The High Court · 2025

All that the plot No.34 consisting of Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor admeasuring 320 Sq yards ot 267.52 Sq meters in premises No.156 to 159, situated at Paigah Housing colony, SP Road, Secunderabad Cantonment, hich is bounded by North Road, South Plot No.33, East Property of University Arts and sience college, West Road. SUIT SCHEDULE'F* PROPERTY All that the property bearing Municipal No.2-3-691/16 & 17 on Plot admeasuring 660 Sq Yards equivalent to 551.76 Sq meters situated at Baghamberpet, Hyderabad Police lines, Hyderabad, which is bounded by East Open land of Neighbours, West Public Road, North Open plot of land of Neighbour's, South House of Raiaiah SUIT SCHEDULE'G" PROPERTY All that the Plot No.567, 568 & 569 admesuring Ac.O.9 112 Gts in SY No's-'18/27 situated at Kannal village, Bellampally mandal, Aiilabad District now Mancherial District, which is bounded by North By Road PIot No.566, South House site Plots No's.570 & 571 East by Road Plot No.578, West By road Plot No.573, ' s UIT SCHEDULE'H" PROPERTY All that the Flat No 4-301 admeasuring 982.11 Sft of built up area including the common areas in the Second Floor of Block "A" "RUHAINA ESTATES" Ruhaina Apartments together with 21.32 Sq Yards of undivided share of land in building bearing No.12-13-1236 on Plot No 7 in Sy No 17, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, which is bounded bY North 16" Wide open to Sky and St Ann's School, South Stair Case and Passage, East Flat No.B-301 & 101'0 Feet Wide Open to sky, West 20"00 Feet Wide open to Sky & 80 Feet Wide Road, SUIT SCHEDULE''I' PROPERTY All that the land to an extent ot 1218.75 Sq yards or 1018.87 Sq meters out of total extent of 4875 Sq Yards together with an ACC Roofed Shed thereon with a built-up' area of 9000 Sq Feet forming part of Plot No 21, TlElDA, Balanagar, Balanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, now it is MedchaFMalkajgiri District which is bounded by North Part of Plot No.21, South M/s. Raju Rubber, East M/s. venkateswara Works, West 40"0 Wide Road No.2 B. SUIT SCHEDULE'J' PROPERTY All that the property premises bearing No.8-2-603/M/14 constructed in Plot No.14 admeasuring 355.55 sq yards or 297 .4O Sq meters having plinth area of 430 Sq feet under type B forming part of Sy No's.403/20 Revenue Sy No.346/13 and 31-lM Plot N.6 situated at Road No 10, Baniara Hills, Hyderabad, which is bounded by East Neighbour's Open Plot, West 40"0 Wide Road, North H.No.8-2603/M/1 3, South 8-2-603/M/'13 SUIT SCHEDULE'K" PROPERTY All that the premises bearing No 6-6-528 in Plot No 18 admeasuring 22O sq yards or 183,94 Sq meters situated Gandhinagar, Bansilalpet, Secunderabad, which is bounded by North : Plot No.17, South Plot No.'19, East Plot No.23, West 40'0 Wide Road Sy No 77 Bholakpur, SUIT SCHEDULE 'L" PROPERTY All that the shop No.C302 with 2667 Sq Feet in Third Floor commercial -. comptex "I'llVlNE" sitrrated in-plotj{o-129l49/C2 and 1291491D3, Sy_No 403/Part, __ H.No: 8-2€851P2, P3, P4 and 8-2-685/P5, Road No 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad together with car parking proportionately falling to the share of Vendees and with all the common rights and amenities which is bounded by North {rtain road of+oad No. i 2. South Passage, East Shop No.C301, West Shop No.C303. SUIT SCHEDULE "M" PROPERTY All that the Agriculture lands in to an extent of Ac 2.O2 guntas in Sy No's.75lA1, land to an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy No.75lA2 and tand to an extent of Ac.2.A1 guntas in Sy No 75lA3, thus comes to total an extent of Ac.6.03 guntas situated in Mittabaspally village, Tandur Mandal, now it is vikarabad District, which is bounded by North : Land of M/s. Agarwal Global Steels Limited Sec'bad, South : Land of M/s. Agarwal Global Steels Limited Sec'bad, East : Land of Baswaraj, West : Land of Pentaiah SUIT SCHEDULE "N" PROPERTY All that the sh p No.4 onground Floorjn the building known asjn Stedi Apartments bearing premises No.5-4-33, 5-4-334, 5-4-331D, 54-3311, and 5-4- 3312 with a built up super plinth area ol 232. Sq feet and undivided share of land to an extent of 6 Sq Yards situated at Mahankali street, Ranigunj, Secunderabad, which is bounded by North Neighbour's Shop, South Neighbour's Shop, East passage, West Stair Case and Neighbour's Shop SUIT SCHEDULE "0" PROPERW All that the open land to an extent of 1177 Sq yards or 983.97 Sq meters out of the total retainable area of 31 ,575.27 Sq Yards or 26396.93 Sq meters in Sy No's. 710, 