The High Court · 2025

(Respondents No. 47 to 49 are added as Defendants No. D- Z(a). to (c) ln Appl No 7312000 in c. s. No 7/1958 vide order dated z- z- zddo. bdrrio the -'" Iegal representatives of deceased Defendant tto. o- z ntsaruo;i. ffi;;: 50. (D- B). lqbaluddin Khan (Died), sio. Late Nawab Moinuddowra Elahadur. 51. (D- 9). Wajihuddin Khan (Died), per L. Rs. , Respondents No. 5,1 to 60. 52. (D- 9(a). Janaba Fareedunnisa Begum (Died), Wo. Wajihuddin Khan.

53.(D- 9(b). Nawab Afzaluddin Khan, S/o. Wajihuddin Khan, aged about 66 years, O"c Business, R/o. 75lA, Katedhan, Shivrampally, R. R. District.

54. (D- 9(c). Nawab Azeemuddin Khan, S/o. Wajihuddin Khan, aged about 68 years R/o. 22- 5- 484, Panjeshah. Hyderabad.

55.(D- 9(d). Nawab Yousufuddin Khan, S/o. Wafhuddin Khan, aged.about 58 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No, 19- 3- 2621215 ' Jahanuma, Hyderabad. 56. (D- 9(e). Janaba Viqarunnisa Begum, D/o Wajihuddin Khan, aged a.bout 62 years, bcc Househdld, R/o. H. No. 8- 5- 1112, Uddamgadda, Bandlaguda, R. R. District.

57. (D. 9(fl. Janaba Saveedunnisa Bequm, D/o. Wajihuddin Khan' aged about 54 years,'Occ Housetiold, R/o. H. Nb. 8- 5- 1112, Uddamgadda, Bandlaguda, R. R. District.

58.(D. 9(q), Nawab Asifuddin Khan, S/o, Wajlhuddin Khan, aged aboqt 50 years' bcc Biisiness, R/o. H. No. B- 6- 1112, Uddamgadda, Bandlaguda, R- R. District.

59. (D- 9(h). Nawab Moinuddin Khan, S/o. Wallihuddln Khan, aged about 52' years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No,4- 75lA, Katedhan, Shivrampally, R. R' District.

60. (D- 9(i). Janaba Parwarishynnisa. aeguqr @. Jahandarunnisa Begum, D/o' Walnlioin Khan, aged ab6ut 66 yearE, occ Household, R/o. Lord Mansion, Lalapet, Hyderabad. (Resoondents No. 52 to 60 are added as Defendants No. D- 9(a) to (i) inAppl' i,ro. 7slz. 000 ln C. S. No. 7/1958 vide order dated 2- 2- 2000' being the legal representatives of deceased Defendant No. 9 Wajihuddin Khan. 61 . (D- 1O) Bahauddin Khan (Died), Per L. Rs. , Respondents No. 62 to 65 62. (D- 10(a). Janaba Mahboob Bequm, Wo. Late Bahauddin Khan, aged about b+ years occ Nil, R/o. H. No. 12- 1- 5B4lB. Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

63. (D- 10(b). Nawab Ruknuddin Khan, S/o. Late Bahaudddin Khan, aged about dO years, R/o. M. No. 12- 1- 58418, Asifnagar, Hyderabad-

64.(D- 10(c). Nawab Yousufuddin Khan (Died), S/o. Late Bahauddin Khan. 65.(D- 10(d). Janaba Pawarishunnisa Begum @ Mohammedunniga Beggm, D{o --'Lite ArirrOain Ktran, aged about 6+ years, Occ Household, R/o H' No' 12- 1- 58418, asifnagar, HYderabad (Resoondents. No. 62 to 65 are added as Defendants No. D- 10(a)to' (d) in X""i"lt". 7C/2ooo in c. S. No. 7/1958 vide order dated 2- 2- 2000' being the ieg'il representatives of deceased Defendant No. 10 Bahauddin Khan'

66. (D- 1 1). Badaruddin Khan (Died), Per L. Rs. , Respondents No' 67 to 70' 67'(D-11(a).JanabaAsmatunnisaBegum(Died),Wo.LateBadaruddinKhan. 68 (D- 11(b). Nawab Naseeiuddin Khan, S/o, Late Badaruddin Khan, aged about -- bt veard, Occ Business, R/o. H- No. 1- B- 506/55, New Prakashnagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 69 (D- 11(c] Janaba Ameerunnisa B_ogum, D/o. Late Badaruddir Khan, aged ' ---- about.60 years, Occ Household, R/o. H. No. 3- 5- 7B2l52lN1 King Koti,Hyderabad. 70 (D- 1 1(q) Janaba Qamarunnisa Begum, D/o. Late Badaruddln Khan. aoed about 50 years, Occ Household, R/o. H. No. .1- Begumpet, llyderabad. B- 506/55, Neuu prat<iih"nagar, (Respondents No. 67 to 70 are added as Defendants No. D- 1 1(a) to (d) in Appl No. 7312000 in C,S. No. 7/'t 958 vide order dated Z Z Z0O'O'Oeihi ine legal representatives of deceased Defendant. No. i I Badirud:ln 'rir,r"] ' -

71. Nawab Md. .talatuddin Khan D- 12, (Died). 72.1D- 1.3). Nawab Zainurabeddin Khan (Died), S/o Late Nawab lvroinuddowra Bandur, Per L Rs. , Respondents No. 73 to 100.

73.(D- 13(a) Janaba yousufunnisa Begum (Died), Wo. Nawab Zainulabeddin Kha n. , years occ Househotd, Rlo. H. No. .17_

74. (D- 13(b) Tayyaba Beg_um, Wo. Nawab Zainutabeddin Khan, aged about. 75 5_ 389 Dabitpuri, iF",;"b;; --"-" " 75.(D 13(c] Nawab Mohd, Abdur Barkath Khan, S/o. Zainurabedrrin Khan. aoed about 65 years, Occ Landlord, R/o. H. No. 12_ 1 St3, L;hp;i, Su"_ 6rO-,"" 76 (D 13(q Nawab Mohd. Fareeduddin Khan, s/o. Zainurabeddi, Khan. aoed about 6^3 years, Occ Landlord, R/o. H. No. jO_ S- i irA, Kr;; Sh;;;;,"" Umra, Shahguni, Hyderabad.

77.(D- 13(e), Janaba younusulnls.a p9Ogm, Dlo. Zainutabeddtn Khan, aged about 61 years, occ Househord, Rlol H. tto. 12- 1- 51rlr rata,rei,'se'c-iad 78. (D- 13(f) Nawab Mohd Naseeruddin Khan (Died), S/o Late Z:rinulabeddin Khan, Per L ls ,(D- i3 F(1) to 13 F(i i). 79 (D- 13(F- 1) ..lanaba Mahboobunisa Begum, Wo. Late Nawab \4ohd. Naseeruddin Kran. aged about 61 yeari, occ Househord nlo H. tto tz- t- 5'12, Mahboob [r,4ansi5n, Sec- bad. B0 (D- 13(F- 2) -lanaba Ariya Begum, wo. Late Nawab Mohid Naseeruddin Khan, aged about 51 ye'a.rs, picc Household, nlo H ruo 1r. 1_a.1:i,-""' IVlahboob Marrsion, Sec- bad. 81 (P 13^(f 3) Nawab Mohd. Abut Fateh Khan (Died), per LRs, Respondents No. 82 to 86. 82 LD .19(F- 3(a) Azmath Fathima, Wo Nawab Mohd. Abu Fateh (han. aoed Paut 35 years ()cc Househotd, nlo. H rvro rl_l_ 5i{ M;;;;ifi;;;i";" Sec- bad

83.(D- 13(F- 3(b| Zainabunnila Begum, D/o. Nawab Mohd. Abul F,ateh Khan. aged about '13 vears. Occ Stude-nt, trrtinor. nepreienteO by Cua.diin Aii,"th Fathima Mothe; R/o H. No. r2_ t: siz, rrrriir{oo6'ilvtansron, se< _ bad. 84 (D- 1.3(F- 3(c). Kashifunnisa Begum, D/o. Nawab Mohd. Abur Fateh Khan. aqed about, 1'l vears. occ Stud?nt,'Minor, neplienteo OV CuiiJtan'A]-m"n. Fathima Motheri nlo H. No. D_ if '5ir; M'r'd;Lb i,,ansion, Sec_ bad

85.(D- 13(F- 3(d). Khadarunnisa Begum, D/o. Nawab Mohd. Abul Fateh Khan, aged about 9 years, Occ Student, Minor, Represented by Gugrdian Azmath Frthima tvlother, R/o. H. No. 12- 1- 512, tMahboob Mansion, Sec- bad.

86.(D- 13(F- 4). Nawab Mohd. Zainul Mutakheen Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Mohd. Naseruddin Khan, aged about 40 years, Occ Landlord, R/o. H. No. 12- 1- 512. Mahboob ltlansion, Sec- bad.

87.(D- 13(F- 5), Nawab Mohd. Ruknuddin Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Mohd. Naseruddin Khan, aged aboul2T years, Occ Landlord, R/o. H. No. 12- 1- 512, Mahboob Mansion, Sec- bad.

88. (D- 13(F- 6). Nawab Mohd. lsmalluddin Khan, S/o, Late Nawab Mohd. Naseruddin Khan, aged about. 23 years, Ccc Landlord, R/o. H. No. 12- '1- 512,Mahboob Mansion, Sec- bad. Bg (D- 13(F- 7). Nawab ltlohd. Zainulabeddin Khan, S/o. Late Nawab, Mohd. Naseruddin Khan, aged about 20 years, Occ Student, R/o. H. No. 12- '1- 5'l 2,Mahboob Mansion, Sec-bad.

90.(D- 13(F- B). Ameenunnisa Begum, D/o. Late Nawab Mohd. Naseruddin Khan, aged about. 28 years, Occ Student, R/o. H. No. 12- 1- 512, Mahboob Mansion Sec- bad.

91.(D- 13(F- 9) Bllqeesunnisa Begum, Dio. Late Nawab Mohd. Naseruddin knan, igecj about 26 years, Occ Household, Rio. H. No. 12- 1- 5'12, Mahboob Mansion, Sec- bad.

92.(D- 13(F- 10). Humeraunnisa Begum, D/o. Late Nawab l\Iohd. Naseruddin khan, hged about24 years, Occ Household, Rio. H. No. 12- 1- 512, Mahboob Mansion, Sec- bad.

93. (D- 13(F- 11). Anees Fatima Begum, D/o Late Nawab Mohd. Naseruddin khan, hgeO ibout 18 years, OcCStudent, R/o, H. No. 12- 1- 512, lvlahboob Mansion, Sec- bad.

94.(D- 13(g- 1) Mohd. Basheeruddin Ahmed, H/o. Late Nafeesunnisa Begum, igeO a6oui 65 years, Occ Business, H. No. 12- 1- 51112' Mahboob. Mansion, Sec- bad.

95. (D- 13(g- 2). Nawab Mohd. Daveruddin Khan, S/o. Late Nafeesunnisa Begum' igeO aSoui +Z years, Occ Business, H. No. 12- 1- 51112 Mahboob- Mansion, Sec- bad.

96. (D- 13(g- 3). lvlohd. Sirajuddin Ahmed, S/o. Late Nafeesurnisa Begu.m, aged iUout it"S y6ars, Occ BuSiness, H. No. 12- 1- 51 112, Mahboob Mansion, Sec- bad.

97. (D- 13(g- 4). Janaba Wajahathunnisa Begqm, P/9 1919 Nafeesunnisa -B"Sy,, iged a'5oui 44years, Oic Household, H. No.'12 1-51112) Mahboob Mansion, Sec- bad.

98. (D- 13(q- 5). Janaba Qadeerunnisa Begum, D/o. Late Nafeesunrisa Begum iged a'5oui 38 years, Occ Household, H. No. t 2- 1- 51 112, Mahboob Mansion, Sec- bad.

