The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri C. Nagaiah Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: Sri B. Venkat Rama Rao Counsel forthe Respondent No.7: Sri Penumati Madhusudan The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI I.A.No. L of 2025 IN/AND SECOI{D APPEAL No.4O7 OF 2015 ORDER: The second appeal is liled aggrieved by t1-rc j udgment and decree passed in A S.No.149 ol 20 1O by the XIII Additional Distrir:t and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, datccl 13.03 2015. modifying the judgmenr and decrec daLcd 'J3.06.2009 rn O.S.l'Jo.56 of 2OO4 on tl-rc lile of Principerl Junior Civil .Judge. Iiang:r [tedd1, Distric.t

2. On 02.07.2025, u'hen the matter r.r,as call<;d, learred counsel for appellant and rcsponclents subroil_li:cl tl-raL both parties are willing to compromis;e the matter. In vicrv of the requcst, thrs (lourt had dircctcd the parLies and r:outnsels to be prcsent. bciorc High Cor-rrl l,egal Services Con-rmittee for identilication 3 Pursuant to l-he <lirections of this Court, the Secretary, High Courrt Lcgal Sen'iccs Cornmittec, vide rcpor-t dated I \

04.O7.2025. treld as foilou,s "l llrve vcrifiecl the particulars of petitioner/ Appellanr (Appellant irr ljA No.zl07 of' 2O t 5) - Kambharnpati pnshpa 2 JAK. J sA 407 2015 Leela (Aadhar Card), Rcspondent No.l - Baddam Ravinder Goud (Aadhar Card), Respondent No.2 - Baddam Dhanraj Goud (Aadhar Card), Rcspondent No.3 Baddam Trilok Prasad alias Babu (Aadhar Card), Responderrt No.4 - Baddam Malhkarjun Goud (Aadhar Card) and Respondent No.7 Pendem Narender (Aadhar Card). As per the Honble Court Order Rcspondent Nos.S ald 6 are not necessary paJties to this Compromise and hence they have not appeared before me. Petitioner/Appellant, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Respondent No.7 have appeared bcfore .me and they are dul], identified and copies of their Aadhar Cards, which arc endorsed by their respectivc counsel are enclosed herewitl.r. The copies of Idcntity Cards of the respective counsel are also enclosed herewith. When asked, Petitioner/ Appellant, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 zrnd Respondent No.7, stated that they have u.rllfully and without any coercion entered into Compromise. "

4. In vieu, of the report date d 04 .07 .2025, cop)' of Memorandum of compromise u,hich is annexed s,itl-t I.A.No.O 1 of 2025, the terms of compromise recorded therein, attested by counsel for appellant and counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7, this Court is of the opinion that no further orders need to be passed.

5. With the above observations, I.A.No.01 of 2025 is ordered and Second Appeal is closcd. No costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I To,

1. The Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. (with records, if any)

2. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District 3. One CC to Sri C. Nagaiah, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri B. Venkat Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

5. One CC to Sri Penumati Madhusudan, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies (Along with a Copy of Memorandum of Compromise) ry- kam/gh I HIGH COURT DATED:09t0712025 ORDER l.A.No.1 ot 2025 IN/AND SA.No.407 ot 2015 toa nE.i t T jraX o ,!- 2 : jtti. 2P25 ,;) * * P4-j'r.:H l.A.No.1 oI 2025 lS ORDERED AND SECOND APPEAL IS CLOSED i: @ 1 MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE IN SECOND APPEAL (Under Section 100 of C.P.C) IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE PRINCIPALIUNIOR CIVILIUDGE; AT:: L.B.NAGAR o.s. No.56 0F 2004 IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT IUDGE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT:: L.B.NAGAR A.S. NO.149 0F 2010 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE. OF TELANGANA' AT :: HYDERABAD s.A NO. 407 0F 2015 Between: Mrs. Kambhampati Pushpa Leela, W/o. Venkata Ratnam, Aged about 64 years, R/o. Flat No.408, B-Block, R.V.Aadvik Apartments, Pipeline Road, Jeedimetla, Nledchal-Malkajgiri District- 500067. Aadhar No:7505 3688 5120 ......Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff No.2 AND

