The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 1 51 c pc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiition, ih" nign court may o" p[".J t" 1s09n! the Pretiminary Decree passed in o.s.No21o/2ooa on tneiir" "i tn" court of the il Additionar District Judge, Ranga ceJJy District IANO:1O F 2024 i.B. N;;;' ' "t Between: Govt., Servant. Reddy R.R.District. t Ugttq Baga Reddy, S/9._ !1te M Bat Reddy, Aged about 45 years. Occ privare service. Rro. 4-z-17t, rauiJor'vir;6;,'t,n"rxiili,i'rr,iJ,.,d;L i#;; 2. Mettu Sathi Redv, S/o. Late M. Narsa Redy, Age aboutT2years, Occ Ret., 3. M.S. Krishna Reddv S/o.Meltu Sathi Reddy, Age about 45 vears. Occ Agricurture. (RR 2 aha 3 ;J d;. ;:i_'95,'id",,ioi"virrrg", Miikrffii"ra#;i Ranga Reddy District) Reddv, s/o Late M Narasa Reddv, ased about 60 years, occ Reddv' S/o Mettu sathi Reddv, ( aged about 42 years, occ ' x;rt[1*-"r]3:ma u xr?lJr,/r?f,,an (RR4and5are R.R.District.) R/o. 4-2-99, Kaukoor Village, Malkajgiri Mandal,

6. Mettu.Venkat Reddy, S/o. Late M.Ram Reddy, aged about 67 years, Occ , Agriculture 7. Mettu.Ram Redy, S/o. Mettu Venkat Reddy, aged about 44 years, Occ Agriculture.

8. Mettu Narender Reddy, S/o. Mettu Venkat Reddy, ( aged about 3g years, Occ Agriculture.

9. Mettu .Pratap Reddy, S/o. Late M.Ram Reddy, aged about 65 years, Occ Agriculture

10.Mettu Seetha Ram Reddy, S/o. Mettu pratap Reddy, aged about 28 years, (RR 9 and 10 are R/o. 4-2-81, Kaukoor Village, Malkajgiri Mandal R.R.District)

11.Mettu Narayana Reddy, S/o. Late M.Ram Reddy, aged about 62 years, Occ Agriculture.

12.Meftu Sunanda, D/o. Mettu Narayana Reddy, aged about 3g years, Occ House Hold.

13.Mettu Sudha, D/o. Mettu Narayana Reddy, aged about 36 years, 14.Mettu Swapna, D/o. Mettu Narayana Reddy, aged about 34 years, (RR 1 1 to 14 are Rlo. 4-1-32, Kaukoor Village, Malkajgiri Ma R.R.District.) AND APPELLANTS

1. Mohd. Shakir Masood Ali, S/o. Late Mohd. Masood Ali, Aged 65 years, R/o. H-No.17-1-21 1, Saidabad, Hyderabad

2. Hamid Masood Ali, S/otate Mohd. Masood Ali, Aged 72years, R/o.S1, Gains Brough Road, Finchlay, London, United Kingdom. RESPONDENTS 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 dt. 04-04-2022 in lA No. 3 of 2022 in AS No. 9 ol 2O22. Counsel for the Appellants : SRI E. MADAN MOHAN RAO, SR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GADDAM SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents : SRI P VENUGOPAL, SR COUNSEL FOR SRI ENUGALA PRAMOD REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI - AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY A.S.No.9 of 2022 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Jusrice Vakiti Ramalcrishna Reddy) This Appeal Suit is preferred by the appellants/third parties assailing the Preliminary Decree dated 05.02.2009 passed in O.S. No.2l0 of 2008 by the Court of leamed II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby the suit filed by the respondent No.l/plaintiff against respondenr No.2/defendant seeking partition and separate possession in respect of vast extent of land admeasuring Ac. 138.39 guntas comprising of various survey numbers, was decreed in favour of respondent No. l/plaintiff by granting a preliminary decree to an extent of 3/4'h share and whereas remaining l/4th share in favour ofrespondent No.2/defendant. 2' The appellants herein who are the third parties to the said suit vide O.S.No.2l0 of 2008, have preferred the present appeal to protect their interest in respect of the lands claimed by them i.e., Ac.10.07 guntas in Sy.No. 186, Ac. 15.03 guntas in Sy.No.23g, Ac.4.O2 gunras in Sy.No.239, Ac.3.27 guntas in Sy.No.24l, Ac.2.}2guntas in Sy.No.242, 4c.0.24 guntas in Sy.No.243 and Ac.2.l5 guntas in Sy.No.24g, situated -2- AKs,J & VRKR,J AS_g of uoD at Kowkoor village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District "total land admeasuring Ac.38.00 guntas, out of Ac.138.39 guntas.

