The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 3 Sri Ananth Saraogi, S/o. Rajinder Kumar Saraogi , Aged.42 years, Occ. Business R/o. H.No. 7-1-681314, DK Road, Opp Vaishnavi Residency, Ameerpet. Hyderabad, Telangana-500016. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Jalan, S/o. Lal Chand Jalan, Aged. 50 Yrs, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No 3-4-1741AF1122. Ambience Fort. Attapur, Rajendranagar. R.R District, Telangana-500048. Sri Sumit Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Sajjan Kumar Agarwal, Aged. 38 Yrs. Occ. Business, R/o- H.No.7-1-631N101, Millenium Royale Dharam Karam Road, Hyderabad, Telangana-500016

4. Sri Kapil Kumar Goyal, S/o. Vishnu Kumar Goyal, Aged. 39 Yrs, Occ- Business, R/o. H.No. 8-2-598, 598/8, Flat No. 102, White House Celestia. Road No. 8, Baniara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-500034.

5. Sri Mahesh Kumar Goel, S/o. Satish Kumar Goel, Aged. 44 Yrs, Occ. Business, R/o. 1 7-1-383/N/24, Nagarjuna Colony, Karmanghat, SaroorNagar, RR District, Telangana-500079.

6. Smt Hema Jalan, Wo. Mahesh Kumar Jalan, Aged. 42 yrs, Occ. Home M-al<er,- R/o. 8i 13/6, Allied Housing Society, Viza-yanagaram, Andhra pradesh- 535003.

7. 9ri Deepak Goel, Sio. Satish Kumar Goel, Aged. 45 Yrs, Occ. Business, R/o. !,Nq 1f -383/N/24, Nagarjuna Colony, Kharmanaghat, Saroornagar, RR District, Telanaana-500079.

8. Sri Mithun Kurnar Goel, S/o. Satish Kumar Goel. Aged.40 yrs. Occ. Business, o H l'lc 1T'1-31ltNt24, Nagarjuna Coloriy. Kharmanghat. Saroornagar, RR Drstrict, Telangana-50d079. 9 !mt, Anju Devi Sqlaogi, Wo. Subhash Chander Saraogr, Aged. 62 yrs. Occ. Business. R/o. H.No.7-1-681312, 1st Floor. D K Road, A-meeipet. Hyderabad. Telangana-50001 6

10.Sri Vicky Goel, S/o. Satish kumar Goel. Aged. 39 yrs, Occ. Business. R/o. H.No.17-1-3831N124, 2nd Floor, Nagarjuna Colony, Karmanghat, Hyderabad, Telangana-500079. 'l'1. Sri Mahesh Kumar, S/o. Late Parmesh Lal Ji, Aged. 65 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.21-2-666/667, Urdu Galli, Patel Market, Charminar. Hyderabad, Telangana-5000C2

12.Smt Hemlata Saraogi, Wo. Navneet Saraogi Aged. 3g yrs, Occ. Business, Rio. H.No 7-1-6813/2, DK Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana-500016. 13 Smt Sapna B,ln"r1 Shah, Wo. Rupesh Shah, Aged. 55 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No 8/805, Raj Residency-2, Mahavir Nagir, West Mumbai, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400067.

14.Sri PankajKumql Agarwql, S/o, Manoharlal Agarwal, Aged.51 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o. Villa No. 74, Attapur, Rajendranagar, RR Drstrict. Telangana- 500048

15.Sri Amit Kumar SaroEj, S/o. Jitender Kumar Saraogi. Aged.43 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o. lt No.7-1-681312. DK Road, Batkampet, angana-500016. "Hyderabad. Tel

16. Sri_VickyJvladan, S/o. V.C.Madan. Aged. 41 yrs, Occ. Business. Rto. 120t4, 105, 1st Floor, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangina-b00O33.

17.Sri M.Narsina Rao, S/o. M.sreedhar Rao. Aged.45 yrs, Occ. Business. R/o. Villa No.5, Vesella Villas, Kondapur. Seriling?mpally, RR District. Telangana- 500084.