711, 715, 716, 723, 724, 725 in Block No.6 situated at Kukatpally Village and Municipality, Balanagar Mandal, the then Rangareddy District now Medchal-Malkjgiri District which is bounded by North Land belongs to Mrs Urmila Garg, M/s. Sunsip Ltd and M/s. Sommani lspat Pvt Ltd, South Land belongs to M/s. Sunsip Ltd, East 50"0 Feet wide Proposed Road, West A.P.Transco SUIT SCHEDULE 'P" PROPERW All that the House bearing Municipal No.1 3-48/1 admeasuring 242 Sq Yards or 202.34 Sq meters situated in Block No.13 of Mancherial Municipality Luxettioet. Adilabad Dist:rqtnow Mancierial District which is hou dad hrr North House of Chakali Yellaiah, South Municipal Lane, East Municpal Road, West Municipal Road SUIT SCHEDULE "Q' PROPERTY AII that all the Agriculture lands to an extent of Ac.'1.16 gts and Ac 2.24 gts in Sy No 36 thus total comes to Ac.4.00 Gts situated at Gunded Villag€, Balanagar Mandal, Mahboobnagar District, which is bounded by North : Sy No.36 Part, South Sy No.35, East Sy No.36 Part, West Sy No.36 Part SUIT SCHEDULE "R'PROPERTY All that the Flat No-309 in third floor, for an extent of '1380 Sq ft in House bearing No-3-5-796 named as MAHAVEER Apartments, kir g koti, Hyderabad, which is bounded by North : Flat No.307, South Open space above internal road, East Open space abovsinternal Roart, West Corridor's Flat No.3Og, SUIT SCHEDULE "S'' PROPERTY All that Plot No's. 109, .l 10 and 1 1 1 total extent of 1 246 sq yards or '1041 .78 sq meters in sy No's.645 and 646 srimitra Town ships pvt.Lid situated at Pochampally village and Mandal, old Nalgonda District, now yadadri ghoingir District, which is bounded by North Others Land, South 33'0 Wide Road, East 33'0 Wide Road, West Plot No.108 SUIT SCHEDUL E "T* PROPERTY All that the Plot No.52 admea suring. 222 Sq yards, plot No.53 admeasuring 200 sq yards, prot No 54 admeasuring 200 Sq Vards in site-A and Plot No.1 admeasuring 222 sq yards, prot No.2 adieasur ng 200 Sq yards, prot No.3 admeasuring 200 sq yards in site-B, thus totar admeasuring 1244 sq Yards in Sy No.57 & 58 part, Nagirecldypally village, Maheswara-m Mandal, Rangareddy District, which is bounded by North 40"0 Wide Road, South Plot No's.4 & 55, East 33'0 Wide Road, West : 33'0 Wide Road s l[SC UL P]R.OPERTY All that the Agricurture rands to an extent of Ac.3.0g gts in sy No.36 and an extent of Ac.0.31 gts in sy No.31 totaling to an extent of Ac.3.39'gts situated in Gunded village, Baranagar Mandai, i,lahboobnagar District, which bounded North Sy No.36 Part, South SY No.33, East Sy No.31 Part, West Sy No.36 Part 'is SUIT SCHEDULE "V" PROPERTY All that the Agriculture lands to an extent of Ac 1.04 gts in Sy No.422lAA of Sultanpur village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District now it is Sangareddy District which is bounded by North Sy No's.421 & 422, Ruchi Agarwal and neighbour's Land, South 25'0 Wide Road, East Sy No.422lA neighbour's land, West Sy No.423lA land belongs to Ruchi Agarwal S UIT SCHEDULE'W'' PROPE All that the Agriculture lands to an extent of Ac.1.20 gts in Sy No.422lA, B,C (Sy No.422lA - 0.25 guntas, Sy No.422lB - 0.09 guntas and Sy No.422lC 0.26 guntas) situated at Sultanpur village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak Distriet, now Sanga Reddy District which is bounded by North : Land of Agarwal Global Steels Ltd in Sy No.419, South:Land of Agarwal Global Steels Ltd in Sy No.422A, East : Road, West: Lands in Sy No.421 belonging to M.Krishna Goud and other 3 brothers SUIT SCHEDULE'X'' PROPERTY All that the land of Municipal D.No,2-3-692l9/11 admeasuring 500 Sq Yards or 418 Sq meters in Sy No 303/.1 , situated at Amberpet, Hyderabad, which is bounded by North Neighbour's Land, South Land belongs to naresh Kumar Agarwal, East Land belongs to Late Gopal Agarwal, West 66'0 feet Road Amberpet to ltrloosarambagh. SUIT SCHEDULE'Y" PROPERTY All that the property of D.No. 2-3-69219111 admeasuring 500 Sq Yards or 418 Sq meters in Sy No 303/1 , Amberpet, Hyderabad, which is bounded by North Land belongs to neighbour's, South Land belongs to Naresh Kumar Agarwal, East Land helongs to Neighbour's, West : Land belongs to Late Gopal Agarwal ___ SUIT SCHEDULE "Z' PROPERTY All that the property of premises No-8-2-603/M/13 in Plot: No.13 admeasuring 391.60 Sq yards or 327.60 Sq meters under Type B forming part of Sy No 403120, Revenue Sy No.346/13 and JHM Plot No G at Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, which is bounded by East Neighbour's Open Plot, West 40"0 Wide Road, North 50"0 Wide Road, South