3. This court vide orders dated 04.04.2022, allowed the following applications in A.S.No.9 of 2022; i) vide I.A.No.1 of 2022, granted leave to challenge the preliminary decree dated 05.02.2009 passed in o.s.No.2l0 of 2008, ii) vide I.A.No.4 of 2022, condoned the delay of 3645 days in filing the appeal ; iii) vide I.A.No.3 of 2022, granted interim suspension of preliminary decree dated 05.02.2009.

4. Heard Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Enugala Pramod Reddy appearing for the respondents. I. BRIEF FACTS:

5. The respondent No.l/plaintiff had filed a suit vide o.S.No.2l0 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, seeking partition and separate possession {,4 -3- AKS,J & VRKR,J A5_9 of zouu in respect of vast extent of agricultural lands total admeasuring Ac.138.39 guntas (hereinafter referred to as 'the entire suit schedule property') situated at Kowkoor Village, R.R. District comprising of various survey numbers and extents as detailed hereunder: Sl.No. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 r0 1t t2 13 t4 l5 t6 T7 18 r9 20 2t 22 z) 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 25 39 40 46 72 73 74 75 76 93 94 97 98 184 186 t94 222 225 226 227 228 230 238 239 241 242 243 248 254 26r Sy.No. Extent (Ac-- guntas) t.32 0.22 3.29 17.06 01.34 03.02 00.19 00.33 00.1 8 00. I I 20.3 I 18.22 01.34 0s.06 10.07 02.1 8 03.1 0 00.28 05.37 00.14 0t.32 00.23 15.03 04.02 03.27 02.02 00.24 02.15 03.37 04.10 {-'-' -' -.t- AKs,J & VRKR,J A5_9 of 2022 3l 268 Total

01.11 r38.39

6. The case of the respondent No.l/plaintiff is that he is one of the legal heirs of late Mohammed Amjad Ali @ Meer Amjad Ali s/o. Mohammed Hussain, who was the owner of the entire suit schedule propeffy among other lands. The said late Mohammed Amjad Ali @ Meer Amjad Ali as pattadar of the land also filed declarations as required under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceilings on Agricultural Holdings) Act,' 1973 in respect of the properties held by him and a detailed order was passed in C.C.No.408lU/75, dated 21.07.1977 by the Land Reforms Tribunal. Late Mohammed Amjad Ali had two brothers by name, late Mohammed Masood Ali and Mohammed Taher Ali, who also died and that the respondent Nos. t and 2 hail from the branch of late Mohammed Masood Ali. The children of late Mohammed Taher Ali namely, Mohammed Hussain Taher and Taherunnissa Naaz, who are the residents of London, had executed an oral Hiba dated

01.02.1990, coupled with a Memorandum of Settlement dated

22.12.2A07, confirming the rights given under the said oral Hiba in favour of respondent No.l/plaintiff in respect of the undivided share of the property of Mohammed Taher Ali. Thus, the respondent No.l/plaintiff claimed 3l4th share in the entire suit schedule property \\_ \ 7 "| -5- AKS,J & VRKR,J AS_9 of zozz left behind by his uncle late Mohammed Amjad Ali and whereas the ' respondent No.2/defendant, who is the other brother of the respondent No.l, is entitled for the remaining25Yo of the undivided share in the suit schedule property. However, when the respondent No.2/defendant, evaded or avoided to come forward for execution of a partition deed to settle the property, the respondent No.l/plaintiff, was constrained to file the suit vide O.S.No.2l0l2008 seeking parrition and separate possession by granting 3/4th share in his favour and l/4th share in favour of respondent No. 2/defendant.