18.Sri Hemanth Kumar Agarwal, S/o. J.P.Agarwal. Aged_ 57 yrs, Occ. Business. , F No. 1501, F-Block. Knowledge-City. Gachi6owli, Near Bio- R/o. Sy.no€3/1 Diversity, Gachibowti, Seritingampaily, RR Distiict, Teilangana-500632. 19.Sri Sajan Agqrw^q1,-Slg RamawatarAgarwal, Aged. 50 yrs, Occ. Business, F/o. 5-8-277 to 279, Flat no. 501 , Vansh Towerl5th Floor. Mahesh Naqar' Colony, Nampally Road, Hyderabad, Telangana-500001. (etaintiff no. fto 1o 19 are rep through their GPA Holder) Sri-Bhumireddy Venkata Malikariuna Reddy._Sio.B Venkata Reddy, Aged. 43 yrs, Occ. Bussiness, R/o. Flat !91^q0?, C-Block, Raja Pushpa Regatia, Kokapet R.R.District, Tetangana_ 500075

20. M/s LEAGUE SPACES LLP, Rep. by its Manaqinq Director. sri Mutvaraoati Viswanath, S/o. M.Seshagiri, Aged. a3 yrs, Oc6. Susiness, Uaving dffid ai Flat No. 1 196, Ayyappa Sbciety-, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangan-a.

21. Sri Mutyalapati Viswanath, S/o. M.Seshagiri, Aged. 43 Yrs, Oqc. Business. R/o. Flat No. 1.196, Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana.

22. Smt L.Kistamma (died per LRs R36), Wo, Gopal Reddy. Aged. 66 years, Occ. Business. R/o H.No.3-80, Don Bosco Nagar, Kismatpur Village, Gandipet Mandal, R.R.District, Telangana 500086.

23.L.Gopal Reddy, S/o. L.Sanga Reddy. Aged.66 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No.3-80, Don Bosco Nagar, Kismatpur Village, Gandipet Mandal, R.R. District, Telangana 500086.

24. L Arjun Reddy, S/o. Gopal Reddy. Aged. 46 years. Occ. Business. R/o H.No.3-80, Don Bosco Nagar. Kismatpur Village. Gandipet Mandal, R.R. District, Telangana 500086.

25.L.Bhasker Reddy, S/o. Gopal Reddy, Aged. 36 years, Occ. Business. R/o H.No.3-80, Don Bosco Nagar, Kismatpur Village. Gandipet Mandal, R.R,District, Telangana 500086.

26. L. Pratap Reddy, S/o. Late L.Chandra Reddy Aged. 74 Yrs,_Occ. Agriculture, Rio, H.No. 25-35-1|E, Ramachandrapuram, Sanga Reddy, Telangana.

27. Sri L.Chandra Reddy, S/o. Sanga Reddy Aged. 63 Yrs, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-78, Kismathpur Village, RajendraNagar, R.R.District, Telangana- 500086

28. Smt.L.Sulochana, Wo. Chandra Reddy, Rl/o.H.No.3-78, Kismathpur Village, Raje 500086. Aged. 56 Yrs, Occ. Home Maker, ndraNagar, R.R.District, Telangana-

29.Sri.L.Sanga Reddy, Alias Narasimha Reddy, S/o. L Chandra Reddy,.Aged. 46 Yrs, Oic. Business, R/o.H.No.3-78, Kismathpur Village, RajendraNagar, R.R.District, Telagana-500086.

30.L.Ashok Reddy, S/o Late L.Krishna Reddy (Kista Reddy), A$-'d.65 Yrs, Occ. Business, Rlo. 1-74, Don Bosco Nagar Colony, Kismathpur, Gandipet, R.R.District, Telangana.

31. L.Rama Chandra Reddy, S/o. Late L.Krishna Reddy (Kista Reddy), 4Se9 54 Yrs, Occ. Business, cUo.3-77, Near Grampanchayath Kismathpur, Gandipet, R.R. District, Telangana. (Respondents No.22 to 31 are rep. by their GPA holder M/S. Ashoka -LgaSlq Projeits. Rep by its Managing Partner. Sri Mutyalapati .Viswanath, .S/o Sri Mufvalapati Sestiaqiri. aqed.-45 Yrs, Om Business. R/o. Flat no.912, My Home Nav'adebpa Apartm-ents. Hyderabad, Telangana - 500081.