1. Mr. Baddam Ravindel Goud, S/o. Late Balender Coud, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Agriculture, Nagole Village, Uppal Mandal, and Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Aadhar No:3278 5875 8799

2. Mr. Baddam Dhanraj Goud, S/o. Late Maisaiah Coud, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H. No.2-241/ A, Ramalayam Shreet, Nagole Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Aadhar No:4070 2269 0062

3. Mr. Baddam Trilok Prasad Goud alias Babu, S/o. LatelaganathamGoud, Aged about52 years, Occ : Business, R / o.2-4-185, Nuv u labanda, Jaip uri Colony, Nagole Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. Aadhar No:7406 1134 4297 l< ?"4f Y^\^ tl, frfrfiNoe/'Ooul , L.A-h-- -1 O..n ---: l>^I . 4f3 r/- -.{>^A I ! 2

4. Mr. Baddarn MallikarjunGoud; S/o. Late Jaganatl.ram Goud, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Business, R/ o.HNo. 1 z_.2_ize,Thy;g;;; N a gar., Tr g:," Vilta ge, Upp at Mandar, u"a.(rilar-iu; r,., D is rric t Aadhar No:6243 1324 7304 5 6 . . . Respondents/Appt,llants/ Defcndants T..Nagasirorn ani, W / o. Veera Raghavaiah, R/ o. Gundu palem Village, Machilipa tnam Mandai, Krishna District, Andhra pradesh. Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. Pratap l{eddy, R/o.1_34, Uppal Village ancl Manclal, Rang,areddy District, Tclangana . .... Respor-rdent s/Respondents/plaintiff Nos.1 & 3 (Respondents 5 & 6 are not necessary parties to tlis contltrtnnise antl made as proforma parties as per A.S.wo.tiS/ZOtO)

7. Pendem Narender S/o. Pendem Suryanarayana, R/o. 2-24, Koratlkal, Atmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana. (Aadhar No . xxxx xxxx g693) MEMORAND UM OF COM RULE 30F PRO MISE FILED CTVIL PROCED UND ERORD ER xxlII URE COD E Respondent

1.1 IA/hereas, the Appellant and Ilespondent No.5 & 6 herein as plaintiff No.1 to 3 originally instituted the Suit in O.S.No.56 of 2004 on the file l< f*5 , r D.fin( r,rsoCtioLp_ 0.A/_: -l 3 of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for permanent injunction against the Respondent No. 1 to 4/Defendant No.1 to 4 in respect of plaint schedule A & B property. The plaint A schedule property is concerned by the Plaintiff No.1 & 3/Respondent No.5 & 6 which is not a subject matter of the Second Appeal. The Appellant/Plaintiff No.2 is concerned with the Plaint B Schedule Property i.e., a piece and parcel land admeasuring as 225.0 Sq. Yds in Plot Nos.34, admeasuring 112.5 Sq. yards in plot No. 35/A (towards, the Northern side and adjacent of tl-re Plot No. 34) totally admeasuring

337.5 Sq. yds in Sy. No.145, Nagole Village, Uppal Mandal, the then Ranga Reddy District presently Medchal-Malkajgiri District 1,.2 The Appellant/Plaintiff No.2 claim thc title and possession over the Plaint B Scheduled Property on the basis of Exibit-A1 under Regd. Sale Deed Regd., on 31.10.1981 vide document No. 4193 of 1981 which is said to have executed by one B. Balender who is the family tnember of the Respondent No.1 to 4.

