Miscellaneous Appeal No. 197 of 2024 · The High Court · 2025

...Respondent No.1/Pet itioner/Plaintiff

2. Ivlanilronrla \/enkat Reddy, Sio Narsimha Reddy, Aged ab:ul 55 years, Occ: Business FVo Flat NO.G3, Block No.10-8, Prajay City Aprrtrnents, Miyapur, Serilirgarn p ally lVandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana-f ;0C 049. ...Respondent No.2/Respondents No 1 /1.)efendant No.1 (Respondent No.2 is not necessary party) lA NO: 2 Olt 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circtrrst ances stated in in support of the petition, the High Court nay be pleased to the affidavi: fil€rd suspend the operation of the Order and Decree in 1.A.No.760 cI 2022 in O.S.No. 85O of 2O22t, dzied 20-12-2023 on the file of Hon'ble lX Additioral District Judge, Ranga Reddy I) -.tr ct at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Counsel for the, Appellant: Mr. Papaiah Peddakula Counsel for the, Respondent No.1: Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy The Gourt clelivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1 97 AND 206 0F 2024 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Juslice N.Tukaramji) We have heard Mr.Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2 and tvlr.Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No 1/plaintiff 2 Civil Miscelianeous Appeal No.197 of 2024 has been preferred by tne appellant/defr:rrdant No.2 assailing the order dated 20 12.202"3 in lA No 762 ot 2.022 end Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.206 a{ 20?,1 has been filed by the appellant/defendant No.2 clrallenging the order dated 2A.12.2023 in lA.No.760 of 2022

3. As these appeals are arising out of the orders passed in the impr.rgned lnterlocuiory Applications filed in O.S No.B5O of 2022, on the file of learned lX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar. seeking similar reliefs, they are heard and being adjudicated together by this common judgment \ \ 2 sK..r & Nlll l ( nra N, ! t - . rd 20(t rl 2014

4. Tne telspondent No 1 in the appeals i e Lahari lnfrastructrtrr,r Private Limited' Hyderabad' as plaintiff file'l the suit vide O S l,lc 850 of 2022 seeking permanent niunction restrairring the appellant and respondent No 2/deferrdant Nos 2 and '1 resprectively, to interfere with the Iand adnreasuring Ac.3-3ftgts,inSy.No'63/Aa,situatedatBulkapur(E'hulkapur) Village Srankarpally Mandal' Ranga Reddy Distri':t (l'ereinafter 'the s;cher.lule property'), and to declare the s 'lle deed dated .21 )1 2021executed by the 1't respondent irr fatiour of 2nd resporide:l zrs null and void and not binding'

5. Pending the suit, respondent No 1/plaintiff (here nafter 'the petitioner'r fileci lnterlocutory Application vlde lA.Nc Tt';2 of 2022 seekirrg ,i1-interim injunction restraining the aupr'lllant and ,l respectively (hereinafter resporderni No.2/defendant Nos.2 and 'the rr,lsp:rclent Nos.'1 and 2') from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful i:ossession and enjoyment of the sche(lul':) property' pending ii sposal of the suit' Likewise' in I'A'Nc 7fi0 of 2022 prayed 1'ot act-interim injunction restraining ttre appellanV respondart No.2, in particular, not to alienate or ':rear:e any third party int3rest in respect of the schedule property' / I I .***&-' l PSKJ&N'fR' Cnra Nos I97 and 206 ot 2024 6 Briefly stated the petitioner's case is that the petitioner-firm purchased the schedule property under registered sale deed on 27.12.2017 from his vendor one ttlanikonda Venkat Reddy/respondent No.1 and his children ior valuable sale consideration and on the even date the peaceful possession of the schedule property has been delivered. However, the petitioner came to knowledge that his vendor/respondent No.1 without any leftover right in the schedule property executed another registered sale deed on 20.01 .2021 in respect of the schedule property in favour of respondent No.2 by suppressing the petitioner's sale deed and from the lvlandal Revenue Office, Shakarpally, obtained pattadar pass book and title deed. Whereupon, the petitioner had taken legal recourse by filing Police Report. ln this backdrop, the respondent No.2 along with henchmen made attempts on 08.09.2021 and 18.09.2021 to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the schedule property, still and all, with great difficulty, the petitioner could secure possession. However, as apprehending further interference, preferred the suit and the interlocutory applications for grant of interim injunctions. \ \ 1 P: (.1 & I'll R.J (r la No! t.; rn 1206 ol 2024 ln enquiry. the petitioner got marked Exs A-1 lc A-22 and