99.(D- 13(g- 6). Ayesha Bano Ahmed, D/o. Late Nafeesu-n-nisa Begurn' a.ged iUout 2Z y6ard, Occ Household, H. No. 12- 1- 51112, Mahboob Mansion Sec- bad. (899091qq,t., No 73 to 99 are added as Defendants No. D- '3(a) to (D- 13(F- 110 F- 1 1 and D- 13- 9(1) to (g- 6) being the legat represeniatives of deceased Defendant No. 13 Zainulabeddin Khan.

100. (D- 1,1). Ghaziuddin Khan, S/o. Lat aged about 76 years, Occ Landlord, Rio. No,'14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. e.N H.N awab Moinuddowla Baljadur, o. 8- 2- 686/16/l)/2, Road 10'1. (D 1ll) Warlsuddin Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Moinuddorvla Balladur, aged about 74years, Occ Landlord, R/o. H. No. B-2-686116D12. Road trio. 14, Baryara Hilts, Hyderabad. (D- 16) Fareedunnisa Begum (Died), unmarried and Is;ueless. (D- 1i') Layeequnnisa Begum (Died), Dio Late [\/olnuddowla Bahaduri

102. 103. 104._. (D- 18) Izzathunnisa Begum (Died), Dio. Late Molnuddowla Bandur (Died) Per L Rs. Respondents No. 105 to'107. 105: (D- 1B(a). Janaba Liyaqalhunnisa Begum, D/o. Late lzzathunnisa P"SrI, aged about 60 yeais, Occ Household, Rio. Kakallyan;rgar, Nanalnagar Hyderabad. 10q 107 Be Ba AS De 108 109 Alijah 110- (D- 18(b, Janaba Zeenathunnisa Begum (Died), D/o. L,:te lzzath unn isa Begum. (D- 18(c) Janaba Tahnlyathunnisa Begum, D/o. Late iz.zathunnisa gum,aged.about 58 years, Occ Household, . R.lo. H. No. 1Cr_ 2_ 3.10, larguard, l\laltepally, Hyderabad. (Respondents No. .105 to .107 Defendants No. D- 18(a). to (c) tn Appi. No. 7312000 ln C t,;. No. 7/j958 e order dated 2- 2- 2000, being the legal. representatives ot deceased fendant N,t. lB lzzathunnisa Begum. - are added (D- 19). lftekharunnisa Begum (Died), D/o. Late [\rloinud lowla Bahadur (D ?9). tt/lalika J^ahan, Begum, D/o. Late Nawab Moinudrlowta Bahadur, .aUgut]p years, Occ Household, R/o. H. No 23- 1- 213, Andherigall kotla, Charminar, Hyderabad_ (D 21) Akhthar Jahan Begum, D/o, Lato Nawab tVioinu,.ldowla Bahadur, aged about 76 years, Otc Household, R/o. H. No. 22_ S_ 4g4) Panjeshan, C harminar, Hyderabad.

111. (D- 22,t. Dawoodunnisa Begum, D/o. Late Nawab MoinuJdowla Bahadur aged about 72yearc, - Occ Household, R/o. SRT tgd, CtranOutal Baradari, Hyderabad.

112. 113. 114 115. 116. 117 118 (D- 23) tt/ahboobunnisa Begum (D- 24). Raheemunnisa Begum (D. 25). i_adti Begum (deceased) per L. RS (D- 25(a r. Kulsum Begum (D- 25(bt. Mirza Baqar Ali. (D- 25(c). Mirza Likat Ati Baig, (D- 25(i) Moinuddin Khan,

129. '130. (D- 25(e), Sultanuddin Khan, (D- 26). Liaqat Begum, (D-27). Fareed Jahan Begum, (D- 28), Sultana Begum, (D- 28), (D- 29). Gulam Mohammed, (D- 29). (D- 30). Mansab Jung, (D- 30). (D- 31). Shalk Mohluddin, (D- 31). (D- 32). Willam Ceaser, (D- 32). (D- 33) Mahboob Khan, (D- 33) (D- 34). Shamsuddin Khan. (D- 35) Govind Rao (D- 36). Sridhara Rao '131 . (D 37), Jayarao Sambrahani (D. 38). N. K. GuruswamY (D- 39) Dr. E. N. Das (D40). Sahebzada Dildar Ali Khan (D41). Syed Waliullah Hussaini (D- 42). Ameenuddin Hussaini (D- 43). Hyderabad Development Cooperative, Society (D- 44). Colonel All Raza (D- 45). Syed All Abbas (D-46) C.S. VenkatRao (D- 47). Jagir Administrator, Government of Andhra Pradesh. (D- 48). Secretary Finance Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh

132. '133.

137. 138

142. 143 144 (D-49).HariPrasad. ..Respondents/Respondents/Defendants Nawab Sabir Lutfiuddin Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Sirajuddin Khan, Aged H No 6- 3- 1102. Hidden Treasure about 32 vears, Occ Private Service, R/o Apartmenis, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. l45.JanabaFatimaKhan,D/o.LateNawabSirajuddinKhan,agedabout36 'lears, OCc Household, R/o. H. No.6- 3- 1 102, Hidden Treasure Apartments, Somajiguda, Hyderabad (Respondents No. 144 and 145 are L Rs., of Late Nawab Sirajuddin Khan )na rt"o tt. LRs. , of Late Nawab Mohd. Shahabuddin Khan sons of Late' flawiO Jung D- 3 and proposed Defendants No 3 (g) and 3 (h) -eisheer

146. Nawab Abdul Rahman Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Shahldr.rddin- Khan, aged about 42 years, Occ Business, Rlo. Aziz Bagh Colony, -T-ollchowki, Hyderabad.

147. Nawab l{asan Nooruddin Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Shahiduddin Khan, aged about .39 years, Occ Business, Rlo. Aziz Bagh Colony. -"ollchowki, Hyderabad. (Respondents No. 146 and 147 are L. Rs, of Late Nawab Shahlduddin Khan, and- also the - Rs. , of Nawab Mohd. Shahabuddlh Khan sons of Late. Nawab Baslreer Jung D- 3) and proposed Defendants No. 3 (r)and 3(1)).

148. Janaba Sumera lmran, D/o. Late Janaba lnteqabunniser Begum, aged about 28 years Occ Household, R/o. Mudfort, Sec- bad.

149. Janat,a Saba Nasir, D/o. Late Janaba lnteoabunnisa Br:oum. aoed about 26 years Occ Horsehold, R/o. Mudfort, Se6- bad.

150. Janaba Sara Naseer, D/o. Late Janaba lnteqabunnisa []egum, aged about 24 years, Occ Household, R/o. Mudfort. Sec- bad. (Respondents No. '148 to '150 are L. Rs. , of Late Janaba lnteqabunnisa. Begum (D 3 (h), and proposed Defendants No. 3(k), 3(1) anci'S1m) 151 . Nawab l\4ohd. Fareeduddin Khan, S/o. Late Nawab lgbirltiedn Khan, aged. about €4 )/ears, Occ landlord, R/o. H. No. 16_ Z_ TOSIElB Akbar Bigh, Malakpet.

152. Janaba lr/oinunnissa Begum, D/o D/o Late Nawab lgba,uddin Khan, being the legal heir and representative of Nawab rqbaruddi"n rrran, slo r-aib - - lt4oin-.ud- Dowla, aged 61. years, Occ Landlord, R/o 3. 5_ 78211016, Cat_ burgalow, Kllg.l9t! Hyddrabad R/o 7A Bank Buitding, Mitcham Ljne, London Sw166 NG, Engla nd, U. K. 159, Janaba lqbalunnisa Begum, D/o Late Nawab lqbaluddir Khan, beino the legal heir and representative of Nawab lqbaluddin'Khan s o rite rrrroinl Ud- Dowta. aoed 56 vears, Occ Landlord, R/o. 3.5. 7g2l1ot6 (;af- bungalow, King Kothi, Hfcl,:rabdd regar herr and representative of Nawab lqbaluddin Khan, s/o Late tVloin- ud- D.owla, aged 43 years, Occ Landlord, Rio 16_ 2_ TOStglB, Akba.bagh, Malakpet. Hy,lerabad. (Respondents; No. 151 lo 154 are L. Rs. , of Late Nawab lqbaluddin Khan D_ 3 and proposed Defendants No. D- B(a) to D- B(d)) Nawab lVohd. Rishaduddin Khan, S/o Late Nawab yousufuddin Khan about, 3Oyears, Occ Accountant, presenfly R/o p. O. Box 3410, Dubii E. represented by. GPA Holder Nbwab Mohd Khaleemudrjin Khan vide 155 U. A. No. .156 Yousu Syeda Nawab I\4ohd Khaleemuddin Khan, S/o Late Nawab Mohd. I*9:l {1l",,gqed.,about 27 yearc, occ Student. alo iz.2_24tj, Irgu0a, ,qSrl Nagar, Hyderabad.

157. Janaba Sameera Begum, Dio Late Nawab Mohd, Yousufuddin Khan' '"'aged ,6;;i 3, years, occ H"ousewife, Rto 12- 2- 2411 ' Syedaliguda' Aslf Nagar, Hyderabad l5S.JanabaSaraBegum,D/oLateNawabMohdYousufuddinKhan'aged '--inout i5 y-"rs. Occ StIdent, Rlo 12- 2- 2411 , Syedaliguda, Asif Nagar' Hyderabad. (ResoondentsNo.l56tol59areL.Rs.,ofLateNawabYousufuddinKhan' b. rdtil. a"o proposed Defendants No- D- 10(e) to D- 10(h)) l59.NawabMohd.SikendaruddinKhan,S/oLate-NawabMohd.Jalaluddin '--khrn, ,btJls+v"iri, occ Landlord, R/o' Hussaini Heights' Flat No 202' Humayun Nagar, HYderabad (Resoondent No. 160 is L. R. of Late Nawab Jalaluddin Khan D- 12 and irop6seo Defondant No. 12(a)

160. Nawab Khusro Kamal Pasha, S/o Late Janaba Layeequnni^sa. B99um' ' - loed 6g. vears, occ Landlord, permanent resident of R/o 5- 9- 24811, Chirag A'ii Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. (ResoondentNo.'l60isL.R.,ofLateJanabaLayeequnnisaBegumD-17 inO iroposed. Defendant No D- 17 (a))' 16-l.NawabAliBinHamid,S/oLateZeenatunnisa.Begum'Aged,32years -occLandlord'R/oHNo11.2_585,HabeebNagar,Nampally'Hyderabao. -bcc

162. Nawab Jaffar Bin Hamid, S/o Late Zeenatunnisa Begum Aged 30years' Landlord, Rio H. No 11- 2- 585, Habeeb Nagar' Nampally' HyoeraDao Janaba Sumihaunnissa Hamid, D/o Late Zeenatunnisa Begum' aged

163. '"-sz v"rii o"; L*;Eat, Rb n- r'to t i- 2- 585, Habeeb Nagar' Nampally' 164. Janaba Hassa Hamid, Dio Late Zeenatu.nnisa Begum',Aged-I1::f' - Occ Landlady, R/o H. No 11- 2- 5B5,Habeeb Nagar, Nampally' Hyoeraoao f-netpo"OJnts f.f o. 161 to 164 are L Rs , of Late Zeenatunnissa Begum bls6i;;; i;"posed Defendants No D- 18(d) to D- t8(g))' Hyderabad.

165. Nawab All Bin Saleh, H/o. Late Janaba lftekhanmissa Begum' aged '"JOr"ro,-O"" Landlady, R/o 9.4- B4l99, Plot No 99 Kakatiya Nagar' Toiichowki Hyderabad. (ResoondentNo.l65isL.R,ofLateJanabaiftekharunnisaBegumD-19. And froposed Defendant No. D- 19(a))'

166. Nawab Mohd. Ghaziuddin Khan, (D 14 in C S 7i5B) S/o-Late Nawab '""fr,foinra- dourf", igeO zsvears, Oci Landlord, R/o 8- 2- 6861161D12' Baniara Hills Hyderabad.