1.3 The Respondents No.1 to 4/Defendants resisted the Suit claim of the $ppellant/Plaintiff No.2 on the ground that the said Regd. Sale Deed h r lJ.frn /; r,ttlalwtl 2' 8 . ) Pii,(v@_ 1V3'f'*- 4 were brought into existeirce fraudurently by defeating the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regularisation Act 1976, o as much as suit survey number never divided into Resiclerrtiat plots by obtaining the approved layout and therefore the plaintiff does not derive any title to the suit Property under Exhibit 41 sale creed besides severar other defenses 2'1 And whereas the rrair court by Judgement and Decree dtd 03-06-2009 in O.S.No.56 of 2004 granted relief of perpetual Injunction by giving finding of possession in fa'our of the plaintiffs on the basis of registered Sale Deed in respect of their respective holdings. 2'2 The Respondents 1 to 4 herein/Defendants aggrieved by the said Decree of the Triar court have carried the matter i^ Appear in ' A S'No.149 of 2010 on the file of the XII th Addr. District and tussions )udge, Ranga Iteddy Districr. The First Appelant Court ariowcd the appear by the Judgement & Decree dtd 13-03-2015 and ser aside the judgement and Decree of the trial court. J And whereas the Appellant/plaintiff No.2 preferred the above Second Appeal against the fudgment/Decree dtd 13-03-2015 in A.s.No.149 of h r-$9 l-"rJ^ ..-;gr-,4 t 0,fi,0 u ; wr/4 "&- S. i/- 6;nn- )P+ t 5 2010 passed by the XIII ih Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Pending the above second appeal, the son of Respondent No. 4 namely Sandeep Goud executed Regd. Sale Deed dated,22.7.2020 vide document No. 7113 of 2020 in favour of Pendem Narender in respect of part of plaint B schedule property i.e-, Plot No' 35-A admeasuring 112.5 Sq. yds by giving wrong description to Plot No. 35-B instead of 35-A. Therefore said P. Narender is impleaded as a Respondent No. 7 as per orders in IA No. being a necessary Party to this lis for the purpose of for entering into a -ot2025 valid compromise between the parties as said pendent late purchaser claiming to have interest over thc part of subiect Property. 4 And whereas, in view of the rival claims between the parties hereto over the Plaint B- Schedule property, the Appeliant/Plaintiff No.2 and the Respondent No.1 to 4 & 7 herein have arnicably settled the disputes to avoid any further litigation between the parties hereto and hence Appellant & Respondent No.1 to 4 & 7 have accordingly compromised the Iitigation on the terms and conditions mentioned in MOU mutually agreed hereunder:- ( ---, .-on.-rQ^r',4 __ t g,K fl /i'g { o{q^t ft '.'- rt " B r't/* 3PT 6 I Now therefore this Memorandum of Com romise witnesseth as follows :

4.L The Appcllant hereby agreed to pay the srrm of Rs.72,03,000/_ (Rupees Seventy-Two Lakh and Three thousanci only) towards a full and final settlement in three installments. Tl-re particulars of the payments ;re mentioned bclow.

4.2 The Appt'ltanthas agreed to pay thesum of Rs.21,01,000/_ (Rupees Twenty Trvo Lakh and One thousand only) to Ilcspondent Nos,1 to -l as fi151 instalment as mcntioned below SL NO NAME OFTHE RESPONDENT Baddam Dhanraj goud S/o Laie Maisaiah Goud Baddam Ravinder Goud S/o Late Balender Goud AMOUNT (RS) PAYMENT DETAILS Rs.7,00,000/- B\- Qul.^.bw\hf^r Ihrough D.D No.zf ${fs€- Dated: j?e-k^& Rs.7,00,000/- 36t' e"tfrJl4 { Tlrrough D.D wo + 84151 Datecl:JJ -1,.a5- Baddam Mallikharjun S/ o Late ]aganatham Goud Rs.8,00,000/- 1^ Baddam Trilok Prasad Alias Babu s/o Late |aganatham Goud Rs.1,000/- Through D.D No. Dated: Q+1bo el-t^ CASH 1 2 3 4 )<r (-ra-!a rA (\n/;Nrtfio()n__ S D//__ } G',7 Yb t-'" 1

5. The Respondents 1 to 4 specifically acknowledge the receipt of the above mentioned first instalment amount from the appellant.