7. the resp'cncietrts got marked Exs B-1 to B-5' B. U'cor lt':aring and considering the merits' the trial Court allowed botl- the interim applications and granted a7-intenm injunctir:ns as' prayed for' Aggrieved thereby the rer;pondent No.2, rnrho is vendee in the sale deed dated 2001 2021' rreferred these aPPtla t' [..ea'n,:d counsel for the respondent No 2 woirlcl contend 9. that the C;or-rrt below had erroneously grantec td-interim in1unctionr; 1lrejudicing the interests of the responderrt lrlo 2 He pleads that lhe respondent No 2 is a bona flde purr;haser for valuable salr: consideration and the scheCule pi'ope rty was duly mutated in his name' This fact is confirming his possession over the scheo r-rle ProPertY and in contrast, no mater;al has been placerl by lhe petitioner to prove any essential facl for granting interirn inlu rrctions Further asserted that the entrir:s in revenue recorrls ccupled with the statutory positive presunrplions under Telangarra Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Ar;t (for short 'the I?..C) Fl. Act), his possession over the schedute property is I ) 5 PSKJ&NI'It I Cnra Nos.l97 and 206 o1 2024 being strengthened, but the Court below disregarded these aspects in considering the petitions. Further pleaded that the schedule property is undivided joint family property, but not exclusive property of the respondent No.1, as such, he would not have right to enter into a sale deed. Additionally contended that, by the date of sale deed of the petitioner, his vendor/respondent No.1 had no precipitated right over the schedule property, particularly, over the extent referred in the sale deed, therefore, the petitioner's claim cannot be sustained. Further, the petitioner failed to explain the inaction for mutation, signifying that the petitioner's sale transaction is nominal. Hence, pleaded that the impugned orders are indefensible and prayed for intervention

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the pleadings of the respondent No.2 and asserted that the petitioner had purchased the schedule property in 2017 for consideration of more than one crore and the covenant in the sale deed is evident as to the transfer of title and possession. Mere inaction in getting the entries in the revenue record cannot over ride or discredit the title which was devolved by way of registered instrument. He further contends that after introduction of Dharani digital platform 6 f>r.t&NIl't.l Cnrx ),(rr l9- ai , l( ! ol2014 a, of Add tional registration, ther m in 2020, the l"ahsildars were given the powers Sub-Registrar s i o record registered sale deeds and on such utation would automatically be effect ad The and 2 in collusion, by suppressing the earlier respondent llos I sale deed, got registered the schedule property on '2o 012021 and without r,'erification' the revenue entries were ntat le and book was issued Therefore' the claim by the respond<;nt \cr'2 in regard to title or possession remains; tt"chnical and Paper v'/o"k Above all, the petitioner's sale deed r; e arlier in such, it would prevail against the resL:ondent point of tirrer as pattadar Par;s No.2's srrle cler:d 11 ln s-'PP'crt' Placed reliance on the authorit I fetween and anotherl and plearlerr that the Kau shik P re m ku mar Mish ra held, in between the tr rior and Hon'ble SlPreme Court has subseq,;errt sale deeds' the subsequent purchaser carnot even claim as ,tctr'a fide purchaser and the sale deed rvo rld stand invalid . F or that reason ' the respondent No 2 in tl e stance of subsecluert purchaser cannot claim any right throtrgi his sale v r 2024 SjCC Cr-[ ine SC 1756 \ ( I i I 7 PSl\..I& NTR..I Cnra Nos 197 and 206 o1 2024 r

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the schedule property is open land and the respondents being local people with influence, in all likelihood would remove the petitioner from possession as such, the Court below was justified in granting the interim injunctions restricting the respondents not only to interfere but also to alienate the schedule property. Therefore, the well reasoned orders need no interference. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials placed on record

14. ln these rival claims, the aspect arises for determination is whether the impugned orders of interim injunctions are justified in the case facts and law?