7. The T'rial Court vide its judgment and decree dared 05.02.2009 passed a preliminary decree declaring that the respondent No.l/plaintiff is entitled for 3/4th share and respondent No.2/defendant therein is entitled for 1/4th share basing on the admission made by the respondent No.2/defendant in his written statement. II. THE PRESENT APPEAL

8. The present appeal is preferred by the appellants, who are the third parties to the suit, and it is the case of the appellants that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.l to 3 in O.S.No.19512005 belong to the same family and that Mettu Bagi Reddy, S/o. Mettu Narayan Reddy, -5- AKS,J & VRKR,J A5_9 of zouz was the common ancestor of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.l to 3 ' therein. After the demise of the said Mettu Bagi Reddy, his sons and legal heirs i.e., plaintiffs and defendant Nos.l ro 3 in o.S.No. t9512005, are continuing in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring i.e., Ac.10.07 guntas in Sy.No.l86, Ac.15.03 guntas in Sy.No.Z3B, 4c.4.02 guntas in Sy.No.239, Ac.3.27 guntas in Sy.No.24l, Ac.2.02 guntas in Sy.No.242, Ac.0.24 guntas in Sy.No.243 and, Ac.Z.15 guntas in Sy.No.248 situated at Kowkoor village, Matkajgiri Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District total land admeasuring Ac.38.00 guntas (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject lands of the Appeal), out of entire suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.138.39 guntas.

9. The appellants have stated that out of the said total extent of Ac.38.00 guntas, 38 (E) ownership certificate was issued in their favour in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.4.l2 guntas in respect of Sy.Nos.239, Ac.3.08 guntas in Sy.No.24r and while they also claimed adverse possession in respect of the lands covered in Sy.No.186, 238, 242,243 and248.

10. It is further stated that defendant Nos.l to 3 in the said suit in o.S.No.19512005, refused to partition the suit schedule properties 7 1 AKS,J & VRKR,J AS_9 of 2o22 therein. That apart, the defendant No.4 therein namely, Khaja Safiullah ' claimed that he is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of an exparte ludgment and decree passed in O.S.No. I 3 3 I of 2004 by the Court of leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and that the appellants herein came to know about the same through paper publication. Further, the defendant No.4 in O.S.No.19512005, alleged that he had purchased the suit schedule property therein through an unregistered sale deed dated 12.09.1964 frorn the defendant No.5 therein. The defendant No.4 in O.S.No.145i2005 filed a suit in O.S.No.l33 I of 2004 against the original pattadar namely Nawab Mir Amjad Ali and that he had obtained exparte decree in respect ofthe suit schedule properties therein vide judgment and decree dated22.ll.2004. In such, peculiar circumstances, the appellants herein were constrained to file the said suit vide O.S.No.l95 of 2005 for the following reliefs: i) To declare the Judgment and Decree dated 22.11.2004 in O.S.No.l33l of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge (East and North), Ranga Reddy District, as null and void and not binding on the appellants herein/plainti ffs therein. '[o declare that the appellants herein/plaintiffs therein 2) are the owners of the suit schedule property, by way of adverse possession. -t- AKs,J & VRKR,J AS_9 of:ozz I 3) Foi partition of the suit schedule properties among the appellants and respondent Nos.6 to 24 herein. 4) And consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.4/respondent No.4 herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properly consisting of Ac.10.07 guntas in Sy.No.186, Ac.15.03 guntas in Sy-No.238, Ac-4.02 guntas in Sy.No.239, Ac.3.27 guntas in Sy.No.Z4l, Ac-2-02 guntas in Sy.No.242, Ac.O.24 guntas in Sy.No-243, Ac.2-15 guntas in Sy.No.248. I l. It is further stated that the appellants with defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.l95 of 2OO5 filed suit in O.S.No.528 of 2007 to declare the exparte judgment and decree dated 22.11.2004 in O.S.No-1331 of 2004 on the file of the leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge (East and North), Ranga Reddy District as null and void and also sought injunction against the defendant No.4 therein. The learned District court clubbed both the said suits and passed a common judgment and decree while partly granting the relief of injunction restraining the defendant No-4 therein in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos'l to 3 in O.S.No.l95 of 2005. Further, the learned District Court also declared that the judgment and decree dated 22-ll-2004 in O'S'No'1331 of 7 1 -9- AKS,J & VRKR,J AS_9 of 2022 2004, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs therein who are ' the appellants herein. Further, it was also declared that the appellantS herein are the owners of the suit survey number 239 admeasuring 4c.4.02 guntas and Sy.No.241 admeasuring Ac.3-27 guntas and accordingly declared the share of the parties, however, it is stated by the appellants/plaintiffs that the leamed District Courr erred in rejecting their claim in O.S.No.l9512005, seeking declaratioh of title in respect of survey numbers 186,238, 242,243 and 248 on the basis of adverse possession and that the appellants are not entitled for partition of the suit survey numbers. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants herein preferred a first appeal vide A.S.No 22612019, which is pending on the file of this court. It is also stated that the during the pendency o1'the O.S.No.l95/2005, the respondent No.l, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2l012008 filed an application ro get himself impleaded as a party defendanr in the said suit in O.S.No.l95/2005 claiming that he is the owner,of the suit schedule property. However, the said application was dismissed by the learned District Coun. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.l herein filed CRp No.5236l2009 before this Court, but the same was diSmissed by order dated 24.10.201 l. Challenging the said orders dated 24.10.201I passed -t0- AKS,J & VRKR,J A5_9 of zozz in CRP No.523612009, the respondent No.l herein filed a civil appeal No.12l3 of 2015 before the Honourable Supreme Court and the said civil appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2017. Thus, it is specifically stated by the appellants that the respondent Nos. L and 2 cannot claim any rights or title over the suit schedule property covered by O.S.No.19512005.

