The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the.affidavit filed in support_oltlr.u p"iitio'n. if,"'ffign Court may be pleased to stay a, further proceedinqs in E.p.No. 1/2009 0n the fire *," s",ii.iirrl:;a., Nalgonda pending disposal of the CRp and pass IANO:2O F 2018 "r - Petition under section .151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiitio;, in" nign c"urt ravil pLr.it" order substitute service of on Respondents No. 4,7,1O,11,12,14,15,16,11 ,18,19 and 20 by *ry of p"p", publication in any daily news paper. summons -' IANO:1O F 2023 Petition under section 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support or the peiition, in. uigt corrt ;;rG'p["."i'," order substitute service of summons on Responde:nt No.4 ani ii [v *iv" paper publication in any daily news paper. "t .1 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3355 0F 20',t8 Petition under A nicle 227 of the constitution of lndia against the otderd.ated 2AlOf /ZOJA passed in E.P. t'lo Ot ot 2009 in O'S No' 65 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda' Between: Thakur Harinath Singh, Son of Late Devi Singh' Aged 46 years' Occupation B;i;;.;, C;;id"nt o"f Pangal Village, Nalgonda District' Thakur Naqa Rani, Daughter of Late Devi Singh., Aged 49 years, Occupation rl'.i.1 itrEln"iii'eniot"eangat Village, Nalgonda District' 2 ...REVISION PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS AND

1. Thakur Ratna Bai, Daughter of Late Sardar Singh (Died per L R Respondent No. 14)

2. Thakur Kalabai, wife of Late Devi singh (Died per L.Rs already on record) 3. Thakur Durga Singh, Son of Chandrabhan Singh (Died per L.R Respondent No. 15)

4. Jinna Yadagiri @ Yadagiri Reddy' Son of .Ramakrishnaiah' ' He.iO"nl ot"pan-gal Village, Nalgonda District Aged 58 years'

5.BathukaSaidulu,SonofRajamallu'(DiedperL.R.RespondentNo.-{6)

6.ThokalaDevaiah,sonofYellaiah,(DiedperL.R.RespondentNo.lT) 7 PaduriKoti Reddy, Son of Pedapapi Reddy, Aged 70 years, Resident of ' Panqal Village, Nalgonda District'

8. Chinthala Chandraiah, (Died per L R Respondent No 18) 9. Thakur Jamuna Bai, Wife of Amber Singh (Died per L.R. Respondent No. 19) lO.Gajii Mallamma, Wife of Lingaiah, Aged 64 years' Resident of Pangal Village' Nalgonda District.

11. Gaiji Yadamma, Wife of Lingaiah, Aged 40 years' Resident of Pangal Village' Nalgonda District. ll-.GalliBixam, Son of Lingaiah, Aged 64 years' Resident of Pangal Village' Nalgonda Diskict.

13.Yella Pochamma, Wife of Chandraiah, (Died per L.R. Respondent No. 20) 14. Thakur Hari Ram Singh, Son of Late Sardar Singh' Aged 10 yq'.'9' . '- o;:l;;ii;;'eiiinJ.ii i"i'oent of Pansal Village' Nalsonda District' 1 5. Thakur lnderkaran singh, son of Durga Singh, Aged 40 years, occupation '" B;.;;;; Resioent or Fjngal Villagel Nalgonda District' 16. Bathuka Muthamma, Wife of Late B saidulu' Aged 40 years' Resident of - . Pangal Village, Nalgonda Diskict' lT.Thokala Ailamma, (Wife of Late T. Devaiah, Aged 50 years, Resident of Pangal Village, Nalgonda District. 'lB' chintha.la.Venkanna, Son of Late ch. chandraiah, Aged 45 years, Resident of Pangal Village, Nalgonda District

19.Thakur Kay Singh, Son of Hanman Singh. Aged 2g years. Occuoation trusrness, Hesrdent of H. No.6_1-333n, Ramagiri, Nalgonda Didtrict. 20.Yella Chandraiah, Son of Not Known to Rev. petitioners. Aqed 70 vears. Occupation Agricutture, Resident of pangat Vittage, rrlib6i"dib;ii;i' " ..,RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section 'r 5 r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the.affidavit filed in support-o! the petition, tte Hign Court may Oe pteasJ to extend the orders dated 21-06-2018 in r.A. No. 01 ;f 2018 puniinj.i.p".rr the Case in C.R.P. No.3355 of 2O1B "r lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the.affidavit fired in support of the petition, Ir'. Hign court may u" p6r."Jt" stay all further proceedings in execution petition No.1 of 2009 in o.S.No.65 of '1976 pending on the fire incruding derivery of possession of ,,8,, schedure property. lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the peiition, if," Hign Court may bJ ;;;;;1" order substitute service of summons of nesponoeni - - No. 4,7,10J1,12,14,15,16,17,18,19 and 20 by way of paper pubtication in any Oaify News Paper. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. S BALCHAND Counsel for the Respondents: N/A The Court made the following: COMMON.ORDER L( THE HONOURABLE SMT' JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos'2O3O & 3355 of 2018 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in all these criminal petitions ts oneandthesame,theyarebeingheardtogetherandare being decided by way of this common order'