H.No.B.2.6O3lMl 14 SUIT SCHEDULE "AA'PROPERTY All that the plot No.395 admeasuring 439 Sq yards or 362.04 Sq meters in Sy No's.12l1 , 1212, 1213, 1214, 12110, 12116, in S i Mitra Township, pigtipur village, Hayathnagar Mandal, RanEareddy District, which is bounded by North 33'0 Wide road, South Plot No.370, East 40"0 Wide Road, West Plot No.394 SUIT SCHEDULE "AB- PROPERTY All that the open land to an extent of 1176 sq yards or 983.13 sq meters out of 31575.27 Sq Yards in Sy No,s.710,711,715, 116.223.124,225 situated at Kukatpally Village and Mr:rnicipality, Balanagar l andar, Rangareddy District now it is Medchal-Malkajgiri Distr"ict bounded by North Land belongs to M/s. SUNSIp Ltd, South Land belongs to M/s. SUNSIp Ltd, East 50"0 Wlde Road, West A.P. Transco surT scflEDULE'AC'' PROPERTY All that the premises bearing No.6-6-527 on prot No.17 admeas uring 22o Sq yards in Sy No.78 situated at Bholakpur, Gandhinagar, secunderabad, irhich is bounded by North Plot No.16 in Sy No.78, South Plot No.1B in Sy No.7B, East Plot No.20 in Sy No.78, West 401 0 Feet Wide Road SUIT SCHEDULE -AD" PROPERTY All that the land to an extent of Ac.1.14 gts in sy No.421tN1 (as per ratest pahanies sy No's.42'llA/3, 4211N4, 421tNs & 4z1rN6) siruated at Surtanpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, now sanga Reddy District which is bounded by North Lands in Sy No.420, South Lands in Sy NO.22, East Lands in Sy No.422, l t r(;JL Lol I ^ ^.J^ r\.ls /^^l tt I rJy t\au..tz I SUIT SCHED ULE'AE- PROPERTY AII that the Agricurture rands in sy No.423tA to an extent of Ac 0.05 gts . sttuated_at Sultanpur village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District now it is sariga Reddy District which is bounded by North Land of Satish babu in Sy No.421 , South Road, East Land of Praveen Kumar and Pramo<l Kumar Kanodia in Sy No-422, West Remianing land in Sy No.423 belongs to Eandalla narasumhulu SUIT SCHEDULE "AF' PROPERTY All that the Plot No.393 to an extent of 200 Sq Yards or 167.22 Sq meters in Sy No's.1211,1212, 1213, 1214, 12110, 12116, in Sri Mitra township, situated in Piglipur village, Hayathnagar mandal, Rangareddy District, which is bounded by North 33"0 Wide Road, South Plot No.372, East Plot No.394 West Plot No.392 SUIT SCHEDULE "AG' PROPERTY All that the Plot No.370 to an extent of 200 Sq Yards or 167.22 Sq meters in Sy No's.'12l1,1212, 1213, 1214, 12110, 121'16, in Sri Mitra township, situated 1n Piglipur village, Hayathnagar mandal, Rangareddy District, which is bounded by North Plot No.395, South 33"0 Wide Road, East 40"0 Wide Road, West : Plot No.371 SUIT SCHEDULE "AH" PROPERTY All that the open Plot No.109 admeasuring 479.66 Sq.Yards, Plot No.113 admeasuring 503.58 Sq Yards thus comes to total 983.24 Sq Yards or 822 Sq meters in Sy No's.l54, 155, 157, 160, 161 & 162 more particularly located in Sy No.161 , (HMDA final layout plan vide permit No.02l40/P1g/HMDAl2O11 and letter No.12965/MP2lPlg/HMDA/2009) situated at Dulapally Village & G.P, Dundigallu Gandimaisamma landal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist. which is bounded North Plot No's.110 & 112 South 74"0 Wide Road, East 40"0 Wide Road, West 40"0 Wide Road SUIT SCHEDULE 'AI' PROPERTY All that the Agriculture lands in Sy No-261/F to an extent ot Ac.1 .12 Gts and Lands in Sy No.263/F to an extent of Ac.0.28 Gts total to an extent of Ac.2.00 Gts situated at Kollur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal. Medak District now Sanga Reddy District which is bounded by for the lands in Sy No.261/F: North Sy No.16l/E and 2631E, South Sy No.269, East Sy No.263/F, West Sy No.261lA, Boundaries for Sy No.26'l13,: North Sy No.263/E, South Sy No.264, East Road to Kollur, West Sy No.261lF SUIT SCHEO ULE "Ai' PROPERTY All th€t the Agricurture rands to an extent ot Ac.2.14 Gts in sy No.419 . situated at sultanpur village, patancheru Mandal, Medak District now it'is Sanga Reddy District which is bounded by North Land belongs to Vendor in Sy no 420 South Land belongs to Sri Ashok Kumar in Sy no 4221, East Road, West Road SUIT SCHEDULE "AK" PROPERTY All that the agricurture rands to an exteni of Ac.3.22 Gts in sy No 42zrA . situated at sultanpur vilrage patancheru Mandal, Medak District, no* it is sanga Reddy District which is bounded by North Remainrng Land of Sy no 4221A, South Sy no 4221A, Easl Road, West Remaining Land of Sy no 422tA. SUIT SCHEDULE' AL" PROPERTY All that the Agricurture rands to an extent of Ac.0.06 Gts in sy No. zotAt1 situated at sultanpur Village, patancheru Mandal, Medak