The High Court · 2025

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 suspend the operation of the order dated 22-12-1998 in A S No.298 of 1995. l.A. NO: 3 OF 1 999(CMP. NO: 2 1547 0F 1999) Petition under order 39 Rule 1 of cpc praying that irr the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the lligh court may be pleased to grant injunction restraining the respondents a-rd their men irom interfering with petitioners possession over the suit sclredule property by suspending the operation of the Judgment and Decree in A.S No.29g of 95 dated 22-12-1998. Counsel for the Appellants No.10 to i3: Sri D.V. Sitaramamu,thy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A. pulla Reddy Sri C. Balagopal Second Appeal No.680 of 1999 Appeal filed under section 100 of CpC aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 22-12-1998 passed in A.s.No.30s of 1995 on th.r fite of the court of the lV Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad, preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 28-08-1995 passed in o.s.No,'r-'43 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Vll Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyt:erabad. Between:

1. P Janglaiah (died), - 2. P. Nagamma, Wo. late P. Janglaiah, aged about 60 years R/o. Hyderabad, 3. P. .Satyanarayana, Sio. late p. Janglaiah, aged abo.lt 43 years, R/o 4 P. Prabhakar, S/o. late P. Janglaiah, aged about 30 years, R/o. Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

5. P. Varalakshmi, D/o. late P. Janglaiah, aged about 27 years, R/o. Hyderabad. (Appellants 2 to 5 are impleaded as LRs of the deceased sole appellant as per the order of the Honble Court in SAMP No. '10750 of 2OO2, daled 1 1 .6.2013) ...Appellants AND Andhra Pradesh Rajaka Abhivrudhi Samstha, Twin'cities Unit rep. by Proprietor of Bright Dry Cleaners, 5-2-175, R.P. Road, Secunderabad. ...Respondent l.A. NO: 2 OF 1999 CMP. NO: '15064 OF 1999 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 suspend the operation of the order daled 22-12-1998 in A.S.No.305 of 1995 on the file of lV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri D.V. Sitaramamurthy Counsel forthe Respondent: Sri A. Pulla Reddy Sri C. Balagopal The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT v .THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJI\NA SECOND APPEAL Nos.679 AND 680 OF 1S'99 COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals are filed challenging the commrrn judgment passed by the IV Additional Chief Judge, City Ci"il Court' at Hyderabad, in A.S.Nos.298 and 3O5 of 1995' The said appeals were hled challenging the common order passed in r)S'Nos'1743 of 1986 and 4970 of 1987. The second appellants herein hled OS.No.497O of 1987 and the respondent herein hled OS No'1743 of 1986, against each other, claiming injunction over the suit schedule property. In both the suits, joint trial we s conducted and evidence was recorded in OS.No'1743 of 1986 whereunder' the respondent herein, representing tlne organizzttion Andhra Pradesh Raj aka Abhivrudhi Samstha, Twin Citit s Unit' was examined as PW. 1 and two other witnesses w€ re examined through whom Exs.A1 to A5 were marked in suppo: t of plaintiffs case. On behalf of defendant, the sole defendalt vho is second appellant was examined and Ex.B 1 to Bl2 u ere marked' According to the plaintiff who represented the orgrmization' the i 2 land is being used by the washermen community for the purpose of washing clothes and that the suit land is dhobighat, and that some dhobis are staying in the said lands by constructing 18 houses. After the abolition of inams, all the inam lands were vested in the Government.

2. That the defendants hled a petition for grant of occupancy rights over the suit land before the RDO., to which the plaintiff and other hled objections. The RDO., rejected the claim of defendants in respect of land in Survey No.369 admeasuring Ac. 1.20 guntas but accepted the contention of defendants in respect of survey No.37O admeasuring Ac.O.22 guntas. The defendants hled an appeal in respect of survey No.369 before the Joint Collector, whereunder, it was observed that personal cultivation . is not necessary and inamdars are entitled for occupancy rights. The Joint Collector remanded the matter to the RDO., then a WP.No.3026 of l99O was hled challenging the order of the Joint Collector a-nd this Court set aside the said order and remanded the same holding that the matter has to be decided taking 01.11.1973 as crucial date and that he was not 3 there in the personal cultivation of the land and thrrt the land should be vested in the Government, whereas, the second appellants contention is that Lachaiah was the ori5rinal owner and there was no mention in the revenue record t hat it is a community lald ald that all the houses existing o,r the land belong to the family of second appellalts.

