High Court · 2025

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 suspend the order dt. 111012024 in C.M.A No.1 of 2023 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge at Shahnagar,Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. GOPALA RAO AMANCHARLA V Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D.SANGAMESHWAR The Court made the following: ORDER .L,/1 The Hon'ble Sri Ius tlce P.Sam KoShv Civil Revision Petition No. 3542 of 2tD4 O rder Heard Ms. P.K.Kalyani, leamed counsel represenring Mr. Gopala Rao Amancharla. V, leamed cotmsel for the petitioner (lefendant) and Mr. B.Rajashekar Fbju, leamed counsel represenring Mr. D.Sangameshw:rr, leamed counsel for the respondent (plaintrff).

2. For convcnience, rhe parties shall be hereinafter referred to as they are arralred in the suit.

3. The present Gvil Revision Petition has bt:en filed by the defendanr under Anicle 226 of the Corutitution of India assailing rhe order dated 01.10.2024, passed by the Senior Gvil Judge, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy D,istrict (for short 'the lower appellare courr), whereby the lower appellate courr has allowed a Gvil Miscellaneous Appeal a21., CM.ANo.l o1' 2023, filed by the plainriff under I -e- 2 Order )CIII Rule 1 of the C-ode of Gvil Procedure, 1908 (CPq and granted temporary injunction agairut the , defendant h respect of the suit schedule properry.

4. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.245 of 2019 on the file of I Additional Junior Gvil Judge, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District (for short 'the trial court) seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant in respect of the .sut schedule propeffy admeasuring Acs.1.33 guntas, situated in Suwey No.574lRU of Elikatta Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Along with the suit, he had also filed I.ANo.73l of 2019 seeking temPorary injunction restraining the defendant and his henchmen from interfering with the peaceful Possession of the plarntiff over the suit schedule property. The trial court, uille order dated 28.08.2023, had rejected the said application by holding that the plaintiff has not been able 3 to establish his claim over the suit schedule [,ropenywith the aid of any cogent materials. On the contary, the trial coun found that there was a registered sale deed dated

26.11.2015 executed by plaintiff and 17 od'Lers through their GPA holder in favour of the defendant. The rejection order dated 28.08.2023 s/as subjected ro challenge before the lower appellate court in CM.ANo.1 of 2023 filed by the plaintiff under Order XLIII Rule I CFC. The lower appellate court has allowed the same and granted temporary injunction ilde the impugned order and the said order is under challenge in the irtant Gvil Revision Petition.

5. Upon pemsal of the pleadings of the revision petition filed by the defendant and the counter filed by the plaintiff, we find that there is no dispute so far as the execution of registered sale deed ln favour of the 4 ? defendant by the plaintiff a:nd U others through their GPA holder way back on 26.11.2015. The said sale deed was executed by 18 persons including the plaintiff in respect of an extent of Acs.3.00 guntas in SurveyNo.574. There is also mater-ial before the trial C-ourt to show that this properry has been subsequently got mutated in favour of the defendant. Though there appears to be some challenge to the mutation order in the writ petition beiore the F[gh Court, but there is no interim order in oPeration in so far as the order of mutation is concemed. Flence' even today, the aforesaid ProPeffy stands in the name of the defendant.

6. Further, we find that there is also no challenge to the registered sale deed executed by the GPA holder for and on behalf of the plaintiff and 17 others as well till date before any competent court of law. Thus, the sale deed t 5 having not been challenged holds good so frr: as the title of the defendant over the properry mentionr:d in the said sale deed is concemed. fu long as there is nc, challenge to the registered sale deed that the defendant has in his favour, he has all the rights to take steps to defend the said properq, in accordance with law.

7. Today, during the course of hearing, lea.led counsel for the plaintiff also does not dispute the fact cf execution of registercd sale deed by the plaintiff an<l LZ othen through their GPA holder in favour of the defendant. However, the only stand that he seems to have been stronglyharping upon is that the plaintiff still lurs Acs.1.33 guntas of land in spire of having sold some portion of the land in Survev No.574,, which according to lrim is only Acs.0.20 guntas. Given the fact that there do<:s not seem to be any challenge to the extent of the land. which the 6 defendant has purchased through the registered sale deed a executed way back on 26.71.201.5, and the properry also, as on date shnds mutated in his name in the revenue - records. If at all, the plaintiff needs to seek anyprotection in respect of the property so far as Ac.1.33 guntas is concemed, that can, in no ctcumstances, be over the right and title which the defendant has insofar as Acs.3.00 guntas of land in Survey No.574 is concerned. 'ff{hatever k is only after injunction that the plaintiff can see establishing his right and title on the clearly demarcated area of land allegedly measuring Acs.1.33 gr.rntas of land. In view of the same, this Coun does not find the impugned order of rcmporary injunction being granted by the fint appellate court to be proper, legal and justified and the same, therefore, deserves to be and is, accordingly, interdicted. However, this Court reseryes the right of the petitioner to establish his case before the trial court in 7 O.S.No245 of 2019 and obtain appropriare relief in accordance with the evidence that is adduce,i in respect of his claim and rights over the suit schedule propeny rn the said suit.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of rhe case, since the suit is for injunction and pleadings are also complete, let the uial coun proceed and decide the suit itself at the earliest. 9 Gvil Revision Petition, accordingly, stan,js allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous peritions, perding if any, stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. V. KAVITHA RAR To, 'r. The 2. One 3. One 4. Two Ks/kam Senior Civil Judge, At Shadna gar, Ranga Re y District. GC to Sri Gopala Rao Amanc harla V Advocate (OPUC) CC to Sri D.Sangameshwar CD Copies Advocate (oPUc) CER HIGH COURT DATED:1310312025 ) ORDER CRP.No.3542 of 2024 (., i,. 14 r€ Q^ ? 2 APB 206 I .s +{ Allowing the C.R.P Without costs. c f{\ (