District,'no* srng, Reddy District which is bounded by North Sy no 42OlN1 , South Land in Sy no 421 , East Land in Sy no 419, West Land in Sy no 42OlN1 SUIT SCHED ULE'AXI" PROPERTY All that the Ag.curture rands to an extent of Ac.0.26 Gts in Sy no 42otN1 srtualed at surtanpur Viilage, patancheru Mandar, Medak Districi no* srni, Reddy District, which is bounded by North : ZP Road, South Land in Sy no 42i, East Land in Sy no 419, West Land in Sy no 4ZAAAJL SUIT SCHED ULE'AN' PROPERTY All that the adeasuring 72113 and Rangareddy D istrict, noe Medchal-M North Portion of H.No: 1i-6-54, House bearing No. 1 1-6-56 (old No.6-56) on part of Plot No.3 q yards or 836.93 Sq meters in Sy No's 716/3, 719, 1001 s 720, of Kukatpally Municipality, Balanagar Revenue Mandal, 722t2 alkajgiri District, which is bounded by South H.No 11-6-57, East 1 5'w common passage, West Neighbour's property SUIT SCHEDULE "AO" PROPERTY All that the House bearing No.114-57 (old No.6-57) on par: of plot No.3 adeasuring 1001 Sq yards or 836.93 Sq meters in Sy No's.716/3,1i9,720, 72113 and 72212 ot Kukatpally Municipality, Balanagar Revenue Mandal, Rangareddy District, now Medchal-Malkajgiri District, which is bounded by North Portion of H.No: 1 16-54, South H.No 11-6-57, East '15'w common passage, West Neighbour's property SUlT SCHEDULE'AP" PROPERTY All that the Agricuture lands to an extent of Ac.S.00 Gts out of Ac.10.00 Gts in Sy No 13211lE situated at -Buchineliy Village, Zahirabad Mandal, Medak District, now Sanga Reddy District which is bounded by North . NH 9, South : Neighbours land, East : Neighbours land, West : Neighbours land in Sy No.132l1 part belongs to Sri Amica steets and metals lndia Pvt ltd SUIT SCHEDULE "AQ" PROPERTY All that the Agriculture lands in Sy No.74lA admeasuring Ac.5 23 Gts and tands in Sy No.74lAA to an extent of Ac.5.23 Gts thus total comes to Ac.11.06 Gts situated at Didigi Village, Zahuabad Mandal, Medak District, now Sanga Reddy District which is bounded by North Sy no 109, South remaining land an Sy no 74lPart, East Sy no 108, West : Road, SUIT SCHEDULE "AR" PROPERTY All that the Agriculture lands admeasuring Ac.2.08 Gts in Sy No.36 or 36/E, 4c.2.29 in Sy No.37 o( 3714, Ac.0.39 in Sy No.37 or 371A, Ac.0,30 Gts in Sy No.39 or 39/AA, Ac.1.00 Gts in Sy No.40 or 40/EE thus tolal comes to Ac.4.37 Gts situated at Gundeda Vi{lage, Balanagar Mandal, Mahboobnagar District bounded by North Road, South Sy no 35, East Sy No.36 & z1O, West Sy No 1 76 SUIT SCHEDUL E -AS'PROPERTY All that the agriculture lands to an extent of Ac.i0.02 Gts in sy No 36/4A situated at Mittabaspally Village, Tandur Mandal, Rangareddy District, now Vikarabao District which is bounded by North : agriculture land of K,Hanumanthu, South agriculture land of Sk Ahmad & Moulan gee, East agriculture land of Gore Bee, West agriculture land of Mangali Ahanna SUIT SCHEDULE' AT" PROPERTY AJI that the agriculture tands to an extent of Ac.3.00 Gts in sy No.76/E situated at Mittabaspally vilrage, Tandur Mandar, Rangareddy District, no* vir.riaoro District which is bounded by North agriculture land of Bantu Narsimulu, South agriculture land of pentaiah, East agriculture land of P.Janardhan reddy, West agriculture land of Kurva Mallaiah SUIT SCHEDULE "AU'PROPERTY All that the agricurture rands to an extent of Ac.0.30 Gts in sy No.39/A and Ac-0.30 Gts, Lands to an extent of Ac.0,30 Gts in sy No.3g/AA, tnus totat comes to Ac,1.20 Gts situated at Mittabaspally Village, iandur Mandal, A"ngr.;JOV District, now Vikarabad District which is boundei by North agriculture land of Gore Bee. South agriculture land of Kashappa, East agriculture Iand of Sy no 39/AA, West agriculture land of K.Suresh SUIT SCHEDULE "AV'PROPERTY AII that the Agriculture tands to an ertent of Ac.1.3z G,s in Sy No.7slA situated at Mittabasparry Vr[age, Tandur Mandar, Rangareddy Distiict, no* vir"irora District bounded by North agriculture land of Talari Ashanna, South Panadi & agriculture land of pa tast agriculture land of Narahari, - West agriculture land of Kurvakashappa rwathamma, SUIT SCHE DULE "AW" OPE TY All that the Agricurture rands to an extent ot Ac.1.23 Gts in sy No.39/A situated at Mittabasparry Viilage, Tandur Mandar, Rargareddy Distriit, now vitaraoao District which is bounded by North agriculture land of Nidigunda Eranna. South agriculture land of sharanappa, East agriculture land of Vadla Narsamma, West : Agriculture land of Kurva mallappa SUIT SCHEDULE ''AX' PROPERTY All that the Agriculture lands to an extent of Ac.1.21 Gts in