The High Court · 2025

11. Smt. Devi Raiani. W/o Mohanrao, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Housewife. Rio. KondiKandukuru virase, Kandtrr<ur_u"M-a-ni;i p;"ki;il;Iiliii"i, ili"ilii""" Pradesh, (Sate deed boc. r.to. sg73Sii0i2)' "'- l2.Chimmili Kondappa Naidu,.Sio. V-enkateshwarulu, Aged about 26 Vears. Occ. Private Emptoyee, nyo H No. s'6. V;iiii'jsh;irri-xE; Lift;J;;;;;"" Mandat, prakasham disrrict, Andhia p;d";tii$6 deed Doc. No.4141612022) l3.Gattamaneni Rambabu S/o. Chenchuramaiah, Aqed about 4.1 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.3-28, N"[J;;;il;;6'h;Xr-r, vore]ivaii6Jre*rii rililorl. Prakasham district, Andhra eraoesrr isiiJ oEe; iil: M.4i ai' itiozii""""'"

14.Kota layreen, S/o. Chinnaiah, Aged about 22years, Odd. Student, R/o. N9,5-e, prakasham oistrict, nriorrra F;ij;;d (5;i; deed Doc. !-.1. No.41417t2O22)

15.Kodali Koteshwara Rao. S/o. Veera Raghavaiah, Aqed about 62 years, Occ. B usiness, Rr/o. H. No. t o-t_t z^, iiaiiitiv;;bi;;i, ihaitanya Techno Schoor. Ka nd u ku r vit taoe a nd rvta n d a i C ra iiii'ni i.iii"i i rii, Cira ;t l6"ri"1H; Doc. No.41416t2O22) "'i "iillull,i::fl ,1'ff Uli.H6:,:,ifl llgil"Si,;nfl ::,1fl :H::1,L??&BE:, district, Telangana state. '17. Gurram Venkata Subbaiah, S/o,-Venkateshwarulu, Aged about 44 vears. ode. Business. R/o H No 2o-+-2s, lrrri ii'oJ;: k;;d;,;ffiitil; tffi " Ma nd a t, pra kaia m d isrrict, And h ra' ir"d;;li i s #' iluo-oo. r.r6_"ai \BE nozzl

18. Kota Venkata Subba Rao, S/o. Narayana, Aged about 69 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 12-4-48, Old Bank Bazar, Kandukur village and Mandal, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No.4159512022) 'l9.Theegala Janga Reddy, S/o. Sriram Reddy, Aged 38 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1-58, Pati Vitlage, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy district.

20. Kota Venkata Chandra Shekar, Sio. VenkataNarsimham, Aged about 22 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 16-1-178, Pamur Road, Kandukur village and lMandal, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh.(Sale deed Doc. No. 4159612022) 21 .Kota Venkata Sai Chakravarthi, S/o. Chinnaiah, Aged about 24 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.20-3-3411 , Pamur Road, Kandukur village and Mandal, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No.41596/2022) 22.Parasnath lndustries, Rep. by proprietor Smt. Alka Modi, Wo. Nitil tvodi, Aged about 51 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o. H.No.6-3-1 217l18,Flat No.307, Bandari Residency, Umanagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

23. [Vlonohar V V Golla, S/o. Haribabucolla, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Pvt Employee, Rl/o. H.No.20-2-3011 , Sahithi Children Hospital, KalidasuVariVeedhi, Kandukurumandal, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No.4193712022)

24.Smt. Golla Hymavathi, W/o. Haribabu, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Housewife, Ri./o. H.No.1-19, Near Water Tank, Pokur, Voletivaripalem Mandal, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No.4193712O22)

25. Utlapalli Naramimham, S/o. Kotaiah, Aged about 47 yearc, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o. H.No. 1-2. YenareddyPalem, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale ' deedDoc.No.41938/2022) 26. Marasu Prasad, S/o. Marasu Narsaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. PIot No.9B and 99, Flat No. 102, SRS Vrushabadhri, Road No.3, Akash Layout, Mallampet, Medchal-Malkajigiri District, Telangana (Sale deed Doc. No.4193912022) 27 .Yeerabadra Suresh, S/o. lttlalayadri, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Edlurupadu, Jarugumalli Mandal, Prakasham district, Andhra Pradesh, (Sale deed Doc. No. 4194012022)

28. Gattamaneni Annulya, D/o. Haribabu, Aged about 26 years, Occ. Business, R/o 203, Vijaya Sai Seva Residency, J.P.Nagar, Miyapur, K.V.RangareddyDistrcit, Telangana state (Sale deed Doc. No.4194012022)

29. Punati Prasad Rao, S/o. Venkateshwarulu, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.2-26, Singamanenipalle, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh state (Sale deed Doc. No.4194112022)

30.Swarna Subbarao, S/o. Bapaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Nandanavanam village, Jarugumalli Mandal, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No. 4194212022) 31 .Kakumani Venkata Krishna Murthy, S/o. Venkateshwarulu, Aged about 49 ygars, Qqc Agriculture, R:/o, H.No.2-'103, Darakanipadu villag-e, Guduru. Mandal, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh state (Sale deed Doc. No.4194312022)

