The High Court · 2025

10. tvl/S Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., No. 123, Ahgappa Naicken Street, Chennai having its branch office, Himayathnagar Branch, Hyderabad Rep. By its authorized signatory, Mr. Renny Joseph M, S/o M.J. Joseph, Aged about 46 years. ... Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 dispense with the filing of the copies of the Exhibits in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.35 for petitioners and Ex.R1 to R.26 which are marked in l.A.No.37 of 2024 in O.S.No.31 of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble X Addl District and Sessions Judge, R. R. District at L. B. Nagar. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim injunction restrain the Respondent's and their men from alienating the suit schedule of property further not to change the nature of the property till the disposal of the suit vide OS No 3'1 of 2024 on the file of Hon'ble X Addl District and Sessions Judge, R. R. District at L. B. Nagar. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Rapolu Bhaskar Counsel for the Respondents No.5 & 6: Sri G. Vamsi Krishna Counsel for the Respondents No.7 to 9: Sri G. Kalyan Chakravarthy The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA C.M.A. No.633 OF 2024 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar) ' Heard learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri G. Vamsi Krishna, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.S and 6 and Sri G. Kalyan ChakravarLhy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondenL Nos.7 to 9 and pcrused the rccord.

2. This Civil Miscejlancous Appcal is directed against the order dated 20.11.2024 in 1.A. 1tk.r.37 of 2024 in O.S. No.31 of 2024 on the file of X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

3. The appellants hercin are the petitioners in the underlying interlocutory application and plaintiffs in the suit hled by them lor declaration of sale deed as nul1 and void and for grant of pcrpctual inj uncl ion.

4. The appellants contend that the l"t appellant's father G. Rama Swamy was the Inamdar and possessor of the lands to an extent of Ac.3.00 gts. in Sy. Nos.243 Lo 249 of Kharmanghat village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that upon 2 the death of their father, OIiC was issued in their lavour in respect of thc subjecL land; and that the appellants herein got the aforesaid land converted into land and made into plots and sold the same.

5. It is the further contention of the appellants thal the plot bearing Nos.521 and 531 admeasuring 603 square yards was not sold and Lhus, the same remained in their possession, while the 2nd respondent is claiming thcsc plots having purchascd tl're same from respondent No.1 who has no semblance of interest or title to the aforesaid property.

6. Thus, tl're appellernts contend that while the suit filed by them seeking the relief of declaring the sale deed of respondent No.1 as null and void is pending adjudication, they had filed the underlying interlocutory application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their agent, henchmcn, legal repre sentatlves, scrvants and all other persons clarming through thern lrom alicnating, mortgaging or creating charge over the suit schedule property in favour of third parLies till the disposal of the suit.

7. Appellants also contend that the Court below ought to have appreciated that if an injunction is not granted, the same will result in multiplicity of litigation and the Court below had \ ) erroneousiy dismissed the underlying interlocutory application. Hence, this appeal 8. Per contra, learned Counsei appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that the said respondents had purchased the land bearing plot Nos.521/P-A and 531/P-A from 4th respondent under a registered documcnt each admeasuring 411 square yards who in turn had purchased the subject plots lrom 3.d respondent.

9. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents further submits that a part of the land was acquired by the GHMC authorities for road widening whcrein the respondent Nos.7 to 9 are shown to be the owners and the said respondents also have executed a gift deed in favour of GHMC in respcct of land acquired by the said authorities. 1O. Lea.rned Counsel for the respondents further contend that when the authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') sought to claim the subject land as having been declared as excess land in proceedings issued under the Act, the 5e respondent had approached this Court by fi1ing Writ Petition and it is only after the concerned authorities informing Lhc Court that the subject I i 4 plots are not covered by the ULC proceedings, the albresaid Writ Petit ion was wirhdrawn.

11. Learned Counsei appearing on behalf ol the respondents on the basis of the aforesaid submissions would contentl that the same clearly shows that the respondents are in posscssion of the subject land all through this period and the appellants herein cannot lay any claim to the subject property. 12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would also contend that on the GHMC authorities issuing lancl acquisition notification, the appellants did not even file objections claiming their interest in the subject property which also goes to show that thc said pkrts do not belong to the appcllants hcrein.

13. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6 would submit tha[ since the appellants have filed the underlying application before the Court below, the burden is on thcm to establish that they have prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour and if injunction is not granted irretrievable loss is caused to them. 74. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contend that since the appellalts failed to estabiish thc prima facie case of berng in possession, the Court below had rightly 5 rejected the underlying temporary injunction application and thus no interference is ca1led for in the present appeal. I5. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

16. Though the petitioners have claimed l:hat the first petitioner's father having been granted inam and thereafter ORC in their favour and the subject land to an extent of Ac.3.00 gts. in Sy. Nos.243 Lo 249 being converted into layout and made into p1ots, it is to be seen that such layout has been filed before the Curt below. Thc Court below by taking notc of the said fact had catcgorically hcld that thc appellant/ petitioncr cxcept claiming oi having converted thc land into layout consisting of plots by obtaining necessary sanction, no such layout was filed.

17. Further, the Court below also took note of the fact that trxs.R 13 to R-18 hled by the respondent No.S and others reflect them to be the owners of the suit schedule property.

18. The Court below also noted that Ex.R 4 which is a communication / letter from the Collector, ULC Wing, Ranga Reddy District to the Sub-Registrar, L.B. Nagar, clarifying that the suit schedule land, including the other land in the same survey numbers were excluded lrom the Urban Land Ceiling, upon which the Writ Petition hled try the 5ft respondent uide W.P. N o.42232 of 2OI7 on the h1e of this Court was withdrawn l 6

19. Further, the Court below also took note of the fact that since.the Exs.R-l3 to R i8 reflect the name of the respondents, the appellants can be considered as out of posscssion of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of lhe suit and also that there is a serious dispute with regard to the title of the subject suit and as such the appellants herein are not entitled for grant of any relief in the underlying application under Order XXXIX l?ulcs 1 and 2 CPC.

20. The said fincling of the Court below in the considered opinion of this Court is u,e1l reasoned for thc fact that thc appellants herein lr,cre Llnable to demonstrate the three essential conditions required for granting injunction in its favour. For the said rcason, this Court is of the view that the order of the Court below impugned in the present appeal does noL call for an-1,- intcrfcrencc.

21. Accor<lingly, the CMA fails and is dismissed. However, it is made clear lhat in the cvent of appellants succeeding the suit, the appellants would be entitled to claim benefit of Section 52 of the Transfer of ProperLl, Act, 1882. \ 1 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B. Nagar. (with records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri Rapolu Bhaskar Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G. Vamsi Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri G. Kalyan Chakravarthy , Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Kanr/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 ) t'rATSE1 6r. a t) 6 2 l'1 A Y I 5I 7 a ( t .S t, T t ?s--/ ORDER CMA.No.633 of 2024 DISMISSING OF THE CMA l/ ,y