32. L.Srikanth Reddy, S/o. L.Pratap Reddy, Aged. 48 Yrs, Occ. Business. R/o. H.No. 25-35-1/E. Ramachandrapuram, Sanga Reddy, Telangana.

33. L.sreedhar Reddy, S/o. Late L.Srinivas Reddy, Aged. 50 Yrs, Occ. Business, R:/o. H.No.1-114, Kismathpur, Gandipet, RR District, Telangana.

34. L.Malla Reddy, S/o. Late L.Srinivas Reddy, Aged. 48 Yrs, Occ. Busiriess, R/o. H.No.1-1 14, Kismathpur, Gandipet, RR Diskict, Telangana.

35. M/S. Ashoka League Projects, Rep by its Managing Partner, Sri Mutyalalali Viswanath, Sio. Sii Muty,lapati Seshigiri, Aged.43 Yrs, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat no.912, My Home Navddeepa Apartments, Hyderabad, Telangana - 50008i. ...Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs No. 1 to 35

36.Smt 9ujja Vijaya Laxmi @ Lavanya, Wo. Bhasker Reddy, aged 43 years, Occ Household, R/o. Plof No.51, Sriramanagar Colony, Vanisthaliplram, Hyderabad,Ran_ga Reddy Districl Hyderab;d - 500 07b. (R36 is bi.ought'on record as LRs of the deceased R22, vide Court Order dated 19.02.20215 in lA No.1 of 2025 in CMA No.628 of 2O2A) ...Respondent lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under section 'l 51 of 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 passed in lA.No.423 of 2024 in oS No.364 of 2024 on the file of Xl A.dditional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar dt.29.11.2024, pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appeltant :SRt JANARDHAN REDDY KOTHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 19 and 26 to 35 : SRI N NAVEEN KUMAR Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.20 & 21 : SRI VADEENDRA JOSHI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 23 lo 25 : SRI SRINIVAS REDDY MADDI The Court delivered the following: Judgment ,:) I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.628 of 2o24 JUDGMENT: (per Ilotl'ble SmL. Juslice P.Sre.. Sudhat) This Civil Misccllaneous Appeal is hled against the Order dated 28.ll.2024 in I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.364 of 2024 passed by the learned XI-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. Respondents/ plaint ifis have liled an appiication uide I.A.No.423 of 2O2a in O.S.No.364 of 2024, against the appellants/ defcndants, for granting ol ad-interim injunction rcsLraining the appellants/defendants ancl their men from interfering with their peaceful posscssion and enjoyment over the petition 'B'schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court alter considcring the arguments of both sides and also the evidence on record, alloned the application. Aggrieved by the said Ordcr, rcspondents therein/ appellants prcferred the present Civil Miscellancous Appeal. n )

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants / defendants mainly contended that respondents/ plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession, as such the question of granting injunction in thcir favour does not- arisc. The trial Court has wrongly concluded the entries mzrde in the revcnuc records as family division (Kutumba Vibhajana) under Ex.P75. He also contended that re sponden ts / plaintiffs have plcaded themselves that suit schedule properties are not pl rtitionc(l irr the plaint and Ex.RS, but the trial Court wrongly concluded the samc. Moreover, thc entries made in Exs.P53 to P65 ancl trx.P75 arc misunderstood. The trial Court passed the Order ivitholrt going through Exs.Rl to R8, as such it is liable to be set asidc. He further contended that the trial Court passed thc injunction Order against the co-orvner. The trial Court erroneoush/ gavc the finding that responde n ts / plainti fis are in separatc possession of the suit scheclule 'B'property, pcnding disposi-rl ol the suit. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the impugned Order passed by the trial Court.