12. It is also stated by the appellants that during the pendency of the proceedings in CRP No.523612009 before this Court, the Respondent No.l stated that he had filed a suit vide O.S.No.210/2008 seeking panition and separate possession in respect of the entire suit schedule property and the same was pending. On enquiry, the appellants came to know that the respondent No.1, had obtained a preliminary decree in O.S.No.2l0l2008 in respect of the suit schedule properties covered by O.S.No.19512005. That apart, the appellants also came to know that respondent No.l/plaintiffalso filed a suit for declaration to declare him and others as legal heirs of Mohammed Amjad Ali vide O.S.No. lll2}ll but the trial Court dismissed the said suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2011. It is further stated by the appellants that though they were proper and necessary parties, they were not impleaded by the respondent No.l in O.s.No.2l0l2008. 1 -l t- AKS,J & VRKR,J AS_9 of 2022 Therefore, the said preliminary decree dated 05.o2.2oog in o.s.No.2l0l2008 is null and void. However, on knowing that the respondent No.l is proceeding further in o.S.No.2lol2oog, the appellants were constrained to approach this Court by filing the present appeal. III. S IONS OF THE PARTTES: a) Submissions on behalf of the Apoella nts:

13. Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that respondent No.l had filed a suit in o.S.No.2lO of 2008, seeking partition and separare possession by granting 3/4th share in respect of the entire suit schedule property. The respondent No.l claimed that he is the sole legal heir of one Sri Mir Amjad Ali @ Mohd. Amjad Ali. The said suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed on 05.02.2009 based on the admission made by the respondent No.2/defendant therein. However, the subject land to an exrent of Ac.38.00 guntas in the said suit, actually belongs to the appellants. Despite this, respondent No.l obtained a preliminary decree in o.S.No.2l0 of 2008 by claiming to be the sole legal heirof the said Mir Amjad Ali. subsequently, respondent No.l had filed -t2- AKS,J & VRKR,J A5_9 of zozz another suit i.e., O.S.No.1l of 2011, seeking a declaration that he is a legal heir of Mir Amjad Ali @ Mohd. Amjad Ali, wherein, he had impleaded other defendants therein. However, the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2011. The trial Court gave categorical finding in the said suit in O.S.No.lll20l I that respondent No.l is not a legal heir of Mir Amjad ALi @ Mohd. Amjad Ali and accordingly, the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated

28.10.20r1.

14. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants had further contended that since respondent No.l was not declared as legal heir of Mir Amjad Ali @ Mohd. Amjad Ali, the question of granting the preliminary decree in O.S.No.2l0 of 2008, would not arise. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the appellants have filed O.S.No.195 of.2005 in respect of a part of the land admeasuring Ac.38.00 guntas out of the entire suit schedule property, in which, the respondent No.l herein attempted to get impleaded by filing I.A.No.502l of 2008 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order, dated 15.10.2009. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his . implead application, respondent No.l had preferred a revision before this Court by filing C.R.P.No.5235 of 2009 and the same was 7' 'r -t3- AKS,J & VRKR,J AS_9 of 2022 dismissed vide order, dated 24.10.2011. Thereafter, respondent No.l had carried the matter to the Honourable Supreme Court by filing civil Appeal No. 1213 of 2015 and the same was dismisseri vide order, dated

