The High Court · 2025

M/s. Kedia Overseas Limited,, Rep.by its Executive Director, Sri Ajay Kumar Kedia, Sio Dr. Mahesh Kumar Kedia, aged 33 years, Occ Business R/o Plot N. 48, Srikrupa Market, Mehaboob MAnsion, Hyderabad. ...AppellanU2nd Defendant AND 1 Smt. Velmela Yettamma, Wo Late Velmela Samaiah, Occ: Agriculture R/o H.No. 1-12. Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal. Medak District. 2 J 4 5 Velmela Prarnod, S/o Late Velmela Samaiah, Occ: Agriculture. R/o H.No. 1-'12. Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District. Sri Velmela Prashant, S/o Velmela Samaiah Occ: Agriculture. R/o H.No. 1-1 2. Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District. Smt. G.V. Shobha @ Rajitha, D/o Late Velmela Samaiah, Wo Babu Rao, Occ: Agriculture, H.No 9-5-7, lbrahimbath, Naasinghi, Ranga Reddy District. . . . Res pondents/Plaintiffs Sri Velmela Srinivas, S/o Late Velmela Samaiah occ: Agriculture, R/o H.NO. 1-12l8, Kollu Village, R.C.Puram Mandal, Medak District ...RespondenUDefendant No.1 l.A. NO: 2 OF 2013 ,{SMP. NO: 1136 OF 2013 Petition under Section '151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay of all further proceedings in OS No.116 of 2011 including execution of the decree and judgment dated 14.06 20 12 on the file of the court of the Spl.Judge for Trial of Offences Under ST / ST [POA] Act cum V Additional District and Sessions Jduge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, pending disposal of the above appeal. I Counsel for the Appeltants in both Appeal Suits : SRI A VENKATESH representing SRI K.MAHIT REDDY Counsel for the Respondents in both Appeal Suits : SRI D SRINIVAS PRASAD The Court delivered the following: Common Judgment n THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA .API'EAL SUIT NOs.32 OF 2()14 AND 35O OF 2013 COMI/ION JUDGMENT: A.S.No.35O of 2O 13 is hled against the judgment and decree dirted 14.06.2012 in O.S.No. I 16 of 201 1 on the file Special Judge for trial o[ Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act- cum-V-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. A.S.No.32 ot 2014 is filed by t}-re appellant against the ordcr and dccree dated 1 1.03.2013 in I.A.No.748 of 2Ol'2 in O.S.No.1 16 of 201 I on the hle of Special Judge for trial of Offences under SC/ ST (POA) Act-cum-V-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The appellant in both the suits is the defendar-rt No.2 in O.S.No.1 1(r of 2O I 1.

2. I.A.No.748 ol 2072 u'as filecl by the respondents 1 to 4 herein before the trial Court under Order XX Rule 18 of Code of Civil Procedure for passing of final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No. 116 of 2Ol l. The trial Court divided the suit property into five shares and allotted 8 guntas each to plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant No. l. For the 2 sake of convenience the parties herein after referred to as a rrayed in the suit.

3. The plaintiffs are the joint owners and peaceful possessors of an agricultural land measuring Ac. 1.O0 guntas in Survey No. 2O4lE (a) B, situated at Kollur village, Ramachandapuram Mandal, Medak District, along with Defenclant No. 1, who is the son of Plaintiff No. 1 and elder brother of Plaintiffs 2 to 4.The plaintiffs ciaim that their great- grandfather, late Balaiah, was the original pattadar of Ac.S.OO guntas of land in Survey No.2O4lE (a)situated at Kollur village. After Balaiah's death, the propert5r was devolved and was in joint possession of his five sons viz., Sayanna, Ramaiah, Balaiah, Papaiah and Laxmaiah. The plaintiffs' grandfather, late Papaiah, got Ac. 1.O0 guntas of land towards his share, which was cultivated by his son, Samaiah @ Samuel, along with the plaintiffs and Defendant No. l. Samaiah died on 18.O1.2005, and papaiah died on O2.O2.2OO5, rhe plainriffs and defendant No.1 continued to cultivate the land. When the plaintiffs requested defendant No. 1 for partition of the suit schedule property, he dodged the matter on one pretext or the other and in July, 2O I 1, the I I I I 3 R defendar-rt No.2 without any manner of right came to the suit schedule property and tried to build a compound wall, the same was resisted by the plaintiffs, the defendant No.2 disclosed that, defendant No. 1, along with his grandmother, V. Jangamma, sold the entire suit land to him under a registered sale deed document No.3945 of 2OO5 dated 7 .O4.2OO5. The plaintiffs claim that there ',r'zrs no family neccssit5r lor the sale and that defendant No. 1 an<l Jangamma had no right to sell the property. However, when the ptaintiffs questioned defendant No. l, he bluntly refused to give them share and stated that he already sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.2. Further to avoid the share of plaintiffs, the defendant No. I along with his grandmother sold the property to defendant No.2 and defendant No'2 got mutated his name in the revenue records The plaintiffs {iled the suit seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed by Defendant No. 1 in favor of Defendant No' 2 is null and void to the extent of the suit schedule property; to correct the entries in the revenue records and for perpetual injunction' They claim that defendant No.2 is trying to alienate the suit property to third parties and d'ispossess the plaintiffs' taking advantag,e o[ the sale deed' 4