Sy No.76/4A situated at Mittabaspally Village, Tandur Mandal, Rangareddy District, now it is Vikarabad District, which is bounded by North agriculture land of Gore Bee, South agriculture land of Kashappa, East agriculture land of sharanappa, West agriculture land of Pentaiah. SUIT SCHEDULE "AY' PROPERTY All that the Agriculture to an extent of Ac 1 .00 Gts in Sy no 36, Ac.1 .00 gts in Sy No.36/4, Ac.3.00 gts in Sy No,39/AA totaling to Ac.5.00 Gts situated at Mittabaspally Village, Tandur Mandal, Rangareddy District, now it is Vikarabad District which is bounded by North agriculture land of Rahim &Mrs Hussain Bee, South agricu{ture land of sharanappa & suresh, East agriculture land of K.Hanappa, West way & agriculture land of Mrs Hussain Bee SUIT SCHEDULE'AZ' PROPERTY All that the Agriculture lands to an extent of Ac.4.10 Gts out of Ac.6.10 Gts in Sy No 39/A situated at Mittabaspally Village, Tandur lVlandal, Rangareddy District. now it is Vrkarabad District which is bounded by North Lanci of Vendee, South vendors remaining land, East land in Sy no 42, West land in Sy no 36 of vendee SUIT SCHEDULE "AAA' PROPERTY All that the Agriculture lands to an extent o'f Ac 4.28 Gts it Sy No 45/A situated at Mittabaspally Village, Tandur Mandal, Ranciareddy District, now Vikarabad District which is bounded by North remEining land'S South land in Sy no 42, East land Sy No.44, West Land Sy No 38 yNortq SUIT SCHEDULE'AAB' PROPERTY All that the agriculture lands to an extent of Ac 2.32 Gts in Sy No-35/A situated at Mittabaspally Village, Tandur Mandal, Rangareddy District now Vikarabad District which is bounded by North land of Vendee, South land of Yellamma, East land of Narsamma, West land of Bichappa and lands in Sy No.36 to an extent of Ac.0.31 Gts out of Ac.6,20 Gts sitr/ated at Mittabaspally Village, Tandur lvlandal, Rangareddy District now Vikarabad District which is bounded by North land of Siddareddy, South land of vendee, East land of vendee, West remaining lanci SUIT SCHEOULE''AAC' PROPERTY All that the Agriculture lands to an extent of Ac.4.36 Gts in Sy No.39/A situated at Mittabaspally Village, Tandur Mandal, Rargareddy District, now Vikarabad District which is bounded by North Agriculture lands of K.Hanumanthu, South Agriculture lands of Shaik Ahmed and Moulana Bee East Agriculture land of Sandana and others, West Agriculture lands of K Suresh SUIT SCHEDULE "AAD' PROPERTY All that the Agriculture lands in Sy No,39/A to an extent of Ac.1.23 Gts in Sy no 39/A situated at lvlittabaspally Viltage, Tandur Mandal, Rangareddy District, now Vikarabad District which is bounded by North agriculture land of vendee, South agriculture land of Masula Babu, East agriculture land of vadla Veeranna, West agriculture land of vendee SUIT SCHEDULE "AAE' PROPERTY All that the Agriculture lands in to an extent ot Ac 7.26 Gts in Sy No,74 situated at Mittabaspally Village, Tandur Mandal, Rangareddy District, now it is Vikarabad District which is bounded by North Agriculture land of Burugupally Shanappa &Tuljappa, South Panadi, East agriculture land of Mohammed Sab, -------West agriculture land of Sharma S.S.R - SUIT SCHEDULE "AAF'P BOPERTY A{t that the land to an extent of '16688 Sq Yards or 13968 Sq rneters in SIOA, Velumala Allottee of land as per Lr No.5157/lDA Velumala/95 Dated 7-3-96 on 27 -05-96 situated at Sy No.315 & 43411 of Velumala Village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, Sanga Reddy District which is bounded by North Private land, South 30 m wide road. East area of land block c, West area of land block A Counsel for the Appellant: Sri D. Jagadeshwar Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K.S. Suneel The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VTNOD KUMAR And THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CryIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.542 of 2023 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Jusrice T.Vinod Kumar) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is flrled assailing the order dated 13-07-2023 passed in I.A.No.350 of 2023 in O.S.No.l65 I of 2022 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy Districr at L.B. Nagar to the extent of dismissing the I.A. filed under Order 39 Rule t and 2 r/w Section l5 I of CPC For grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating / encumbering or creating third party rights over the suit schedule properties in respect of suit schedule 'A' to 'AAE' propefties except suit schedule 'F' & 'G' properties, as being contrary to law