4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused thc entirc evidence on record. .l 3

5. Parlies herein are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S.No.364 of 2024, for the sake of convenience.

6. Initially, plaintiffs have filed a suit uide O.S.No.364 of 2024, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule propcrty by demarcating their entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.1O - 26 gts including an extent of Acs.8 - 25 gts (mentioned as suit - B Schedule property) out o[ Acs. 14 - 14 gts and also requesLcd the Court to appoint Advocate Commissioner and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit B-Schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs have filed an application uide I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.364 of 2024, for grant of injunction restraining the delendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit B-Schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. Plaintiffs No.1 to 19 are represented by their GPA holder Bhumireddy Venkata Malikarjuna Reddy, plaintiffs No.22 to 31 are represented by their GPA holder M/s.Ashoka League Projects and plaintiffs No.2O to 21 and 32 to 35 are represented in their individual capacity. Defendants No.2 and 3 are son and wife of defendant No. 1. The family pedigree is illustrated as follows: 4 FAMILY PEDIGREE (Acs.14 - 14 sts.l KISTA REDDY (Acs.7 - O7 gts) CHENNA REDDY (Acs.7 - 07 gtsf CHANDRA REDDY RAM REDDY I SHARAVA REDDY (Died issueless in 1978) SANGA REDDY (Died in 1980) + Kista Reddy Srinivas Reddy Pratap Reddy Bal Ram Reddy Gopal Reddy Yadi ReddY Chandra Reddv \ I V 1 Ashok Rama Chandra Reddy Reddy [Sold vide Sale Deed Doct.No.2018/ 1997 llated:24.07.1997 - Acs.2 - 39 gts) L. Amrutha lv/ o.Yadi Reddy L.Kistamma u, / o. Gopai Reddy L, Sulochana u,/o.Chandra Redd5, Bal. Ac.0 - 24 gts is sold to (39 l2OO7 dt.05.1O.2006) i I I L. Sanj eev s/o.Yadi Redcll, L,Arjun Reddy s/ o.Gopal Reddy =t :i l I e 5 7 . The brief facts of the case are that originally the lands in Sy.Nos.15, 16, 17, 20, 22 and 23 together admeasuring Acs.14-14 gts belongs to one late Kista Reddy and late Chenna Reddy, who are brothers and later their legal heirs names were entered into the revenue rccords as per the ROR Act and ROR rules and individual pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour prior to the year 199O.

8. As per the family pcdigree, L.Kista Reddy branch is entitled to an extent of Acs.7 - 07 gts. As L.Kista Reddy is having two sons namely L.Chandra Reddy and L.Ram Reddy, lhey are entitled to Acs.3 - 23 gts each out of Acs.7 - 07 gts. The land of Chandra Rcddy is divided among his three sons namely Kista Reddy, Srinivas Reddy and Pratap Reddy. Later, Ram Reddy transferred his land to his son Bal Ram Reddy. The said Bal Ram Reddy sold the said Acs.3 - 23 gts through two different registered sale deeds. He sold the land to an extent of Acs.2 - 39 gts to L.Amr-uthamma W/o.Yadi Reddy, L.Kistamma W/o.Gopal Reddy and L.Sulochana W/o.Chaldra Reddy through registered sale deed uide document No.2O 18 of 7997, dated 24.07 .1997 . The said Yadi Reddy, Gopal Reddy and Chandra Reddy are the children of second branch of Chenna Reddy family. Bal Ram Reddy sold the remaining land of Ac.O - 24 gts out of Acs.3 - 23 gts to L.Sanjeev Reddy S/o.Yadi T 6 Reddy and L.Arjun Reddy S/o.Gopal Reddy together jointly through registered sale deed uide document No.39 of 2OO7, dated 05.1O.2006.

9. Similarly, Chenna Reddy branch is entitled t() an extent of Acs.7 - 07 gts. The said Chenna Reddy is having two sons namely Sharava Reddy and Sanga Reddy. As the said Sharerva Reddy died issueless in the year 1978, the entirc propcrt5 is succecded by his brother Sanga Reddy, who died later in tl-re year 1980 ernd thc said Sanga Reddy is having three sot-rs namely Gopal Reddy, Yadi Reddy and Chanclret Redciy. Accordingly, the said properly of Acs.7 - 07 gts is divided among three brothers i.c., Acs.2 - 15 gts each. Accordinglt, ir-rdividnal pattadhar pzrssbooks and title deeds along with 1-B (ROR) rccords arc issued in favour of al1 the land on,ncrs