167. Nawab Mohd. Warisuddin Khan' (D15 ln C' S No' 7/58) S/o Late- Nawab Moin_ ua_ oowra, n6Ei'?.i't;;id, oa" Landlord, R/o. 8- z- 696t16tDt2, Banjara Hills HYderabad. (Resoondents No. 166 and 167 are original Defendants No' 14 and 15 and di.; [. Ra. , of Defendant No. 19 being her brothers)' 168 Distri 169j- . lilr. tt/lohd. Abdul Hussain, S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Waheed, aged t 32years, Occ Business, Rlo.4- 114, Errakunta, Kothapet Vlllage, R. R ct-5 ^ Syed Rafath Sayged, S1o.$yed Gulam Rasoot, aged about 42years, Occ Business R/o. H. No. 2- 3- 506, Abhay ptaza, flat tio, af.5, nmbdrpet,' Hyderabad- 1 3 (Respondents No. 168 and 169 are third parties. and proposed Defendants No 149. ancl 150).

170. Abdul Samad Khan, S/o. Late Hakeem MohdAbdullah Khan, aged 57 - years, Occ Business, Rio. H. No. 20-3-41211, Moosa Bowli, t.tyOeriOSO. 171. Mohd Faizullah Shareef, S/o. Late Mohd. Manzoor Shareef, aged about 37 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No. 20- 3- 393, Moosa Bowii, Euisaini Alam, Hyderabad.

172. Ahmed Akramullah Shareef, S/o. Late Mohd. Manzoor lihareef. aoed abo.ul 42 years, Occ Advocate, R/o. H. No. 20_ 3_ 396, Moosa eo;li, ' -"-- Hyderabad. ' 173^, Syed Azhar .!f9 -SyeO . . Hfder, aged about 50 years, Or,c Business, R/o. H. No 20. 3- 412t1,Ivioosa Bowti, Hyderabad. (FiespondentJ f.f o. iOij to - --'- 171 are thid partres and proposed Deiendants tto ]+gCnO f if )- 174. M/s. lVl. A. Bari Advocate, Receiver- cum- Commissioner ln C. S_ No. 7/1958 Havino the office at H. No. 11- 3- 627, Mosque Road, r,ew n/l"rr"p"riv, Hyderabad al llgl 175^ ^.lM/sj B::Sllyamsunder Rao, Advocate, Receiver- cum- Ccmmissioner ln u. S. No. //195U Having the, office at H. No. 11_ 3_ 627, Mosqr.re Road, New 'Commissior"i' --' Mallepally, flrTlerabad.'.. Respondents / Receivei cum

176. The Gr:rrernment of Andhra pradesh, Represented by tt-e princioal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, HyOeraOaO-

177. The Distrrct Collector, Ranga Reddy. District, Having the office at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

178. The Tahslidar, Balanagar Mandal, Balangar, R. R. Distri:;t. 179. The Distr.ict Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 180. The Tahslldar, Kukatpally Mandal, tVedchal t\iialkajgiri Dir;trict. 181 . The District Registrar, Medchal Malkajgiri District. 182. The Sub.Registrar, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri Distri:t. 183. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corpo.ation, Circle 184. EXELLA F)rooertie-s_, Represented by its Managing partnerr, Madhu Babu Kandimatra witr oni'ce ii Fl?i r.i;. td6',*S;;ii, Marvel, opp. oakridqe lnternationat Schoot, Khajaguda Hyderabia' SbOtiia, f"r""b" ij' No. 24, Kukatpaily, Medchat Matkajgiii District. Proposed Respondents 179 -194 ( Respondents 1 , 2, 179 to 184 are necessary parties to the present Appeal Respondents 3 to 178 are not necessary parties) lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings arising out of Final Decree passed in Application No 83712013 in C. S. No. 7 of 1958, dated 1910912013, pending disposal of the above Appeal. lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 B0 and 181 not to entertain any documents for registration in respect of Sy. No. 57, Shamshiguda Village, Kukatpally tvlandal, [\Iedchal Malkajgiri District, pending disposal of the above Appeal. lA NO: 5 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 182 not to grant any permissions for any layouts or constructions on any applications that may be presented by the respondents '1 , 2 and 183 in respect of the land in Sy. No. 57, Shamshiguda Village, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, pending disposal of the above Appeal. lA NO: 6 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. I, 2 and 184 not to create and third party interest and not to change the nature and status of the land in Sy. No. 57, Shamshiguda Village, Kukaipally 1tlandal, lvledchal lvlalkajgiri District, pending disposal of the above Appeal Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. T' K. SRIDHAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Ms. MANJARI S GANU Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 179 to 184: THE ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court delivered the following Judgment : THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SU.JOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR O.S.A. No.1 of 2O 24 in Application No. 837 of 2O13 in C.S. No.7 of 1958 JUDGMENT: iPtr the Hon,ble Si Justice N.V. Shrauan Kumar) Mr. T_l{. S-eedhar for the appellants. Manjari S Gar-ru and the rearned Additional Advocatt. General for the respondents. This Or gir-ral Side Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent :rggrievecl by the final decree order datcd 19.O9.2013 passcd in App:l;cation No.B37 of 2O13 in C.S. No.7 of 958 by the learned Singl: Judge in favour of the respondents /petitioners pertainrng to I em No.252 Schedule ,A, property a,lmeasuring Acs.65 56 cenls tr-rd Schedule .8, property to the extent cl.Acs.l 1_43 cents and sch.c.le 'BI to the extent of Acs. 15-57 cents ar d Schedure A 1 ' to thc extei t of Acs,7 -44 cents totalling Acs. 10O_OO c,:nts on the ground that r.hc :;aicl final decrce has been obtained by pl,rying fraud on thc statutc :. nd this Court by making gross mrsrepresentation of facts and laq, an l the same is to be set aside.

2. The appcl rLnts herein submits that they are the i)efendants No.+(e)(c)(o)(F)((il & (H) in c.s. No.7 of 1958 and they are l epresenred by their GPA holri,:r Appellant No_4 vide notarised GpA. 2 HAC,J&NVSK,J 0SA. No.1 oI2024 Applrcauon No-637 ot2013

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the present appeal i e' Appellants/ Respondents and respondents/petitioners'

4. The Respondents / Petitioners No' 1 and 2 have hled Application No.837 of 2O13 in C.S. No.7 of 1958 with tlre folldwing prayer: "Application under Order 20 Rule 18 R/w Section 146 & 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed herewith the High Court will be pleased to pass a Iinal decree in favour of the petitioners Nof l & 2 in respect of the property measuring Ac92-56 Cents., (Ac.65-56 Cents vacant land as shown in schedule "A" and the plan annexed hereto in blue color) & (Ac.27 -OO Gts , land in two bits measurilg Ac.1 1-43 cents & Ac 15-57 Cents as shown in Scheudle B & B-1 and the plal annexed hereto in pink color) in Sy'No 57 of Shamsiguda Mandal, R.R. District and A Vi11age, Balanagar be passed in favour of the hnal decree maY Respondents No.172 & 173 herein to an extent of Ac.7-44 cents, as strown in schedule "A- 1" and the plan annexed herewith in yellow color' out of Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda village' Balangar Mandal' R.R. District, on payment of requisite stamp duty' and may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.178 & 179 / Receiver-cum-Commissioners to deliver the physical possession of the properties (Ac.65-56 Cents vacant lald as shown in schedule 'A' andthe plan annexed hereto in blue color) and to an extent of Ac.27-00 Cents, land in two bits measuring Ac.11-43 cents & Ac 15-57 cents as shown in schedule B & B-1 ald the plan annexed J {r,r ication No-437 oI20l3 c S. No.7 ol l95a he;-eto in pink color) in Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda Village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. district, in favour of tlr,r petitioners No. 1 & 2 and to deliver the physi:a1 possession of the land to an extent of Ac.7 .14 cents, as shown in schedule ,,A- 1,, ald the plan annexed herewith in ye11ow color, out of Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda village, Balangar Maldal, R.[1. )isrricr . to the respondents No. 172 & 173 here,rL."

5. The learnr,<l Single Judge vide order dated 19.09.2(. 13 allowed the application r,) the extent of passing hnal decree on1y. Ar;sailing the same , thc apperlJa r-rts/respondents filed the present appea mainly on the ground tl-ieLt the said final clccree has been obtainerl by playing fraud on the statute and this Court by rnak ing gross misrepresentatjon of lacts and law and the same is to br set aside, among other follorving grounds. "1. The appel.latlls :;ubmits ttnt theA are tLrc Defendant N(.).4 (b) O A S) & h) against the finaL d z,-:ree order passed in Application No.B37/ 20l3 in C.S.No 7 of 1958 in the Hor'.'t:le High Court of Telangana and. Leqal Heir cf Defend"ant No.4 bu name l,at=. Nauab Mohammed Lateefudd_in Khan in respect of Matntka properlit:s -;f Asman Jahi paigah Estate. And as per the preliminary Decree tn C.S.No.7 <rf 19SB in the Honble High Court of Telangar, a the Legal heirs of Nautab lvloin-ud Doutla Bahadur of Asman Jahi paigc,l tuho are defendants 2 to 22 in C.S.No. 7 of 195g are entitled. to shcu.es tn lt2m Nos.23O to 254 in SchedtLk: ,A' Annexed_ to preliminary d.ecree, each mtLle member gettinq 2/35 slutr,,, and each female member getting 1/35 sl .are in the properties. The prdiminary decree dated 06.04. jgsg is filed trcretuith in \ 4 HAC,J&NVSK,J os^. No.1 0i 2024 ApPlr@lion No.a37 or 20 1:l u-thich Shtmshigudo is Item No.252 of Schedule 'A' annexed to preliminory decree

2. Appellants submits that Surueg No'57 of Shamshigada uillage' is item No: 252, Schedule 'A' annexed to preliminary decree in C'S No'7 of 1958' dated the scheme of 06/04/ lglg, betongs to Asman Jahi Paigah Estote' -Wherea's' partition for Ma4ta Shamshiguda tuas submitted bg Mr' M' A' Bai & Mr' Shyamsunder, Aduocates, Receiuer anm-Commissioners in respect of item No: 252 Shamshiguda, of scledule 'A' Annexed to the preliminary decree in C.S.No.7 of 1958 as directed bg tLrc Hon'bte Court of Andhra Pradesh bg order dated" 15/ 1O/2008 in Appticafion S R'IVo: 3679 & 5917 of 2007' And the scheme of partitton uos presented to the Hon'ble High Court in fouour of Defendents No's.2 to 22 i.e , Son's and- Daughters of Natuab Moin-ud-Daula Bahadur. The totat ertent of land in surueg No.57, Shomshiguda uillage' as per the scheme of Partition submitted and allotted to Defendant No's'2 to 22 b AC.303-g1 gts. And the Scheme of Paftition'u)as opproued by the Hon'ble High Court on 17.07.2009 in Application No 495 in C'S No' 7 of 1958' As per the Sclrcme of Partition, opproued bg the Hon'bet High Court and the Surueu Map sLnuling the sclrcme of partition, defendant No'4 utas allotted shares as separote bits ond morked in the map as follouts :

1. 914 647 cents (9.146 Aues)

2. 668-16 cents (6.681 Acres)

3. 1O7-14 cents (1071 Acres)

4. 24-110 cents (0.241 Acres)

5. 14-290 cents (0.142 Acres)

6. 8-389 cents (0.083 Acres) ,t ) HAC,J&UVSK,J osA No.t ot2024 Atfl' arion No a37 ol20r3 c.s. No.7 0I 1958 19,.09.2013 in

3. The fi.nal decr.z: in Application No.837 of 2O13, clated_ C.S.No.07/ 1958 ;,rssed in fauour of Respond.ents No,s.1 & 2 is illegal fraudulent and bg clross misrepresentation on the Court ancl Stat :ires and. bg practising fraud.

4. That the Jl,nal ci ercree dated 19.09.2023 in application No.83i oJ 2O13 is LDtthout ana notice 10 the alfected parta as per the content in the Apprication showing tlt ot Res;pcndents No.i5 to 35 and others are not neces..;ory parties as such no noti<:e tuas serued to the appellant in order to ptLt fofth hk objections to the ,fittrtL decree. As such the d.ecree is regat uoid Ab initio and pontrary to the principles of establislted procedure and also ryainst the procedural lcLuL.