32.Smt. Ravi Anuradha, Wo. Marsinga Rao, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Housewife, Fl/o. Edlurupadu village, Jarugumalli lvlandal, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No.4194312022) 33 Smt..Allam Sireesha, Wo. Kommi Madhavarao,Aged about 29 years, Occ. Employee, Rl/o. Edlurupadu village, Jarugumalli Mandal, Prakaslm district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No.4194412022)

34. Smt. Korrapati C_hinnamrnai, w/o. Veeranarayana Rao, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.2-1-30, Edlurupadu village, Jarugumalli Manrjal, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed Oo6.. No.+I"S+SIZOZZI

35.9ulla Dinesh, S/O. Srinivasulu, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H-No. 1 -1 89i2, Edlurupadu village, Jarugumalli'Mandal, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No.4194512022)

36. Smt. Kothuri Varalakshamma, Wo. K.Lakshmi Narayana, Aged about 66 ygarq, Ogc Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.3-97, Pokuru villale, Voletivaripalem Mandal, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No 4194612022)

37. Gurram Venkata Narendra, S/o. Venkateshwarulu, Aged 24 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.201 -60/1, KalidasuVariVeedhi, Kandukuru Mandal, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No.4194612022)

38.ShaikAkheel, S/o. Shaik Hameed, Aged about 38 years. Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 14-59, Dcyen Township, Serilingampalli, Hyrierabad, Telanqana (Sale deed Doc. No. 5 5712023 to 569 I 2023, 1 SAO t ZOZS,' BA 1 2023 and i nz zozll

39. Chenna Rqddy Thrgire{4y, ,S/o. Ramanareddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Business, F/o. H.No.'1-59, Chennakesavalaydm Street, pamulapaduiskale, Kurnool district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deeci No.1222t2023)

40.lnturi Chinnabbai, S/o. Venkateshwarulu, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, Ryo. H.No.3-57, BadevariPalem village, Voletiv'aripalem Mandal, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed-Doc. No.1223t2OZ3) 41 . S.mt. Vad_lamudi Sridevi, W/o. Srinivasulu, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Flat No.201lA, 2nd Ftoor, Vijaya Sai Tow6rs, Nlangamoor Road, Ramachandra Mission area, Ongole, Pr-akasham district, An-dhra Pra{psh (Sale deed Doc. No. 1232|2OZA)

42. Kalluri Ramakrishna, S/o. K.Lingaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Business, R/o, H.No.8-3-7, East KammaPalem, Kindukuru, Kandukuru Mandal, Prakasham district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No. 123312O23i

43.9mt. BattiniRajani, W/o. B.Bala Krishna, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.2-45, Singamaneni pall village, Voietivaripalem Mandal, Prakasam district, Andhra pradesh (Sale deed Dod. No. 123412023) 44. Katuri Dhiresh Venkateshwarulu, S/o. K. Venkateshwarulu. Aoed vears 21 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No. G. No. 14l1,lndira Naoai, [\/'ore'Naoar Tal. Qaglg!, Near Reliance Petrol Pump, Satana, Nasik, Mah'aristra state-(Saie deed Doc No.123512023)

45. Smt. lnturi Venkata Sra

46. Raiesh Beiavada. S/o eusiness, Fi/6.'iiii#g_5,t,fJ"#Fl,::lif,fl:g.l',iii!ii.Tiol,.,?;,oft";.0,, Prakasa m d istrict. And h ra' i;a;;;'is ;i; #;r;il. Nil:' iii;i;di;;"',"",, -Bjamhaiah, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.5_6, panquturivarip;r$, crii.i![o;ffi, ;;l.Lsrraili Mandat. iS iilili bil,M. i )tii z6iil pra kasa m D istiict, And hra pirb;;i; Wlo. I._Sanjeevarao, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Housewife, Ryo. H No 2-s6^8, Brd"';r;;;L;,iifiidn"", vor"tiraripatem Mandat prakasam district, Andhra piroein rs*iiJo1;j 6'.: r.r;. i)idioi5j'| 'iv'|a..vd.,

47. Smt. lnturi Subhashini

48. Ravindranath Divi. S/o Business, Rl/o. Ftat No 201, E;ba;;y .;ru i;?aE, e"rrrry Road, subramani Nagar Hebbai, G uooaoana iri nEbb;i ;il;s;: E;6turu, K.S. (Sate deed Doc. No.1789t2O23) .pichaia.h Choudari, Aged about 57 years, Occ.