10. All the legal heirs of both the branches obtained the physical possession over the said schedule propcrty in l.he prcsence of elders and are in enjoyment of their respective cxtcnts without any third party interference. The landowncrs approached the developer through 1ocal mediatr>rs and Lhe developer agreed to develop the land for construction of villas. The developcr agreed to der,elop Acs.4 - 18 gts on out rate basis and Acs.6 - O8 gts for development out of Acs. 14 1 4 gts and ( ) 7 thc rcmaining Iand of Acs.3 - 28 gts belongs to defendants, which is already in their possession, in which they have constructed some sheds long back and doing horse riding business with a compound wall. As per the understanding between the land owners and developer, all the land owners together jointly sold their lands to an extent of Acs.4 - 18 gts through several registered sale deeds in lavour of plaintiffs No. I to 21 and ior the land admeasuring Acs.6 - 08 gts, the land owners i.c., plaintiffs No.22 to 34 entercd into a regisLercd development agreements cum general power of atlorney in favour of plaintiff No.35. 1 1. Immediately after registration, the land owners delivered their physical possession to the purchasers to an extent of Acs.10 - 26 gts out of Acs. 14 - 14 gl"s. Accordingly, plaintilfs together removed all bushes, temporary sheds and cleared the land admeasuring Acs.1O - 26 gts and proceeded with the villa project for approvals and sanctions. Later, defendants olfered to sell their land at an exorbitant price to the purchaser, but the purchaser relused to buy the land, as such defendants raised a dispute stating that there is no real partition took place between all the brothers and plaintiffs cannot proceed with the development process. Defendants are enjoying their land I I i 8 measuring an extent of Acs.3 - 28 gts without an1- interferencc or interruption by thc plaintiifs

12. Thereafter, plaintiffs No.22 to 3 i have filed an application for sub-division of their lands along with F-line application through Mce seva. Basing on the said applications a notice s-as issued by thc AD-Survey and M.R.O on I2.I2.2O2ll to all thc members, u'ho are holding the Iand in the abovc survev numbcrs sta tlng thal demarcation n ill be conducted on

18.12.2023 irt 10:30 AM. On receiving the notice lor demarcation. defendant No.3 filed a suit [or partition and separate possession uide O.S.No.886 of 2023 and obtained status-quo Order in I.A.No.987 of 2023 on 72.12.2023. The said suit was filcd on 11.12.2023 and Caveat r.,r,as filed on

06.7\.2023. The clefendant No.3 made a representation to Lhc AD-Survey ar-rd MRO on 15.12.2023, requesting lo stop thc demarcation as there was Stafus-Quo Order and accordingll, it was stopped. Later, second notice was issued by the AD-Survey to all the parties on 15.0.1.2024, stating that survcy will bc conducted on 27 .O4.2O24. When AD-Survey along s,ith his staff wcnt to the site for conducting survey, defendanLs approached the site and abused the AD-Survey, as such police complaint was fiIed bl thc AD-Survey againsl thc defendants and the samo rvas registcred as Crime No.373 of 2024, datcd '29.04.2024, -.-... / / -t 9 under Section 353 and 506 of IPC and the same is pending. Again third notice was issued on 23.05.2024 for conducting the survey on 30.O5.2024 and accordingly survey was conducted. Immediately after the survey, the defendants along with 10 to I2 anti-social elements trespassed into their property and thrcaLened them, as such plaintiff No.23 filed a criminal case against the defendants and the same is pending.

