The High Court · 2025

1. Tumu Srinivas, S/o. Late T.V.G. R. Krishna Murthy Occ. Journalist, aged about 50 years, R/o.H.No.11-1-131, Opp. SSROC CIub, Bhadrachalam Town and lvlandal- 507111, Bhadradri kothagudem District -Telangana State. 2. Kum. Tumu Ra.jyalakshmi, D/o. T.V.G.R. Krishna tvlurthy, aged about 70 years, R/o. H.No- 11-1-131,Opp.SSROC Club, Bhadrachalam Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem DistriclTelangana State.

3. Smt. Alwala Venkata Lakshmi Hemalatha, Wo.A.Srinivasa Gandhi, aged major, R/o. H.No. 1 1 -1 -1 31,Opp.SSROC Club, Bhadrachalam Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District -Telangana State. RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant ad-interim injunction restraining the above named respondents herein from medaling with/altering/alienating, in any manner, in respect of plaint schedule properties in O.li.No. 29 of 2018 on the file of the court of the Agent to Government. Bhadradri Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, pending disposal of the above Appeal. Counsel for the l ppellants : SRl. V V RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.314 OF 2023 JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is f-rled under Section 96 ol Civil Procedure Code assailing the judgment - order dated l7 .O2.2O23 passed in O.S.No.29 of 2018 by the Court of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

2. Appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendant in the suit in O.S.NO.29 of 2018.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Agent to the Government failed to see the pleadings ol the parties in right perspective while dismissing the suit. The suit is not Iiled for partition of the suit schedule property but the same is hled for declaration that the appellants - plaintiffs are entitied for a declaration in respect of the suit schedule property and the judgment - order of the learned Agent to Government is beyond the reiief claimed and erroneously granted relief to the respondents - defendants. The learned Agent to the Government has granted declaratory relief in favour of the respondents - defendants without there being arry issue framed against them and the judgment - order'passed by the learned Agent to the Government in dismissing 2/s t]RMR,J rl.S.No-3 L4 of 2023 the suit is erroneous and bad in law and pray.ed to allorx, the appeal.

4. Lcarnecl r:ounsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that thc lcarned Ailent to the Government has not taken the evidence of the parties by giving opportunity to cross-examinatir;n them so also the documents filed thereon are not marked and pr:ryed to remand the matter.

5. Appellarrts are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.29 of 2018, they filed the suit seeking cleclaration that they are the absr>lute owners of the plaint schedule properties and for perpetual injunction restraining the clefendants - respondents herein and their men and agents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment ol the suit schedule property. Plaint 'A' schedule consist of groun<l floor-, which contains two rooms, of residential house bearing No. I 1 1-131 with specific boundaries and plaint 'B' schedule consis;ts two floors of residential house beirring No. I 1 1-

6. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in suit have hle d their written statement denying the contents of the plaint. .-/ 315 BRMR,J A.S.No.3I4 of 2023 I

7. Respondent No.3 who is the defendant No.3 in the suit remained ex-parte before the learned Age nt to the Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

8. The learned Agent to the Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem has passed a judgment - order on 17 .O2.2O23 irt O.S.No.29 of 2018 basing on the affrdavits frled by the plaintiffs fappellants herein] and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 [respondent Nos. 1 and 2], which is stated in internal page No. 1 1 of the judgment - order. The judgment - order further goes to shorv that the learned Agent to the Government has framed as many as six issues to decide the iis. But the learned Agent to the Government has not recorded evidence of the parties by giving opportunity to the other side to cross examine the witnesses and put forth their contentions. The judgment - order further goes to show that the documents filed by the parties are also not marked and that the appendix of evidence and exhibits marked thereon are shown as NIL.

9. It is mentioned in the cause title of the appeal that respondent No.3 is not a necessary party in the proceedings as she remained ex-parte before the learned Agent to the Government.

10. As the suit liled by the plaintiffs are for declaration of A'and 'B' schedule properties and for perpetual injunction restraining the '-"' 4/s t]RMR,J A.S. No.314 of 2023 defendants lrespondents] from interfering with plaint A' and 'B' schedule prorerties, the evidence of the parties is to let in before the learnecl Agcnt to the Government by giving opltortunity to the courrsel ther(on to cross-examine their respectiv(: witnesses, but that cxercisc rs not done by the learned Agent to the Government. I1. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 [defendant Nos. 1 and 2 therein] submits that since there are procedural irregularities rvhile passing judgment - order by the learned Agent Io lht'Govlrnrn('nt, the suit is to be remanded.

12. As tht: jrrdgmgnl order passed by the learned Agent to the Government suflcrs lrom procedural irreg.rlarities, t he evidence of the plaintiffs :rnd defendants is not recorded and lhe documents arc also not mrrrked, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to remand the m.rtter to the learned Agent to the Gove'rnment to give opportunity to both parties i.e., plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to file the ir rrffldavit, subjected them to cross-exzrmination with regard to thc documents filed thereon. It is made clear that the suit is of the ),ear 2 f 18 and the learned Agent to the Government shall dispose of the rlatter u,ithin a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

13. [n the result, Appeal is allowed. The judgmer-rt - order passed by the learned Agent to the Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem in 1 5/s T]RMR,J A.S.No.3l,l of 2023 O.S.No.29 of 2018, dated 17.O2.2023 is sel aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Agent to the (]overnment, Bhadradri Kothagudem. The learned Agent to the Government shall dispose of the matter within a period of ninc months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Further, as per Order XLI Rule 26-A of CPC, the parties shall appear before the learned Agent to the Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem on 27-11.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order if any shall stand vacated. Misce llaneous petition/ s shall stand closed. SD/- R.KARTHIKEYAN JOINT REGISTRAR 0 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 TheAoenttoGovernment-BhadradriKothagudem,BhadradriKothagudem 2 Districi. (Wrth records if any) One CC to SRl. V V RAMA KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Advocate [OPUC] 3 4. Two CD CoPies ASIT\PSLq\ HIGH COUITT DATED:2511012025 ORDER AS.No.314 or 2023 .\ TAT b o 1! N$\ N6 t ,-)E A ALI.,0WINC I'I.I E APPEAL n L- I t. I