49. Chandrashekar Survaoet, S/q..Anjaiah, Aged about 42 yearc,Occ. Business. Rl/o' H'No. 18, MrG Frirse-j,.aHEl, h..;il}&iil;#uram, sansareddy districr, Tetangana (Safe deed ooc.'ruo. lobbdl ri 6;ii' -' ",' IANO:2O F 2024 ...Respondents/Respondent Nos.4 to 51/Defendants Petition under Order XXXIX Rule .1 & 2 R/w Section .15.1 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit tir"o i"'*ppo.t of the petition, the High court may be pteased to. granl an ad-interim iniunction in the favour of the Appellants/Plaintiffs against the Respondentyoererioants rro, ,tL.r"riii'irio ir,u Iawfut and peacefut possession over the "rii:;;l;i" property in o.S. No. 110 of 2023, on the fire of the rV Additionar District-JuJle at sangareddy, during the pendency of the above referred appeal. A Suit Schedule of property A', that agricurturar rand bearing sy. No. 2oorAA, admeasuring to an extent Mandar, sangareddy of Ac 4'27 Gts, situated at patighaniu*irrr!"le"irn.heru District, Telangana state bounded by: !!nln: Agricutturat Land in Sy. No. 199, SOUTH: Agricuttural tand in Sy. No. 1C1 & 20j, EAST: R&BRoad, WEST: Agricultural Land in Sy. No. 197 & 198. B Suit Schedule of property All that agricUltural land b 1.23 Gts, situated at patighan I elangana state bounded by: earing Sy.No.200/4, admeasuring to an extent of Ac. pur village. Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, !!RTH: Agriculturat Land in Sy. No. 199, !O!]U: Agricutturat tand in Sy. No. 191 & 20i, .EASI Land in Sy. No. 2}Olpatl belongs to VUaV pothukuchi, WEST: Land in Sy. No. 2OOlpaft (petitioner f.f -' ' ".'f t 'C' Suit Schedule of property All that agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 200/4, admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1.22 Gts, situated at Patighanpur village. patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana state bounded by: NORTH: Agricultural Land in Sy. No. 199, SOUTH: Agricultural land in Sy. No. 191 & 201, EAST: Land in Sy. No. 200lpart (Petitioner No. 1) WEST: Land in Sy. No. 200lpart (Petitioner No. 2) C]VIL MISCELLANEOUS APPE ALNO:456OF2024 Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule i(r) of CpC aggrieved by the order dated 31 .07.2024 passed in l.A No.552 ot2o24 in o.s No.110 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional District Judge, at Sangareddy District. Between:

1. Mr. Bonthu Guruvareddy, S/o. B. Rami Reddy, Aoed about 64 vears. Occ. Business, Rl/o. Villa No. 10, H.No. B-3-229t10, Ta6irviile, yousufgluda bheck Post, Hyderabad, Telangana.

2. Smt. Prabha Shivakumari, W/o. Shiva Kumar, Aqed about 56 vears. Occ. Housewife, Fl/o. H.No.C-6, Sector 9 N, CBD- Belapur, ttaii Mumbai, Maharastra State. YI. X 9. l/elirnql1, C/9 K C. Nayak, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Business, 'Colony, Rl/o. Plot No. 60, Krishnapuri West Maiedpally, Uyderabad, Telangana. g. ...Appellants/Respondent No. 1 to 3/Plaintiffs AND 1 Mr. Lachiredly Poornalhand, S/o. L. Venkateshwara Rao, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Flat No.307. KadirisAouruoa Urb5n. Laxmi Naoar Beside ChirecPulic School, Botanical garden Roab, Serilingampally Kondapur, K.V. Rangareddy District. ...RespondenUPetitioner/Defendant No.1 2 !!qik Abdgl Adil, S/o. Shaik Hameed, Aged 33 years, Occ. Business, Ri/o. H.No. 14-59, Doyens Township, Lingam[alty, Si;rilinjampaily, ning;reddy district.

3. Smt. Kanyadara Lakshmi Sujatha, Wo. K.Subbarao, Aqed about 62 vears. Occ.. Housewife, R/o. H.No. 1b-3-31 .1 i 1 5 1 40035, Usha tiilayam, Road' No.r: - -' Caslle,Hills, Masab Tank, Humayunnagar, Hyderabad (Saie d6ed Oo". No.31620/2021)

4. Smt. Santhosha Bai, Wo. Subash Chandra Aoarwal, Aoed about 60 vears. Occ. Housewife, R/o. H, No.6-53, Bhavani frla[ar, Diisu"khnasar, C;riJi -' Uotony, Saroor Nagar, K.V. Rangareddy distri-t, Telangana Stat'e lsate deed Doc. No.3473912021)

5. Mohammed lrfan. S/o. Ivlohammed lbrahim, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H-No.2_95, Near trrtosque: iiffi;; R;;s;-,A,ii;iJt''.it'tlt's,rij d;; b;;-il;. izi"+,;frdl,ils"ririnsamparrv, 6' Smt. sharmira Gottimukkura, wo Raghavender Rao, Aged about 34 vears. occ. Hou sewife. Fyo. H. No.2-2alaq4| iijirri". ?b'L"o 7 t, Eenadu So-cietv. Vijaynaoar coronv. ruear CjGr par,"'iiid;rb!r.i,'i<*itilirv]"nij,irr"drLli6,"r. deed Doc. No. 15505t2o22) - '' " v'|r'sr:'vrr' I\ K.V.