15. The pleadings are evidencing that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 had purchased the schedule property from the self-same vendor/respondent No.'l under registered sale deeds dated 27.12.2017 and 20.01 .2021 respectively. Further, both the sale deeds are reflecting the self-same extent of Ac.3-35 gts ) 8 ( rra No P JK.J & N1'II.J )l ar I 106.1 2024

16. The,::rntest of the respondent No.2 that by tre date of petitioner's saie deed, the respondent No 1 had nc t tle over entire sche<ji-rlo property would equally effect the foundatir;n of his case, hcwsoe,\'er, this aspect requires deliberation in t-ia At the present stage r, the entries in the sale deed of the pretitirlner are demonstratin(; that the respondent No.1 and his r:hildren as absolutc o\ryrers and possessors of the schedr-rle pr:pi:rty with the pattadar p;ass book and title deed issued by the Tahs ldar had entered intr: the sale transaction. This fact is denoting favourable circumstan:e for- the petitioner. Further. the sellsan e ;:xtent of the proper11 in both the registered sale deeds is indic; ting that the responJ'.rrt No.2 is in agreement with the responle tt No''1 's title overr the property. That apart, even if the cor,te rtions of responclen l',1o.2 that the schedule property is uncivi ied joint family propr:1y. as such, the respondent No 1 wouiC -'ot have right to ente' into a sale deed for specific extent is; :o'rsidered, Section 44:t'lhe Transfer of Property Act, 1B82 allc'r"s ;o-owner to transfer r s/her share in a property to another persorl without the conse'rt cf other co-owners. However, the ri ;h:s of the transferee urould be subject to the existing rights of lhe other co-owners Thus, the transferee steps into the, trzrnsferring .l 9 PSK.J & N'fR.] Cma Nos.l97 and 206 ol-2024 co-owner and acquires the same rights including the right to joint possession. Therefore, subject to merits to be determined in the trial, preliminarily, it shall be held that the respondent No..l is legally competent to transfer his interest and th.e petitioner would acquire the same. Above all, it is pertinent to note that, in this case, this contention has raised by the subsequent purchaser but not the co-owner.

17. ln this context, the dictum of Hon,ble Supreme Court in Kaushik Premkumar Mishra's case (cited supra) is found relevant. For better appreciation, the relevant para No.35 is extracted hereunder:

35. The doctrine ot bona fide purchaser for value applies in situatrons where the seller appears to have some semblance of legitimate ownership rights. However this principle does not protect a subsequent purchaser tf the vendor had already transferred those rights through a prior sale deed. ln a case where the vendor deceitfully executes a second sale deed 26 years after the initial transFer, without dtsclosing the earlier transaction and without any ongoing ltttgation regarding the property, the subsequent purchaser cannot claim the benefits of a bona fide purchaser. Essentially, if the vendor's rights were already severed by the first sale, any later sale deed made without transparency and in bad faith is invalid. The subsequent purchaser, even if unaware of the prior sale, cannot be considered bona fide because the vendor no ldnger had the legal right to sell the property Thus, the protection afforded by the bona flde purchaser doctrrne is nullrfied by the vendor's deceitful .,99I_t.t and the pre-existing transfer of rights This ensures thal the _..:t 10 I'KJ&Nll<.1 L,ra No. l1 ar I206 o12024 original l),lic''laser's rights are upheld and prevents unjust €rn through 1r:rrldulent transactions i'hneni