2. C.R'P No 3355 of 2O 18 is frled chailengrng the order dated 23'03 2018 passed in E'P No' 1 of 2OO9 in O S'No 65 of 1976 by the learned Senior Civil Judge' C.R.P.No.2O30 of 2018 is filed challenging the 23.Ol.2ola passed in E'A'No' 173 of 2Ol7 itt 2oo9 by the lcarned Senior Civil Judge' Nalgonda order. dated E.P.No.01 of Nalgonda;

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Revtsron Petitioners filed O'S No' 65 of 1976 seeking recovery of possession of propertres listed in "6-' and "g" 56hedule and for rectiiication of records This suit was clubbed with O.S.Nos'245 of \97aand 53 of 1979 ' By a common judgment dated 31.O3 1986' O S'No'6 5 of 1976was decreed in favour of the Petitioners' while the other two suits were dismissed' 2 SI(si.J C.R-P.Nos.2O3O aEd 33SS of 2()ra l.t Respondent No.1 fired appears (A.s.Nos. 1671 and rz29 of 1986) before this Court, which were also dismissed on Lg.06.2000. To enforce the decree. the petitioners initially filed E.P. under S.R. No 53 of 2002, which was returnecl due to lack of boundary details of the property. Another E.p.No. 72 of 2OO3 was filed but closed on 14.1 1.2005 as the warrant for delivery was returned unexecuted for wa nt of proper property description. Subsequently, tr.p.No. 1 of 2OO9 was filed. An Advocate Commissioner u.as appointed but failed to complete the execution- Later, tr.A.No. r73 0f 2017 was filed for appointment of a new Commissioner to locate ,.A,, schedule property, but it was dismissed duc to inadequate boundary dctails. Finally, E.p.No.01 of 2OO9 was filed, but the trial Court dismissed the execution with respect to the ,.A,, schedule properq/, citing inabilitv to identify rt based on existing records and commissioncr reports. Challenging the said orders, the present civil revision petitions are iiled.

4. Heard Sri S. Balchand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Though notice servecl upon the respondents, none appeared on their behalf. r) 3 SKS'J C.R-P.Nos.2O3O and 3355 of 201t

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is contrary to both facts and settled principles of law. It is contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that in matters involving disputes regarding the identity of the property, it is a well-established principle that appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner, even with the assistance of a qualified surveyor, is not only permissible but neccssary, and does not amount to collection of evidence. The trial Court has erroneously dismissed E.A.No.173 of 2Ol7 without due consideration of this principle. He further submitted that the first execution petition hled in the year 2OO2 was returned at the S'R' stage as not executable, and the second tr'P'No'72 of 2O03 was closed without effective adjudication on the ground of absence of a held assistant's report. He strongly contended that the executing Court cannot question the validity or executability of a decree and must only facilitate its execution, and the observations made by the executing Court questioning the decree and lamenting the dismissal of the appeal are both misplaced and beyond ils jurisdiction' 1 4 SKS,J C.R-P,Nos.2O3O alrd 3355 of 201a

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner furthr:r submitted that at the time of institution of the suit O.S.No.6S of 7976, the petitioners were minors represented by their next friend, and hence they were unaware of specific boundary details. The properties involved are agricultural lands in different survey numbers, often without clear boundarir:s in official revenue records. The learned counsel aigues that the trial Court has ignored the absence of well-maintained revenue records and the practical difficulties in demarc:rtion, which could have been resolved by appointing a Commissioner. The Petitioners also brought to the notice of the trial Court that in earlier proceedings, including E.p.No.72 of 2OO3, the trial Court had directed delivery of posscssion by the Bailiff, but the execution was stalled without granting sufficient opportunity to the Petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further. contended that an Advocate-Commissioner appointed in bl.p.No. 1 of 2OO9 , in coordination with Revenue Ofhcials, had partly idcntified the "A" schedule iands in Ammagudem Village, and a surveyor from the Survey Department was also deputed for this purpose. Despite this progress, the Advocate- sKs'J C.R.P.Nos.2O3O eud 3355 of 2018 Commissionerfailedtolrleacompletereport,andinsteadof summoning the report or directing further survey' the trial Court sumrnarily dismissed the petition The learned counsel also refers to tippans and other revenue reco-rds like pahanis and village maps which, if relied upon correctly' would enable localizationofthe..A.'scheduleproperqr.Heasserledthatthe executing Court erred in concluding that the absence of detailed boundaries renders the decree inexecutable and failed to take effective steps to ensure the petitioners enjoy the fruits of the decree.