2. Heard Sri D.Jagadeeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.S. Suneel, leamed counsel for respondents, and perused the record.

3. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the underlying lnterlocutory Application filed under Order 39 Rule I and 2 CpC \ 2 and plainti[r irr the suit filed for Partition and separate possesston in respect of the suit schedule properties'

4. The case of the appetlant in brief is that he is the son of 1't respondent and brother of respondent Nos'2 and 3 herein; that respondent Nos.6 to 8 are the family Companies, wherein each of the family member are shareholders; that out of the income/funds generated from respondent Nos'6 to 8 family business, the l" respondent had purchased various Properties which are in the name of respondent Nos'l and 2; and that the said properties though are in the name of respondent Nos'l and 2, since the lunds tbr acquiring the same were generated from the joint family owned Companies, they constitute nucleus of joint family funds and thus' are liable to be partitioned among the familY members.

5. It is the further case of appellant that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 3l-03-2OZl was executed and signed between the appellant and respondent Nos'l to 3 in three sets and after its execution, the same were kept with mediators withtheconsentofthepartiesandassuch,theappellantisnotin custody of the MoU dated 3l-03-2021 for it to claim that there 3 has been an understanding among the appellant and respondent Nos.l and 2 to divide all the properties between the appellant and respondent Nos.l and 2 in the ratio of 44:12:44 respectively; that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant had partially complied with the obligation under MoU dated 31-03- 2021 by discharging the outstanding loan of respondent Nos.6 and 8 and also partially discharged the outstanding loan amount in the loan account of respondent No.t; that respondent Nos.l and, 2 are acting contrary to the MolJ when it comes to dividing/division of the suit schedule properties; and that respondent Nos. I and 2 are alienating the suit schedule properties in order to deleat the claim of appcllant lor partition. Thus, the appellant contends that the properlies forming part of nucleus of joint family are to be protected/preserved pending consideration of the suit filed by him lor partition.

6. Appellant further contends that pending adjudication of the suit filed by him, if the respondent Nos.l and 2 are allowed to deal with the suit schedule properties as il they are their individual properties, the same would bc detrimental to the interest of the appellant, and therefore, the trial Court ought to 4 have preser.red the suit schedule properties by granting injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the same. 7 . Appellant further contends that during pendency of the suit, respondent Nos.l and 2 had alienated some of the joint famity properties by executing gift settlement deeds in favour of one Mr.Naresh Kumar Agarwal, who is none other than the paternal uncle of appellant, and thus, the respondents are hell-bent in defeating the claim of the appel[ant flor partition of suit schedule properties

8. Appetlant also contends that the trial Court had erred in granting only partial injunction restraining the respondents from deating with the suit schedule 'F' & 'G' properties by considering the same as ancestral properties without properly appreciating that the othcr suit schedule properties are also acquired from the nucleus of joint famity funds. Thus, the appellant submits that the order of the trial Court in not injuncting the respondents from dealing with,/alienating the suit schedule properties 'A' to 'AAF' excluding suit schedule 'F' & 'G' properties is tiable to the set aside by granting injunction restralnlng the respondents from dealing with alt the suit 5 schedule properties pending adjudication of the suit vide O.S.No.1651 of 2A22.

9. Appellant further contends that by granting injunction, no prejudice would be caused and on the other hand, wouid protect the interest of all the parties tilt the adjudication of the suit.

10. In support of the aforesaid contentions, leamed counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwant P.Sulakhe Vs. Digambar Copal Sulakhe and othersl . ll. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the appellant herein had approached this Courl rvith unclean hands, as the fact of he approaching the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short 'the NCLT') at an earlier point of time by filing Company Petition No.85/241lHDBl2020 seeking similar relief as soughr for in the suit and the same having been dismissed on 04-12-023 has been suppressed. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed ' lrsso; r scc :ee 6 before this Court the copy olthe order dated 04-l?-2023 of the NCLT.

12. It is also contended on behalfofthe respondents that though the appellant had claimed execution of MoU dated l3-03-2021, the said MoU is neither filed nor marked in the underlying Interlocutory Application before the trial Court in order to substantiate his claim ofhaving acted partially in discharging the liabilities of respondent Nos.6 and 8 as per the terms of the aforesaid MoU; and that the other properties were agreed to be divided in the ratio of 44:12:44

13. On behalf of the respopdents, it is further contended that though the appellant claims of MoU being executed in triplicate and the same having been kept with mediators, in the plaint filed by him, the said fact has not been stated and neither the notice which the appellant clalms to have got issued to the mediators nor the reply issued by the mediators have boen marked'at the time of hearing of the underlying Interlocutory Application'

14. On bchalf of respondents, it is contended that the appellant herein had hled similar Interlocutory Application in the suit vide I.A.No.t266 of 2Ol2 and had withdrawn the same and as such, ? cannot maintain the underlying Interlocutory Application seeking the same relief once again.

15. It is further contended on behal[ofthe respondents that the appellant herein did not adduce any evidence to show that the suit schedule properties other than the 'F'& 'G' properties are acquired out of the nucleus ofjoint family funds in order to seek partition of the same in the suit, and thus being entitled for grant of injunction restraining the rpspondents from dealing with the same.