18. ln the light of the above ratio and the far:ts hat the respondent Nc t had executed the registered sale deed n favour of the p,etit crtter in 2017 , prima facie' would amount to livesting histitleol'etthescheduleproperty.lnsuchposrtior.again transmillin(l tne title over the self-same property ra'ould be fallaciot-rs' F.l]rthermore, no legal position prescribes; t,]at upon purchase o{ anded property, mutation with the reven re authority is mandatl!''l and failure in getting entries in reve ru ) record' would m6rerfect the sale That being the factuai ;'rnd legal positior, tirlr -espondent No 2's claim is falling short to establish any fac;t ot ; rcumstance in his favour' -f-he otlrer material contest is about the possess on of the 19 property. ;'l e Padies are in consensus as to the 'ac t that the vacant land. lt is also rriell settled schedt.rle Pr)Perty is proposition lirat, in regard to vacant land, in the absenc'e of clear eviden ce as. to possession, the title holder shall be c ;n:';idered as in possessi,:r. ln similar circumstances, the Hon'bler A'pex Court PSK.J & NI'IT.J ( lna Nos.l97 and 206 ot 2024 in the authorily of Anathuta Sudhakar vs. p.Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs and others2, held in para No.16 as hereunder: 16 But what if the property is a vacant site, whtch is not physically possessed, used or en.joyed? ln such cases the principle is that possession follows tifle lf two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establtsh tifle thereto will be considered to be in possesston, as against the person who is not able to establish tifle. This means that even though a suit relatrng to a vacant site is for a mere injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to examine and determine the tifle as a prelude for deciding the de /ure possesslon ln such a situation, where the tile is clear and simple. the court may venture a decision on the issue of title so as to decide the question of de /ure possesston even though the surt ts for a mere injunction. But where the issue of ttfle involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law, or where court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis that ti e was at issue the court should not decide the issue of title in a sujt for injunction. The proper course is to relegate the platntiff to the remedy of a full_ fledged suit for declaratton and consequential reiiefs.

20. ln the matter on hand, the respondent No.2 is claiming possession over the schedule land basing on the entries in revenue record, i.e., mutation proceedings. Nonetheless, the aspects in the sale deeds executed by the respondent No..l are making out the validity of sale deed of the petitioner, thus, the consequential revenue entries in favour of the respondent No.2 .Qqstjlo on the subsequent sale deed pales into insignificance. (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 594 t2 l's:. & N llt.l (no)ios. ! rn( lr6oll021 21 . Abr:ve all' as the prayer in the petitions s for an arrangement tlending the suit, keeping other aspects cpen for consideraticn irl the trial, passing an ad-interim injunc:io l not to interfereVviththepossessionofthepetitioner-firrlil;found justified ;as ther comparative mischief faced by the petitionr'lr would be great,3r tharr that of respondent No'2 and refusal o.'iniunction anddis;turDarrceinthepossessionmaycertaillycause irreparable ot;s to the interests of the petitioner 'A/e are' thereforr::, oi tl',e considered view that the trial Court had rightiy appreciatecl 1re facts and circumstances of the case a trc granteci ad-inte r,i nt i n jir rction against the respondents'

22. Furthel . by the aforesaid reasoning as the sz'ile deed claimed b) lre respondent No 2 is under cloud and th'rugh the doctrine o! i': penclens would operate against the tra.tsactions made by tltr: parties to the proceedings, consiciering tlre apparent position of t;tle of the respondent No 2, restraining h'm to create third partY irterest, which may result into creation ol' ttnr'varranted third parrty ittierests and multiplicity of litigation' is frluttd proper andjustifietlHence,grantingad-interiminjunctionrrottrlalienate the sclreduk: property by the trial court is found equally.'ustiYirett l3 PSR..r & Nl tr_.r C)na Nos 197 and 206 ot 2024

23. ln view of the above, we find no merit in the appeals against the impugned orders. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are liable to be dismissed.

24. In the result, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos..lg7 and 206 of 2024 are dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stands closed. sD^j3?^flx[t?+[tR //TRUE COPY// ?t- SECTIdN OFFICER

1. The IX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 2. One CC Mr. Papaiah Peddakula, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies To, kam/DL i I I HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 COMMON JUDGMENT CMA.Nos.197 and 206 of 2024 \ tlE :)l At6 e e 3 21 t,riy 2025 z oI * cO llr:.Sr).!;Ct\ -E=-=: DISMSSING THE CIVIL MlSCELLANEOUS APPEAL 7 lf4 5 )