The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS Counsel for the Appellantsl SRL M SALEEM Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 4ffi ,{., THE ]I )NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKAIIAMJI SiECOND APPEAL No.21 OF 2O25 JUDGMEI{: I he,i, heard Mr.M. Saleem, learnecl c,;urse1 on record io - tl : appellants, .on admission 2 . '1'hi ; i: lteal has been filed challenging the cle<:ree and juclgmer-rt rl ted 30.09.2024 in A.S.No.01 of 2024 passed by the leard Principal District Judge, Mulugu. .r,hereby thc dccree t rLcl judgment dated 22.11.2023 in C). S.'rlo.67 of 202 1 par;se bv the Additional Junior Civil .hrd.:1e'-cum- JFCM (Mrb :). Mulugu District, has been confirnrer[.

3. T'1rr: iL r rr:llants are plaintiffs before the tria Court The sr- it irr .S.No.67 of 2O2l was liled for cancellation of registerec r.rrle deeds bearing Nos.4596/2 )23 and 4595 I 2.Otlt) l,rted I 3.O8.2O2O. I . Brie f Lr ;tated relevant facts are that the pjain' iff No. 1 is fatht:r, 1>1 r'rtiff No.2 and defendant Nos. 1 ar-rd 2 are his childrcn. 1\s per the appellants/ plaintiffs (hereinatter the 2 NTR,J S.A.No.21 of 2025 plaintiffs), they have filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction over the suit schedule properties against the respondents/ defendant Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter the defendant Nos. I and 2) claiming that the schedule properties in the registered sale deeds are joint farnily properties. Pending the suit i.e., O.S.No.S3 of 202O the defendalt Nos.1 and 2 sold away the property in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4/delendant Nos.3 and 4 (hereinafter defendant Nos.3 and 4), thus, contesting that the rights of the plaintiffs are substaltially effected, filed the suit for car-rcellation of registered sale deeds executed by the defendant Nos.l and 2. The trial Court on conside ring the materials held that the evidence on record is insufficient to favourably determine the suit claim, dismissed the suit

5. Aggricved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.1 of

2024. Tlne appellate Court on re-appreciation arrived at the same conclusion by observing that the rights and interest I I ) NTR,J :,..' .Nt.21 ol' 2025 of the ;r rri: ilTs against the defendant Nos.3 irnrl 4 are secure(l 1r.' rre principle of Lis Pendens.

6. l,r:arn I counsel for the appellalts subrr itr ed that trial arrd irl t,,rilate Courts failed to properll apLr-e( ierte the plaintiff's cr ;e that the sale of the schedule pl.c perties by the de[,:r.l ci: t, Nos.l and 2 $rould affect therr riqlrts, and as per Sccli,) -r i of the Specific Relief Act though r ot a party to the clor:r- r -rent if a party claims that therr s -Lb stantive interests irr :,Lt stake can lile suit for cancella:ion of an lnstrLUr) e n 1 lr us, the Courts below erred in clisnLis sing the suit clain r

7. I h:.r r: rerused the materials on record. B. 'l'hc r r I ltionship between the parties and rhr: fact of defencl:rnt I ;s.1 and 2 as title holders sellins a'va]r the schedule n r,perties in favour of defendant Nos.lt ancl 4 under thr: : ;puted sale deeds during pendencl ,rf the suit filed tri' t h ' plajntiffs are not in dispute. ,\r; ter the pleadings. l: plaintiffs filed O.S.No.S3 o1-2020 seeking perpetual r,.rjunction claiming that the de fendant I i I I I i I i 4 NTR,,1 S.A.No.21 of 2o25 Nos.l and 2 cannot claim exclusive rights as the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. This stance itself is making out prima-facie agreement that the schedule properties in the sale deed are in the names of defendant Nos.1 and 2. However, in the present suit before the trial Court the plaintiffs, except for self-serving claim and filing the certified copies of plaint and written statement in O.S.No.53 of 2O2O /Ex.Al, A2 no other material demonstrating the fact of joint family status of the suit schedule properties or any precipitated right in their favour has been placed

9. That being the position, in the absence of evidence reflecting substantial right over the suit schedule properties, mercly basing on the pleadings in the other suit, which is pending adjudication, seeking cancellation of sale dceds is found premature. For this reason, the conclusions drawn by the Courts below are found appropriate. Additionalty, in the impugned judgment, the appeliate Court had rightly observed that, in case the I I I I I i I *qa*-rFitlrr'=?'' 1r... '/ ) NTR,J 't. \ N ,.21 of 2025 plaintiffs I , {l\res t1-reir claim over the sll t s,chedule propel-1 ies. J'rc' principle of lis pendens u'i1l s,iard t.heir interer;ls T r rr-cf<rre, as the plaintilfs failed to pr ove the suit c1aim, nc ir rr.rropriety or illegality is found in the in rpr-rgned judgmen

10. ln < or iiequence, as no tenable ground for d:liberation much le;,s rubstantive question of law is mrrrle out for admissio r, his Second Appeal is liable to lrc and is accorc'in 111-r.- -lrsmissed. There shall be no order ai tc costs. l\s rt -,r'que1, pending miscellaneous ap pl rcations, if any, sh a ll -;land closed //TRUE COPY// I Sd/- M. FIAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR , ,, ,l-, t.r'f'- SECTiON OFFICER To ]lre f rilc pa )istrict Judge at Mutugu. (With Records if :rny) The Addrt c n r Junior Civil Judqe at-Muluou. One CC t(, S :'t. [/l SALEETV Ad-vocate IOFUC] Two CD Cop :s 1 2 3 4 r/gh P w HIGH COUR I' DATED: zOt( 112025 1rf S: ==- o 16- o(( e., 2 3 ilA\ z[i5 Ct jr-r, , r, \. .'.- * \..--o- JUDGMENT SA.No.21 af 2025 i I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I i I i I ; I I i DISMISS!N(3 THE S.A. t1 l+1ao