5. The ftnal decre.e lated 1g-Og-2013 is Ex fcLcie illegat and in t1e process, Hon'ble Couft h.a:; q ianted relief to the fraud.ulent persons aJfectit tg ualuable legal rights of th.e aopellant and tlrus it is against the tegal pincip,e. That the appellant submits t4at the f.nat d.ecree in first prcLce cannot be p.: sed on the basjs o/ unreqi:;tered_ Assi.gnment Deed dated_ j 6/ Og/ 2OOC ond_ ttte unregisterecl Cor,u=qance Deed. doted 03.Og.2OO3 anrj. tlte Deed of Declaration/ Con-finr,ntion dated. 12.0g.2O11 are ntnning contrttry to tlte Assignment Deed cjc,.ted j6.09.2O00 uith regard to the pafties, )xtent and schedules.

6. That the Unregiste_red Assignment Deed d.ated j 6.09.2000 uthich fonned. the basis for the fi.noi decree in the first place did not srtotu any cot,.std"eration being paid to the so careri assignors u.tho taere 20 in number arong tuith their legal heirs. The fraudttlent dspects tuere raised bg some of tlte affec,ed parties that the seme tLi(ts obtained. by fraud u.tas d.iscussed_ in the |ud gement \ i \ I 6 HAC,J&NVSK,J OSA. No.r o1202.1 Appli.ation No-837 oI20l3 rendered- by Justice Sudarshan Reddg ond Justice C.V. Ramtlu in O'5.A. c.s. No 7 011954 No.58 to 66, 68 to 72 of 2002 and 19 to 31 of 2003, dated 1Oh day of June,

2003. 7, The Finat decree uas speaking about EP/38/2OO2 tlnt the Respondent No's 1 & 2 haue acquired the propertA in Sy.No-S7 of Shamshiguda Village, Balanagar Mandal Ranga Reddg distict being part of item No.252 of Schedule 'A' appended to the preliminary decree to the extent of AC.1OO-O) under [Jnregistered. Assignment Deed, dated 16.09.2000 executed bg shareholders and Defendants in C.S.No.7 of 1958 and it is also mentioning that the Respondents haue been deLiuered fhe possession of the propertA bg uirtue of Execution proceed.ings in EP/38/2002 on the file of Pincipal District Judge Ranga Redd.g di-stict hauing tLrus detiuered possession to the petitioners and haue fenced the lands bg puttittg barricodes ouer the propertA' The said obseruation of the court is itlegol and controry to Law as tlrc uery EP No.38/ 2002 based on I.A.No.1460/ 20OO is itself a blatant fraud and set aside bg the Diubion Bench.

8. The appeltants submits that the 1.A.No.1460 of 2OO2 in C'S'No'7/ 1958 on the file of the Hon'bte High Court is onlg speaking about recognising Assignmerut Deed dated 16/Og/2OO0 though the said Assignment Deed uns unregistered- the Hon'bte Court cannot pass such on order' As per the order d.ated 1o/ 10/2002 in Application No.1460 of 2002 the order speaks that onlg Respondents No.l tt-tos present and expressed no objection, hence applications are allou.ted.. The order d.ated. 10/10/2002 neither speaks about the finat d-ecree being passed bg tLrc Hon'ble High Court for applging for Dxeantion of the Decree before tLrc Pincipal District Judge, Ranga Reddg Distict' The Appellonts submits tLnt the Application No.1461 does not spedk dbout anA I ,/ { 7 ,!.'," -'.i YiX;i Lpp icarr.tr No33z oi20l3 order betng pas:;ea bg the Hon'ble Court for directing the Distict fuage Raiga Reddg district !.o entertain the Execution petition No. 3g/ 2o()2 to d-eliuer possession, that t'tt tuhen the oiginat Assignee u)ere not ln poss,ession of the propetlg in tlte nrcrtioned schedule C S No.7 oa t95a 9, The AppeLlant :;ubmits that there u)as no Final d.ecree in J,zuour of the Respondents Jor LtmsJbning the same to the principat Disrict J tdge, Ranga Reddg district unless there is a Exeantabre d.ecree onrg thlat can be executecr by the subordinale court of Competent Juri"sd.iction as per secti<n 39 crause (2) cLnd any cefti"it:cr.tion of court subordinate is based onrg on the d.ecree sent .for exeanti.ort a.s p'e r section 41 of Ciu procedure Code, 19Og. As such the entire exercise an) the E.p.No.38/ 2002 and consequentio-l reLie--,s Ltf putting the Respondents itt physical possessjon of AC.IOO OO is notlting ,rut fraud. on the Court ctrtd the,ttuthoities and_ it is not at all binding on the Appzllant. 10. The Appellants submits that the E.p. No.38/2O02 is menti,.tnitg about propertA being ob'.ctined bg ttrc Respondents bg uirtue of orde, passed_ in Appliccttion No.1.1(;A oJ 2OOO in C.S.No.7 of 1958 datect tO/ tO/ 2O0O uthile bare readirtg of tl-te .\pplicatton shou;s that it is for recognisirtg th.e Assignment Deed cLnd not for trensfen ing to the Subordinate Court i.e. Ranga l.,.ecLd.g Court for executton. A:; :;e e n from record_ E-p. No.3g/2002 [s not accornpa-tied bg ang Executable Decre2 L, )ttr'L specific scrrcdules uhich is not tr-aceabre ro the ord.er either in appLicatir:,. Nos. i46O or in i461 or from AssignmenL )eed dated. 16/ 09/ 2000. A:; such the entire claim ts uogue mi-sle.ding and. misrepresen.tittg tfu: facts before the Court and no ord.er can be passed. in fauour of fraudster.

11. The Appeltants submtts that the claim of the Respondents as per the Report of the surue ttor ontg AC.z3-oo ctre auailable uocant atTd J,7 Acres of ) I i I 8 HAC,J&NVS(,J Appliatio. No.a37 of 2013 built up area uith the uteaker sections residing, attotted aa c"r"r-?i)it"'ilii "t tl/ltchAC.S0-oo(itemNo.1)fallingon'thenorthemside,AC.S-o}fallingtothe eastern side (item No 3) and item No.S, Ertent of AC'6-00 falling to the soutlrcrn side and item No.6 to the extent of AC'I-OO and item No'4 to the extentofAC.S-ooontheSoutlTuestsidebutAc.loo-ooatonestretchonthe northern side uhich includes euen allotted properly belonging to appellant tl.lhichulasallottedbgtheReceiuerCommissionerandLandsallottedtoother stnreholders i.s taken into cttstody and possession soid to hnue been giuen bg the Mandal Reuenue Officer as per the Blue Sleet plan' The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh as it uas then tuas in O'S'A' No 58 to 66' 68 to 72 of 2002 and 19 to 31 doted 10.06.2003 haue set aside the proceedings taken by utag of exeattion Proceed'ings under E'P'38/ 2002 and all the consequential reliefs inctuding proceeding before the Reuenue Authoities directed applicants to tLe said matter to approach the learned singte Judge for odjudicating the claim.s on similar lines. The appellant uas also not serued tuith ang notice and such final decree is bad in Latu os it is affecting Appellant's interest At the time of passing the Final decree, alreodg the shares of different Defendants uere d.emarcoted and approued bg the Hon'ble High Court bg utay of Scheme of Partition and as suclt euen othenuise the Respond'ents claims slntl be confined. onlA to the shares ollotted to the so called Executants of the Deed of Declaration/ Confirmation Deed', dt' 12'08'2011 i'e ' Respondents No's' 11' 12 to 14, 36 to 38, 41 to 47, 49, 51 to 53, 57 to 59' 60 to 64' 66 to 69' 72 to 74' 104, 1O5, 109, 113 to 115, 148, 149, 155 to 159 and 160 to 169' rtthich are not at all in conformitg uith the earlier conueAance deed of so called Respondents 4, 5 to 14, 18, 20, 21, 34 to 38' 4O to 47' 49' 51 to 53' 54' 58 to 63, 66 to 68, 71 to 75, 1O4, 105, 1Og to 115, 148 & 149 Euen otLeruise the uendors uere allotted shores ot different ptoces ba the approued scheme of I I 9 HAC,J&NI/SK,J App rcari.n No-437 ol20r3 partition, LDtlich is not taltaing Luith ana of the docume"t, i.". ff.IlililJi"a Assignment Deen, Unregistered Conuegance Deed. ancl Registe red. Deed of Declaratiort/ Conlinnation and also the E.p. No.3g/ 2002, tuhictt was alreaclg set oside by the Diuision Bench of this Hon'bre court. As such tht finar d-ecree ex focie and prirr, c'. facie fraudulent and obtained by gross a,d d.eriberate misrepresenl.ation t,f facts and. lana. 12 The Appellatts submits that the Finor Decree is making a m =ntion about the assignment,C*:d dated 16/09/2002 as tuell as cotluelJarLc€ d.eed dated. 03/08/2003 are: unregistered documents. As such the courl ot,ght to haue . dlsmlssed tlrc op4tlication for final d_ecree uid.e Application No.g73,,20i 3 under order 2o Rule 1i3 and rhe same are hit bg sectton 17 ancl sectio t 32A of the Reg[strotiort ,Act, 19OS tuhich u;as inserted. bA Act 4l of 20Ol u:it\ effect from 21/09/2001. ,4s such. the conuegance d-eed dcttect 03/ 08/2(03 clid. not contain the photcgttplLs and. thumb impression of both bugers clnj sellers. As per section 32A ully appending forms utere fitted up Luithoui tlrc actual signotures of bot,\ buyers and. sellers before the registratton rrutlu,it!) and. the satd do<:ument is pnmo facie fraudulent and. illegal.

13. 'I'he Appellont Legs to submit that the unregi_stered. Conuega,tce Deed i_s mentioning that i: ,s sale deed. thus it cannot be treated. cLs tLere )onueyance Deed, lust becaus': titled so. The d.ocument h,.s to be reacr as onrg as an unregistered sole aeed. but not conueAance deed.. Srtch obseruatior is contrary to the docume:nt itseLf and further the diuision bench on l0/ 06/ 2r)03 has set oside tlte E.P. oi 38/2OO2 passed_ bg the principal Distict Ju,lge, Ranga Reddy distict an<7 alt the Surueg and. Reuenue Records ansing ou1 of the said E.P.3B/2002. B1lt tiLe so-called. conuegance d.eed dated. O3/Og/2OC3 there ts a suppression of :;eti inq aside of the Ep and stiu there is nention of I l0 HAC,J&NVSK,J Application No.837 ot 2013

8.P.38/ 2002 and reliefs gronted, tuhich is notling but fraud on the court' And that too original documents are unregi'stered the Assignment Deed and Conuegance Deed are unregistered, tLrc Registered Deed of Declaration / Confirrnation confinning Conuegance Deed is pima focie fraudulent as it is mentioning obout E.P.No 38/2002 and' the respondents being put in Possession bg uag of D.P. No.38/2002 uhich toos aLreadg set aside bg the Diuision Bench of Justice Sud-arshan Reddg and Justice C'V'Romulu Non mentioning of OSAs in the Deed of Decloration / Conftrmation omounts to suppression of mateiat facts ond fraud on the Coutl In fact there u)as no Conueyance Deed at oll, but it ttas unregistered Sate Deed uthich rt-'os onl11 uatidated and no registration can be lookecl into as if the uendors in actuol possession of properlg. Euen otheruise the uendors utere allotted shares at different places bg the approuecl Scheme of Portition ulich is not talluing uith ang of the d.ocuments i.e- Unregistered Assignment Deed' Unregistered conueAance Deed and Registered Deed of Declaration Confirntation and also the E.P.No.38/2O02, uhich utas already set aside bg the Diuision Bench of the Hon'ble court. As such the Final Decree Ex'facie arud prima facie fraudulent and obtained. bg gross and deliberate misrepresentation of facts and laus'

14. The Appeltant submits that despite setting aside E'P'38/2002 of the Principal District Jud'ge, Ranga Reddg distict ond- consequent reliefs there of the SclLedute of Propertg is shouting A'C'73-00 of uacant lond ond AC.27-00 encroached' in Sg.No'S7 Shamshigud'o Vittage As such the schedule of the propertg as shoutn in the so-called unregistered conueAonce deed dated 03/08/2003 is goirLg against tte present possession alleged bg the Respondents uhich is exclusiuelg sltoutn inside Blue Sheets rtthere as the schediles sltorun as per the Exerrution Proceedings E'P'38/ 2OO2 ore scattered ,I \ 1l HAC .] & NVSK, J Appli raLio. No.a37 ot 2013 as d.ifferent ptaces atLd not at one specific ploce noLU as b.i"g .k,i;;i';;k" Respondents.