11.07.2017 . l5' when respondent No.l herein was unsuccessfur to get impleaded in the suit preferred by the appellants i.e., O.S.No.l95 of 2005, the question of passing a preliminary decree in favour ol respondent No.1 herein in O.S.No.2l0 of 200g would not arise. Therefbre, respondent No. I herein has no locus to seek preliminary decree in O.S.No.l I of 201 l. The trial court erred in passing the preriminary decree in respect of the suit schedule property solely based on the admissions made by the sole defendant in O.S.No.2l0 of 200g, that too. without proper adjudication, especially in the light of the finding in O.S.No.ll of 2011, dated 28.10.2011, wherein, the trial Court held that respondent No.l is not the legal heir of Mir Amjad Ali @ Mohd. Arnjad Ali. Therefore, preliminary decree in o.S.No.2r0 of 200g, dated 2g.r0.200g is a collusive decree ahd the same is liable to be set aside.

16. Leamed Senior counser for the appellants had further contended that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellants were also successtul in obtaining a Certificate"ifrfer 38 (6) of rhe A.p. (T.A.) t -14- AKS,J & VRKR,J AS_9 of zozz f'. Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act') vide File No.rl333l202l, dated 21.04.2022. Therefore, the order dated

05.02.2009 passed in o.S.No.2l0 of 2008 by the trial Courr is liable to be set aside and the appeal may be allowed. b)

17. on the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 herein had contended that respondent No.l is a legal heir of Mir Amja Ali @ Mohd. Amjad Ali and the trial court had rightly passed a preliminary decree in favour of respondent No.l herein and granted 3/4'h share in the suit schedule property. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that respondent No.l herein had intended to withdraw o.S. No. t I of 20ll and the trial Court had recorded such an intention. However, the trial Court erroneously proceeded to decide the case on merits and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2011. It was argued that the said judgment and decree has no binding effect and that the respondent No.l herein intends to challenge it by filing an appeal against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.l1 of 2011, dated 28.10.2011. - t5- AKs,J & VRKR,J AS_9 of 2022 ry. ANALYSIS:

18. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that respondent No.l had filed a suit i.e., O.S.No.2l0 of 2008 seeking partition and the trial Court was pleased to pass a preliminary decree with a four line order that too on the admission made by the defendant therein without framing any issues and without any adjudication on merits. The Fundamental Lesal Failure to Frame Issues Infirmitv ln O.S.No.2l0 of 2008:

19. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition in favour of respondent No.l granting him a 3/4th share. Crucially, this Suit was decided ex parte and without framing any issues. The judgment records: "No issues arose. Heard both Advocates. Since defendant requested for passing of decree as pra)ted in his written statement, found that plaintiff is entitled for passing of Preliminary decree.,,

20. The Civil Procedure Code, specifically, Order XIV Rule l, mandates that a Court must, after considering the pleadings and the documents, frame and record the specific issues of fact and law that arise for its determination. - 16- AKS,J & VRKR,J A5_9 of 2022 6 2L. This is not a mere technicality. Framing issues is the backbone of a fair trial. It serves critical purposes including guiding the Court in rendering a reasoned judgment based on each issue.

22. The judgment and decree are patently illegal and unsustainable. The trial Court, own records admits that "no issues arose". This is a gross and fatal procedural error. The entire proceeding is thus vitiated. The decree, being a product of this fundamentally flawed process cannot be allowed to stand.

