The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PRAVFEN KUMAR CHALLA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N MANOHAR The Court made the following: ORDER \ 7-- HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CML REVISION PETITION No.336 6 of 2o24 ORDER: This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.O6.2024 passed in C.M.A. No.22 of 2023 by the Principal District Judge at Medak, wherein the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by confirming the order, dated I3.1O.2O23 in I.A.No.1132 ol 2023 in O.S.No.4O2 of 2023 passed by the trial Court.

2. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Chalia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. Manohar, learned counsel for respondent No. I and no representation on behalf of other respondents, despite service of notice. Perused the record.

3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit uide O.S.No.402 of 2023 on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Medak against the respondents to declare 2 LNA, J C. R.l'. No 33(r(, of 2O24 the sale deed No.4738 of 2003, dated 18. 10.2003 i1s nltll and void and also for perpetual injunction restraining clefendant No.1 from dispossessing the pLaintiffs from the suit schedule pfoperty. The petitioners a-lso filed I.A.No. 1132 oi 2023 for ad interim injunction restraining the responden ts from alienating the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. Respondent No.1 ltled counter resisting the altplication.

5. The trial Court uide order dated i3.10.2023 dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved, by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal uide C.M.A.No.22 of 2023 and the appcllate Court uide impugned order dismissed the appeal. Challcnging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is hled

6. l,earned counsel for the petitioners would submit that originatty, Chukka Balaiah was the pattedar of the agricultural lancl admeasuring Acs.4.14 guntas in Sv.No.292, situated at Kallakal Vitlage, Manoharabad Mandal, Medak District. The said Chukka Balaih has two son s namely, Chukka Narsaiah and Chukka Balaiah and after the death of Chukka Narsaiah, his legat heirs were impleaded as respondent Nos.3 to 9. Chukka Balaiah has a daughter by name Chukka Veeramani and she was given land t.o an exteflt 3 LNA. J C.R P.No.3366 of 2024 of Ac.l.33 guntas by grandfather namely, Chukka Balaiah and balance extent o[ Acs.2.22 guntas fell to the share of Chukka Narsaiah and his three sons and aJter the demise of Chukka Balaiah, the said land rvas inherited bv Chukka Narsaiah and his sons i.e., petitioners herein. He would further submit that the petitioners filed suit for partition in O.S.No.76 of 2022 in which respondent No.1 was made party as respondent No.5; the respondent No.1 filed written statement statlng that.she purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1.31 guntas in, Sy.No.284 lAl2 (oldl and 291/2 (new) under the registered sale deed document No.4738 of 2O03, dated 18.10.2003 from respondent No.2 herein, who in turn purchased the said property under the registered sale deed document No.2743 of 1996, dated 05.O8.1996 from one Amamath Agarwal and who in turn purchased the said property under a registered sale deed document No.92O of 1995, dated 20.O2.1995 from Veerakka Balamani.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that respondent No.1 has claimed right over the suit schedule property by basing on resurvey. Therefore, burden is on respondent No. 1 ro prove that Sy.No.2Ba I Al2 4 LNA, J C.R. P. No.3366 of 2024 waschanged to Sy.No.29ll2 and as the respondent No.1 was trying to alienate the suit schedule property, the petitioners Iiled the suit along with application for ad-interim injunction. He n'ould submit that the trial Court dismissed the application on erroneous findings and u,ithout considering the documents placed on record by the petitioners. He would further submit that the appeliate Court also committed error in dismissrng the appeal on perverse findings arrd fajled to consider the fact that the property claimed by respondent No. i and the propert! being claimed by the petirioners IS diffe rer-r t

8. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the respondents bt taking advantage of their names in the revenue records are trying to alienate the suit schedule property. Therr-'fore, the application Iiled by the petitioners ought to have been aliowed restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property, till the disposal of the suit and if the respondents are allowed to alienate the suit schedule propcrty, it will unnecessarily lead to multiplicitv of litigation and t he suit filed by the petitioners rvould be fru sl ral ed. J LNA, J C R.P No.3366 of2024

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that respondent No. t had purchased land admeasuring Ac.t.33 gunras in Sy.No.284 lA/2 (old) and 291/2 (newl under registered sale deed clocument No.4738 of 2003, dated 18.10.2003 from respondent No.2 and the said fact was clearly mentioned in the written statement filed by respondent No.1 in O.S.wo.ZO of 2003 filed by the petitioners for partition. He would further submit that arienation of land to an extent of Ac.1.33 guntas in Sy.No.292 under a registered sale deed document No.3170 of 1984 was made in favour of one M.N.Lingappa and the petitioners have suppressed the fact of alienation of the iand admeasuring Ac.1.37 guntas in Sy.No.292 and Ac.00.03 gunta in Sy.No.29 I situated at Kallakal Village in favour ol. one potel Rukmini Yadav and also suppressed that the father of the petitioners along with late Chukka Narsaiah and Chukka Sattaiah, have jointly executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.4093 of 1984, dated 11.12.Igg4 and in view of the said alienation, the petitioners do not possess any land.