15. The Appellantt :;ubmits that the deed of decLarotion/ confirrntttton is onlg confirming the unregistered assignment deed dated. j6/09/2000 and. unregistered conu?uatlce deed dated O3/OB/2003 after a peiod of 12 gears uhich itseLf is ill,:qat as the Registration Act clearly bars an 1 doa,tment presented aJter f,>itr rnonths from the date of executton of Lnregistered_ doanment ond rn.a xtmum time cannot go begond. g montls as ;ter d,ecision renclered bg Honbtr: Supreme Court Unitech Ltd us Telangana St."t:e Ind.ustial .Infrastructure ooryxtratiue Ltd 2021 scc ontine sc 99. Duen othenuise the deed of DeclcLrcttio:t/ confi-nnation is a fraucrurent one as ir is nor mentioning obout tl'te seflilg tl:;ide of Ep.38/ 2002 and consequentiai posse;sion uhich wcLs cLt d.iflerenL pttLces and the said- Deed. of Declaration/ Conlirmatton is a suppression of .fac': before the Diuision Bench and. the order pa:sed in osA 1{o.58 to 66. 68 to i 2 of 2oo2 and the said d.eed of Decraratior-t/ (onftnnation is uotd Ab initio L,!) ,irtue of tlrc final d_ecree in appticatiot no:g3i /2013. The Respondents f anr 2 haue obtained mutation in Reuenue Records , Lnd entered. into Dltaranti Pctrlol bg suppression of mateial facts and. bg misretr resentatton and ong relicLrtc,: orl non reportabte jud_gement rend.ered_ bg ;he Hon,ble Supreme Courl in LIyl palace Mutuallg Aided_ Cooperatiue Society V: B. Mahesh and others cctnnct Le consid.ered as it is based. on an applicatior. filed bg a third paftu Lo the clzcree unt the present appe\ont tuhose interesi s are being affected bg the frat, clulent Acts of Respond.ents I & 2 that ang properties sold on such fraudulent jecrees and ang d euelopment agreemeftts ancl tntered into tuith Third Pctrties s trea.ted. as nultitg uoid contra"cts and. to le seen as furlheronce of frauc' .trt the court, statute and. parties. t2 I{AC,J&NVSK,J osA No.l oi2024 Appli€tion No 837 of 2013 C.S. No 7 ot 1958

16. It is submitted. that the Hon'ble Higtt Court had possed mang final decrees in fauour assignees of Defendants including M/ S Anish Constntction Co and Mg Palace Mutualtg Aid-ed Cooperatiue Societg. The final decree Application of the present Petitioner Nouab Mohammed Fakruddin Khon, APPL'892/2013 dated 2O/03/2013 is pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana lt is submitted that ba,sed on the Application of M/ s Anish.constiction co and Mg Patoce Mutually Aided Cooperotiue Societg, in Application No: 837 of 2013 in C.S.No:7 of 1958 the Hon'ble High Court ordered ond passed final decree on 19/0g/2013 in fauour of M/S Anish Construction Co ond My Patoce Mutuallg Aided Cooperatiue Societg for an exlent of AC 65-56 cents, as shou-tn in schedule 'A' and the plan marked in Blue colour ond an extent of AC'27 O0 cents and shown in ttuo bits measuing AC.l1 43 cents and AC'15 57 cents as shoutn in schedule'B' and' "81', ond plan annexed to final decree in Pink colour.

17. The finol decree is based on a registered "Deed of Declaration/ Conftrmation" dated on 12/ 08/ 201 1, registered as Document 'l[o: 2g3/ lV/ 2011 bg the Di-stict Regi.strar, Ranga Reddg distict' Hgderabad' WhereasitissubmittedthattheDeedofDeclaration/Confi.nnation,,uas execx.tted- only bg certain Dekndants The Deed of Declarotion/ Conf rmation uas for AC.92-56 cents onlg out of total extent in Sg'No:S7 of Shamshiguda uittage (os per the scheme of Partition of Receiuer aLm commissioners) of Ac' 303-91 gts.

18. The appellants humbtg submits that, as per the scheme of Partition submitted bg Receiuer-cum-Commissioners to the Hon'ble Higll Court' the Dekndant No's.2 to 22 utere allotted' areas not as a single unit for eoch / / l3 licalLo. No.a37 of20t3 ^pt Defend.anl. but scattered. into 5 to 6 bits for each Defend.ant .t di-,f;;.T; ;;:;L" in totcLL e.ytent oJ- AC 303 91. Thus, no defend.ant can claim |iis shore as alLotment.

19. Wherects it i:: subm.itted that based on an Application No: j of 2O20 in Application rYo: ,9.17 of 2013 in C.S.No; Z of 1958, fited bg Si. B. Mahesh ond oth(-rs in Hott ltl, High Coutl for cancellation of Finat Decr<.e issued in Appliccttion No: '3.1/ of 2or3 in fauour of M/ s Anish constructio- co ond Mg Palace Mutually .4ided Cooperotiue society, the Hon,ble Hiqh Court of Telanganr't uide 'it:; order dated 2 i / o9/ 202 1 ordered. for Reca oJ Final d.ecree . daLed 19/09/2O1lt it Application No: 832 of 2013 in C.S.No.T tf 1958 and. held that th.e fna.I l)ecree tuas obtained bg plagtng Fraud. upon thc Coutl. 2o rhe Htxt'ltLe Fi-1h court again mod.e it crear that tLrc Court htue not herd that the A1:plic<t r.rr; Sri. B. Mahesh and. others in Apptication No.5 , tf 202o haue establishecl their iqh.ts, tttle ond interest in the tand. h Sg.No.S7 of Shctmshtgudo uitktcle, ctrtd u.thateuer obseruations ond fi.ndings re giuen in thts order a.s regotls them are only to d_etermine tteir locus stcLn d. to fi.le this Appliccttion ctncJ. rtc t for ang other purpose.

21. Whereas tt i:; subm.itted that, aggieued. by the ord.ers for Re,calL of Finat decree in AppliccLt cn No:837 of 2O13 Mg palace MufualLg Aid.ed- Cooperatiue soctety, fLled ciuiL \nyteat No.5784 of2022 @ s.Lp(ciuit) No.701s oi 2022 in the Hon'ble Supreme L)tur1 of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Coutl uicre its ord.ers dated August 23'd -)022, the Appeal uas alloued. bg setting asitle the order dated 21/09/202, passed.in IA No S/2020 in Application No: 83z of 2Oj3 in C.S.No 7 of 1958. t4 AppLicatbn No 837 ol20l3 c s. No 7-or 1958

22.Whereasitissubmitted,basedonAppticationsbgM/SAnishConstruction Co and Mg Polace Mutuallg Aided- Cooperotiue Societg before the Reuenue Authonties i.e., Taltsildar Kukatpallg Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgii Distict' Hgderabad, The Tahsildar Kukatpallg Mandat Mutated the Londs in Reuenue Records in fauour of M/ S Anish Constn)ction Co ond My Palace Mutuallg Aided Cooperotiue Societg for an extent of 92 56 Acres in Sg'No'S7 of Shamshigud.a uillage, Kukatpattg Mandal, MedchalMalkojgii Dbtrict' Hgderabad, as per plan marked as A+B+F1' An extent oJ Ac 24-O3 gts is mutated- in the nome of Mg Palace Mutuatlg Aided Cooperotiue Society under Sg.No's.S7/ 1/2, Shamshiguda uillage ancl an ertent of AC 68 19 gts in Sg.No's.57/ 3, situated at Shamshiguda uillage in fauour of Anish Cotlstruction Co totatling an extent of Ac.92-22 guntas (AC'92'56 gts)'

23. Wereas it is submitted that euen though uaious Defendants tuere allotted at different ptaces in 5 to 6 bits, the aboue mutatioft in Reuenue records utas done almost as a single unit at one place which b against the scheme of partition submitted bg the Receiuers-cum Commissioner's' This Mutation utas done absolutelg against the scheme of Parlition and' the Distict Collector' Medchal-Motkojgii District and the Tahsildar' Kukatpatlg Mandal' Medchal' Malkajgirt Distrtct ptaged fraud on the Petitioner' Froud on the statute ond Froucl on the Courts to beneftt the Respond-ents M/ S Anish Cottsttuction Co and Mg Palace Mutuollg Aided Cooperatiue Societg' Iltegal goins and benefits are clearlg euident from the iltegat Act of The Distict Collector ond Tahsildar' Especiallg the neu Receiuer Commissioner has been appointed and the objections for the report are pending to be filed before the Hon'ble Court' WhereasitissubmittedthatimmediatelgofiermutationinReuenue nego{d-s, Respondents No's.7 and 2 i'e', Mg Palace Mutuollu Aided Cooperatiue 15 Appl :ation No 837 ol20l3 Societg and M/ Si ,\lLish Construction CO created. Third partg i"t"r$tii j.:#r, of Respondent k.183, M/s EXELLA properties bg enteing into Regtstered. Deuelopment Ag,"e e ment cum General Pou..ter of Attorneg datecl on 1 gth Mag 2023, as follor.t,s.

1. MY P,A.',-qCE MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATNE SC CIETY AND EXELLA PRalPlrl,l'IIDS RegLstered as Doanment ..No: 2/ 2,023 dated 18/ 05/ 2023 At. th,z oJftce of the Tahs dar and- Joint sub Register },lukatpahg.

2. ANISH (X)1[S?R[/CT]OI[ CO AND EXELLA BROZERTIE:.) Registered. as DocumenL No: 1/ 2023 dated j8/ 05/ 2023 At the olfice of the Ttthsildar and_ Joint Sub Register L''.ukatpatlg. I'hts clecL,"h I shotus the mala fid_e ond fraudulent ir .tention.s of Respondent No.1 t,-td 2 i.e., My palace Mutuallg Aided Coopercttiue Societg and M/ S Attish C,o struction Co.

25. Whereas the L.Rs of Defendant No.4 i.e., D4 including the pelil,.oner herein haue been olLotle<7 an exten.t of 914-647 (Ac.9.146) and. 668 16 certs (AC.6.6g) and 153-873 (Ac. 1.::3) cents totallinq j736 680 cents /Ac.17.360. The shore of Defentctnt No.4 is aLlottecl and marked in the Scheme of parTition Maps cts follotus

1. 914-647 cen.ts

2. 668-16 cents

3. 107- 14 cents

4. 24-l7O cents

5. 14-29O cents

6. 8-333 cents t6 LIAC,J&NVSK,J Application No,8J7 ot 2013

26. Wtereas from the aboue it can be clearly obserued tn t til-it;ii' Defendant No.4 i.e., the Petitioner herein is ollotted a's 6 different bits and u-tere clearlg marked in the scheme of Partition Map of the Receiuers and .1 Commissioners rlthich is being enclosed and the respond'ents ore proceeding u.ith iltegal corlsttuctions, u'thich is fraud on the Court and the Appellants' a m ou nting u n t a ufu I e nichm ent.

