The 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 stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the order passed in the application of 495 of 2009 in cs No. 7 of 1958 dated 30.12.201 1 in the file of this Hon'bte Court pending disposal of the above OSA or otherwise I will be put to great irreparable loss and inconvenience. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circums;tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may 5e pleased to implead the proposect petitioner as Respondent No.6 in O.S.A No. :i ol 2013. Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. ANITA SWAIN Counsel for the Respondent: SRI N. M. KRISHNAIAH The Court made the following ORDER: ,! THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND .THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR O.S.A. No.S of 2O13 in Application No,495 of 2OO9 in C.S. No.7 of 1958 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V. Shrauan Kumar) MS. Anitha Swain, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. N.M. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the respondents This Original Side Appeal has been frled under Clause 15 of Letters Patent aggrieved by the order dated 30.l2.2Oll passed by the I"earned Single Judge of this Court in Application No.49S of 2O09 in C.S. No.7 of 1958.

2. The appellant herein submits that he is the Respondent/ Defendant No.6(i) and the respondents herein are the Applicants/ purchasers in Application No.495 of 2OO9 in C.S. No.7 of

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the present appeal i.e. Appellant/ Respondent and Respondents/ Applicants/ purchasers.

4. The Respondents/Applicants/ purchasers have filed Application No.495 of 2OO9 in C.S. No.7 of 1958 seeking to pass linal decree in their favour in respect of the application schedule land admeasuring Acs.5.00 guntas in Sy.No.S7 (Part) of Shamshiguda village, Balangar 2 rr1c.J&NvsK,J Ar )lrcation No.495 ol 2009 Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, with the boundaries as stated in the C.S. No.7 oI1958 afhdavit filed in support ol the application.

5. The leztnr,:d Single Judge vide order dated 30.12.1101 1 allowed the applicati,:rr and directed the Registry to isstte final decree after engrossment orr stamp papers. Assailifrg the same, the appellants hled the presier.t appeal on the grounds that the respcndents have obtained the assignment deed from their vendors who ar': not parties to the proce()dings and the impugned order is unsustai table for the reason that a. final decree cannot be passed with regar':l to piece of land in a sui: f:r partition.

6. Hcarcl tl-re learned counsel for the partics ancl perused the material macle rLvailable on the record

7. It u'as tlr,: case of the respondents/ applicants/ pur chasers that they have pr-Lr:hased the apptication schedule land uncer registered sale deed daleC 22.O4.2006 bearing Document No.9538 'rf 2006 from the thcir venrl,rrs, who purchased the same from th,: defendants No.12, 14, 1li, 19, 20 and 1ega1 heirs of the defenclar-rts Nc,.3, 5, 6,7, 8, 9 and 1 1 unclcr registered sale deed dated l2.O3.2OO/t. Since the respondents 7 aJrplicants/ purchasers are purchasers fronr the original defendants, t1-rey have hled the aforesaid application seeking for passing of fir': al decree. \ I I I 3 Application No 4gs ol 20Oq

8. The learned Single Judge, while considering the siiid application, had made to issue substituted service by way of paper publication calling for objections, if any, thereto. pursuant to the said notice, only one objection was filed vide Application SR. No.3g17 of 2OO9. The said application was filed by the appellant herein i.e. Nawab Mohd.Rafiuddin Khan, legal representative of defendant No.6 in the suit. In the said objection, it is submitted that he is not the vendor of the vendors'and as there is no assignment of decretal right as such, the application for passing of finai decree is liable to be dismissed. In this regard, the learned Single Judge has held that there is no dispute about the acquisition of right by the respondents/ applicants/ purchasers and the appellant herein, who is the objection petitioner has not made any claim for passing of Iinal decree for the share which he has got as per the preliminary decree and left it open to him to frle an application for hnal decree for the extent of share, if any, which he got under the preliminary decree and the said objection was held to be devoid of any merit and the Application No.495 of 2OO9 was allowed. Hence, the contentions urged by the appellant are unsustainable.

9. It is pertinent to note here that the Division Bench of this Court in Application No.58 of 2013 (I.A. No.1 of 2013) in O.S.A. No.5 of 2073 on O3.O1.2O23 passed the following interim order, which reads as under: ./ ,/ 4 uAc, .r & NvsK .j A plielron No.495 ol2o09 C.S No.7 oI 1S5a "This appeal is directed against the order i.,ared 30.12.2011 passed in Application No.495 c,f 2,1()(l in C.S.No.7 of 1958. By the aforesaid order, "fina-l decrec" war; pa,;sed in respect of la-nd admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts in Sy.No.57 (Part) of Shamshiguda Villagt, I:ral:rnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (subjec t lrrr[). Application No.495 of 2O09 was ltled b1, > peis;ons i.e., (1) D.V.S.R.RangaVarma (ii) D.S.R.N.Raju (iii) D.SuryalaraynaRaju (iv) K.Naga Veera Vcnkata Konda Raju (iv) Patan Mahzrbool: r\dnrittedly, the pelitioners are third partie s unrclatr:i to Sahabzadi Sultan Jahan Begum i.e, plaintiff in C.S.No.7/1958. They had purchasecl th: sr-rb;ect land in terms of registered sale deed daterl 22.O4.i',O()'; from defendalt Nos.12, 14, 15, 19 & 20 al,l icgal hr:irs of defendant Nos.3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 11. (l.S No.7 of 1958 was filed for partition of Matrurkt prollerties of Asman Jahi Paigah. Preliminary decree rt'a s drarvn up, on 06.04.1959. Final decree is yet to be drarvn up. lr-r such circumstances, prima facie, we are of the vieu' th.,at the said defendants could not have alienate,l the property to third parties i.e., the petitioners al,1 petitionels could not have obtained "final decree" as orderecl or 30.12.2011. 5 HAC,J&]$r'SK,J OSA. No.s ot20l3 Application No 495 oI2009 We frnd that this Court by order dated 26.02.2013 had granted interim stay of the a,foresaid order which was subsequently made absolute. In paragraph 9 of the appeal memo, the following ground has been taken by the appellant, which reads as follows: "The judgment under appeal is unsustainoble becouse a final decree cannot be passed tuith regards to piece of land in a suit for partition "if a co-owner under Mohammedan laut altenate ang specific piece of propertg. It i-s submitted that in a suit for partition no specific piece of properta can be sold bg any of the share lnlder. If ot att such sale takes place the proper remed.y for the transferee is to transfer of interest tn a preliminary decree, and to file an apptication for final decree praging the Court to partitioned the whole itenls, not the item. allotted the transferee. " We have already appointed a new set of receivers _ cum - commissioner and have requested them to submit final report by 06.03.2023. Therefore, we are of the view that the appeal would have to abide by the frnal d.ecree that may be drawn up on the basis of the report that may be subrnitted by the receivers - cum - commjssioner. In the interregnum, interim stay would continue List the matter on 06.03.2023." 6 osA No.5 0t 2013 Ar pli.arion No 495 ot 2009