10. Learned counsel for respon dent further submits that the burden is on the petitioners to prove that on resurvey 6 I-NA, J C. R. P.\o ?'366 of 2024 Sy.No.284/Af 2 was changed to Sy.No.291 l2 and that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application b1' duly taking into consicleration the documents filed on bel-ralf of the petitioners as u'e1l respondent No.1 and the appellate Court has also rightl-v dismissed the appeal. He finally submitted that the petition ers have failed to make out any case or to interfere '*,ith the impugned order and thus, prayed to dismiss the revision. 1i. A perusal of the recQrd would disclose that respondent No.1 is claiming that she purchased the land aclmeasuring Ac.1.31 guntas in Sy.No.284/A/2 and corresponding Sy.No.29 | l2 from respondent No.2 under the registered sale deed No.4738 ol 2003, dated 18.10.2003. Respondent No.2 had purchased the same from one Amarnath Agarwal, under registered sale deed No.2743 of 1996, dated 05.08.1996, who in turn purchased the same under the registered sale deed bearing No.920 of 1995, dated 20.O2.1995 from Veerakka Balamani. It is pertinent to mention that the father of the petitioners bl' name Chukka Balaiah is the signatory to the registered sale deed executed by Veerakka Baiamani in favour of Amarnath Agaru.al. It is the specific contention of 7 LNA, J C.R. P. No.3366 of 2024 respondent No. 1 that after resurvey Sy.No.28a/A/2 (old) was changed to Sy. No.29 1 I 2 (nev,) and it is further case of respondent No.1 that having alienated the entire extent, the petitioners have no land in Sy.No.29 1/2 (new).

12. It is relevant to refer to the order passed by the triai Court wherein, it is specifrcally observed that though the petitioners are claiming that Sy.No.292 was changed to Sy.No.29 l, no document is hted by the petitioners to substantiate the said contention. The trial Court further observed that resporident No. I claimed that Sy.No.2 g4l Al2 w'as changed to Sy.No.29 I 12 and had filed photocop_v of documents in support of her contention. The trial Court further observed that no documents have been filed by the petitioners to show that the suit schedule property belonged to them and also failed to prove pnma-facie case and balance of convenience.

13. The appellate Court specilically observed that the petitioners are disputing the transactions that were made by their own family members and that new survey number was a-llotted to their property, therefore, burden is on the petitioners to prove prima-facie case that new survey number *-", \ 8 LNA, J C R P.No 33(t6 ol2O2a has been allotted to the suit schedule property and since; the petitioners have farled to substantiate their claim, they are not entitled lor any injunction. The trial Court further observed that the petitioners did not refer to the sale transaction i.e., earlier alienation made by Chukka Narsaiah and Chukka Sathaiah uide sale deed bearing Nos. 4093 of 1984 and 1487 of 1987 which amounts to suppression of material facts and alienation ol land in Sy.No.292 and thus, the hrst appellate Court was not inclined to interfere u,ith the order passed b.v the trihl Court.

14. A perusal of record would also disclose til.at prima-facie land in Sy.No.292 was alienated by Chukka Narsaiah and Chukka Sathaiah uide sale deed bearing Nos.4093 ol 1984 and 1487 ol 1987 and the petitioners do not have any balance land in Sy.No.292. On the other hand, respondent No.1 has claimed that the suit schedule property was sold under a registered sale deed bearing No.4738 of 2OO3, dated

18. 10.2003 by Respondent No.2 to which the father of the petitioners by name Chukka Balaiah was a signatory. The principal contention of the petitioners that in resurvey Sy.Nos.29 1 u,as changed to 292 has not been substantiate by 9 LNA, .' C.R P No.3366 of 2024 the petitioners, Further, the claims, counter claims and disputed question of facts have to be decided only after full fledged trial and therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into disputed questions of fact in this Revision.

15. In the light of above discussion, this Court considered view that the petitioners have failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the appellate Court and thus, revision fails. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ To, .tte- //TRUE COPYII : Sd/. T. VIJAY KUMAR TY REGISTRAR E S CTION OFFICER 1- PRINCIPAL DISTRICTJUDGE, MEDAK 2. One CC to SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR CHALLAAd 3 lne CC to SRt N MANOHAR Advocate iOnuCJ 4. Two CD Copies vocate [OPUC] s SS/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 110612025 ORDER CRP.No.3366 of 2024 ( i_s rC o L).t * 16 il]l 2025 z * ';,1TJi] r--O DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS @q'3 6wr--- i'.{r\c'<