6. The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Respondent No.7 have permitted the Appellant to demolish the existing structures over the subject property and Construction of compound wall by the Appeilant and then the Appellant further agrees to pay an amount of Rs.28,01,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh One thousand only) out of Rs.72,0J,000,/- f o the Rcspondcnts Nos.l to 4 7 The Appellant further agrees to pay the remaining balalce amount of Rs.22,01,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two lakh One thousand only) to the Respondent Nos.1'to 4 after compliance of following terms. (r) The Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 & 7 agreedto cancellation of all transactions and permissions obtained by Respondents and their agents, in respect of subject property. (ii) The Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 & 7 have agreed to handed over to all the original Sale Deeds Nos.4972/2009,1439/2020 and 7173/2020 to the Appellant herein. (iii) The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & Z have agreed to withdraw the W.P. No.4915 /2023before the Hon'ble High Court. k n"4 --J.=^-n,,-Qd .-===_ / tj "fiftt ; r'oor'qot'$- 6 - A4//'- .3RT.WU_I3"; 8 (i") The Respondents and Appellants hav6 undertake to withdraw the all the criminal compiaints filed against each other. (v) The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 7 have agreed to file compromise petitiorr in O.S.No.121/2023 on the file of Hon,ble principal District Judge, Malkajgiri Medchal District at Matkajgiri.

8. That the Respondent No. 1 to 4 having been received the compromised amount hereby admit title and possession of the Appellant/Plaintiff No.2 herein admeasuring as 225.0sq.yds in plot Nos.34, admeasuring 112.50 Sq. yards in prot No- 35/A (towards the Northern side. and adjacent to the plot No. 34) .totally admeasuring 337.5 Sq. yds. respectiveiy situated in sy. No.145, Nagole viriage uppal Mandar, the then Ranga Reddy District prese,try Medchal-Markajgiri District and in view of the same thc Respondent No-7 herein hereby given up his righ! titte & possession over an extent of 112.5 sq.yds. plot No. 35-A (which is clescribed in the sale Deed dated zz.z.2020 vide document No. 7113 of 2020 as a prot No. 35-B instead of 35-A). 9' That the Respondent No.1 to 4 herein admit the title and possession of the Appellant/Plaintiff No.2 to the extent of 225.0 sq.yds with plot Nos.34 in Sy.No.145 of N agole Village, U f P-%\2 ppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dishict and in t0frtl;pWfuarW- S. 0-/- 3 BC,fue)a6s"J / w t 9 view of the same the Respondent No. 1 to 4 hereby given up theii right, title & possession over an extent of 225 Sq.Yds. in Plot No. 34.

10. That the Respondent No.7 herein admit the tiile and possession of the Appellant/Plaintiff No.2 to the extent of 172.5 Sq.Yds with plot Nos.35-A (which is described in the Sale Deed dated 22J.2020 vide document No. 7113 of 2020 as a Plot No. 35-B instead of 35-A). in Sy.No.145 of Nagole Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and in view of the same the Respondent No. 7 hereby give up'their righf title & possession over an extent o[ 112.5 Sq.Yds with plot Ncis.35-A (which is described in tI-re Sale Deed dated 221 .2020 vide documenf No. 7113 o{ 2020 as a Plot No. 35-B). The Sale Deed dated 22.7.2020 vide document No. 7113 of 2020 obtained pcnding Second Appeal and it is specifically agreed between the parties hereto that the Sale Deed as null and void and non-binding on the Appellant in view of this compromise.

11. AII the family members of late Balender Goud as per Memorandum of Settlement dated 22 nd May 2024have agreed that they do not have any right over the schedule propgrty and acknowledge the right, possession and title of plaintiff over the schedule properfy. K ,fl^sl.p l*,Xa A*@ lE fifi/ j,rAo'{tr"v[- B. -= P;i'([email protected] (L'r* 10

12. That the Respondent 1, to 4 a'.dT hereto hereby rati(y and,confirm the title and possession of the Appellant/plaintiff No.2 admeasuring as 22s.0 sq. Yds with plot No.34 and aclmeasuring 112.50 sq. yards in piot No. 35-A adjacent to Plot No. 34 &(Southem portion of plot No. 35) totally admeasuring 337.5 Sq. yds. In Sy No.145, Nagole Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. accordingly the Appelant / prainhff-No.2 shall hold and enjoy the subject Property on absolute owner and rawful possessor.