4. Though notice was served on defendant No1, he remained ex parte. Defendant No.2 entered appearance by engaging an advocate, but as he failed to hle written statement within the stipulated time, he was set ex parte. On behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 was examined as Pw. I and Exs.A.1 to A. 17 are marked. Basing on the evidence on record, the trial Court cancelled the sale deed vide document No.3945 of 2OO5 executed by defendant No.1 and his grandmother and also decreed the suit for partition observing that the plaintiffs are entitled for equal shares in the suit properly. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree and final decree, the present appeals are hled by the defendant No.2.

5. Heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K.Mahit Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.2 and Sri D.srinivas prasad, learned counsei appearing for the respondents.

6. The contention of learned counsel for defendant No.2 is that though defendant No.2 engaged counsel in the trial Court, due to communication gap he has not Iiled written statement in time. As such, there was a delay of 77 days to - I I I 5 o set aside the ex parte order dated 14.06.2012. Subsequently, the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CI'C along with Section 5 of Limitation Act, by the dcfendant No.2 was also dismissed. 'fherefore, he hled appeal before lt.ris Court- He furthe r contended that the ex parte decree and order should not be conclusive, no opportunity was given to defendant No.2 to participate in the trial. The plaintiffs and defendant No. i have no <:[aim in the property as the suit scheciule property u,as sold by defendant No. I and the partition suit was filed seven years after the sale transaction. Tl-re suit is f,rled to c;ancel the sale deed to an extent of Ac. 1.OO but the trial Court cancelled the total sale deed which is error apparent on record and further contended that the trial Court also passed hnal decree proceedings partitioning Ac. 1.OO equally to plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and also defendant No. 1 and allotted Ac'o'OS guntas each. As such, prayed this Court to set aside the jr,rdgment of trial Court in O-S.No' 1 16 of 2O1 1 along with t.A.No.748 of 2012.

7. Learned counsel for defendant No 2 would further slrbmit that the trial Court erred in decreeing t he suit for partition filed by plaintiffs' There is delay of seven years in 6 o filing the partition suit after execution of registered sale deed by defendant No. I and his grandmother u,hich is nothing but collusive suit to defraud defendant No.2 who is a bonafide purchaser and that the grandmother of defendant No.l is having right to sell the property for family necessities. Therefore, partition is not at all valid, even though properties have to be partitioned, as the husband of plaintiff No.I pre- deceased his grandfather papaiah, succession opens on the date of death of father of defendant No. 1. The properties have to be notionally divided in between the grandfather of defendant No.1 and also father of defendant No. 1 and each would get Ac.0.2O guntas of land and after the death of grandfather, grandmother of defendant No. I being a class-l legal heir, she is entitled ior Ac.O.10 guntas of land and plaintiffs and defe ndant No. 1 would be entitled for Ac.O. 10 guntas of land. Therefore, plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 are entitled to the shares only in Ac.0.3O guntas and each will get only Ac.O.OS guntas of land but not Ac.0.08 guntas. Further the trial Court cannot cancel total sale deed even though prayer is for Ac. l.OO guntas of land. Even in the said Ac. 1.OO, the defendant No. 1 is entitled for Ac.O. 15 guntas towards his l I i 7 i- share and his grandmother. As such, prayed this Court to set aside the judgment of trial Court.