23. What is interesting to know is that after securing the preliminary decree in O.S.No.2l0 of 2008 dated 05.02.2009, respondent No.1 had filed another suit i.e., O.S.No.1 I of 2011, seeking a declaration that he is the legal heir of Mir Amja Ali @ Mohd. Amjad Ali. However, the said suit was dismissed vide judgment, dated 28.10.2011, wherein a categorical finding was recorded that respondent No.l is not a legal heir of Mir Amja Ali @ Mohd. Amjad Ali. The operative portion of the judgment, dated 2B.lO.2Oll passed in O.S.No.ll of 2011 reads as under:- "The plaintif did not even choose to clarify as to who is the defendant No.4. The plaintiff, having pleaded that the defendant No.4 disputed ihetr legal heirship of late Mohd. Amiad Ali, did not Jile any document to that effect. It appears that only to bring the suit within the purview of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, the defendant -17- AKS,J & VRKR,J AS_9 of 2022 No.4 is made as a party to the suit, since Section 34 of the Act envisages that "any person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property may tnstitute a sutt against dny person, denying or interested to deny his title tc such character or right, and the court moy, in its discretion, make therein a declctration that he is so entitled." "Provided that no court shall mal<e any ,such decraration where the plainttff being able to seek further relieJ' than a mere declaration of title omtts to do so". The plaintiff has also not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to prove that himself and the defendants r to 3 are the only legal heirs of late Amjad Ali. In view of the above lapses and in the absence of adducing convincing oral or any documentary evidence in support of their clatm and in the absence of seeking any ancillary relief, the plaintiff is not entttled for the relief sought by him. In this regard, this Court found it relevant to cite judgment of the Hon,ble Court of A.P. reported in 2009 (0 ALf 221 between Hanya Naik v. M. Krishna Reddy and others. In the above judgment, the Hon,ble Htgh court of A.P., held that in a declaratory suit. ro declare the plaintffi that they ore the surviving legal heirs of deceosed persons, without claiming an ancillary relief, without impleuding anybody as defendants, relief of declaration cannot be granted, if praintiff being in a position to claim ancillary relieffoils to prayfor it. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiffis not entitledfor the relief claimetr by him. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No co.rts. ,,

24. The order passed in o.s.No.ll of 2orl, dated 28.rc.20H had become final and the said findings are binding on respondent No.l herein. As long as the order passed in o.s.No.l I of 2011, dated

28.10.2011 is staring at respondent No.l, the findings recorded by the trial Court in O.S.No.2l0 of 2008 are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. Although the preliminary decree in o.S.No.2l0 of 200g was passed earlier, that alone does not validate it, particularly, in the light of subsequent developments. Further, respondent No. t sought to get eJ I : i I -tE- AKS,J & VRKR,J A5_9 of zozz {s impleaded in a suit filed by the appellants, i.e., in O.S.No.l95 of 2005, by filing an application for impleadment, i.e., I.A.No.502l of 2008 and the said I.A was dismissed by the trial Court vide order, dated

15.10.2009. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.l preferred Civil Revision Petition i.e., C.R.P.No.5236 of 2009, which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 24.10.201L. Thereafter, respondent No.l had carried out the matter to the Honourable Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No.1213 of 2015 and the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the said appeal vide judgment dated 11.07.2017, which wouid mean that respondent No.l has no locus standi to claim any right or interest in the suit schedule property. Admittedly, during the pendency of the present appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer Malkajgiri Division after following the procedure as contemplated under the Telangana (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and Rules made thereunder, has granted certificate in favour of the appellants vide proceedings No.L/33312021, dated 19.04.2022 declaring the appellants as protected tenants in respect of the subject property and issued PT certificate under Section 38 (6) of the AcL - V. RESULT: -19- AKS,J & VRKR,J AS_9 of2o22

25. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The preliminary decree, dated 05.02.2009 passed in O.S.No.2l0 of 2008 by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar is set aside to the extent of total land admeasuring Ac.38.00 guntas i.e., Ac.10.07 guntas in Sy.No.l86, Ac.15.03 guntas in Sy.No.238, Ac.4.O2 guntas in Sy.No.239, Ac.3.27 guntas in Sy.No.24l, Ac.2.02 guntas in Sy.No.242, 4c.0.24 guntas in Sy.No.243 and Ac.2. l5 guntas in Sy.No.248 situated at Kowkoor Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. K SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR c SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, w 'l . The ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B. Nagar 2 One CC to SRl. GADDAM SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to SRl. PORIKA ABINANDANA MALA Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Enugula Pramod Reddy, Advocate. ftpucj 5 Two CD Copies n "r._Q:".fifl .r-a-' i! '* sP'w t? \ .l\ \ HIGH COURT DATED i0711012025 JUDGMENT AS.No.9 ot 2022 ilE: S \ 2 t il0lJ ilr <) k -k ALLOWING THE APPEAL k N IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAO TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY APPEAL SUIT NO: 9 oF 2022 Between: t. Ugttq Baga.Reddy, S/9.-L4e. lr4. Bat Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ Private Service, Rto. 4-2-171, Kaukoor Villale, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy R.R.District

2. lett.u Sathi Redy, S/o. Late M. Narsa Redy, Age aboutT2 years, Occ Ret., Redy, S/o.Mettu Sathi Reddy, Age about 45 years, Occ Govt., Servant. 3. M.S. Krishna Agriculture. ($R |.gnd 3 are Rl/o. 4-'l-95, Kaukoor Viilage, Malkajgiri Manal, Ranga Reddy Dishict) Agriculture.

