The High Court · 2025

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFF 1 & 2 . I l I i i I AND

1. Gummakonda Satvip Reddy@Sativik Reddy, S/o. G. Yadava Reddy, Aged 18 years,R/o. H. No. 3-1-35i1, Hyderguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R District. 500048. (R-'l declared as lt/lajor by discharging the guardianship of natural mother as per C.O. dated 23.01.2025 in l.A.No.2 ot 2025) 2. Gumakonda Yadava Reddy, S/o. G. Bal Reddy, Aged about. 46 years, Occ.Business, Rio. H. No. 3-1-3511 , Hyderguda village, RajendGnagar Mandal, R.R District. 500048.

3. The t\/andal Revenue Officer, Marikal Mandal, Narayanpet District - 509412. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 ...RESPONDENTS/DEFENiJANTS 1 tO 3 Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C.praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant ad-interim lnjunction restraining all the Respondents from alienating or interfering into the petition schedule property or from making any changes in favour of third party in respect of the petition schedule property in O.S 14 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Honourable Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet pending disposal of the above appeal. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: Gummakonda Siatvip Reddy@Sativik Reddy, S/o. G. Yadava ReJdy, Aged 18 years,R/o. H_ No 3-1-lll/1 , Hyderguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal R.R District. ... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFttNDANT No.1 Late. Gun rnakcrrda Bal Reddy, S/o. Late Sathi Reddy, Gummakoncla (lhandrashekar Reddy, S/o. Gummakonda Bal Reddy, Aged about. 44 years;, Occ.Business, R/o. H. No. 3-1-35, Hyderguda village, Rajendranagar Vlandal, R.R District - 500048 .. ...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/PL,qlNTIFF 1 &2 AND 1 I AND

1. Gumakondzt Ya,Java Reddy, S/o. Gummakonda Bal Reddy, Aged about. 52 years, Occ.Eusiress, R/o. H No. 3-1-35/'1 , Hyderguda village, Rajendranagar lVlandal, R tl Dis,trict 500048.

2. The Manda Revenue Officer, Marikal Mandal, Narayanpet Distr ct - SOg412. ...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT No. 2 and 3 Petition urrrler rlection '151 cPC praying that in the circums,.ances stated in the affidavit file,d in r;upport of the petition, the High Court may ire pleased to vacate lhe interim orcler passed by this Honorable court in lA No 3 of 2024 in CI\/A No 309 of i!O:?-4 <i;rted 'l 1-09-2024. Counsel for the Appell;rnt: SRt MANDHATA SLK SRUTHA KEERTHI Counsel for the Resporrdent Nos.1 & 2: SRI BOYENI SRINIVAS Counsel for the Resporrdent No.3: G.p. FOR ARBITRATION The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR. AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CMA No.309 of 2024 JUDGMENT:fper Honble Sri lustice r.Vinod Kumar) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dt.31.10.2023 passed in 1.A.No.277 of 2023 in O.S.No.14 of 2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanapet

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the above said suit filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction.

3. The 1d appellant herein would contend that the subject property was purchased in the name of the 1't respondent herein being minor was represented by the 1't appellant, from and out of the monies of the 2nd appellant, and as such, the 1't appellant herein had made sale of the subject property in favour of the 2nd appellant under registered document dt.22.09.2017, and thus, the said sale made by the 1't appellant in favour of the 2nd appellant is a valid transaction.

4. The appellants further contend that the Court below without taking note of the aforesaid fact had dismissed the underlying interlocutory application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC restraining the respondents from disturbing the peaceful possession of the 2nd appellant, who is in possession of the subject property by virtue i. 2 of the sale leed executed in the year 2017, without any right or manner

5. f'e,r ctntra, learned counsel appearing on beha f of the responderrts rvould submit that the 1st respondent had attainod the age of majority rrnd is also assailing the action of the 1.r appellant in executinq a sale deed in favour of the 2nd appellant b1, initiating appropr ate p Oceedings.

6. Ll3rnel counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would further r:ontertrl that since the subject property was purchas,:d for the benefit rtf th€ minor child during the year 2008, the subjecl: propety could n, t have been sold by the 1't appellant, in favour of the 2nd apperllant, arithout obtaining valid permission from the .:oncerned Cout a rd tl-rus, the purported transaction of sale madr: by the 1't appe lart ir favour of the 2nd appellant, on the basis of lrhich, the 2nd apperllant ij claiming to be in possession, cannot be h:ld to be valid.

7. We have taken note of the respective contentions urge(1. B. A prcru:;;rl of the sale deed bearing document Nos.B25 and 826 of 2008 vv,lul(l show that the subject property was purchas:d in the name oF rhe I't respondent herein from Hyderabad Biodiesr:l private Limited,,end srnce, the 1st respondent was minor at the relevant point t -- I 3 of time and was incapacitated to enter into contract, was represented by the lst appellant herein. Thus, the subiect property stands in the name of the 1d respondent represented by guardian/grandfather/ 1't appellant.

9. Since, the subject property stands in the name of the minor, the said property could not have been sold by the 1$ appellant in favour of the 2nd appellant, without obtaining any valid permission or sanction by approaching the appropriate Coutt under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, whereby necessary orders could have been passed protecting the interest oF the minor (see Saroj v,/s. Sunder Singtf).

10. Since, the sale made by the 1'r appellant in favour of the 2nd appellant on 22.09.2077 of the subject property, standing in the name of the minor, without having obtained permission From the Couft concerned, the claim of the 2nd appellant of being in possession, cannot be held to be a valid possession. Thus, the order of the Coutt below in refusing to grant injunction in favour of the appellants in the considered view of this Court does not call for any intefference. ' zotz (tsl scctzt 4

11. Irr r,,iera, of the abcve, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. 12, P,lndrn,l miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand clo;ed in the light of this firral order. //TRUE COPY// Sd/-K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,.1 drcrrou oFFtcER To,

1. The Senic,r rlrvil Judge, at Narayanapet. 2.TwoCCsbG.l)forArbitration,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad[3U.I]

3. One CC t,r tvlls Mandhata SLK Srutha Keerthi' Advocate [OPU']l 4. One CC to llri t),lyeni Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD ()ooies; Plp/gh Y. HIGH COURT DATED:31 l01ltl0zs JUDGMENT CMA.No.309 of 2024 \-\e 14I€ 1 c :O -,i, ' \' iJr r:; 2975 --' ctr! ,J o .rI DISMISSING THE APPEAL *€n\g \r-.-- -6(.}$?