of said Ac.0_2o gts in Sy. No.O7. The Ex.A6 is the Gift Settlement deed dated 04.1 1.19g6 executed by B.Venkat Narayana and B.Satemma in favor of B.Govind Rao in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0_14 gts in Sy. No 07 of Gachibowli village. The said B.Govind Rao.in turn had executed Ex.AS i.e., sale deed dated 2g_ i2_200S in favour of appellant in respect of Ac.O_14 gts in Sy.No.O7. Thus, the appellant source their fifle and possession from B.Lingamma through th e above referred registered instruments. The appellant and their predecessors in title as above said came into possession to the propertSr through the originar p.,,.d.. B.Lingamma. i I I I

11. There is also a reference in Judgement artd appeal to the submission and by the counsel for the respondents that there is no dispute u,ith regard to title and possession of the appellant in respect of Ac. 1-O4 gts in Sy.No.O7 of the Gachibowli village. It appears that the counsel for the respondents in the above facts and circumstances fairly admitted the title of the appellant in respect of the same. Despite such submission the court below eroneously felt that the appellant failed to discharge their burden to establish title and possession. The undisputed endorsements i.e., Exs.Al6 and AtZ clearly established the 9 possession and title of the appellant in respect of Ac. l-04 gts of Sy.No.07 of Gachibowli village and the appellant clearly discharged the burden, but the trial cour! failed to consider the material evidence on record.

12. The trial court also faiied to consider the Exs.Alg to A33 pahanis, which clearly shows the possession and enjoyment of appellant and their predecessors in title over the suit lands. The appellant also relied upon Ex.Al2 mutation proceedings dated 06-08-2005, which are passed by the respondent wo. i al,ty affecting the mutation of the name of the appellant in respect of Ac. l-20 gts in Sy.No.O2 of Gachibowli village and Ex.Al3 for an extent of Ac.0-10 gts in Sy.No.O7 and Ex.Al4 for an extent of Ac.O- 14 gts in Sy.No.O7 and also Ac.O-2O gts in Sy.No.O7 of Gachibowli village. The D.W. I in his Cross-examination clearly admitted Exs.A13 and A14 mutation proceedings and the same were never calcelled. As such mutation proceedings in the name of the appellant which were passed under Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and pattadar pass Books Act, are appealable under Section 5(5) of the Act and admittedly no appeal was hled ald such orders were not revised under Section 9 of the said Act, the same are binding upon the respondents. The Section 6 of the ROR Act gives rise to a presumption that q \ .l l0 the entries in record of rights as recorded in tJle pahanis under Exs.Al9 to A32 spread over the period of 1992 Lo 2O 11, showing the possession of the appellant and the same cannot be ignored. The appellant therefore by placing such material evidence established their possession over the suit property, but such material evidence was not considered by the trial Court.

13. There is substance in submission of the counsel for the appellant that in the light of such voluminous documentary evidence the dismissal of the suit on the premise that mere suit for injunction is not maintainable and in the absence of declaratory relief is erroneous. The Counsel had also relied upon the Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.M- Krishna Reddg v. Vinod Reddg,t that when there is no serious dispute about the title the mere suit for injunction is maintainable. The Para numbers 15 to 17 of the above judgment are referred below: "15. Hence, ttrc respondents admitted the ownership of the appellant's fatLer ttvough tDhom the appellant claims title. Euen going bg the respondents' case, ttrc appellant u.tas the co-ou)ner of the propertg, and the respondents admittedly had no title in respect o-f tlrc suit property. Therefore, there u.tas no di.spute about the appellant's title as pleaded in the suit. Th.e issue was ' (2023) 1o scc 248 t hether the plea of aduerse possession defeated that title. The burden of prouing the plea of aduerse possession u)as on tLe respondents. Tle. burden on the appellant was to proue hris possession on the date of the suil.

16. The question is uthether it tuas necessary for the oppellant to claim a declaration of title. On this aspect, a decision of this Court in Anatlatla Sudhakar u. p. Buchi Reddy (Anathula Sudhakar u. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 5941 is releuant. Paras 13 and 14 of the said decision read thus: (SCC pp. 603-604) " 13. The general pinciples a.s to when a mere suit for permanent injunction uill lie, and uthen it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/ or possession utith injunction as a consequential relief, are uell settled. We mag refer to them brieJly.