27. Whereas it a submitted tlnt a.s per the location on sketch of sg.No.S7 of Shamshiguda uiltage, Kukatpaltg Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgii District' as per Talsitdor Kukatpatlg Mandal arl areo of AC'60-15 gts is onlA shown os uacant land. and actuollg the uocant tand' behind Blue sheets uthich u-'as in possession of Tohsitdar Kukotpatlg Mandal, mag be around Ac'S0-OO gts'

28. It is submitted, that the finat decree Apptication of the Dekndant No 4 i'e' D4 beaing No: 892 d-oted' 20/ O3/ 2013 is pending in the Hon'ble High Court oJ Telangana for the last 7 O gears and that nou tlre Hon'ble High Court is consideing the Report of the new Receiuer-cum-Commissioners for passing ong ord-ers in Applications for Final Decrees'

29. Wtrcreds it is subnitted tltat the mutation in Reoenue Record's done bg Tahsildar, Kukatpallg Mandal, Medchal-Malkaigiri District in Jaaour of M/S Anish Consttttction Co and Mg Paloce Mutuallg Aided Cooperdtite Societg lor an extent o! AC'92-56 gE in Sg'No:S7' Shamshiguda village, uthlch was also entered into the Dhardni Portal olso cooers crrl- afea. o;f 753-873 cdnts (7.53 acres) belonging to LRs of D4, a.s per the schente of Pdrtition submitted bg the Receioer-atm' Commissioners is hightg ltlegal, Jraudulent and' the Petltioner herein i.e., D4 fs ryi to ir'repatable loss Jor uhich actlon of the Tahsildar , t7 !i3a,J&NVSK,J os,i \o.1 042024 At)! icaion No ot2013 na37 Kukatpahg Mandal and the District Coltector, ru.a.n"fiItTiiit t District, who is the approuing Authoritg are liq.ble Jor contempt and prosecution, It is also submitted that the Appeltant herein had requested. the Mand.al Reaenue ofJicer, Balanagar Mandal (nou Kukatpallg Mandal) uide his letter dated. 7an March 2o1g J'ar Mutation of la.nd falling to the shdre of Defendant No.4 i.e., D4, as per the scheme of Partition submitted. bg Receiuer_cum_Commissioners for uhich no replg utas receiaed. and. no a.ction uas to:ken.

30. It is subtni.trei thc,t onother retter uos submitted. for mutction of land fall lng to tlrc shtre, of Defendants No.4 to tlrc Tahsitdar, Kukatpallg Mandal, Medchc -Malka jgiri Distict, Hgderabad. rlated O6/ O9/ 2O2l for ult.,_ich no replg tuas recelued cLn.cl -tc action u_tcts taken

31. If is subnittttl th.cLt the petitioner herein personallg app,oached the Talcildar, KtLkatp,tllg Mand.at, for Mutotion of Lands fa iry to ,he share of ...., Dl ond he had reptied- that unress the Ftnd Decree is Dekndant Nc,4 there the Reuenue \uthoities connot mutate the Land_s.

32. The appelLo.r,t; Ltumblg submits that the total extent of land. in Shamshiguda VitlaEe, Sg.No: SZ i_s AC.303_g1 gts. M/S Ashish Consttuction co and Mg Palace Ltutua\g Aided Cooperatiue societg haue entert d into Decd of Declaration/ co "t1i ntation uith some of the Defend.ants, for a to.al extent of AC.lOO OO gts onlL, out of AC.303_gt gts {.e., around. 3396 of the ,ot.Lt ertent. The Defendants lu.t,e been allotted_ their shares in S to 6 bits an,d. not as a single unit and the..;,= 5 to 6 bits are scattered alL around. Sy.No: 57. The plan prepared and app71tps6l. bg the Tah_sild.ar, Kukatpa g and. aflofled 1,c.92_56 gts in fauour of A,Lish consttuction co and Mg parace Mutuarg Aided cooperatiue 18 ADplication No 837 of 2013 societg is almost os a singre unit contrary to the scheme of portitiolri lilriiiir'iLa bg the Receiuers-cum-commissioners, The plan also includes an ertent of 153- 873 cents (AC.1-538) u.hich tt;as ollotted to Defendant No-4 i'e ' D4 tuhich is highlg iltegat. Thb i.s o Fraud plaged' bg the Tahsitdar, Kukntpally Mondal and District Cottector, Medchal Malkajgin District to fauour Respondents 7 and 8 ond to get illegat gratification tn the process Th'e Tatsild'ar should be ordered to protect the tand of AC.1 538 attotted to Defendant No 4'

33. The appellants humbly submits tlnt the Lagout plon prepared and approued. bg the Tahsitdar, Kukatpaltg Mandal for AC'92-56 gts is moinlg coueing the uocant drea within the Blue Sheets as a single unit ttthich is highlg inegutor. Euen as per the surueg report of the Tahsildar' Kukatpallg the uacant land auailable in Sg.No: 57, Shamshiguda uilllge is onlg AC'60-34 gts' ond most of the uacont Land' is attotted' to Respondents No's l & 2 uhich is highlg inegufar and against the scheme of partition submitted bg the Receiuers-anm Commissioners- Euen though in the plan prepared and allotted to Respond-ents No.1 and 2, share allotted to D4' for an extent of 6'681 Acres is shoutn as untouched but it Is tuithin the Blue sheets tuhich has an extent of 70 to BO Acres onlg ond- there is euery possibility ttnt D4 shore sholl also be taken possession u.tlich is a ground- reatita. The plan approued bg the Tahsildar' Kukatpattg also shotlts some of the ocanpied areas like Maisamtna Temple, Janmobhoomi Colony altotted by GouemflEnt to uteaker sectio/Ls' Hence the Talsitd'ar, Kukatpotlg Mandat should be ordered to protect the share of Defendant No.4 for an ertent of 6'681 Acres uhich G inside the Blue sheets

34. It is submitted that if th'e entire unoccupied/ Vocant tand is allotted to Respondent No's.1 and 2 i.e., Anish Constntction Co and Mg Palace Mutuallg -{ 1e Jii,,!.l,Yif;.' on, a.,.. *o'!a, o,rora Aidecl Coop.rcttiue societg, contrary to the scheme of partition, r.]i,[a'"niTr.. 4 shall be put tct trreparable loss by hauing onlg occupiecl lctnds ,o their share trhich is highlu iu(:qal. It is submitted- that the Tah_sild a.r, Kukat_oally Mandal has to Mutate th: entire ertent of AC.3O3,91 gts, of tand. in Sg.No.SZ, shamshiguda vi.Ilage in the name of the oiginal pattadar/ Decr,--e horders in CS.No.7 of 1958 z. e LRs of Asman Jahi paigan Estate and ruithou, entering the names of oigit,ti Pattadars, hout mutation can be done in fatour of Third. Parlies.

35. 1t is also subr,.itted that the Final Decree d"ated 19/09/2013 passed bg , the Hon'ble High t).urt against Apprication No.g37, do not contr.ir,, ang d.eta s of indiuidual slzar.es asslgn ed. by the Defendants nor in t\-e Deed of DecLaration/Coninn.atlon registered_ as Document No.293/IV/ 20jj dated. 12/ 08/ 201 I in ti'tz cLbsence of tuhich [t is uery c)fficult to asc :rtain utr-dch scheclule of pro,oeftg tuos assigned. Ang Assignment bg the Defendants should onfu be as per the scheme of partition submitted. bu the l)eceiuer cum Commls-sioners.

36. lt is stLbmitt,zcl thot ttle respondents 1 & 2 haue made app,lications for Passbook De.ta Coffection through Dharani portal uid.<: Application Nos. 23OOO500B i, a ated Og. 03.2023 and Application N o. 230005;)346, d.ated 09.03.2023 respecliuetg. The respond-ents i7g & 179 i.e. the Dist;ict coLlector & TaltsiLda1 enquinzd into the matter ond as per the fnd.ings of tl,,e Tahsildar uide File 1'76s.[t/ ?'3/ 2021, dated 10.03.2023 tLrc applicatir ns of the respondents 1 & 2' trre processed and. mutation is d.one in their fauo t. "On perusal of dcotments submitted. bg applicant it is fouttd" that M/ s. Anish Constructions re,c,t"ded_ as pattedar in Sy.No 57, to ott ertent of 4c.68 19 Gts., out btal extent of Ac.279.309g Gts., in Shannshigud_<,. ViLLage. 20 OSA- No I ot2024 Aplliation No 437 ol20I3 a) "On pet'usal o.f d.ocuments submitted bg appticant it is Jound that M/s' Mg Palrrce Mutuatlg Aided Co-op' Societg Rep' bg Sripatl Deshpande recorded' as Pattedar in Sg.No,S7, to an extent of Ac.24-o3 Gts. out tatcrl ertent oJ Ac.279,3O98 Gts' in Shdmshiguda Vltage' At present in S:nanshiguda Village Sg'No'l7' admeas-uring total to an extent Ac.27g.3}g8 Gts', recorded as Goaentmcnt lolrd in Notional Khcrti 2OOOOTOI on poLtta tands uthich is uronglg marked in Dhoro:ni Portal. On oeriJication of retenue records of Shamshiguda Villoge based on 2075-76 the Khcrsra Pahani for tle gear 7954'55 admeas-uring Ac.274-33 gfs' is classiJied Originaltg, the tand in Sg'No'274 of Kukatpallg Village toa's recorded in the Reuenue Records as Poram'boke Sarko:ri tand' It is submitted tcrter it utas renumbered as sg'No's7 ds thclt the same Sg.No'274 & 2O7O-71 to as Poramboke Sarko.ri. She:mshigudrr Village' ft is to submit that according to Court case ia CS 7 of795a Dt.O6.O4.7gSg Preli'nin@ry decree the subiect land is considered as pdtta trrlrds o.f Matruka properties oJ paigah uthich is conJinned bg dt.22.O2.2O7O, Goaerflment of CCLA uide Lr.No'A2/2O6/2Oo9' Telangana uide Memo No'331491JA/2O27 DI.25.O2.2O23. The third' parties Jiled IA 5 of 2O2O in 837 oJ 2O73 the then Supremc Court oJ IndiaCivilAppealNo.STS4oJ2022@Speciall/Jo:l'ePetition (f!LP)(UI1IL) No.7O75 oJ 2O2) has directed ond passed Orders in faaour o;f M/s. Arrish Construction Co' Rep' bg Bore Ninno.la" Mg Palace Mutudtlg Adlded co.op. societg Rep. bg sripad Desl4nnde recorded as J 2l IIAC,J&NVSK,J ]1cpl ratiun No.837 ot 20 r3 pqttedar in S11.No.5Z of Shamshigudg Vitlage, Kukatpat.Ig Uaiia\ Med.cha-Malkajgiri District comprising totd.l extent o.f Ac.92_56 cents as patta lands. c.s rvo]i.r rssa Further Gouernment hcrs also a.ccord.ed. permlssion to upd.ate in Dharani PortaL and atso directed. to remove the said e.Ktent from Prohibitory List. Moreoaer applicant has applied. in Sg.No,SZ, Ac.6g-I9 G.ts. out oJ 4c.274-33 gts. in .Faaour of M/s. Anish Constnrction Jor passbook Data. correction for imprementation in Dhqrq.ni onrine record.s, tohich is recorded as "Goaentment lo,nds', in Notionat Khdta to polttc lqnd khata as patta land.s. Moreouer appli<:ant has applied. in Sg. No.SZ (Ac.24.O3 gts.) out of Ac.274-33 Gts. in .faaour of Mg palace Mutrtallg Aid.ed. Co_O1t. Housing Societg, Rep, bg Sripad Deslhpand.e, Jor passbook Data Correction for irnplementation of Dharani Online Record.s, uthich is record.ed qs Lands Goaernment Lq.nd.s,, in Notional Khata to pdtta Land Kholtq. as Patta. La.nds. lvo RSR Issue. EC Verifi.ed.lVo sale transactions Iound in the no.me o.f pattedar. Hence the request oJ the applicant is recommended for approoal. Sub-Diaision record preparation is under process. With the same -findings, bg changing the extent of lctnds hrrs recommend.ed. for approaal in another application made bg M/s. Exelta properties. 22 HA(),J&IIVSK,J osA. No. ) oi2024 APplication No.837 ot 2013 C.S No.7 ot 19sA (-\ Basing on the abooe findings the applications oJ the respondents 7 & 2 are processed q.nd. mutation is done in their Jauour. It is pertinent to note that throughout the Jindings of the Tahsildar, no mention of the scherne of partition are made, tohich ts uery much releaant as the partition is done in fauour of 22'beneJiciaries'

37. It is submitted that the findings of tLte respondents 178 & 179 on the Dlnrani Applicotions made bg the respondents 7 & 2 and further mutating the land-s as sought through the apptications k illegal and contrary to the Scheme of Parlition opproued. on 17.07-2009 uide Order in Application No' 495 in CS No.7/ 1958 on the file of tttis Hon'bte courT and in controuention conftrmation and Declaration dated 12.08.2011.