4. Meftu Pharma Reddy, S/o. Late M.Narasa Reddy, aged about 60 years, Occ 5. Mettu .Jeevan Redy, S/o.Mettu Sathi Reddy, ( aged about 42 years, Occ Agriculture (RR4and5are R.R.District.) R/o. 4-2-99, Kaukoor Village, Malkajgiri Mand a

6. Mettu Venkat Reddy, S/o Agriculture Late M.Ram Reddy, aged about 67 years, Occ

7. Mettu.Ram Redy, S/o. Mettu Venkat Reddy, aged about 44 years, Occ Agriculture.

8. Mettu Narender Reddy, S/o. Mettu Venkat Reddy, ( aged about 38 years, Occ Agriculture.

9. Mettu .Pratap Reddy, S/o. Late M.Ram Reddy, aged about 65 years, Occ Agriculture

10.Mettu Seetha Ram Reddy, S/o. Mettu Pratap Reddy, aged about 28 years, (RR 9 and R.R.District) 10 are R/o. 4-2-81, Kaukoor Village, Malkajgiri Mandal

11.Mettu Narayana Reddy, S/o. Late M.Ram Reddy, aged about 62 years, Occ Agriculture.

12.Mettu Sunanda, D/o. Meftu Narayana Reddy, aged about 38 years, Occ House Hold.

13.Mettu Sudha, D/o. Mettu Narayana Reddy, aged about 36 years, '14. Mettu Swapna, D/o. Mettu Narayana Reddy, aged about 34 years, (RR 11 to 14 R.R.District.) are R/o.4-1-32, Kaukoor Village, Malkajgiri Ma

15. B. Sabitha Wo Ram Reddy D/o Mettu Sathi Reddy, aged about 46 years, R/o H.No.3-2211, Girampur, Hyderabad.

16.M. Andalu Wo Mettu Sathi Reddy, aged about 70 years, R/o 4-1-95, Kaukoor Village, Malgajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (now mechal-Malkajgiri District) AND APPELLANTS/3'd Parties

1. Mohd. Shakir Masood Ali, S/o. Late Mohd. Masood Ali, Aged 65 years, R/o. H-No. l7-1-21 1, Saidabad, Hyderabad

2. Hamid Masood Ali, S/olate Mohd. Masood Ali, Aged 72 years, R/o.51, Gains Brough Road, Finchlay, London, United Kingdom. RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Preliminary Decree passed in O.S.No.210 of 2008, dated 5.2.2009, on the file of the Court of the ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. ORDER: 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 Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E. Madan lt/ohan Rao, Senior Counsel representing Sri Gaddam Srinivas, Advocate for the appellants and of Sri P. Venugopal, Senior Counsel representing Sri Enugala Pramod Reddy for the respondents. That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows 1 . That this appeal is be and hereby allowed. 2. The preliminary decree, dated 05.02.2009 passed in O.S.No.210 of 2008 by the ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar is set aside to the extent of total land admeasuring Ac.38.00 guntas i.e. Ac.10.07 guntas in Sy.No.239, Ac 3.27 guntas in 7 To Sy.No.241, Ac.2.02 guntas in Sy.No.242, Ac.O.24 guntas in Sy.No.243 and Ac.2.15 guntas in Sy.No.248 situated at Kowkoor Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District.

3. Save as aforesaid, the Decree of the Lower Court is confirmed in all other aspect;

4. That there shall be no order as to costs. SD/. K SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR @ SEctroP OFF}C"EfL.

1. The ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar. 2. Two CD Copies. HIGH COURT DATED: 7 t10t2025 0 DECREE AS.No.9 of 2022 ALLOWING THE APPEAL \ ..1 ( \I \al ll ilt,l,m .,