7. Suresh Kumar Malgave, S/o. M.Erwanth Rao palel, Aged about 46 vears. o.cc. Business, R/oI H.rrro.s-o-22G,-Fr;i'iG 411, ftiitr,."j',iti""iin*it"ri""ri" Himayathnasar, Hyderabad (s;ie b;; D;": l,[ )ijs joii6)21', . ."-,.',,.,,,-, ' 6l,Ti5l :Y flIi :fi ',$l 3"r,i #?#Wi?[s [,ija {o ",0,!e,r le ve a rs, oc c P rid e, Hvd e rn as a r, ru k;6;lii; ilri.i ;lr"ila"is" re deed Doc. u". zi si: i frZZrk 9. Kiran Rai Sarvade. S/o late^Shyam Rao Sarvade, Aged about 41 years. Occ. Businesd, R/o. H.No.8-3-so3il4 S;1j;i !;;;fi"N];su,", Near vtp iairorb. .. .",-,-, Ye[areddyGuda, Hyderabad (S;te dd;6 il;."Ni;.)??4, ii6r\i

10. Madala Kiran Chowdarv, S/.o_. M.Venkateshwarulu, Aged about 43 vears. Occ. Qy9inqs9, Fl/o. Ftat r'ro.'C_sos, S[a,iCity d;;#rits, shakti Naoai c h inlqlq ku nta, L. B. Nasa r, r<.'v. nl,i# i'ed dy dtfi ;ti's;E ljt"[Bl; No.3973412022) " 1'l smt' Devi Raiani. w/o. Mohanrao, Aged about 36 years, occ. Housewife. R/o. KondiKandukuru viilaoe Ka.ndqtlily'"r\4;;;i pra,i;ft;i oiliii"i, i"iiii.", '"" Pradesh, (Sate deed bo'c. No. s973s/26'r2j ' "*" 't 2. ChimmiliKondaooa Naiclu, S/o. Venkateshwarulu, Aged about 26 years. Occ. private Emotoveb nyo H. r,r".. s,o, VELi}i;;;;rGik;6;t;is#;il,,#" praka'sham oistrict, Anoiia'i;;;;#iS;E oeeo ooc. [r{tand.a.t, No.41416t2022)

13. Gattamaneni Rambabu. Chenchuramaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No.3_28, NeiJ;;p;;,iio hfYii Votetivaripatem Mandat. prakasham district, Andhia praoein15,re'oe"'ei"o,i.: lr;.;i;; fnozii""""'" l-j.N9, 5-9, prakasha m oistrict,' nriorrra ffi ij;d is;t" deed Doc. No.41417t2022)

14.Kota Naveen, S/d. Chinnaiah, Aged about 22 years, Occ. Student, Rl/o. -S/o_

15. Kodali Koteshwara Rao, S/o. VeeraRaghavaiah, Aoed about 62 years. Occ. iidri"tt."r[",ir i' o rii, iiio ;;t t6",i##i n o'',' i ra t< i Ja m J'sitii Business, R/o. H. No. .t 0-3_zzf CioiiitivJri5t*lri 'Bniitr-,.,-t 53 : : il,[I 1vll1%%8&fl '. "' "i ";ilI,_lx,i::fl ,1:,T.,l5liyJl,li,,,i,ll33f E,lhffl".x,if,il,j j,lJ:ru:sr"& district, Telangana state.

17.Gunam Venkata Subbaiah, S/o. Venkateshwarulu, Aged about 44vears. Occ "ira'r,ii"o?r""" Business, R/o. H.No.20-4-ls, paruii{oi-d;'K;il;ilri;itd*; Prakasam districr, Andhra erboesn isare ;ffi 'il;. N,;.fi y6;bo;9,,".,'

18.Kota Venkata Subba Rao, 9lo.-!!qrgyalt Aged about 69 years, Occ. Business, Ryo. H.No. 12-4-48,oio eintiEiiii](rirrr,rr,rirrrdelii'nltanarr prakasam district, Andhra prioesr'lsiiL-oedii'olt.iv..+ruiiEiz"ozzi '|v'|o'|'|ua', 'nlr"fill1"1!gl&?l$lif#8j[il,.:?j.^[il"::3j",r",1!.d3%:.,?,:?]""'.,

20. Kota Venkata Chandra Qhe.kar, S/o. VenkataNarsimham, Aged about 22 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No. 16'1-178. pamur Road'. Kindukur villaoe and Mandal, Prakasam district, Andhra prabesh (Sale debd Doc. No.41596/2022) 21 .Kota Venkata Sai Chakravarthi, S/o. Chinnaiah, Aged about 24 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.20-3-34l1 , pamur Road, Kandukur viliage dnd M;nd;i, -- ' Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale dedd Ooc. No.+1S9"0/ZOZZ1 22. Parasnath lndustries, Bep. Qy proprietor Smt. Alka Modi, Wo. Nitil Modi, fOed abgut 51 years, Occ. Blsiness, Ryo. H.No:6-3-1 217t18, flat trto.gdz, Bandari Residency, Umanagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

23. Monohar VV.Golla, S/o-. HaribabuGolla, Aged about 3 j years, Occ. pvt En'lp]oyu.e., (9. H.,No.f 0-!-30/1, Sahithi Ch'itd ren Hospit6t, KalidasuVariVeedhi, Kandukurumandal, prakasam diitrici, Andhra pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No.41937 t2O22)

24. Smt..Golla Hymavathi, Wo. Haribabu, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Housewife, $i.g..t!.N-o.!;t9,NearWaterTank, pokurlVotetivaripati:m w'anAii, piatJi'j'rii' district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No.41937'12022)