8. He further submitted that the objections raised by respondent No.4 are not tenable as the appeal hled by the respondents against the decree had already been dismissed and most respondents remained ex parte during execution' The trial Court has misread material evidence and ignored procedural fairness, especially given that the memo filed by the Advocate-Commissioner did not state inability to identify the propertSr. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the orders of the trial Court by allowing this Civil Revision Petitions. .l 5 sKsi,J C.RP.Nos.2O3O and 33SS of 201a )

9. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the issue revolves around the decree passed in O.S.No.65 of 7976, particularly with reference to the idenrification and delivery of possession of the ,,A,, schedule property described therein. executabilitv of the

10. The chronologr of events, starting from the institution of the execution petition under S.R.No .53 of 2OO2, followed by tr.P.No.72 of 2OO3 and the present E.p.No.1 of 2O09, clearly reveals the persistent efforts made by the decree holders to enforce the decree. However, these petitions were dismissed or returned primarily on the ground of insufficient or imprecise boundary descriptions of the subject property.

11. It is a settled proposition of law that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree or sit in appeal over it. Once a decree is passed and has attained finality, the duty of the executing court is to give effect to the decree to the extent possible, without embarking upon an adjudication of the merits of the original suit or questioning the correctness of the decree. 1 SKS'J c.R-P.Nos.2o3O and 3355 of2018 approach in adopted a hYPer-technical

72. In the instant case, the trial Court aPPears to have refusing to Proceed of lack of sPecihc with execution sole1Y on boundary details- The hnding that the property is incapable of identihcation based on the decree is not supported by any detailed examination of the available evidence' such as revenue records, pahanis, village maps' or tippans' the ground

13. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion and considering the submissions made by the learncd counsel for the petitioners that agricultural lands' particularly those dating back several decades, often suffer from imprecise demarcations in revenue records' ln such scenarios' the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner' with the assistance of competent ofhcials including surveyors' is not only permissible but necessary' The executing Court erred in treating such an exercise as a means of coiiecting evidence' whereas in reality, it is a legitimate step to aid the identification and execution of the decree' The material placed on record indicates that an earlier t4. Advocate-Commissioner had, with the help of Revenue 8 SKS.J C.R-P.flos.2O3O alld 33SS of 20i8 ,) Officiais and a Government Surveyor, partially identified the "A" schedule lands. However, instead of pursuing this further by summoning thc Commissioner or directing a follou-up inspection, the executing Court dismissed the application. Such an approach does not align with the well-settled principle that the executing Court must endeavor to ensure that the decree holder reaps the fruits of the decrer:. 15 The objections raised by the respondents betore the trial Court are rvithout merit, particularly in light of the dismissal of their appeais and the fact that most of them remarned ex parte in the execution proceedings. The failure of the Advocate-Commissioner to submit a complete report should have prompted the executing Court to call for compliance or appoint a new Commissioner, rather than bringing the execution to a halt,

16. In view of the above discussion, this Ccurt is of the considered opinion that the orders passed by the executing Court suffer from legal infirmity and procedural impropriety. The executing Court ought to Advocate-Commissioner for proper have appointed a fresh identification of the Ep l *-.1 9 SI{S,J C.R.P.Nos.2O3O ard 3355 of 20lE scheduie property, with the aid of revenue records and officials. 17 . Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed' The impugned orders dated 23'O1'2018 and 23'03'2018 passed in E.A.No.173 of 2Ol7 and tr'P'No'l of 20O9 in O'S'No65 of 1976 respectively, are hereby set aside' The trial Court is preferablY directed to appoint an Advocate-Commrsstoner' with the assistance of an official Surveyor and revenue authorities, to inspect and identify the "A" schedule property as per the decree and-hle a comprehensive report within a stipulated time frame The executing Court shall thereafter proceed in accordance with 1aw to effcctuate the decree. There shall be no order as to costs' concerned Miscellaneous applications, if any pending' shall stand closed ,/TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge af Naloonda' , o""ti i; sni. s e"ALcl-lANb Advocate [oPU 3. Two CD CoPies Sdr/gh @- -. , SIATF r $-? I $s (, ,:1 I)t: r: - '.-' .:l !,)t .j,.ii- rZ HIGH COURT DATED: 01t05t2025 COMMON ORDER CRP.No.2030 & 3355 of 2018 ALLOWING THE CRP WTHOUT COSTS I b