10. At this -ir-Lncture, it is signihcant to note that the Di'iision Bench C.S. No.7 ot r958 of this Court,,,idc order dated 09.01.2O25 closed the C.S. \o.7 of 1958 wherein at pzrr.r No.36 observed as under "36. On a pcrusal of the paragraph a(g) oi ttre preliminary decree dated 06.04.1959, it i.; c"i1-nt that tlre delendant Nos.2 to 22 rrcr,. erlt i:led to the properties mentioned at iten r |tros 230 Lo 254 of Schedule 'A' annexed to th.: prreliminar;z decree, in case t}re sa,rne ale restorerl c:: released in favour of Asman Jahi Paigah. L r th(' instant case, admittedly, flrere is no materia I to ndicate that the properties mentioned at seriel ltro 1130 to 254 of Schedule A'to the prehminalz tlc, rcc havc bccn rcst.orcd or rcleased in falour r'[ ./rs;r aur Jahi Paigah. It is pertinent to note that ari L,e l para 4(g) of the prcliminary decree date,l C)6 t)4.1959, the Commissioners-curn-Receiverr; tra..,r: the power to sell the property by wa1' c f gruoiic auction and exercise al1 powers necessar,/ f::r ':ffccting the division of the sale betu,een thr: clel'endants No.2 to 12 and 14 to 22. Accordingll , r,r'o u ld get I /33 in the properties of Schcduie 'l' ' r:,i(xrpt items 23O lo 254 of the Schedule and itemrs ol properties allotted to the plaintiff.. Th,: clele lrdant Nos.2 to 22 w:Jl get their sharc, name11 , r:ach son getting 2/35 ald each daughter gcttinr3 l / 35 from the arrears of income future incomt', c::rnpensation or commutation or sale proceeds c,f th( items 23O to 254 of Schedule A' detaile:l r-tnder the head of "Makthas" in case of the sam,: errc restored or released in favour of Paigah Asmat -lahi."

11. The subject property under appeal is in respect of Itern No.252 Application No.495 ot 2009 C.S. No.7 or 1956 7 HAC,J&l\Ir'S(J OSA No.s or 2013 t \ (Shamshiguda) of Schedule-A of the suit. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated O9.OI.2025 had closed the C.S. No.7 of 1958 wherein at Para No.40 it was observed that 'As such, the submrssions made on behalf of the objectors are unsustainable and in that uieu of the matter, it can safelg be concluded that no laitds are auailable for partition in item Nos.23O to 254 of ScLedule 'A' attached. to the \ t preliminary decree. In the absence of preliminary decree for item Nos.230 to 254 in Schedule 'A', no final decree could houe been passed. Therefore, reports jlled earlier are u-tithout proper ueification, are fictitious and the same are treated as nullitg and are herebg rejected."

12. Since the C.S. No.7 of 1958 was closed with specific observation that no lands are available for partition in Item No.252 Schedule-A and the subject land i.e. admeasuring Acs.5.0O guntas in Sy.No.57 (Part) of Shamshiguda village of Schedule A' of the sult Balangar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the Application No.495 of 2OO9 in C.S. No.7 of 1958, as such no further adjudication is required in th is appeal.

13. Accordingly, this OSA. No.5 of 2013 in Application No.495 of 2OO9 in C.S. No.7 of 1958 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8 Ap liarion No.495 ol2009 As a s<:q.rel, miscellaneous applications, if an1, pending, shail CS No7oa1958 stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// n SD/-K.SR.INIVASA RAO JOrlrT REGTST RAR \\ \-- , sECroN oFFr CER

1. The S.O. O Si. Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad 2. One CC to tt4s. ANITA SWAIN Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sttl. N. IM. KRISHNAIAH Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies kul/gh w HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 =:-:: llir s r..1, Co ( J O t 30 i,; 'r?t I I I t Drc ,rl -,,r^'-y JUDGMENT O.S.A.NO: 5 OF 2013 in Application No. 495 of 2009 in C.S.No. 7 of 1958 DISMISSING THI] CI S.,\. NO. 5 OF 2OI3 WITHOUT COSI-S +leK