25. Utlapalli Naramimham, S/o RUo. H.No. 1-2, Yerraredd v deed Doc. No.41g3\l 2022 ) . Kotaiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Agriculture, Palem, Prakasam district,'And h ra Prad6sh (Sale

26.Marasu Prasad, S/o. Marasu Narsaiah, Aged about 3g years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Ptot No.98 and.99,.Ftat No. 102, SR5 Vrushabaorrii, nobo No.5, Aiasn-', !.ayo.uJL l4_alqlnpet, Medchal-Malkajigiri District, Telangana (Sale deed Doc. No.4193912022) 2T.Yeerabadra Suresh, S/o. Malayadri, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Edluruoadu Janrorrmalli M,andal, Frakasham oistrict, hnorrrJ Fod-esii, (Sate deed'Doc. No. 4t ei +oi i zoiiy- -

28.9attamaneni Amulya, D/o Ha.ribabu, Aged about 26 years, Occ. Business, 9.o. ?Og, Vijaya S_ai Seva ResidencV, J.F.Nagar, Miyapur, K.V.RangareddyDistrcit, Telangana state (Sa"te ileet! boi. No.+lS+OIZOZZI

29. Punati Prasqd Rao, S/o. Business, Rl/o. H.No.2-26, Singamanenipaile,-prakasam OidtriCt, nnOfrra Pradesh state (Sale deed DocINo. 41941t2O22) -Ve^nkateshwarulu, Aged about 60 years, Occ.

30. Swarna Subbdrao, S/o. Bapaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. - - Nandanavanam viilage, JaiugumailiMandar, pra(asam oistricl, AnJrrii Pradesh (Sate deed "ocjc. ruol+.isaido2h ' -'"'

31. Kakumani Venkata Krishna l!ly(.hy, S/o Venkateshwarulu, Aged about 49 - ygarq, Oqc. Agriculture, Ryo. H.No'.2-103, Darakanipadu vtilaot.-CrO-uil Mandat, prakasam district, Andhra pradesh state (Sale OeedObc. No.4194312O22)

32. Smt Ravi Alyra{h.g, Wio. Marsinga Rao, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Housewlre, Fvo. Edturupadu village, Jarugumalli Mandal, district, Andhra Pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No.419?Ct2Oii) - -

33. Smt..Allam Sqeesha, Wo. Kommi Madhavarao, Aged about 29 vears. Occ. Employe_e, Rl/o. Edlurupadu viilage, Jarugumalli Mindat, piakasim di;tri;t, Andhra Pradesh (Sate deed Docl. No.+ld++tz\zzl I ')

34.Smt. Korraoati Chinnammai, W/o. Veeranarayana Rao, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.trto.z-t-CO, eOturupiOriviitiqe..Jaruoumalli tvtandal Prakasam district, Andhra pradesh lsate oeeo ood-t t"l+rB+'di)ijzii""-" 35.Gulla Dinesh, S1o. Srinivasulg., Aged about 29 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No. 1-1B9l2, Edlurupadu villa96, JarugumaitiVanOaf , irr-f^i'.n Oirfiiii, Andhra pradesh (Sate deed Doa. No.41"gasiniizil

36. Smt. Kothuri Varalakshamma, W/o. K.Lakshmi Narayana, Aged about 66 - ygarg, pqc Housewife, Rt/o. H.No.3-97, pokuru yi.flaqe. V'oteiiv;rio.r.. Mandal, Prakasam district, Andhra pradesh (sare oded oo,i.',fio [lsa6)nozzl

37.Gurram Venkata Narendra, S/o. Venkateshwarulu, Aoed 24 vears. Occ. Business, R/o. H. No.20 I -60/1, KalidasuVariVeeO-tii, RirOuttlru lrf inOJ, Prakasam district, Andhra pradesh (Sate deed Ooc. No.+r-g+O7Z6eZi- ' 38. shaik Akheel, S/o. Shaik Hameed, Aged about 38 years. occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.J4-59, D_oy_en Townshln-,.p_e1i1iigg!1paili, Hyrlerabad-,i;tr;S;;; (b;t; d eed Doc. N o. 557/2023 to 569/2023. i zao t zozr,' fia t Bozs ind i 3Bi t[oiil

39. Chenna Reddy ThigiredQy, Sio Ramanareddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ. gusiness, nyo. H. trt"o. t -SS, Cnennaiesavalrvi, bi,L"t, pamulaoad ulskale. Kurnool district, Andhra Pradesh (Sate deed No. 12221202C) -'--- - " -'

40.lnturi Chinlabba.i, S/o. Venkateshwarulu, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.3-57, Badevarip_alem vlttage, Votetiuiiipaf'em fvfanOaf, Prakasam district, Andhra pradesh (Sale deedboc . No,. tifitiOi3i- -- ' 41 . Smt. Vadlamudi !1Q9yi, Wo. Srinivasulu, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Housewife, Ryo. Flat No.201lA, 2nd Floor, Vi1-aya Sai Towers, Nlangamoor Road, Ramachandra Mission area, Ongole, pr'akasham Oistiict, Antfrii- Pradesh (Sale deed Doc. No. 123212Oi3)