38. The appellants resen)es their ight to raisb ang other grounds at the tine of heaing. KNOWLEDGE: a. That the appellants come to knou..t about the magnitude of fraud on 25.07.2023 ttthen other fraudulent persons were encrooching on the oppellants' part of the schedule propertg in Sg'No'S7 of Shomshigltda Village' u.therein a complaint u'tas lodged before the potice at P' S' Jagadgiigutta' Hgderabad, at the same time uhen the appellonts uisited other parl of the schedule propertg behind- Blue Shrcets' the appellants noticed that respondents 7 & 2 are encroaching uporl the attotted propertg of appetlants' as per tte itlegal acts, the pa.ssage of final decree is ex-facie ittegal and caused seuere prejudice to the petitioner / appettant and' in such a situation' the Hon'ble Court is under obligotion to und'o the urong done to o partg bA the Act of the tr/ I .* z 23 ltrc,J&Nvs(,J ,].ppl catio. No.837 ol2013 Courl as per the, ,,;tablished- legcLt maxim .Actus Curiae w"-i"r,i'ii"['iffirc" tuhich means tltc;.t the oct of the Court shall prejuclice no ole, becomes applicable in stLch o case. In such o case, the couri is under obliqtttion to undo the turong done to c partg bg the Act of the Court. b. As per the JtLcic.ment in Inderchand. Jain (Dead) through LI,s us. Motial (Dead) throttgh L,Rs (2009) i4 SCC 663, uherein the Hon ble Su"treme Court held tl Lat the sand \[oxim ts established upon justice and equitg and hetp in the latu adminis t r c.ti o n. The Court obseruetl hence; '|'his Lueil s<:ttled position need_ not d.etain us, tuhen the :.econd point urged bg th-e appel|ttnt is focused. There can be no quanrel u{th tht, proposition os noted bu tlu: fI,t,r'ble Htgh Court that a parly cannot be m.acle to su|fer on accouftt of nn cLct ,-tf the Court. There is u..tell recogni-zetl naci t of equitA, namelg "ctctus ctLriu.e neminem grauabit,,which means an act t,f the Court shalL prejudice no qLcut. This maxim is founded. upon justice am7 lood sense, tuhich serues ct sctJ,: and certain guide for the administration of lau. c. Ar td. also as per Judgment in UpSRTC us. Imityaz Hussrrin 2006 (l) SCC 380 the said nt;txinl utas analgzed. d. And. also ,ts per Judgment in Orbsa Deuelopntent Corlrcrotion us- Anupam Troder.s, nc patlA should. suffer due to Act of Court. As sr,ch not onlg the respond.ertts ,' 3; 2 but the other respond.ents i.e. respon-dents i.e. j7B to 183 are also ner,.es:,ry parties and. their iltegal acts has to be cond..mned.. The dppellants' interes:t shall not be affected. The respondents shalL n.ot change the nature or st.,tt's oJF rl.,.e properta or shall make any furtlter constnLctions. -t 24 HAC, J & NVSI(,.J ApPlration No-837 ot2013 FRAUD: o. And. as per tegol moxim "Fraus est colare froudom" it is fraud to conceal a fraud. And also Justice nemini neganda est" justice is to be denied to nobodg. Ma-rim - The fraud ond justice u.till neuer duLell together as per legal maim'.Frausetjusnunquamcohabitant''u,hichisrelieduponbgtheHon'ble Supreme Court in United lndia Insurance Co' us' Rajender Singh and others Mau/ SC/ O18O/ 2OOO. b. And. abo compulsory registration of conuegance of immouable propertA U/s.49 & 17 of the Registrotion Act, 1908 as per Suraj Lamps and Industies Put. Ltd.. through Director us State of Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363' Fraud- on Court : Parties must come before the Courl with clean hands and fraud on the Court uherebg the Juclgment and Decree obtained bg plaging fraurl uilt be o rutltitg including consent decree obtoined bg fraud Hence such d.ecree and olso oll subsequent Judgements and- Decrees passed on claims of Right, Titte, interest and possession based on decree ruhich is uitioted bg Fraud- liabte to be set aside Badami (cleceased) bg LRs us. Bali (2012) 11 SCC

574. c. Ang Judgment or Ord'er obtained bg playing froud i-s a nullitu and it can be clnllenged at anA stage, ot anA time in appeal' reuision' Or euen in collaieral proceedings o-s per Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in A'P' Papogga Sastry and Others us' Gouentment of A'P' and others (2OO7) 4 SCC oo 1 , ..,::ii*t.'atr', 25 H\C,J&NVSK,J ArDl .arion No.a37 o12013 cl. The ,tucl Tment or Decree obtained. bg fraud. to be treot.,ld" )Z' )riiitto and can be que:;tioned euen in collateral proceedtngs. Non d,isclosure of releuant docrutteqts uith a uieu.t to obtain ad-uantage antounts tc fraud.. Held. decree obtained b:.1 non disclosure of release deed. amount of frc,ud. on Court and. hence d.ecre:e liable to be set aside (1994) I SCC S.p Ci rcngaLauarai Nctidu ldead) bq ,!-l?:; us. Jagannath (dead) by LRs. Prauer: It is thereJbre pnuled that thi-s Hon'ble Court mag set asid.e the ,?inal Decree passed tn Applict.ii,tn No.837/2013 in C.S.No.7 of 1958, datecl ,9/09/2013 as the sante u.tas tbtain.e,d bg plaging fraud_ on the Courl by Suppressing Diuision Benr.h orders da.ted 1O/ 06/ 2003 u,hich set cLsid.e the Dp_38/ 2002 on whicLt Lhe RespLnaents are relging on the Sclrcdute of propefl 1 for uhich po's-ses-slon saici tt h.aue bee,n giuen. As on tod.ag none of the Dekn Tants cLre in possession of their shares, thb Hon,bte Court bg allotuing the ap1p51l mag be plectsed lo pa-s,< siuch other ord_er or orders os mall deem fit at7d. [)roper in the circurnslances cf t.L,e case."

6. Hearcl th,: learned counsel for the parties ancl pr,rusecl the material made ar.,ailable on the record.

7. For better altpreciation, it is necessary to extract the tnal clecree dated 19.09.20 J 3 passed in Application No.837 of 20 13 in C.S. No.7 of 1958 by the karned Single Judge. " 1. 'Ihat the Civil Suit C.S. No.7/ 1958 is a suit for piu titi-rn and sepa,ral-e possession respect of the Matru ka properties of Late Nawab Moinduddowla I 26 HAC, .J & NVSK, J Application No.837 ot 2013 () Bahadur, forming Paigah Asmajahi' The Honble High Court has passed a preliminary decrce in 6-4-1959 bY virtue of a C.S. No.7/ 1958 on which the Plaintitf and compromise, under Defendalt No. t have received the cash' manslons' urban properties and securities, therefore the share of Defendants No 2 to 22 are determined' holding them entitled to receive their shares in all other suit schedule properLies including properties shown in item No 23O to 254 schedule "A" artnexed to the preliminary decree

2.That the property in Sy No 57 of Shamsiguda village, Balangar Mandal, R R District is part of item No.252 of schedule "A" appended to the preliminary decree, which is Matruka properties of Moinuddowla Bahadur, wherein the Defendants No.2 to 22 a::e kreld entitled to receive the due share in terms of the preliminarlr decree in 'C S' No.7/ 1958. The Chief Commissioner Land Administration, Govt , of A P', submitted a report to the Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Departrnent, A'P Secretariat vide CCLA LR.No.NA2/20 6l2OOg dated 22 O2-2Olo' confirming that the lald in Sy No 57 of Shamsiguda vi1lage, is a private patta land belonging to Paigah Asmajahi The said proceedings have become final ald therefore the represented bY the Government 182 is bound bY the of A.P., No.180 to Respondents preliminary decree as well as this frnal decree'

3. That the Petitioners No 1 & 2 have acquired tJ e property in Sy.No'S7 of Shamsiguda Viilage' Balalgar Mandal, R R District' being part of Item 27 HAC,J&NVSK,J ,\pp Lcahon No.837 oI20I3 c,S. No.7 ot r958 pr€linlinary decree, to arr extent of Ac.1OO-Gts.. un,l(x an Assignment Deed executed by the Share Ho. d ers / Defendants. The petitioners No.1 & 2 har-e been brought on record and they have also becn rlelivered possession of the property by virtue of thc execution proceedings in E.p. No.3g/2002 on tlLr: hle of Hon'ble principal District Judge R.R. Disrri, t. Having thus delivered possession the Pr:t:tioners Nof. 1 & 2 have fenced the lar-rd bv putting the barricades around the sard property. 4 'llLat the Respondents 4, 5, 10 to 14, 1g, 20. 21, 34 to 38, 40 to 47, 49, 5t to 53, 54, 56 to 63, 66 o 68,71 to 75, 104, 105, 109 to 115, 148 & 149, have also executed a document, titled as "COh'\'EYANCE DEtrD,, dated 3 8_2003 in favorr r of thr pc titioners No. 1 & 2, conveying the propertr. meas tring Ac.1O0-00 Gts., with specihc bounrl:rries in favour of the petitioners No.1 & 2. Since ,he Assignment Deed dated 16_09_2000 as u'cll as the said Conveyance Deed dated 3_g 2OO3 are t lrreglstered documents, therefore another rcgt:jt,t -cd document namely "DEED Of DEC LA.RA IION/CONFIRMATION" dateci 12-CB 2011 is executed by the Respondents No.4, 11, 11) to 14, 36 to 38,41 to 42,49,51 to 53, 57 to 59, rro to 64, 66, 66 to 69,72 to 74,104, 105, 109, 13 to 115, 148, 149, 15S to 159 & 160 ro 169 and thereby declared ard conhrmed to thc effect :liat they have sold, tralsferred, granted and convevr:d the property measuring Ac.100_0O Gts., in 51' l,lo.57 of Shamsiguda Village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District as shown in the schedules respectively ald the plan annexed thereto and the botrnclaries mentioned therein. The said ,DEED OF I)ECLARATION/CONFIRMATION" dated \ I l i 28 Appliation No.a37 ol20)3 (:t I2-Oa-2O11 is registered as Doct' No 293/IV2O11 by t}le District Registrar R.R' District'

5. That out of the Ac.10O-O0 Cents, of land in Sy.No.S7 of Shamsiguda Village, the petiLioners No. 1 & 2 have parted with an extent of Ac'7 -44 Cents, in favour of the Respondents No' 172 & 173 herein which is shown in schedule "A-1" annexed to the petition. Therefore, the Respondents No.172 & 173 are also brought on record as Defendalts No.148 & 149 in C S' No'7/ 1958 and they are also granted the ifna-l decree to the extent of Ac.7-44 Cents., as shown in the said schedule and a separate final decree is engrossed' The Respondents No.148 to 171 who are the legal heirs of the deceased share hoiders' are also brought on record as Defendants in C S' No.7/1958 vide orders dated 1309 2013 in Appl.No.838/2013 in C.S No' 1958' 6, That out of Ac.100-00 Cents, the Petitioners No.1 & 2 have parted with and allotted ar-r extent of Lc.7-44 Cents., in favour the Respondents No.72 & 173, therefore the petitioners are held entitled to get the hnal decree passed to arl extent of Ac.92-56 Cents., in Sy'No'57 of Shamsiguda Village, being the a-lenees pendent lite- The sard land measurin g Ac.92-56 cents, is not forming a compact block but is in three trits' al extent of Ac.65-56 Cents, as shown in schedule "A" and the plal il biue color appended to this final decree and an extent of Ac.27 -OO Cents shown in two bits measuring Ac.11-43 Cents & Ac'15-57 Cents'' as shown in schedule "B" & "B- 1" and the plan annexed to this frnal decree in pink color' tI 29 IIAC,J&IWSK,J osA N. I .fror4 Afp adon No.837 of 2013 C.S. No.7 oi 1958

7. lh,:refore this court do hereby gralt the final decrr:r: in favour ol the petitioners No.1 & 2 in resDcr:t of the land admeasuring Ac.92-56 Cents., in Sy.No.S7 of Shamsiguda Village, being the alienees pendent lite, which is shown in three bits, i.e.. an extent of Ac.65-S6 Cents, as shown in scherl',r1e "A" and the plan in blue color appended ro I is final decree and an extent ol Ac.27-00 Certs shown in two bits measuring Ac.11_43 Certs & Ac. 15-57 Cents., as shown in schedule "8" f,c "B- 1" and the pla:'r annexed to this final dt:c:ce in pink color_ Thus by virtue of this final decr-ee. the petitioners are be a:rd hereby declarecl as :rl-solute owners of the land measuring Ac.92_ 56 Cents., in Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda Vi11age, B:r1iLr:Lgar Maldal, R.R. District being part of item No.lli !l of schcdule ',A,' alnexed to the preliminarl, decrr:.: in C.S. No.7/ 1958, being the aliences pendr rrt ehte, which is shown in three bits, i.e., an exten._ of Ac.65-56 Cents, as shown in schedulc "A" an1 the plan in blue color appended to this l-rn al cecrce ald an extent of Ac.27-00 Cents shorvrr in trvo bits measuring Ac. 11._43 Cents & Ac.15 Ii7 Cents, as shown in schedule "B" & "B_1,, ald th,: plan arnexed to this hna_l decree in pink color'.