13. 1 . Where a plaintiff is in latuful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened bg the dekndant, a siit for an injunction simpliciter uill lie. A person hols a right to protect his possession against anA person who does not proue a better titb bg seektng a prohibitory injunction. But a person in urongfut possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful oroner.

13.2. Wlere the title of tle plainttff is not disputed, but he is nol in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possessron, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpticiter, uithout claiming tte reltef of possession. .I I n'- I I 0 J t2

13.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the propeftA is in dispute, or under a cloud, or tahere the defendanr osserfs titLe thereto and there is also a threat of drspossession from the defendant. the plaintiff utill haue to sue for declaration of titLe and the consequential relief of injunction. Where tLLe title of the plaintiff b under a cloud or in dispute and he is nof in possession or not able to establish possession, necessailg the plaintiff toill haue to fiIe a suit for declaration., possession and injunction

14. We maA, howeuer, clarifg that a prager for declaration will be necessary onlg if tLrc denial of title by the defendant or challenge to the appellant's title rakes a cloud on the title of th<: plaintiff to the propertg. A cloud is said to raise: ouer a person's title, uthen some opparent defect in his title to a propertA, or when some pima facie ight of a third partg ouer it, is made out or shatun. An action for declaration, is *Le rernedy to remoue tle clottd on the title to the propertA. On the otLler hand, uthere tle plaintiff has clear title supported bg doatments, if a trespasser uithout ang claim to title or an interloper uithout ang apporent title, merelg denies tle appellont's title, it does not amount to raising a cloud ouer the title of the plaintiff and it tuill not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration qnd a suit for injunction may be sufficient. Where tle plaintffi belieuing that the defendant is ortly a trespasser or a utrongful claimant uithout title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant dirscloses in his defence ttre details of tte right or title claimed bg him, uhich raise a senous dispute or cloud ouer the plaintiffs title, then there is a need for the plaintffi to amend the plaint and conuert the suit into one for declaration- Altematiuelg, he mag uithdrana the suit for bare injunction, u.tith permission of the court to file a / l3 comprehensiue suit for declaration and injunction. He mag file tLe suit for declaration utith consequential relieJ euen afier tLe suit for injunction is dismrssed, where the suit raised onlg the issue ofpossession and not any issue of titte." (emphasis supplied)

17. It is obuious that there u)as no issue inuolued about the title of the plaintiff and his father. It is not as if the respondents had set up a tttle in themselues or u)ere claiming through somebod.y wlw was claiming the title. Their plea utas of ad.uerse possession against tLLe plaintff, tuhich presupposes that the appellant was tlte ouner. WLrcn in a suit simpliciter for a perpetual injunction based. on title, the defendant plead_s perfection of hi.s title by aduerse possession against tLLe plaintiff or hls predecessor, it cannot be said. that there i.s any dispute about the titte of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaint{ff need. not claim a declaration of title in such a case as tle onty issues inuolued in such a suit are uthether the plaintiff Llrrs proued that he uas in possession on tLe d.ate of tlre institution of the suit and. uthether the defendant has proued that he has perfected_ his title bg ad.uerse possessfon. Therefore, in the case at hand, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to claim a declaration of ou.tnership. There uas no cloud on his title. Therefore, th.e suil, as originallg fited., uas maintainable,,. The finding of the triar court on this aspect is not sustainabre. I - I ,l l4 t4. The counsel for the respondents herein contended that the Exs.A16 and A17 endorsements are in the name of vendors of the appellant, but not in the name of the appellant and therefore the same conhrms the title and rights of vendors of the appellant, but not that of the appellant is also not tenable in view of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. In this context it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'l:le Apex Court in the case ol Tanu Ram Bora Vs. Prarrlrod Ch.Dasr2 in which it was stated that when a transferee purchased the immovable property under the representations of the vendor that he was authorized to transfer the same and subsequently the transferor acquires the title, interest over the land which was initially declared as ceiling surplus and subsequently became non- surplus in such circumstance, the transferee acquires a valid title under sale deed executed by his vendor, which reads as follows: "6.4. Section 43 of the TP Act prouides that uthere o person fraudulentlg or erroneouslg represents that lE is autlnised to transfer certain immouable propertg and professes to transfer such propertg for consideration, such tra nsfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operates on ony interest uthich the transferor may acquire rn such propertA at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists. Thus, if at the time of tran sfer, the ' scc 20 1X4t 1 73 l5 uendor/ transkror might haue a defectiue title or haue no title and/ or no right or interest, hotaeuer subseqtently tLe transferor acquires the ight, title or interest and the contract of transfer subsrsfs, in that .ease at the option of the transferee, such a transfer is ualid. In such a sihtation, tte transferor connot be permitted to challenge the transfer and/ or the transferor has no option to raise the dispute in making the transfer.