42.Kallun Ramakrishna, S/o. K.Lingaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Business, ---' R/o, H.No.8-3-7, East KammapElem, Kandukuru, Karidukuiu ManOI[ Prakasham district, Andhra pradesh (Sate deed Doc. No. iilitisZsii 43.Smt. BattiniRajani, W/^o. B.Bala Krishna, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.2-45, Singamaneni palli villaoe. Vdletivarioalem I\Iandal, Prakasam district, Andhra pradesh (sare died ooc. ttoliza+izozsl

44. Katuri Dhiresh Venkateshwarulu, S/o. K years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No. G. No QaSlg!, Near Reliance Petrol Pump, Sa deed Doc No. 123512023) . Venkateshwarulu, Aged years 21 . 1411,-lndttra lrlagar, More Nagar Tal tana, Nasik, Maharastra state (Sale

45.Smt. lnturi Venkata Sravani, Wo. Rajesh, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Business, F/o. H.No 5-23, Badevarinlatem viiiage, votetivaiipiteim l\rlindal, prakasam district, Andhra pradesh (sate deed-Dirc. No.lzdaiioz3i- --' 46. Rajesh Bej_avada., S/o. Bramhaiah, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Business, RIo. --' - H.N.o.5-6, PanguluriVari Palem, Chin[alapalem, Zaiugumalli ManOil,- Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh (Sald deed Doc. "No. 1n76hi

47. S.mt. lntu-ri 1r[[s561ni, [{o. l._sanjeevarao, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Housewife, Fr/o. H. No.2-96B, Baddvaripalem village, voletiv'aripal'em trrianda l. Prakasam district, Andhra pradesh (Sdte deed Doi. No. 1138ti}h) 48. Ravindranath Divi, S/o. Pichaiah Choudari, Aqed about 57 vears. Occ. B.usiness, Rl/o. Flat No.201, Embassy Lake T6rrace, Bellanj Roab, Subramani \agq1fe.qQql, Guddadahatti, Hebbai viilage, Bengaturu, t<.S. lSatb Oeea OoC. No. 1789i2023)

49. Chandrashekar Suryapet, S/o..A{aiah, Aged about 42 yearc, Occ. Business. Rr/o. H. No. j p, rM I G'priase-1, b u eL, R;#;ffi ffi" r;r;; i,: G ;darlo"ov o i'.jiii, Telangana (Sate deed Doc. No. tob9ol202gi - --' ...Respondents/Respondents No.4 to 51/Defendants lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section order XXX|X Rure 1 & 2, Fr/w Sec 151 of c.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support or'fl.," petition, the High court ma-y be preased to grant arr'ad-interim iri"ii"" i" in" favour of the Apperrant and.further direct the Rlespondents/Defendani No. 1 to 49, not to alienate or create third party interest with respect to the suit scheduled propertv in o.s.No.110 oI 2023, on the file of the lV Additional otstriciJuoge at Sangareddy, during the pendency of the above referred appeat. A Suit Schedule of property _ All that agricurturar rand bearing sy. No. zootAA, admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 4.27 Gts, situated at patighan[ur village, patancheru [r/andal S";gr;;;-dy District, Tetangana state bounded by: NORTH. Agricultural Land in Sy. No. 199, SOUTH. Agricultural land in Sy. No. 191 and 20j, EAST.RandBRoad, WEST. Agriculturat Land in Sy. No. 197 and .198. 'B' Suit Schedule of property All that agriculturar rand bearing Sy. No. 200/4, admeasuring to an extent of Ac. '1 .23 cts, situated at patighanpur viilage, pataniheru Mandar, Sungrr"JJt birtii"t, Telangana state bounded by: NORTH: Agricultural Land in Sy. No. 199, SOUTH: Agricultural land in Sy. No. 19.1 & 201, EAS_I Land in Sy. No. 2O)lpatt belongs to Vijay pothukuchi, WEST: Land in Sy. No. 2Oolparl (petitioner No.'.1) ,C' Suit Schedule of property All that agriculturar rand bearing sy. No. 200/4, admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1'2.2 cls, situated at patighanpur viirage, patancheru Mandar, sr"grruJJt bliii"t, Telangana state bounded by: NORTH: Agricultural Land in Sy. No. 199, SOUTH: Agricultural land in Sy. No. 191 & 20i, Land in Sy. No. 2oOtpart (petitioner No. 1) .EAS_T: WEST: Land in Sy. No. 200/part (petitioner No. 2; counsel for the Appeilants in both cMSs : sRr D v srrARAM MURTHY representing SRt NARAPARAJU AVANEESH r Counsel for the Respondents in both CMSs : SRt VEDULA SRINIVAS representing sRt G KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY The Court delivered the following: Common Judgment I a,,/ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.455 and 456 of 2024 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri lustice P. Sam Koshy) Since the issue in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this Common Order

2. Heard Mr. D.V. Sitaram Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the respondents

3. These are two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the appellants challenging the common order dated 3L07.2024 in I.A.Nos.552 and 553 of 2024 in O.S.No.110 of 2023, passed by the IV Additionat District Judge, Sangareddy.

4. The apgellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants before the Trial Court. For the sake of ,l PaEe 2 of 72 facility, the parties are hereinafter referred to with their rank before the Trial Court.