13. Plaintiffs stated that out of total land admeasuring Acs.14 14 gts, Acs.2 - 39 gts is left aside as pcr the directions of the trial Court in O.S.No.886 of 2023, in which defendants are having Ac.1-O0 gts and the remaining extent of the land which remains to the defendants is Acs.2 - 28 gts out of Acs.3 - 38 gts, u.hich is already in their possession and constructed sheds and doing business, but still defendants are intcrfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs No. 1 to 21 and 35 have purchased the land admeasuring Acs.4 - 18 gts ald entered into registered development agreement for the land admeasuring Acs.6 - 08 gts and the land holding by defendants i.e., L.Yadi Reddy and his family is Acs.3 - 28 gts out of Acs.14 - 14 gts. 14 . Plaintiffs further stated that one M. Lalitha, who is the d:rughter of Sanga Reddy in collusion with defendant No.1 filed t '.':- . . ', 10 a suit uide O.S.No.644 of 2023, for partition, though. her marriage was performed prior to the year 1985. The Defendant No.2 had also llled another suit for partition uide O.S.No-78 of 2024 in respect of thc land admeasuring Ac.O - I2 gts out ol Ac.O - 24 gts. Delenclants instead of filing a sir-rgle suit for partition in respecL of the entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.14 - 14 gts filcd scvcral suits supprcssing scveral material facts. Defendants arc interfering with thc rernaining land admeasuring Acs.8 - 25 gts, which exclusively belongs to thc plairrtiffs, witln a mala ftde intcntion. If at all, the said lands arc not partitioncd previously, horv can the defendants construct a room and sheds for horses and even a compound wall to an extent of Acs.2 - 28 gts and even electricity connection rvas givcn to thc said land. Onlv aftcr the registration ol the lanri admeasuring Acs.10 - 26 gts by the developer, defendants started creating trouble to get huge price for their land.

15. Defendants sought for injunction for the land admeasuring Acs.S - 25 gts shown as Schedule - B property. Therc is no titlc dispute in regard to the suit schcdule property. Plaintiffs approachcd the Rajendranagar policc to providc police protection over the snit B-Schedule property, but they simpty denied stating that as the matter is civil in nature, directed to approach thc Court, as such thelz preferred thc strit. t4"' // t1

16. [n the written statement ltled by the defendants they statcd that originally land admeasuring Acs.14 - 24 gts belongs to Late Kista Reddy and Late Chenna Reddy, who are the real brothers, subsequently their names were entered in the revenue records as per ROR Act. The land admeasuring Acs.14 - lg gts was oraily partitioned between the branches of Late Kista Reddy and Late Chenna Reddy. In the said oral partition, Late Kista Reddy branch got Acs.7 - 09 '/z gts, and Late Chenna Reddy branch got Acs.7 - 09 % gts. Accordingly, thcir branches havc been scparatcly enjoying their respective lands.

17. Defendants further stated that their branch have been jointly enjoying Acs.7 - 09 t/z gts., without any partition by metcs and bounds. In the said Acs.7 - 09 Yz gLs, the defendant No.I is having undivided l/S'a share, Lankala Gopal Reddy is having undivided 1/3ra share and Lankala Chandra Reddy is also lraving undivided 1 / 3.4 share, but their sister by name Lalitha, filed a suit uide O.S.No.644 of 2023 for partition and separate possession claiming 1 / 5tl, share. In the said suit, defendants have hled their detailed written statement claiming I / 3.d share. Defendants have shown the family tree of Late Lankala Chenna Reddy, as follows: t2 F'AMILY TREE OF LATE LANKALA CHENNA REDDY I I Lankala Gopal Reddy Lankala yadi Reddy Lankala Chandra Redd y Amrut amma L.Arjun Reddy L.Balwanth Reddy L. Sulochana I L.Bhasker Reddy L.Sanjeeva Rcddy L. Narasimha Reddy L. Srikanth Reddy Smt.D.Sri Vani Malli @ Lankala Lalitha .J.i t3

18. Delendants have admitted the sale deeds executed by L.Balaram Reddy, regarding his entire extent of land and there is no dispute regarding filing of O.S.No.78 of 2OO4 by defendant No.2. Defendants also stated that in the both suits i.e., O.S.No.886 of 2023 and O.S.No.78 of 2024, plaintiffs admitted that no partition was effected by metes and bounds, filed the suif lor partition and separate possession and obtained ex-parte interim injunction against them, which is erroneous and also stafed that it is a settled principle of law that "No injunction can be granted against co-otuner". It is also stated that mere obtaining pattadar passbooks and title deeds does not confer any exclusive rights to the plaintiffs and in the revenue records no boundaries were mentioned. The entries made in the paltadar passbooks and title deeds do not mean that properties u/ere partitioncd by metes and bounds. Plaintiffs did not file a single document to prove that their vendors were in possession within Lhe boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds and irrevocable GPA's and thus no partition was elfected among the sharers.