6.5. The intention and objects behind Section a3 of the TP Act seem to be based on the principle of estoppel as well as the equitg. The intention and objects seem to be ttnt afier procuring the moneg (sale consideration) 'and transfening the land, thereafter the transferor is estopped from soying that though he has sold/ transfered the propertg/ land on paAment of sale consideration, still tlrc transfer is not binding on him. Ttnt is tuhg Section 43 of the TP Act giues an option to tlrc transferee and not the transferor. The intention of Section 43 of the Act seem.s to be that nobodg can be permitted to take the benefits of his own wrong. In the facts and ciranmstances of the case, Section 43 of the Act utould come into play and" protect tLrc ights of tle original plaintiff .

15. By virtue of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court there is no quarrel about the proposition that by virtue of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the appellant in the present case acquired valid title, rights and possession from their vendors by virtue of subsequent perfection of title of their vendors. The appellant therefore clearly established its t6 possession, rights and interest over the suit lands and the \ respondents never seriously disputed ttre title of the appellant. As observed above the Ex.A4l Gaze,tte notification and Ex.B2 notice was never disputed whereby Sy.No.O2 was excluded lrom surplus land and Exs.A16 and Ai7 were not disputed whereby ttle conclusive proof of title of the predecessors of the appellant was confirmed by the respondents. In the circumstances the appea-l is to be allowed and the decree for perpetual injunction as sought for is allowed.

16. In the result, the present appeal suit is allowed b1. setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by thc trial Court in O.S.No.212 of 2013, dated 05. 10.2020. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand ciosed To, SD/-K.ISRINIVASA RAO REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER 't. The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC/ST(POA) Actcum- VllAdditional District Judge at L. B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District 2 One CC to SRI SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI, Advocate [OPUCI 3. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies ADK/PSI- \q HIGH COURT DATED:2010Y2,425 JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.188 of 2024 I ht1 I,4S o( o o -i 24 [Pn z.ffi ($ r' -> ( -f .r t .'/ 2 DRAFTS ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS ,-6"1t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT NO: 188 OF 2024 Between: M/s. K.M.R.Estates and Builders Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under Companies Act, having its Office at Plot No. 32, Park View Enclave, Manovikas Nagdr. Bowenpally, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Managing_ Director. Sri K. Madhaval Reddy, S/o. Sri K. Gal Reddy, aged about 75 years, Occ. Business. ...Appella nUPlaintiff AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildhar, Serilingampally Mandal, Serilirigampally, Ranga Reddy District. 2 3 4 Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, Office at Chandra Vihar, Mojamzahi Market Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Attapur Road, Ranga Reddy District. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy Diskict, at Kongarkalan, Ranga Reddy District. ...ResPondents/ResPondents Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and D-ecree_Dated 05-10-2020 made in O.S.No,2'12 ot 2013 on the file of the Court of the Special sessions Judge for Trial of cases Under sc/sT(PoA) Aclcum-Vll Additional District Judge at L. B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, Advocate for the Appellant and of GP foTAPPEALS Advocate for the Respondents. --7 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: l.ThattheAppealsuitbeandherebyisallowedbysettingasidetheJudgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O S No 212 of 20.13' dated 05.10.2020.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/.FI SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' S,ECTION OFFICER To, ,l.TheSpecialsessionsJudgeforTrialofCasesU-nderSC/ST(PQA)Actcum- Ul Addrtional District Judge at L. B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District (With records, if anY) 2. Two CD CoPies ADK/PSt, Vv I I 1 I .,, HIGH COURT PSS,J DATED:2010312025 DECREE AS.No.188 of 2024 ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS t\,& €,ff