5. Vide the impugned common order, the. Trial Court has allowed the petitions filed by defendant No.1 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') i.e. I.A.Nos.552 & 553 of

2024. As a consequence, the interim injunction order of status quo passed on 19.05.2023 by the then Vacation Court was set aside. It is this vacation of the interim injunction granted on 19.05.2023 of which the plaintiffs are aggrieved of; leading to filing of the pr:esent Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

6. The brief facts relevant For adjudication of the two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are that the plaintiffs filed an original suit for declaration of title and for cancellation of few sale deeds along with the prayer for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule A, B and C properties. Along with the suit, I.A.Nos.269 &270 of 2023 were filed seeking for injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit schedule property. The prayer was also seeking a restraint order against the defendants from interfering with their possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. _ -r

7. While addressing the Court so far as grant of temporary injunction is concerned, the plaintiffs made a statement before the Trial Court that in another suit in respect of the same property, there is already an order of sfafus quo in force granted by the concerned Court and therefore prayed for grant of injunction so far as maintaining status quo in the instant original suit as well. The Trial Court, vide order dated 79.05.2023 believing the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs of there being another injunction order already in force in another connected suit, was pleased to grant the. order of status quo. Subsequently, defendant No.1 filed two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1 & 2 of CPC before the High Court challenging the order dated 19.05.2023. The High Court initially was pleased to suspend the order of sfatus guo granted by the Trial Court on 19.05.2023; however the defendant No.1 withdrew the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeals with a liberty to agitate his rights before the Trial Court itself. After withdrawal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the plaintiffs again approached the Trial Court and got the earlier order dated 19.05.2023 restored whereby the stafus quo was qranted, vide order dated OL.04.2024.

8. It is at this juncture that the two Interlocutory Applications i.e. I.A.Nos.552 and 553 of 2024 were filed by defendant No.1 under Order t Page 4 ol 72 xxxlx Rute 4 of cPC for setting aside the interim injunction order granted on 19.05.2023. Being a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, it was the contention of defendant No.1 who had filed the said petitions that the interim order of injunction was obtained by material misrepresentation and suppression of facis, and therefore, the injunc:ion order of status quo obtained by misrepresentation is liable to be set aside.

9. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court vide the impttgned common order had allowed the two Interlocutory Applications accepting the contention of detendant No.1 that there was material misrepresentation made by the plaintiffs while obtaining the injunction order dated 19.05.2023 from the then vacation court and accordingly set aside the same.

10. The point for consideration before this court is "whether there was sufficient materlal made available before the Trial court for accepting the defendant No.1',s petition under order XXXIX Rule 4 of cPC for setting aside the interim injunction order dated 79.05.2023?"

11. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Trial court failed to appreciate the fact that defendant No.1 himself had challenged the order dated 01.04.2024 restoring the earlier injunction order dated 79.05.2023 vide Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.235 and 236 of 2024 and both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stood dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Couft ylde order dated

30.04.2024. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Trial Court to have further considered the petitions filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC once when the order has been subjected to challenge and have got the seal of affirmation from the High Court.

12. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Trlal Court also failed to appreciate the fact that the order of the High Court dismissing the two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals was also subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide S.L.P.(9) Nos.12103-12LO4 of 2024 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed these S.L.Ps. vide order dated 27.05.2024 directing the Trial Court to decide the application filed for temporary injunction within a period of six (06) weeks after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the defendant No.l was not able to make out a strong case even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court calling for an interference to the order of status quo granted by the Trial Court.

13. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the defendant No.1 in fact had no claim whatsoever over the suit schedule r' property and that the very claim raised over the suit schedure property relying upon an Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) that was issued in the year 1982, is crearry barred by limitation and the suit fired by the defendants i.e. o.S.No.5 r of 2o2o is riabre to be rejected on this ground alone. Ignoring this fact, the Trial court has vacated the interim protection granted ea rlie r. L4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that the impugned common order under chailenge in the two civir Miscellaneous Appeals are those which have been passed . exercising the powers conferred upon the Trial court under order XXXIX Rule 4 of cPC' A bare perusal of the impugned common order wourd crearry reflect that the Trial court had threadbare considered the petitions filed under order XXXIX Rule 4 of cpc and the entire factual gambit of the case and then found that the interim injunction obtained by the plaintiffs at the first instance on 19.05.2023 was with material m isrepresentation .

15. Referring to the interim injunction order dated 19.05.2023, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that reading of the said order itself would show that the plaintiffs in the course of their submissions on the petition under order XXXIX Rule 4 of cpc made an incorrect statement that there was already an order of status quo Page 7 of t2 granted in the connected suit i.e. O.S.No.Sl of 2020. Therefore, a similar order of status quo was sought for in the instant suit and which was granted by the Triar court believing the statement made of an order of status quo arready having been passed in the connected suit pertaining to the same suit schedule property.

