The High Court · 2025

Sri Balaji Developers. Having its office at Pot No.72, Street No.7, Radhanagar colony, Backside.Glendale School, Suncity, Hyderabad, Rep.by K.Sanjeeva Rddy, S/o. Janga Reddy. Sri K.Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Late K.Janga Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ.Business, R/o. H.No.1-7, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandel, Rangareddy District.

3. Sri D.Mahender Reddy, S/o. D.Ram Re.Cdy, Occ.Business, R/o.H,No.2-3711, Venkatapur Rangareddy District. Aged about 44 years, Village, Moinabad Mandal,

4. Sri tvl.Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. Lat M.Satti Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occu.Business, R/o.H.No.7-2 1 /1, Suncity, Hydershakote, Rajendranagar, Moinabad Mandal, Rangareddy District

5. Sri P.Jaga Mohan Reddy, S/o. P.Janardhan Reddy, Aged about 38 yeas, Occ.Business, R/o. H.No.1 -16, Peddamangalaram.Village, Moinabad Mandal, Rangareddy District.

6. Sri M.Pentaiah, S/o. lae M.Balaiah, Aged about 59 years,Occ.Business, R/o. H.No.3-1 12, Chilkur Village, Moinabad Mandal, Rangareddy Diskict 509 217' Telangana 7- Sri A.Balraj, S/o. Yellaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ.Business, Rio. Venkatapui village, Moinabad Mandal, Rangareddy District - 5Og 217 , Telangana ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the l-figh Court may be pleased to grant temporary injunction for the schedule property against the respondents blocking the cart away of heading to the suit schedule property pending disposal of main CMA, in the interest of justice. SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY All that part and parcel of property Sy.No.254l146/1 to an extent of Ac.1-16 guntas, situated at Murtuzaguda village, Moinabad Mandal, Rangareddy District and bounded by NORTH : Vendors land SOUTH : Land of Jagpathi Babu EAST : Sania Mirza Stadium : WEST : 30 feet Wide road Counsel for the Appellant :SRl GANDYADAPU RAJESHAM Counsel for the Respondents: SRI LTNGALA SUDHEER The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND TIIE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SI]DHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.444 o12024 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar) The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed assailing the order dated 19-07-2024 passed in I.A.No.4l0 of 2023 in O.S.No.526 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The appetlant herein is plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.526 of 2023 filed for the relief of perpetua[ injunction against the respondents/defendants.

3. Heard leamed counsel for the appellant and Sri Lingala Sudheer, leamed counsel for respondents, and perused the record.

4. Appellant contends that, the trial Court had erred ln dismissing the underlying Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.410 of 2023 in O.S.No.526 of 2023 by order dated 19-07-2024 filed under Order 39 Rulcs I and 2 C.P.C. 2 a

5. On behalf of the appellant, it is contended rhat though, rhe appellant had established prima facie case to prove the existence of path-way by marking as Ex.p- I to p- 19, rhe trial Court, without considering and appreciating rhe aforesaid Exhibits, had dismissed the underlying Interlocutory Application.

6. Appellant contenG that, the respondents herein having sold away their holding in Sy.No.25l and,252, cannot continue to lay claim to the land which was used as pattr-way to access their land.

7. On behalfofthe appellant, it is also contended that the trial Court had only noted of the appeltanr not taking steps for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner for local inspection ol the property to note dowft the existence of atteged pathway and also as to whether there is any altemative way to reach the schedule property, had dismissed the underlying Interlocutory Application without noting that the respondents, except ctaiming oF existence of pathway, did not rnark any documents to substantiate the same. .t 3

8. The appettant further contends that, the respondents on selling away the entire land by converting the same into plots, on constructing compound watl, the same being demolished by the HMDA authorities on earlier occasion, isell goes to show the claim of the respondents cannot be accepted. g. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents would vehemently contend that while the land of the appetlant is in Sy.No.254, the respondents have purchased tand in Sy.Nos.251 and 252 of Murthuzguda vittage; and that the village map does not show the existence o[ cart-way to access the land in Sy.No.254 as being claimed by the appellant.

10. On behalf of respondents, it is also contended that the claim of the appeltant that in the suit v/e O.S.No.4 of 2004, the competent Court of Civit Jurisdiction, having noted the existence of pathway to have access to his [and, in Sy.No.73, which on re- survey has been assigned as Sy.No.25 I and 252 adjoining appetlant's tand, is also not colrect, since, on re-survey of land in Sy. No.73 has been assigned new Sy.Nos.259,260,261 and262 and as such, the order in O.S. No.4 of 2004 has no relevancy or connection with the tand being claimed by the appettant. \ 4

11. We have noted the respective contentions urged.

12. Though, the triat Court while dismissing rhe underlying lnterlocutory Application had noted that the appellant herein having failed to prima facie estabrish that he owns rand as pleaded by him, the pattadar pass book issued by the Revenue authorities in favour of the appellant with Khata No.30g prima facie shows the appellant to be the owner of land in Sy.No.254la/1 admeasuring Ac.1. 1600 gts.

13. Further, the trial Court while dismissing the underlying .lnterlocutory Application also noted that the appellant is not taking steps for appointrnent of Advocate_commissioner tbr local inspection of the property to note down the existence of alleged pathway and also the appellant having no alternative way to reach his land. The trial Court while noting that the appellant having failed to prove the factum of he owning the land as pleaded by him and also not taking steps for appointment of Advocate-Cornmissioner to conduct local inspection, however, failed to take note that the Exhibits marked, in particular Ex.P-9 which is judgment in O.S.No.4 of 2024 in respecr of land in Sy.No.73 and also the other exhibits marked in support of { 5 appellant claim, including pattadar pass book, show at least on West of the aforesaid schedule of properties, cornmon way has been mentioned, which prima facie shows existence of an approach road, though may not be a cart-track as recorded in the \ \ village map.

14. Further, since the respondents did not file any documents to prove their case of non-existence of approach road be it a path way or cart way, this Court is of the view that the claim of the appellant of existence of common way and denial of the same by the respondents can be ascertained can be ascertained only when the parties adduce evidence in the suit O.S.No.526 of 2023. Tlll such time, the parties lead evidence in the aforesaid suit, the trial Court ought to have granted injunction, at least directing the parties to maintain status quo instead of dismissing the Interlocutory Application.

15. In view of the above, this Court is- of the view that the parties are to be directed to maintain status quo existing as on date over the subject property till disposal of suit O.S. No.526 of

2023. Parties are at libeny to take steps for expeditious disposal of the suit : : ! I I I I I I t I 6 a t6. Subject to above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs

17. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P. PADMANABHA REDOY o PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER 1 . The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar

2. one cd to snt GANDYADAPU RAJESHAM, Advocate [oPUCl 3. One CC to SRI LINGALA SUOHEER, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two.CD Copies To, w ADK./gh oR lHE S ,}4 ,A ( o 2 3 Jul py '! A .!.t' DA rc'-r rn 1 HIGH COURT DATED:2110412A25 JUDGMENT GMA.No.444 of 2OZ4 o o I DISPOSING OF THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS o x ,t b