8. On the olher hand, learned counsel for t he plaintiffs- rcspondents would submit that there is no illegality in the j udgment of trial Court in partitioning the suit schedule properties as they are the legal heirs of husband of plaintiff No.l, they are entitled for equal shares, whereas he also contende<l that the trial Court has to cancel salt'deed oniy to the extent of Ac.1.0O but not for entire sale deed as the suit is filed b1, the plaintiffs only to the extent of Ac. 1.00 only. <). f]asing on the above pleadings, no$', thr: points that zrrisc for detcrlnination are : l 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and als<; cancellation of sale deed document No.3945 of 2OO5 dated 07.O4.2005 ? Whelher the judgment of trial Court needs any interference ? POINT NOs.1 & 2:

10. Thc case of defendant No.2 is that due to communic:rtion gap with his counsel, he has not filed written I I \ 8 - statement in the trial Court. Though dcfendant No.2 ft1ed petition order IX Rule 13 of CPC the same was dismissed I 1. The main contcntion of lcarncd counsel for defcndant No.2 is that the prayer of plaintiffs is only to cancel the sale deed to an extent of Ac. 1.OO guntas, whereas, thc trial Court has cancelled the entire saie deed which was executed for Ac.4.2O guntas which is beyond the prayer of plaintiffs. The further contention of defendant No.2 is that sale deed is cxecuted by defendant No. I along with his grandmothcr, as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for the share of defcndant No.1 and his grandmother, but the sale cannot be cancelled. | 2. Going through the said contentiorl, the plaintiffs in the trial Court also conceded that thc sale deed has to be cerncelled only to the extent of Ac. 1.OO guntas as the prayer of the plaintiffs is to decree the suit declaring the sale deed bearing No.3945 of 2O05 dated 07.O4.2O05 as null and void to the extent of suit schedule properqz.

13. As seen from the record, the husband of Pw. I pre- deceased his father, on the date of death of husband of Pw. i, his lather was alive and iater, father-in-law of Pw. I died. On the cleal-h of father-in-law of Pw. 1, succession opens and the father-in-lan, ol Pw. I is the class-I legal heir, is entitled for cqual shares. On the date of dcath of father-in-law of Pw, 1, hcr rnother-in-law r,vas alive. As such, the rnother-in-law, Pu.. 1 and husband of Pw. 1 are entitled for equal shares i.e., Ac.O.12O guntas to mother-in-law of Pw. 1 and Ac.O.2O guntas to tht-- fermilv of Pw. 1. As the sale deed was executed by defendan t No. 1 and his grandmother, to the extent of sale decd of defendant No. I cannot be cancellcd, though she executed sale deed lbr the entire Ac. 1.OO to thc extent of her share, the sale deed cannot be cancelled for the total Ac.1.OO guntas. Further, defendant No.1 also executed sale deed and his share has to be deleted from cancellation. The saie deed is t valid for lotnl Ac.4.24 guntas and it has to be cancelled only for Ac.O. 16 guntas. As such plaintiffs are entitled for cancellation of said sale deed only to the extent of Ac.O.16 guntas but not for the entire sale deed and defendant No.2 is entitlecl fctr Ac.O .24 guntas for the sale deed executed by defe ndant No.1 and his grandmother. As such, the judgment of trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered. 10 o

14. IN THE RESULT, both the Appeal Suits are partly allowed setting aside the impugned .judgments of trial Court, wherein it cancelled the entire sale deed, though the prayer is for Ac. 1 OO guntas and in the said Ac. 1.OO guntas also, the appellant herein is entitled for Ac.O.24 guntas. Hence, the sale deed is cancelled to the extent of Ac.O.16 and partition has to be made for Ac.0.2O glrntas wherein plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant No.1 are entitled for Ac.O.04 guntas each. As defendant No. I is also signatory to the sale deed, the share of defendant No. I has to go to defendant No.2. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRARd SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Judge for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act cum V Additional district and Sessions Jduge, Medak at Sangareddy(With records, if any)