16. According to the rearned counser for the respondents, when it was found that there was misrepresentation made and the interim injunction having been obtained by making an incorrect and farse statement; the finding arrived at by the Triar court in the impugned common order cannot be found faurt with, nor can it be said to be in any manner contrary to raw or for that matter contrary to facts. Thus, prayed for dismissal of.the instant two civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

17. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, what is firstly to be appreciated is that the instant two civil Miscerraneous Appears are one which have been fired under the provisions of order XLIII Rure 1(r) of cpc and since these are appeals under order XLIII Rure 1(r) of cpC, the power vested upon this court is confined to the provisions under which the two Interlocutory Apprications were fired and the impugned common order being passed on these Interlocutory Applications. In other words, in the course of exercising powers under order XLIII Rure 1(r) of cpC, / ::'.t '..1 Page E of 12 this Bench would have to only look into the correctness of the order passed by the Trial Court testing it within the framework of the provisions under which two Interlocutory Applications were filed; which in the instant cases are petitions under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CpC.

18. Undisputedly, there was an order of injunction granted by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.05.2023 on a petition filed under order XXXIX Rule I and 2 of CPC read with Section 151 of CpC i.e. an order directing to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property. Though the order dated 19.05.2023 was put to challenge by way of 'Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.255 and 256 of 2023 and there was also an order staying effect and operation of the order dated

19.05.2023, however, subsequently the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals got disposed vide order dated 07.02.2024 granting liberty to pursue the remedies before the Trial Court itself. Meanwhile, after the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stood disposed of by the High Court, the Trial Court restored the interim injunction order dated 19.05.2023 vide a fresh order dated 01.04.2024. This order was tested both before the High Court as also beFore the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the details of which are referred in the earlier paragraphs. Before both the Courts, defendant No.1 did not get any success and he was permitted to agitate the case before the Trial Court itself.

19. The rejection of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals before the High Court as also the dismissal of the S.L.Ps. before the Hon'ble Supreme Couft prima facie goes to show that defendant No.1 did not impress upon the two Courts so far as the illegality or perversity in the order dated 19.05.2023 or for that matter in the order dated 01.04.2024.It ,| was thereafter that the Interlocutory Applications were filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC before the Trial Court highlighting the aspect of misrepresentation.

20. What is necessary to be appreciated is that before the Interlocutory Applications under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC were filed, the order of injunction dated 19.05.2023 and 0L04.2024 were already subjected to challenge before the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but neither of the two Courts could find any error with the aforesaid order of the Trial Court. In the said circumstances, was it justified for the Trial Court to have subjected the order dated

19.05.2023 to be re-tested now invoking the provisions under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC.

21. The grounds raised in the said Interlocutory Applications were already available with the defendant No.1 at the first instance itself when he subjected these orders firstly before the High Court and secondly before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Another point to be l I I ! considered is since the order dated 19.05.2023 and subsequenily the . order dated 0t.04.2023 were honored and the parties in between had maintained status quo, was it really necessary for the Trial court to have vacated the injunction order passed ,o',ong ago. Another aspect which is reflected from the proceedings and the pleadings available in the two civil Miscetlaneous Appeals is that the admitted disputes on the suit schedule property between the plaintiffs and the defendants of their being already a suit in o.s.No.51 of 2o2o having been filed, coupled with fact that in the past there has been multiple sale of the suit schedule property or part of the suit schedule property to multiple persons. In the teeth of all these developments and the multiple sale of the suit schedule property of part of the suit schedule property having taken place to avoid further damage to the suit schedule property, so also to avoid Further complications, the Trial Court ought not to have vacated the interim injunction where the interim order was only to the extent of directing the parties to maintain status quo.

22. In the opinion of this Bench, for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, particularly the series of litigations that took place post 79.05.2023 be it either by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal or by way of S.L.Ps., or by way of yet another petition before the Trial Court etc. etc., this Court is of the firm view that the order of status Page lt of Lz quo gfanted by the Triar court was the most innocuous order which would cause any prejudice to either of the parties so far as the tiae and possession of the suit schedule property is concerned. Though there does seem to be some materiar avairabre to show that there was in fact some misrepresentation made by the praintiffs in the course of obtaining the interim injunction on 19.05.2023; but considering the subsequent developments that have transpired between the pa rties, firstly at the High Court level and secondly at the Hon,ble Supreme court rever, we are of the firm view that the Triar court ought not to have vacated the interim injunction and shourd have rather proceeded to decide the suit at the earliest. \ \ \ ( 23' For the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Bench is of the firm view that the impugned common order passed by the Triar court dated 31.07.2024 is arbitrary and arso bad in raw for the reason that the order dated 19.05.2023 was already subjected to challenge before the High court as arso before the Hon,bre supreme court with no success to the defendants. Accordingry, we ailow the instant civir Miscelraneous Appears to the extent of directing both the parties i.e. the praintiffs as arso the defendants to maintai n status quo so far as the suit schedule property is concerned. However, the Trial court is dire.cted to proceed further with the suit and concrude the i I I * same as expeditiously as possible without any Further unnecessary adjournments and delays.

24. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Additional District Judge, at Sangareddy District 2. One CC to SRI NARAPARAJU AVANEESH, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CCto SRI G KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies ADK/SWT HIGH COURT DATED:2410212025 COMMON JUDGMENT CMA.Nos.4SS and 456 of 2024 rSEri1 14:4 Ro J a ) 2 6 fiAr' 20zs a 1;Sr.r,r51r EO ($( z a .\ a' ALLOWING THE CMAs 4 fl\1 ?)