3. In addition, it was alleged that pW.2 and pW.3 have been residing in some other area and the second appella nts are in peaceful possession and enjolrnent of the suit land ar d that the documents fited by them would clearly show that on C 1.11.1973 the second appellants were in possession of the lanc and that even Ex.B4 says that the name of Chakali Lachaiah has been mentioned. Therefore, contended that there is no pound to grant injunction in favour of the orgalizdtion. The tr ial Court, after considering the evidence on record and also the d ocuments marked by both parties, came to conclusion that the A ssociation has no right over suit schedule property ald ttrey €re not in possession of property and that the second appellar,ts are in possession, as such, the grant of plea of organizz,tion was i 4 reJected. Aggrieved thereby, first appea.ls were filed, whereunder, after hearing both sides, the judgment or the trial court was reversed, obserying that report of Commissior rer would clearly show that the dhobighat is using as community land as noor dhobighat ald there are some water plants showing existence of water channel to the northem side and eastern side of property. There is some green land on southern side surrounded by thorny fencing, there are houses on northern side of the suit land. There are eight dhobighats and one well in between northern side houses and the southern side green yard, 12 to l5 houses are constructed in irregular mzutner ald on the same objections were raised which were trivial in nature. It was further stated that the report of the Commissioner would also show that washerman used to wash clothes at dhobighat, as such, it cannot be said that the second appellants are in exclusive possession of dhobighat. Further, the record filed by second appellants themselves would show that nature of Inam is dhobighat and the physical feature of the suit land as noted by the commissio ncr prima facie shows that in all the probabilities the land was given as inam for the washermen of the locality for I 5 the purpose of carrying on their profession. Thereby, the appeals were a-llowed setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, these second appeals are hled, v'herein, this Court framed substantial question of law s Lating that interpretation of documents setwar pahani and kasara pal-ani is involved, particularly, when the matter is sub judicz before the revenue authorities which has exclusive jurisdictic,n to decide the point involved and in that view of the matter, vhether the appellate Court has committed error on jurisdiction.

4. Heard Sri D.V. Sitaramamurthy, learned ser ior counsel appearing for second appeliants, Sri A.Pulla lteddy, and Sri C.Balagopal, learned counsel for respondents.

5. Learned senior counsel for second appellantr; submitted that the Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.799A i ; flawed for several reasons. Firstly, that the documents, such as, Pahani, and Khasra Pahikas, and Sethwaris, were misinterpreted which led to a wrong conclusion that the Scheduled Pioperty is a Community Inam, and that the entire context of the documents -4 6 ought to have been considered, rather thart re\ring on a single word or phrase. Secondly, the admissions of PWl, PW2, and. PW3 were not considered, with regard to the grass being grown in the Scheduled Property. It was averred that the said admissions would clearly establish that the appellants are doing personal cultivation, and that the same contradicts the hnding that the property is a Community Inam. Thirdly, the hnding that the Scheduled Property was being used for the benefit of Washerman Community or that it is a public Dhobighat, was wrongly held, as there is no evidence to support this conclusion, and that the appellants and their relatives are the only ones residing in the Scheduled Property and doing their caste profession.

6. Fourthly, that the lack of authorization from the alleged ]l I Samstha to file the suit was not considered, ald that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, including the State of Andhra Pradesh and t-l.e M.C.H. Lastly, that the decision under challenge is contrarJi to the probabiiities of the case and the weight of evidence. He reiterated that the 7 appellzTts have established their case through rtocumentary evidence and admissions of the witnesses. Therefor,:, he prayed this Court to allow ttre second appeals, settinrl aside the judgment ald decree under challenge.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for :espondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by leerrned senior counsel for second appellants and contended that from the year 1954 itself, the nature of the land was mentioned ar; dhobighat, which itself shows that the land was given to the dhobi communit5z and that as Chakali Lachaiah was the community elder at that point of time, his name was mentioned in the pattedar column. He lamented that there was a mer-rtion in the report of Advocate Commissioner and also the joint c tllector who visited the suit lald physically had clearly mention,:d that it is only a dhobighat which is used by dhobi commu nity for 36 years, as such, it cannot be said that Lachaiah was given lald for personal use. Therefore, while advocating that t lere a_re no illegalities or inhrmities in the impugned order, he prayed this Court to dismiss the second appeals as the same lacl. merits. 8 \

8. , Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the only point of controversy in these cases is whether the first appellate court is right in discussing the revenue records when there is /zs pending before the revenue Courts. It is seen tliat the appellate Court has discussed all the revenue records and arrived at conclusion that in all the reuenue record_s it is mentioned as dhobighaL therefore, it can be het(t that the rand. ut,.s giuen to the dtnbi communitg for the purpose of washing clothes, whereas, it is pertinent to note that there is no evidence on record to show that Chakali Lachaiah was community elder on the date of granting inam. Further, the evidence of pW.l who is alleged to be the President of the said association is not residing in the said locality and his evidence itself would show that he is residing 1O kms away from the said locality and he mentioned about three narnes stating that they complained to him, precisely, that one Sartosh, Swamy, Venkanna and two others complained to him stating that defendants threatened him to vacate the suit land immediately but those persons were not examined for proving the cause of action a,,d that in the suits 9 being hled for simplicitor injunction' the parties hav': to prove thatonthedateoflrlingofthesuit,theywereinpo:.'sessionof suit schedule property' Though PW'1 hled suit in rep::esentative capacity, no person from the said locality was examint d' Though PWs.2and3wereexamined,theywerenotresidingnthesaid locatity, even according to their admission' In view of the above discussion' this Court is of the hrm 9. view that the flrst appellate Court erred in decidir g that the associationwasinpossessionofthesuitpropertyzlndbeyond that,thefirstappellateCourtalsodecidedthatthepr.opertywas given to association and was not in the name of Lach ah' which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court deciding inju ection suit' therefore, the common judgment passed in both appt als is liable tobesetaside,confirmingthecommonjudgmentanddecree dated 28.08.1995 passed in O'S'Nos'1743 of i986 rLnd 497O of l9a7 by the trial Court' In view of the detailed discussion as made above in both the cases ald considering the record pertaining to the years 1954-55, precisely' the kas'ara pahani' which clearly shows that Lachaiah was pattedar of land and he I 10 is inamdar, it is noted that except the nature of lald as dhobighat, there is no record which shows that the land was given to community, as a whole, therefore, this Court is of the hrm view that these second appeals are liable to be allowed.

10. IN THE RESULT, Second Appeal Nos.679 & 680 of 1999 are allowed, setting aside the common judgment dated 22.12.7998 passed in A.S.Nos.298 arrd 305 of 1995 by the hrst appellate Court. There shall be no order as to costs, Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sha,lt stand closed. SD/. C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records, if any)

2. The Vll Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.(with records, if any) 3. One CC to Sri D.V. Sitaramamurthy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri A. Pulla Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri C. Balagopal, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies kam/gh \qr HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 \ q o o coMMoN JUDGMENT+DECREES(z) SA.Nos.679 and 680 of 1999 I T A-r'E o z C) 1$ lui' 1[11 l , <-r tl_ :a.-'-'- ALLOWING THE SECOND APPEALS ^eq}' aco\1) ![d€1r IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA SECOND APPEAL No: 679 of 1999 Between: '1 . P. Gandaiah, S/o. Danaiah, Age: 66 years, Rl/o. H.No.'12-2-5 10, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

2. P. Augamaiah, S/o Yellaiah, Age:71 years, R/o H.No.20-39, Gauthamnagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad4T (died)

3. P. Krishna, S/o. Late Augaiah, aged about 53 years, R/o. H.No.'12-2-510, 4. P. Janglaiah, S/o Lachaiah, aged 66 years, R/o. H.No.12-2-572, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. (died)

5. P. Mallesha, S/o. Lachaiah, aged about 61 years, Ri/o. R/o. H. No.'t 2-2-510, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

6. P. Nagamma, W/o. Late P. Janglaiah, aged about 60 years, R/o. Hyderabad. 7. P. Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Janglaiah, aged about 43 years, R/o. Hyderabad. 8. P. Prabhakar, S/o. Late Janglaiah, aged about 30 years, R/o. Hyderabad. 9. P. Varalakshmi, D/o. Late Janglaiah, aged about 27 years, R/o. Hyderabad. Appellants 6 to 9 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Appellant no.4 as per Court Order dated 11-O7-2003 in CMP.12739 of 2002.