2. One CC to SRI K.MAHIT REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRI D SRINIVAS PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ADKTgh I HIGH COURT DATED:1410712025 ,rC STAT tr 1 aF ti0l M 2,1 ( //s r) () \,,. r,. +1, COMMOTI JUDGMENT+P56PE5 3 DRAFTS I I AS.Nos.32 <>f 2014 and 350 of 2013 PARTLY ALLOWING THE BOTH APPEAL SUITS WITHOUT COSTS @ [ 3385 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY. THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL NO: 32 OF 2014 Between: M/s. Kedia Overseas Limited, Rep.by its Executive Director, Sri Ajay Kumar Kedia, S/o Dr. Mahesh Kumar Kedia, aged 33 years, Occ Business R/o PIot N. 48, Srikrupa Market, Mehaboob Mansion, Hyderabad. ...AppellanU2nd Defendant AND 1 Smt. Velmela Yettamma, Wo Late Velmela Samaiah, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No. 1- 12, Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District. 2 3 4 5 Velmela Pramod, S/o Late Velmela Samaiah, Occ Agriculture. R/o H.No. 1-12, Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram lvlandal, Medak District. Sri Velmela Prashant, S/o Velmela Samaiah Occ Agriculture. R/o H.No. '1-12, Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District. Smt G.V. Shobha @ Rajitha, D/o Late Velmela Samaiah, Wo Babu Rao, Occ Agriculture, H.No. 9-5-7, lbrahimbath, Narsinghi, Ranga Reddy Diskict Sri Velmela Srinivas, S/o Late Velmela Samaiah occ Agriculture R/o H.NO. 1-12l8, Kollu Village, R.C.Puram Mandal, Medak District ... Respondents/Pla i ntiffs Appeal under section 96 R/w Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 11.03.2013 made in l.A.No.74B ot 2012 in O.S.No.116 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act cum V Additional district and Sessions Jduge, Medak at Sangareddy. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds bf appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI A VENKATESH representing SRI K.MAHIT REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI D SRINIVAS PRASAD, Advocate for the respondents. -7 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal suit be and hereby is partly allowed setting aside the impugned ludgments of trial Court, wherein it cancelled the entire sale deed, though the prayer is for Ac.1.00 guntas and in the said Ac.1.00 guntas also, the appellant herein is entitled for 4c.0.24 guntas;

2. That the sale deed is cancelled to the extent of Ac.O.16 and partition has to be made for Ac.0.20 guntas wherein plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant No.1 are entitled for Ac.0.04 guntas each:

3. That the share of defendant No. t has to go to defendant No.2; 4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. ,TRUE COPY// SD/. M- RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Special Judge for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act cum V Additional district and Sessions Jduge, Medak at Sangareddy

2. Two CD Copies i\l)K/gh "lW HIGH COURT DATED:'fl 4107t2025 DECREE AS.Nos.3Z ot 2014 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS Irl \1\,r [ 3385 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT NO: 350 OF 2013 Between: M/s. Kedia Overseas Limited,, Rep.by its Executive Director, Sri Ajay Kumar Kedia, S/o Dr. lvlahesh Kumar Kedia, aged 33 years, Occ Business R/o Plot N. 48, Srikrupa Market, Mehaboob Mansion, Hyderabad. ...AppellanU2"d Defendant AND 1 Smt. Velmela Yettamma, Wo Late Velmela Samaiah, Occ: Agriculture R/o H.No- 1-'12, Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District. 2 3 Velmela Pramod, S/o Late Velmela Samaiah, Occ. Agriculture. R/o H.No. 1-12, Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District. Sri Velmela Prashant, S/o Velmela Samaiah Occ: Agriculture. R/o H.No. '1-12, Kollur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Iiiledak District.

4. Smt. G.V. Shobha Occ: Agriculture, H @ ,N R o. o ilha, D/o Late Velmela Samaiah, Wo Babu Rao, -5-7. lbrahimbath, Naasinghi, Ranga Reddy. District. . Respondents/Pla i ntiffs

5. Sri Velmela Srinivas, S/o Late Velmela Samaiah occ: Agriculture, R/o H.NO 1-1218, Kollu Village, R.C.Puram Mandal, Medak District ...RespondenUDefendant No.1 Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 14-06-2012 made in O.S.No.116 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act cum V Additional diskict and Sessions Jduge, Medak at Sangareddy. _----.---..---.:7 This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI A VENKATESH representing SRI K.MAHIT REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI D SRINIVAS PRASAD, Advocate for the respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Appeal suit be and hereby is partly allowed setting aside the impugned judgments of trial Court, wherein it cancelled the entire sale deed, though the prayer is for Ac. 1 .00 guntas and in the said Ac.1 .00 guntas also, the appellant herein is entitled for Ac.0.24 guntas;

2. That the sale deed is cancelled to the extent of Ac.O.16 and partition has to be made for Ac.0.20 guntas wherein plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant No.l are entitled for Ac.0.04 guntas each;

3. That the share of defendant No. t has to go to defendant No.2; 4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY' SD/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR G. SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Special Judge for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act cum V Additional district and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy

2. Two CD Copies ADK/gh HIGH COURT DATED:'tr410712025 DECREE AS.No.350 of 2013 PARTLY,ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS 0) r\\