High Court · 2025

RESPONDENTS/Defendant Nos.{,3 & 4 & Respondents Nos.2 to 4 in l.A.Nos.l & 3 of 2025 lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section the affidavit filed in support suspend the judgment and District and Sessions Judge 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Decree passed by the Honourable XIV Additional RR District LB Nagar in OS No. 196 of 2013 dated 11 11 2016. IA 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 condone the delay ol 3047 days in filing the appeal. F 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 permit the petitioner to record compromise entered in between the petitioner and respondent No. 1/appellant the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : SR!. GOTATI RAM BABU Counsel forthe Respondents: SRICH RAMBABU CHOWDARY The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT l IN THE HIGH COURI'IIOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA I.A.Nos.l and 3 of 2025 InlAnd A.S.No.306 of 2025 Date 22.12.2025 Between: Sri Charlla Satayan raya Sri Ch. SaaJanarayana and others ... Appellant COMMON IUDGMENT ...Respondents Heard Mr.Gotati Ram Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. ch. Rambabu chowdary, learned counsi:l for the respondents.

2. I.A.No.1 of 2025 is a condone deiay petition filed under Section 5 I of Limitation Act to condone delay of Q}a\ days in filing the appeal in O.S.No.196 of 2013 to scr aside the judgment and decree dated 11.11,.2016. i 2 3' The case of the petitioner-appellant is that the suit summons were not served on him and he was set ex-parte by means of substituted service oI summons through ncwspapers publication onlv. When the petitioner_ appellant approached the oFfice o[ Sub-regis trar for transaction with respect to his title over the suit schedule properry on 10.06.2025, he was informed about the suit proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1- plaintiff. Thc pctitioncr camc ro know about the judgment and decree through the letter submitted by respondent No.1 to the Sub-Registrar at that time, thereafter, certified copies are obtained and the appeal is filed with a delay of 3041 davs.

4. Learned counsel f<>r the respondent No.1-plaintiff reported no objection for condoning delav. As seen from the pleadings of the affidavit, the petitioner-appellant was never served with the summons in the suit but has been ser ex-parte by serving summons through substituted service by means of newspapet publication. I

5. In the circumstances, it is probable that the appellant had no knowledge about the suit proceedings and therefore, no occasion to challenge the same within the lirnitation period. In view of the reasons 3 stated and in the absence o[ opposition, the delay is condoned and I.A.No.1 of 2025 is allowed.

5. In I.A.No.3 of 2025 rs Frled to permit the petitioner to record compromise entered in between the petitioner and respondent No.1. The respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement o[ sale dated 09.03.201,0 and to cancel the registered sale deed document No.977 of 201,0 dated 1,2.04.2010 and the said suit was decreed cin 1 1 .11,.2016 with cosrs, by 'canccling the sale deed document No.977 of 201,0 dated 1,2.04.201,0 and also granted perpetual iniunction. The appellant-defendant No.2 has filed the Frrst appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court. During pendency o[ the first Appeal, the parties have reached out of the Court settlement and have Frled an affidavit comprising of affidavrt along with memorandum of compromisc conraining the terms of settlcinent berween the appellant t \ and respondent No.1. As pef the said compromise, respondent No'1 acknowledged that the appellant is the o$/ner and possessof of the suit { / schedule properry bearing plot No.36 in Sy.No.455 admeasuring 673 Sq.Yrds situated at K.N.R Hills, Puppalaguda Village and Gramapanchayat, Raiendran agar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under the sale cleed document No.977 of 201,0 dated 12.04.201,0, whereas, the 4 r- respondent No.1 has no right or no claim in the suit schedule property. Respondent No.1 agreed to wrthdraw the ietters glven by him to the District-Registrar and Sub-Regisrrar officers pursuant to judgment and decree in o.S.No.196 of 2013. Further, it is acknowledged that the appellant shall enjov the suit schedule property as absolute owner and that document No.977 of 2010 dated 12.04.2010 cannot be objected and lastly, respondent No.1 has no objecrion ro set aside the judgment and decree passed bv thc lcarncd XI\' .\cldirional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District ^t I-.ts.Nagar in o.S.No.196 of 2013, dated 1,1,.1,1.201,6. In view of the sarne, I.A.No.3 of 2o2s is allowed.

6. In view of compromise reached, the Appeal suit is closed in terms o[compromise. No costs. Miscellaneous Petirions, if any, pending in this petition, shall stand closed. SD'. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR . I ,/TRUE COPY'/ SEGTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, L.B' Nagar, Hyderabad. With Records if any) l

2. One CC to SRl. GOTATI RAM BABU Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. CH RAMBABU CHOWDARY Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Asr/Sa wAlong with copy of the Memorandum of Compromise € .,.i&i., :::-a'{r' "$,tr h* f R b1 A t I 1 ...., ,i!. . n: fig$ ,J .I t It s \ i sr: -!\' $ ". \f'-':' r i HIGH COURT DATED:2211212025 JUDGMENT l.A.Nos.l &3OF2025 IN/AND AS.No.306 of 2025 ALLOWING THE I.As & CLOSING THE APPEAL b,bI a oF ctvrL Mrsc PElrl:I.:i* uNDER oRDER xxtti nu AT HYDERABAD A'S' NO' 306 0F 2025 BETWEEN: Sri. Ch.SatYanaraYana Sri.Charlla. SatYanaraYana & Others AND ...Petitioner/ResPondent No'L ... ResPond ent/AP Pellant LED BY THE APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT No.1.