16. On behalf ofthe respondents, it is further contended that it was on account of mismanagement ol business and mis- utilization of funds by the appellant resulting in liabilities being created on respondent No.6 and 7 company, the appellant was removed from the management and control of the respondent- companies and in retaliation of the aforesaid action taken, has initiated multi-pronged litigation against the respondents herein before various forums,

17. In reply. to the aforesaid submissions made on behalf ol respondents, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the lnterlocutory Application vide I.A.No. 1266 ol 2023 was 8 withdrawn as complete details were not furnished, with liberty to file a fresh Interlocutory Application with complete details, and thus, the withdrawal of the earlier Interlocutory Application would not act as a bar for filing the underlying Interlocutory Application and its consideration.

18. On behalf cif appellant in reply, it is further conrended that the appellant had sufficiently stated about the execution of MoU in the plaint and it being handed over to the mediators and as such, the claim of the respondents of the appetlant not stating about the MoU being kept with the r.nediarors, is not a valid submission.

19. We have taken note of respective contentions urged.

20. Though, a strong criticism is made to the order of the trial Court in not granting injunction in respect of suit schedule properties except suit schedule 'F' & 'G' properties on the ground that by the underlying Interlocurory Application, the appellant having only sought for a restraint order against respondents from not alienating the suit schedule properties pending adjudication of the suit, it is to be noted that the trial Court taking into consideration the submissions made and the 9 documents marked on behalf of the parties, had concluded that only suit schedule 'F' & 'G' properties to be ancestral- Further, the trial Court also noted that the suit schedule properties were purchased in the name ofnot only respondent Nos.l and 2 herein but also in the name of appellant's mother, wife of appellant (who IS arrayed respondent No.5) in the underlying Interlocutory Application and that the appellant did not bring any material on record to show that the properties which are in the name of other than the 1$ respondent herein were also purchased by l " respondent in the in the names of other individuals separately by utilizing the ancestral funds generated out of the joint lamily business

21. Furlher, it is to be noted that the sheet-anchor of the case of appellant is the MoU dated 3 t-03-2021. However, the appellant, lor the best reasons known to him, did not get the aforesaid MoU marked in the underlying Interlocutory Application for him to claim of he having acted on the basis of the said MoU and the respondent Nos.l and 2 acting contrary to understanding with regard to division of the other properties in the ratio of 44:12 44 between them 10

22. Though, on behalf of appellant it is contended that the aloresaid MoU having been executed in triplicate and having kept with mediators, and thus, the appellant being able to file only a copy of the said MoU into the Court, the respondents in particular respondent No.1 had denied of executing the MoU and his signature thereon being forged. Thus, the factum o[execution of MoU is in dispute.

23. It is also pertinent to note that in the plaint, the appellant did not mention about the alleged MoU being executed in triplicate and being kept with mediators. Though, in the plaint, the appellant had claimed of he having issued notice to one Sri Ravi Agarwal and Ritesh Naredi on 03-12-2021 and 20- 12-2021 to hand over the original MoU and the said persons having issued reply notice d^ted 27-12-2021 and 02-08-2022 claiming that the said MoU as having been handed over to respondent No' I herein, neither the notices issued by the appellant nor the replies received from them have been exhibited for the trial Court for it to be looked into while considering the same in the underlying lnterlocutory APPlication. a"^ 11

24. Further, it would also be pertinent to note that in the Company Petition filed by the appellant as petitioner along with two others before the NCLT, the appellant had sought for main reliefl in 'A' & 'B' among others as under: "(a) Direct the Responfunt No.l Company note to alienate, dispose or transfer the properties previously charged by the Respondent No.l Company in favour of thz City Union Bank Limited in relation to credit facilities availed, which properties ore not mentioned in the sanction letters dated

15.02.2019 ond 28.12.2019 and issued by. City Union Bank Limited to the Responfunt No.l Company; (b) Direct the Respondent No.l Company note to alienate, dispose or transfer the freehold properties of the Respondent No. I Company,. ... "

25. The aloresaid main reliefs sought for in the Company Petition are same as sought for in the underlying Interlocutory Application, though are directed against respondent No.6.

26. tt is also to be noted that in the Company Petition trled by the appellant before the NCLT, the appellant had arrayed the HUF of respondent Nos. I and 2 herein as parfy-respondent. However, in the civil suit filed by him before the trial Court for partition, the appellant did not array HUF of respondent Nos. t and 2 as perLg:s to show that some of the suit schedule properties 12 are joint family properties, of which the l't respondent herein is the'Kartha'.

27. lt is settled position of law that in order to seek grant of temporary injunction, the following conditions are required to be satisfied: (i) There is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. (ii) That irreparable injury is likety to be caused to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated for in terms of money. (ii) That the balance of convenience lies in favour ofthe plaintiffand against the defendant.

28. Since, in the facts of the present case, the appellant asserts that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties, it is for the appellant to show prima facie that the suit schedule properties acquired formed part of nucleus ofjoint lamily.

29. The Supreme Court in Bhagwat Sharan (Dead through Legal Representatives) Vs. Purushottam and others2 after referring to the decision of Privy Council in Randhi Appalaswami Vs. Randhi Sa4tanarayanamurtf , which view ' (2020) 6 scc t87 I t947 scc onlioe Pc 42 13 was accepted by the Apex Court in D.S.Lakshmaiah Vs. L.Balasubramanyamo had held : "21. ...... In view of the law cited above, it is clear thqt not only jointness of the family has to be proved but burden lies upon the person alleging existence of a joint fomily lo prove that the property belongs to the joint Hindu family unless there is material on record to show that the property is the nucleus of the ioint Hindu fanily or that it was purchased through funds coming out of lhis nucleus. ln our opinion, this has not been proved in the present case. Merely because the business is joint would not raise the presumption that there is a joint Hindu family ..