19. Delendants further stated that when the matter is sub- j udice before the trial Court, the question of surveying the land through Mec scva docs not arise. Plaintiffs have no locus standi to leave Acs.2 - 28 gts to them as per their wishes and they r l l4 ( have no right to fite the suit lvhen once the matter is sub-judice before the other Courts for partition o[ 1/3.d sharc of defendant No.1 and thns Ieaving of Acs.2 - 2g gts does not arise. It is also staled that there is no partition effccted in respec.t of the suit schedule properties among the sharers, as such thc question oi glvrng separate Lables does not arrse and plaintiffs falsely constructed a compound wali to an gts, as a matter of facts. thev hrtvc alleged that they have extent of Acs.2 - 28 constructed a roorr and cattlc shed in and over Acs.7 _ 09 Zz gts of land. Alreadv suits are pcnding bcfore thc conccrned Courts for partition by metes and bounds, as such the question of purchasing by plaintiffs No.I to 27 and 35, through alleged registered sale dccds and developmen t Agrccme nt_cum-GpA does not arisc nnd thcy are lalse, bogus and created documents. The legal heirs of Lankala Chcnna Reddy havc not yet partitioned thcir land admeasuring Acs.7 09 % gts :tnd thcy are enjoying the property without an1. partition bv metes and bounds, bu r the plaintiffs knowing all these facts, filed a speculative suit for partition without adding neccssan, parties, as such the suit is bad lor non-joinder of neccssar5, parties and it has to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

20. The learned counsel for the defcndants gave material to show the boundaries mentioned in thc sale deects filed bv thc t5 plaintiffs under Exs.Pl to P46. His main grievance is that specific boundaries to the said extents were not mentioned and boundaries of Acs. 14 - 14 gts were not mentioned. In all the cases, boundaries are shown as neighbours land, owners land and similar boundaries rvere mentioned in Exa.P37 to 46. 2l. As the defendant-s in the suit raised objection regarding the partition of the property between the sharers, which was happened way back in tl-re year 1989, thc trial Court discussed all Lhc documents at lengtl-r and stated that there was allegation regarding family division/ partition (Kutumba Vibhajana) and it goes to show that there was division of properties between two branches and other issues are to be decided in the main suit arrd during the pendcncy of the suil, it is for the Court to protect the rights of lhe parlies and accordingly granted injunction rcstraining the defendants from interfering with the posscssion o[ the plaintiffs over lhe suit B-Schedule property.

22. There is no dispute regarding the totai extent i.e., Acs.14 - 14 gts and also regarding the oral partition between the two brothers i.e., L.Kista Reddy and L.Chenna Reddy. Kista Reddy property was divided among his two sons Chandra Reddy and Ram Reddy admeasuring Acs.3 - 23 gts each. The Chandra Rcddy property was divided among his three sons, whereas Ram r I I I i I t6 f) Reddy transferred his share of property to Bal Ram Reddy. He sold his share of property to the extent of Acs.2 _ 39 gts to L.Amrutha W/o. yadi Reddy, L.Kistamma W/o. ()opal Reddy and L.Sulochana W/o. Chandra Reddy ancl also sold the remaining extent of Ac.O - 24 gts to L.Sanje cv S/o. yadi Reddy and L.Arjun Reddy S/o. Gopal Reddy, who are the family branch of Chcnna Reclcly. If at all, therc \vas no parti[()n bv metes and bounds among tlvo brothcrs and tht:ir legal heirs, wh1' the family mcmbcrs of yadi Rcddy, Gopal Reddy and Chandra Reddy purchased thc property from Ilal Rzrm Rccldy to the total extent of Acs.3 - 23 gts was not explained an.,,,"r,hcrc. The Chenna Reddy has two sons and both of thcm died, as such Gopal Reddy, Yadi Reddy and Chandra Reddy sr,.tecl thzrt each of them are entitled to Acs.2 _ 15 gts, but their sister ijlecl thc suit claiming 1/Stt, sharc rn the said property. .lhe delenclant No.3 i.e., wife of Yadi Reddy has also flled anothcr suit and so also defendant No.2 had alsc liled another suit for his Ac.O - 12 gts of land.