10. P Satyamma, Wo. Augamaiah, aged about , '1 1. P. Venkateswarlu, S/o- Augamaiah, aged about 42 years, 12.P. Vqaya Kumar, S/o. Augamaiah, aged about years , 13, P. Vinod Kumar, S/o. Augamaiah, aged about years , All are R/o. 20-39, Gouthamnagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad - 47. (Appellants 10 to 1 3 are impleaded is LRs of [he deceased 2nd Appellant as per orderof the Hon'ble Court in SAMP No. 26170o1' 2003, dated 11.6.2013) ...Appellants AND

1. Andhra Pradesh Rajaka Abhivrudhi Samstha, Twin cities Unit rep. by Proprietor of Bright Dry Cleaners, 5-2-175, R.P. Road, Secunderabad. 2. P. Samaiah, S/o Late Pentaiah, aged 61 years, R/o H.No.12-2-839, Opp: Aujumane Deeuedar Asifnagar Road, Hyderabad.

3. P. Sathaiah (died), S/o P. Pedda Kamaiah, aged 56 years, R/o H.No.13-6- 25013167, Vishweshwaraiah Nagar Colony, Tallagadda, Post Karwan, Hyderabad.

4. P. Venkaiah, S/o Balaiah, Age:61 years, R/o H.No.12-2-516, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

5. P. Nagamma, Wio Late Sattaiah, R/o H.No- 13-6-25013167 , Visweswaraiah Nagar Colony, Tallagadda, Post Karwan, Hyderabad. R5 is brought on record as per LR of deceased Respondert No.3 as per Court Order dated 11-O7-2003 in CMp.No.8B9/2000. ...Respondents Appeal filed under section 100 of CPC aggrieved by 'he Judgment and Decree dated 22-,12-1998 passed in A.S.No.298 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, prrrferred against the Judgment and decree dated 28-08-1995 passed in O.S.No.4970 of 1987 on the file of the Court of the Vll Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyd,:rabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material ltapers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D.V. Sitaramamurthy, Advocate for the appellants 10 to '13 and of Sri A. Pulla Reddy and Sri C. Balagop,al, Counsel for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Second Appeal be and hereby is altowed, setting aside the judgment by the fir;t appellate Court- daled22-12-1998 passed in A.S.No.298 of .1995 lV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; and

2. Thal there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA OINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \-' To, '1. The lV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, 2. The Vll Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyde 3. Two CD Copies Hyderabar l rabad. ST:CTION OFFICER kam ({ I \ Agv ci. '"'.:.,'fi? HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 DECREE SA.No.679 of 1999 ALLOWING THE SECOND APPEAL ScptfroS W ftq\'o IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY . TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA SECOND APPEAL No: 680 of 1999 Between: '1. P. Janglaiah (died), - 2. P. Nagamma, Wo, late P. Janglaiah, aged about 60 years, R/o. Hyderabad. 3. P. Satyanarayana, S/o- late P. Janglaiah, aged about 43 years, R/o. Hyderabad.

4. P. Prabhakar, S/o. late P. Janglaiah, aged about 30 years, R/o. Hyderabad. 5. P. Varalakshmi, D/o. late P. Janglaiah, aged about 27 years, R/o. Hyderabad. (Appellants 2 to 5 are impleaded as LRs of the deceased sole appellant as per the order of the Honble Court in SAMP No. 10750 of 2002, daled 11 6 2013) ...Appellants AND Andhra Pradesh Rajaka Abhivrudhi Samstha, Twin cities Unit rep. by Proprietor of Bright Dry Cleaners, 5-2-175, R.P. Road, Secunderabad. ...Respondent Appeal filed under section 100 of CPC aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 22-12-igg\ passed in A.S.No.305 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 28-08-1995 passed in O.S.No.1743 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Vll Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D.V. Sitaramamurthy, Advocate for the appellants and of Sri A. Pulla Reddy and Sri C. Balagopal, Counsel for the Respondent. /'' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Second Appeal be and hereby is allowed, settin(t aside the judgment dated 22-12-1998 passed in A.S.No.305 of 1995 by the first appellate Court - lV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; an,l 2- That ther6 shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA //TRUE COPY// .,JOINT REGISTRAR.=, \:: --='--' ISECTION OFFICER ,1\ U

1. The lVAdditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. The Vll Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 3. Two CD Copies To, HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 DECREE SA.No.680 of 1999 ALLOWING THE SECOND APPEAL 5,e!q4 X{"