30. The trial Court, on the basis of documents filed had recorded a categorical finding that the appellant did not place any material on record to show that the business grew on the basis o[ joint family property and same is blended with joint family income.

31. Further, the trial Court having observed as above, noted that the appellant had failed to show any prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and irreparable Ioss will be caused if injunction restraining the respcndents frorn alienating the suit sch{ule properties is not granted. The said finding \ ' (2ool) to scc 3lo L4 recorded by the trial Court while considering the lnterlocutory Application in exercise of discretion of the Court should not be substituted by the Appeltate Court with its own discretion, unless it is shown to the Court that the discretion exercised by the trial Court is either arbitrary or capracious or perverse.

32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Mehtab Khan Vs. Khushnuma lbrahim Khant had held : "20. In a situation where the learned trial courl on o consideration of the respective cases of the Pdrties dnd the documenls taid before il was of the view that the entitlemenl of the plaintiffs to an order of interim mandatory iniunction was in serious doubt, the Appellate Court could not have inlerlered with the exercise of discretion by the learned Trial Judge unless such exercise was found to be palpably incorrecl or untenable. The reasons'that weighed with lhe learned Trial Judge, as already noticed, according to us, do not indicate that the view takcn is not a possible view. The Appetlate Court, therefore, should not have substituted its views in the matler merely on the ground that in its opinion the facts of the case call for a dffirent conclusion. Such an etercise is not the correct Ddrarneter for exercise oI urisdiction while heari. order. " t a discreti. n d. '1zor:y s sce.z21 15

33. The Apex Court in a recent decision in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi Vs. Harish Ambalat Choksi and others6 whlle reiterating the view expressed in Mohd. Mehtab Khan (supra) had further observed: "38. Seen in light of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are of the clear view that in the lacts of the present case, the High Court overslepped its appellate jurisdiction under Order 43 of the CPC and substituted its ou,n view for the one talcen by the trial court without giving any categorical finding as to why the order of the trial court could be said to sufer arbitrariness, malafdes or having been passed in ignorance of the settled principles governing the granl of injunction under Order 39 of the CPC. ' perversity, copriciousness, By observing as above, the Apex Court concluded that : " 42. High Courts must not lightly set aside the decision arrived al by the trial court in exercise of its discretion unless lhe order of the trial court fails to sdtisfy the porameters as delineated by us in the preceding paragraphs. The failure to engage wilh these crucial aspects renders the High Court's order deficient, detracting from the objective ofrendering subsIanlive and reasoned justice. "

34. In the light of the above settled posirion of law, though on behalt of the appellanr ir is conrended that by injuncting the 6 (2024 SCC Online SC 3538 L6 respondents from alienating the suit schedule propertigs pending adjudication of the suit, would not cause any prejudice to the respondents herein, as it would only keep the suit schedule properties intact, it is to be noted that the appellant would be entitled to be granted the said relief only by showing a prima facie case as to the said property being joint family property as pleaded by him. Since, the appellant has not shown before the trial Court as to the aforesaid properties to be that ofjoint famity properties, grant of injunction on the other hand would result in prejudice to respondents dealing with their independent propertres.

35. The reliance placed by the appellant on the decision in Bhagwanl P.Sutakhe (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case categorically noted therein that the dispute involving the shops therein were joint lamily business and that the dispute was only in relation to remuneration paid to the defendant No.l and the plaintiff therein as the managing agent is to be treat€d as they, are individual earnings or to be held as joint family incoure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, having regard to the covenants of the partnership \ 17 agreement whereby the plaintiff and defendant No.2 became partners and appointed as managing agent, held that the income coming into the hands of plaintiff and defendant Nos.l and 2 is on the basis of partnership agreement and the managing agency agreement and thus belong ro joint family and form part ofjoint family property.

36. The facts in the present case are totally at variance from the facts as considered by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, and thus, thus would not aid or advance the case of the appellant.

37. In view of the above, and considered lrom any angte, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the trial Court in corning to conclusion that onty the suit schedule 'F' and 'G' properties to be joint family properties, and granting injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the plaint schedule 'Fo and 'G' properties and dismissing the underlying Interlocutory Application under Order 39 Rule I and 2 CPC insofar as other suit schedule properties are concemed, cannot be h^Jd as contrary to law, for it to be set aside by this Couit irr the present Appeal 18

38. Thus, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed

39. It is made clear that in the meantime, if the respondents deal with the suit schedule properties and the appellant succeeding in the suit, such transactions entered into would subject to operation ofSection 52 ofthe Transfer ofProperty Ac! 1882.

40. As a sequel, miscellaneous paitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR SECTI€}N OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar. 2. One CC to Sri D. Jagadeshwar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K.S. Suneel, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VH/ghw \:., 2 a HIGH COURT DATED: 2810212025 ,./ 'g' l\\ cO s {ts n.\' JUDGMENT CMA.No.542 ot 2023 ,' - t:1,- . : .. i*:':2' ",.1#4 'rtb.; DISMISSING THE CMA ro\1atr G X*