1. This memorandum of compromise entered in between Appellant (charlla 2. Theappellant has rightfullownel;na O:t;t-tj::of the premisses bearing' Plot No.36 in Sy.No.455 Part. AdmeasuringsT3'0.].-u.io':'0,.,J:: raya na) Respond ent No' 1 (Cl satv111lygna l' .Sit\Ena at K.N.R .Hills,PuppalagudaVitlageandGramgpanchaya!,;RliendranagarMan*ali. *"n*.ReddYDt' : , I'' 3: The Appeltant's Registered sale deed '1",?"tlment fo '." !'o)o lz.lB/lzotoisabsoluteowner:nOlhe.respondentNo'1'herein (Ch.Satyanarayana)isnorighttoclaimanyinterestwithregardtolhe property in connection with sale Deed Nio'gll.l2O10'

4.Therespondenthasnorighttoclaimanyrightorinterest.inthgsaid I

5.Therespondentispromised.towithdraw:T'"".rsgiveninDistrict' Registrar and sub-registrar offices and Sub-Registrar can entertained the l- .registrationswithsupportofthedocumentNo.gTTof2010Dated 72l04,lzo1]o.

5. The appellant shall enjoy the schedule p ropefi as the absotute and rightful owner. &4_ t'i.d'.-o ?'.i '' 'l, .l I .. .&:ir&&r.Il-:.- .rri; V ( rt.\$ol'r i [' I I I ! 7 ' The appeilant has subsisting right, titre, interest to grant, gift and transfer 8' The apperant has arr rights "*.;;;l.i"arl" property as sare deed document No.977 of 2l7-odated ,zioiiir, * one can object the same and sub-Registrar may entertained .u rrtrr" ,;r;r;;;;;il;il;; Deed No s77/2dro aatea r))i)z;;ffi;e is hording arr right and :::" title through this document. 9. The respondent No.1. has no objection to set-aside the Judgement and Decree passed by the Hon,bte XIV th Additional District and Sessions : Judge, Ranga Reddy District At L.B. Nagar.in O.S. No.,1 96/ ZOIE dated 11- 11-2OlG. And the sale deed No.977 of 2010 is absolute. )0 -*v No.1 \ tttt...:t,l.rr d,'b-lt' COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.1 @_ APPELLANT \t,lti I ',ii.! iou,*rrWrnrvr t i IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA l.A.Nos. 1&3OF2025 @ APPEAL SUIT NO: 306 OF 2025 Between: Sri .Charlla Satyanarayana, S/o Late C. Muthaiah, Age.32 Years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.8-1-160, Shaikpet, Hyderabad. APPELLANT/Defendant No.2 & Petitioner in l.A.Nos.1 & 3 of 2025 AND

1. Sri. Ch. Satyanarayana, S/o Lingaiah, Aged About 31 Years, Occ.Business, R/oH. No.8 -1 -7 3, Shaikpet, Hyderabad.

1. ResPondent No.1 1/Plaintiff & AppellanUResPondent No. 1 in l.A.Nos.1 &3of 2025

2. K.Nagi Reddy, S/o Bikshapath Reddy, Age.33_Y9ars, Occ. Business, R/o Plot NO.169,Anjaii Garden, Pu.ppalagudaVill-ge, Rajendranagar Mandal R.R.Dt t 3. K. Bikshapathi Reddy, S/o Late K.Nagi Reddy, Age.55 Years, Occ. Business, 4. K.Bhaskar Reddy, S/o K. Bhikshapathi Reddy, {ge. 34 Years,_Occ.Business D3 and D4 are Rlo Ptot No.195, Anjali Gardeh, Puppalaguda, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.Dt. (Respondents No.2 to 4 Are Not Necessary Parties) l *"= o' ftl?toil3i| Ii'ifi'"' .Xft * I "; l':,it Z Appeat filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. R/w Order XLI Rule 1 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Honourable XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, R.R.District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad in OS. No. 196 of 2013 dated 11-11-2016. 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 7 Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gotati Ram Babu, Advocate for the appellant and Sri Ch. Rambabu Ghowdary, Advocate for the Respondents' That this Court dotti order and decree as follows:

1. That this court be and hereby allowed the l.A.Nos. 1 & 3 ot 2025 and closed the Appeal.

2. That the appellant has right full owner and possessor of the premises bearing Plot No.36 in Sy.No.455 Part admeasuring 673 Sq. Yds- Situated at K.N.R. Hills' Puppalaguda Village and Grampanchayat, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The Appellant's Registered Sale deed vide Document No.977l2010 dated 12tO4t2O1O is absolute owner and the respondent No.1 herein (ch. satyanarayana) is no right to claim any interest with regard to the property in connection with sale Deed No.977l2010.

4. The Respondent has no right to claim any right or interest in the said property in future

5. The respondent is promised to withdraw the letters given in District Registr", Sub-Registrar offices and Sub-Registrar can entertained the registrations with support of the document No.977 of 2010 dated '12.4.2010- "nd .-

6. The appellant shall enjoy the schedule property as the absolute and rightful owner. )

7. The appellant has subsisting right, title, interest to grant, gift and transfer the schedule property to the third persons. S.Theappellanthasallrightsovertheschedulepropertyassaledeeddocument No.977 of 2010 , daled 12.04.2010 no one can object the same and sub-Registrar may entertained all future transactions with support of sale Deed No.977l2010, dated 12.4.2010 and he is holding all right and title through this document'

9. The respondent No.1 has no objection to set-aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Hon'ble XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in O.S.No.196/2013, dated 11.11 .2016 and the sale deed No.977 of 2010 is absolute.

10. That there shall be no order as to costs. // TRUE coPv// To SD'- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR C SEctror,t oFttcER

1. The XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies. ) HIGH COURT DATED i2211212025 DECREE l.A.Nos.l &3OF2025 IN/AND AS.No.306 of 2025 ALLOWING THE I.As & CLOSING THE APPEAL I q t