13. That tl're Respondent No. 1 to 4 & 7 hereto mutually agree. that each party shall do all such assurances, things, acts and execute such documents, deeds etc., as may be required by the Appellant to give effect to this compromise and for updating the record,/s in her favour in respect of their respective holdings. 14- The Rcspondent Nos. 1 to 4 confirm that execution of GpA Doc. No. 22/1981 dated 12.03.1981 was wrongly mentioned in sare Deed No. 4193/1981as 10.04.1981 which is to be read as1,2-03-19g1

15. The Responden{ No.l to 4 and 7 and./ or representatives/successors-in-interest agree that they will not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the Appellant & plaintiff -No.2 and will not lo ?.S@ X.da r0(0/;ntop{na,fn_ B e L .^l^rg&4 >B;i,(y-W YW N-" I l I 11 initiate any proceedings against the Appellant is relation to the property against Doc No. 4193/1981.

16. The parties hereby confirm that the existence of a bore well and submersible motor within the schedule property belongs to Appellant here tn. It is expressly acknowledged that no other points possess rights on it except Appel lant herein.

17. The Respondent No. 1 to 4/Defendant No.L to 4 further represent that there are no other litigations or claims over the Schedule Property. The ILespondent No. 1 to 4/Defendant I{o.1 to 4 shatl indemnify and keep indemnify the Appellant in the errent of any other party, either the legal heirs of the Respondent No. 1 to 4/Defendant No.1 to 4 or any other tl-rird party or any persons claiming through them claim the title or interfere with the possession over the schedule property.

18. The Appellant specifically agreed that the terms of the Settlement sha-ll be complied within a period of six months from the date of this day. The Appellant assured to pay the settlement amounts strictly as per the terms mentioned herein above and the Respondent Nos,1 to 4 & 7 agreed to obey the as per the terms. of compromise with the / t?,(\ th Lt ) NPadW- 6 .A.l- r gnfy,Al- 1fs n"- .--r-,^Z.A ____+_ I t2 Appellant a,d all other relating parties agree not to initiate any litigation in respect of schedule property. Therefore it is praved that in terms of this compromise the second appeal may be allowed by co.firming the Judgment and Decrce dtd. 03-06-2009 in o.S.No.56 of 2004 passed bv the principar |unior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy by set aside the Jr-rdgment and Decree of the First Apperant Court dtd. 13- 03-2015 in A.s.No.149 of 2010 before the XIII Addl. Districr and sessions Judge, Ra.ga Recldy and accordir.rgl.l clecree be passecl i. tl.re above second appeal in respect oi l'laint B schedule property in terms of this compromise. Schedule Pro All that property of a premises with the thatched r.of a.d open space bearing gram panchayat H.No. 2-39/6, consisting an area of 337.SSq.yds equivalent to 281.76 Sq.Mts. siruated on plot No.34 & 35A in Sy.No.145 at Nagole Village, Hayat Nagar Taluk, Ranga Redcly I)istrict (presently Medchal-Malkhaj giri District f f "%tf^ ) under Nagole gram panchayat and 1trfr6littap/+o,g- /. within the ) Err, €*W tl$ f*' # 13 Ilegiskation jurisdiction of Sub Registrar,tJppd, Ranga Reddy District and bounded by: North South East West Plot No. 35/B PIot No. 33 PIot No. 42 & 43 25 feet road Hyderabad Date:9 /1 /202s Appellant FF4 Respondent No.1 to 4 & 7 tU[l6u;,,,0A/h,0{) ) P'TPytr!-_ L- b fr,.L-- 1s*- (C" e Appellant) (Counsel for the Respo t No.1 to aj. C Courvsar- hP Qegoruo*Ni No, ,