23. Plaintrffs contended that dcfendants filed sc,r,erai suits for diffcrent extents, but a comprehe nsive suit for tho total exten t of Acs. 14 - 14 gts was not filed by anyone. Admittc(llv, thcre was division of property bctween tri.o brothers in the -r,ear I9g9 and later it was devolved ulton their children and thc partiLion wtrs a, -.' .a*.. ;4*,* . -.dai r .{ t7 conducted between the branchcs of both sides, as such they executed registered salc dceds in favour of several other members who are arrayed here as plaintiffs. There was no dispute regarding the title or division of propert5r among two branches. Now, the problem had arisen when the land was entrusted to lhe developer for constructing villas, defendants opposed the same. Instead of developer filing the suit against the defendants, all the plaintiffs fited the suit for partition against defcndanLs for partition of entire extent of the land, whcreas defcndants admitted oral partition occurred way back in thc year 1989, but submitted that there was no partition by metes and bounds- The entire extent of the defendants is only Acs.3 - 28 gts and thcy have constructed sheds, running horse riding business and also constructed a compound wall, but surprisingly, del'endants raised objection stating that they have conslructed shed in Acs.7 - 9 yz gLs, but not Acs.3 _ 2g gts. When Sharava Reddy died issueless in the year 197g, his share was devolved upon his brother Sanga Reddy. When Sanga Reddy died in the year 1980 itself, the property was divided among his sons equally. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no partition at all of the extents to be possessed by each sharer. Howcver, respective sharc has not been delineated by metes and bouncls. Only in vicw of hike in prices of the properties, several suits were filcd from the same family for l1 i I I I I' l I I I I t8 i-r different extents. It is for the said reasoning, in t.ht: sale deeds executed by the plaintiffs, the boundaries mentioned are that of the tofal extent of land ot Acs. 14 - 14 gts and not that of each of the sharer. In the interlocutory application, injunction is sought for

24. regarding suit B-schedule property. Plaintiffs/ petitioners in tl're said application requested the Court to restrain thc defendants from interfer-ing with their possession in the B Schcdulc property. B-Schedule proper{ rvas shou'n as suit B(l) to B(VI) in different extcnts. The samc relief was sought lor in thc sltit itself. It is one ol the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in thc surt' Therefore, rcliet granted in the interlocuto4' applical ion amounts to granting of the said rclief in the suit r,'ithout adducing an1'cvidence by both sides. Thcrefore, tht: Orcler of the trial Court is pat-ently erroneous and is iiablc to be set aside' However, considcring the fact that plaintiffs and dr:fcndants are no other thzrn cousins and the objcction is raised onl)' b)' defendant No.1 :rnd his family, this Court hnds that it is just and reasonable Lo grant an order of Status Qrlo, since partics claim to be in possession of land falling to thcir t:xtent' Thus' the plaintiffs and defendants are restrained from the intcrfering with the property of others. Thcy should continue their / I9 possession in their own property and accordingly Status-Quo is granted.

25. [n the result, the Civil Misccllaneous Appeal is allowed by setting asidc thc Order dated 28. lL2O24, passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.364 of 2024 and both the parties are directed to mainlain Status Quo. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions pcnding, if any, shall stand closed sD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, TheXlAdditionalDistrictJudge'Ranga[eddyDistrictatL.B.Nagar d"" ai iliRi lnr'rnnoHnr'r htoovkorHn' ndvocate toPUCI 6.nE;; i" irii lnrrurvns ieoov MADDI' Advocate^[oPUc] 5.# & i, sHl lrlnveEN KUMAR' Advocate t-ol-q91 5.# ;; iI sdiirnorEr'rDRA JosHl' Advocate [oPUCl Two CD CoPies 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^DWPSLW HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 JUDGMHNT CMA.No.628 of 2024 q '*J rO \ r+'t q l/,.1,I4 2I JUt 2U5 f'^.<:,,r..rcr. .{ ( I / ALLOWING THE CMA WITHOUT COSTS q'