8. 'lh: s Court further do hereby grant the hnal decr(tr in favour fo the Respondents No.172 & 173 in reslect of the land measuring Ac.7_44 Cents., in Siv.l{o.57 of Shamsiguda Village, which is shorn n in schedule ,,A- 1,, and the pian in yellow color appended to this frnal decree. Thus by virtu,: cf this final decree, the Respondents No.172 & l?'3 are be and hereby declared as absolute ontters of the land measuring Ac.T_44 Cents., in 30 Applica on No a37 ot2or3 Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda Vi1lage, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. Distdct being part of item No.252 of schedule 'A" annexed to the preliminary decree in C.S. No.7/ 1958 and morefully described in schedule A- 1 and the plan in yellow color alnexed to this hnal decree.

9. That the petitioners No.1 & 2 and the Respondents No.172 & 173 ate be ald hereby directed to pay the remuneration to the Recivers- cum-Commissioners in respect of their respecLive extents of the land lald frnally decree in their favour within two weeks.

10. That there be no order as to costs. SCHEDULE "A" PROPERTY ADMESURING AC.65-56 CENTS A11 that vacant land in physical possession of Second Party No. 1 &, 2lFinal Decree Petitioners, admeasuring Ac.65-56 Cents, in Sy'No'57 of Shamsiguda Village, Balanagar Mandal, R-R District, shown in blue color in the plan annexed hereto being part of item No.252 of schedule "A" annexed to the preliminary decree in C S' No.7/ 1958 pending on the fi1e of Honble High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad and bounded by :- North : Village boundary of Gajula Ramaram South : Bagh Ameeri Tank & Part of Sy No'57 East West allotted to Defendants No.3. Land allotted to Respondents No 174 to 177 and' land a-llotted to Defendant No'3 & V.B. of KukatPallY. Land shown in schedule "B" in Sy'No 57 of Shamsiguda Village. -r" / 31 SCHEDULE FjAC,J&NVSti,J \pF iehon No.837 ol20l3 C S No.7 oI 1958 ADMF^SURING AC. 1 1.43 CENTS A11 that lald measuring Ac. 1 1-43 Cents in Sy. No.57 of Shamsiguda Village, Balanagar NIanCa1, R.R. District, shown in pink color in the plan rrnnexed hereto being part of item No.252 of sche,lule "A" annexed to the preliminary decree in L .S . \o.7/ 1958 pending on tle file of Honble High tJourt of A.P., at Hyderabad and bounded by Nortli Sout r Easl West : Village boundary of Gajula Ramaram : Bagh Ameeri Talk. : Lar-rd shown in schedule "A" : V.8., of Bachupally Village. SCHEDULE'B-1" PROPERTY ADMESURING AC.15-57 CENTS Al1 that lald measuring Ac_ 15-57 Cents in Sv.l'ftr.57 of Shamsiguda Village, Balaragar Malc:11, R.R. District, shown in pink color in the plal annexed hereto being part of item No.252 of sche(irrle "A" annexed to the preliminarlr decrce in C.S llo.7/ 1958 pending on the file of Hor-rble High Oourt of A.P., at Hyderabad and bounded bv Norr h SoutL Easl West Larrd allotted to Defendant No.3 & 1O in Sy.No.57 Land allotted to Defendant No.7 & 12 in Sy.No.57 Lard allotted to Defendant No.6 ard the land shown in schedule .,A- 1,, allotted to the Respondents No.l72 & 173. Land allotted to Defendant No.3 & 10. I I ( AppLi€tion No.a37 ol2013 SCHEDIILE "A-1 '' PRO PERTY LAND ADMFSURING Ac.7.44 CENTS All that land measurin g Ac'7-44 Cents rn Sy.No.57 of Shamsiguda Village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District, shown in yellow color in the plan annexed hereto being part of item No 252 of schedule "A" annexed to the preliminar5r decree in C.S. No.7/ 1958 pending on the frle of Hon'ble High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad and bounded by North : 4O feets wide road in Sy No'57 of Shamsiguda Village' South : Land allotted to Defendant No 6 and land in schedule "B- 1" allotted to the PetitionersNol&2' East : Land allotted to Defendalt No'5 and the land shown in schedule "A" allotted to the Petitioners No' 1 & 2' West : 4O fcets wide road arrd the iand allotted to Defendant No 3'

8. At this juncture, it is significant to note that the Division Bench of this Court vide order datect 09 01'2025 closed the C'S' No 7 of 1958 wherein at para No.36 observed as under: "36. on a perusal of the paragraph 4(g)' of the preliminary decree dated 06'04 1959' it is evident that the defendant Nos 2 to 22 were entitled to the properties mentioned at item Nos 230 to 254 of Schedule A' annexed to the preliminar5r decree' in case the same are restored or released in favour of Asman Jahi Paigah ln the instant case' admittedly, there is no material to indicate that the properties mentioned at serial No 23O to 254 of Schedule A' to the preliminary decree have \ ]J HAC,J&NVSK,J osA. No I of 2024 Apflr( {ion No.a37 ol20l3 I S No.7 o11958 beetr r:stored or released in favour of Asman Jal-i Pai€la h. It is pertinent to note that as per para 4(g) of thr: preliminarlr decree dated 06.04.19S9, the Comrtissioners-cum-Receivers have ttre power to sel1 tre property by way of public auction ald exerc_sc a1l powers necessa{r for effecting ti-re divil.;i,t:'r of the sale between the defendants No.2 to 12 :md 14 to 22. Accordingly, each son rvould get 1271i3 ar-rd each daughter would get 1/33 in the proper':ies of Schedule A, except items 230 to 254 of the tlchedule and items of properties allotted to the p,;:intiff. The defendant Nos.2 to 22 tvtl.l get theil share, namely, each son getting 2/3S ancl eacl daughter getting 1/35 from the arreaus of income future income, compensation or commt tation or sale proceeds of the items 230 to 254 c,f Schedule A, detarled under the head of "Mal<t h as" in case of the same are restored or r-elezLs:l in favour of paigah Asman Ja].ri.,,

9. It is no1- o lt of place to note here that the learne I counsel Mr. T.K. Sreedhal appearing for the appellants herein reprcsented in C.S. No.7 of I9:;8 wherein he made the follori,ing sr- bmission, which reads as Lrrlrler: ".... Mr,T.K.Sridhar, learned counsel for the legal reprcsl ttalives of defendanl No.4 in the suit ajld for rr-'spondent No.4 in application No.24 of 2024 subnri-ted that the report dated 06.O9.2023 submit.ted by the receiver cum commissioner in so far as it pertains to lands mentioned in Sl. Nos.!)32i to 254 is required to be rejected. Learned counsel further submitted that the receiver cum comn'rissioner appointed by this Court ought to have appreciated that the final decree cannot be Il / 34 osA, No,, or 2024 Applr@rion No.837 oI20l3 C.S, No.7 ol195a passed in application Nos.14O9 of 2Ol3 and 837 of 2013 as the unregistered assignment deeds were executed and a title in respect of the immovable property cannot be passed on the basis of the unregistered document. Therefore, tlre application seeking final decree at the instalce of the applicants in application Nos. 14O9 of 2073 ald 837 of 2013 is not maintainable and it is also pointed out tJrat the receiver cum commissioner has cursorily prepared the report and ought to have exarnined the issue in greater detail as the Government is in possession of some of the lands covered under the preliminary decree."

10. The subject property undcr appeal is in respect of Item No.252 falling in Schedule A' of the preliminary decree dated 06.04.1959 and the subject iand is in Sy.No.57 of Shamshiguda Viliage, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is the schedule property of the suit rn O.S. No.7 of 1958. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated

09.O\.2025 had closed the C.S. No.7 of 1958 wherein at Para No.40 observed that '?s such, the submissions made on behalf of the objectors are unsustainable and in that uieut of the matte1 it can safelg be concluded that no lc:nds are auailable for pantition in item Nos'23O to 254 of Schedule 'A' attached to the preliminary decree. In the absence of preliminary decree for item Nos.23O to 254 in Scledule'A', no finol decree could haue been passed. Tlerefore, reports filed earlier are uLithout proper ueification, are fictitious and ttLe same ore treated as nullitg and are Ltereby rejected." \ 35 i\C,J&IWSK,J ( sA. :\,o.1 012021 Ap!Li.a ioi \o.a37 oI2013 ( s. No.7 oI1958 11. Since the C.li. No.7 of 1958 was closed with specific olrservatitrn that no lands ale available for partition in Item No.252 and the subject land in S'r.No.57 of Shamshiguda Village, Balanaga r Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is the schedule property of the suit in O.S. No.7 of 1958 as sLtch, rl,) further adjudication is required in this arpeal.

12. AccordingJy this O.S.A. No.1 of 2024 in Application \o.837 of 2013 in C.S. No 7 cf 1958 is disposed of leaving it open to t re parties to pursue their rerrredies as available under law, if the y so feel aggrieved by thisr order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a seque-, miscellaneous applications, if an1, pend ing, shall stand closed. ,TTRUE COPY'/ ,\ SD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO .IOINT REGISTRAR .SEC'NON OFFICER I I To, , H:},,Y A HYdeiabad 4 179)' " No. 7/1958 Having the' ( MallePallY HYcerabad ' u.? itilijii?; i","-?"d, ; :ffi ; &l,E E8:i: "'fl f fi ;,i;':fr ,' 2 M/s B s.!rya-Isy1ogr n3fi#r,1"fi",i;1",1:.'$;i:ffi;&"#t;:;:!:K:f " r' n u u t HYderabad. Secretariat' HYderabao'

3. The Principal Secretary' State of Telangana' Revenue Deparlment' 4. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy' District' Having the officr: at Lakdikapul' 5. The Tahslida,.' Balanagar Mandal' Balangar' R' R District' 6. The District Collector, Medchal Malkajgiri District' 7. The Tahsiklar Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri Distric:' B. The District Registrar' Medchal Malkaigiri District' 9'TheSub-Registrar.,Kukatpally,MedchalMalkajgiriDistrict, Municipar corporaticn' eircre No 24' I1?,1,;LI ffi:?1?:,",J:i-':iLlllSiJ,?i"?t

11.One CC to SRl. T. K. SRIDHAR, Advocate [OPUC] 12.One CC to l\/s. MANJARI S GANU Advocate [OPUC] j 13. Two CCS to Advocate General , High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. \ l

14.Two CD Copies Kul/gh I I HIGH COURT DATED:07/03/2025 I t J udgment 6IATeYT o 2E r ,f 2025 z a J\ t 4);:s 'jt =_ t:,rrrrl' - /' I I O.S.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 in Aplication No. 837 of 2013 in Q.S.Nql rercEq DISPOSING ()1;,III]] .ISA WII.HOUT COSTS \ ( l,$ A1