K.Dasharatha Ramaiah
Senior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, RangaReddy District at Shadnagar
Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex · Rangareddy · Telangana
K.Dasharatha Ramaiah, Senior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, RangaReddy District at Shadnagar, is posted at Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 111 court orders on record since 2024. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, H, SC cases.
Featured Judgments
Page No. 1 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT :: CHEVELLA, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Tuesday, the 23 rd day of December, 2025
Present:- Katragadda Dasharatha Ramaiah,
Senior Civil Judge, At: Chvella, Ranga Reddy District.
O.S No. 231 of 2022
Between:-
1.Charka Eshwaraiah S/o: Venkataiah, aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture.
2.Pedda Charka Sathaiah S/o: Sailoo, aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture.
3.Charka Naresh S/o: Late. Pedda Charka Laxmaiah, aged about 22 years, Occ: Agriculture.
4.Charka Suresh S/o: Late. Pedda Charka Laxmaiah, aged about 22 years, Occ: Agriculture. All are R/o: H.No.1-20, Nagireddyguda Village, Aziz Nagar, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ….Plaintiffs AND
1.Kalachitti Maisaiah S/o: Late. Mutaiah, aged about 58 years, Occ: Business.
2.Kalachitti Manoj Kumar S/o: K. Maisaiah, aged about 26 years, Occ: Business. Both R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
3.Arolu Archana W/o: A.Chandrashekar, aged about 31 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.2-3-790/ 15/A/49/1, Tulsi Ram Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.
4.K.Sreedevi D/o: K.Maisaiah, aged about 28 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
5.K.Gyaneshwar S/o: Late Mutaiah, aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, N/o: Nagireddyguda Village, Aziz Nagar, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, R/o: H.No.8-1- 136/2/1, Shaikpet, Near Sai Baba Temple, Hyderabad.
6.Kodicherla Narsimha S/o: K.Yadaiah, aged about 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-43/1, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
7.Kodicherla Bal Raj S/o: K.Yadaiah, aged about 41 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-48/2, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
8.Kodicherla Venkatesh Yadav S/o: K.Yadaiah Yadav, aged about 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-43/2, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.Dist.
Page No. 2 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
9.Kodicherla Jyothi W/o: K.Papaiah (Pavan Yadav), aged about 29 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.1-43, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.Dist.
10.K.Ashok S/o: K.Yadaiah, aged about 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-43, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
11.K.Yadagiri S/o: K.Mutaiah, aged about 66 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
12.K.Datta Sai S/o: K.Yadagiri, aged about 29 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
13.Kalishetty Datta Mukesh S/o: K.Yadagiri, aged about 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/ 2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
14.Pasham Puspalatha W/o: P.Chitti Babu D/o: K.Yadagiri, aged about 33 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.6-2- 853/1, Thommala Basti, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
15.Dasari Srisailam S/o: Dasari Mallesh, aged about 27 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.5-101, Nandigama Village, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
16.Smt.Mamindla Nagamani W/o: Mamindla Yadaiah, aged about 52 years, Occ: Household, R/o: H.No.3-1/2, Ravalkol, Medchal Mandal, Malkajgiri District.
17.Bantu Gnaneshwar S/o: Sangaiah, aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.2-67, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Defendants
This Suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Sampoorna Anand & Sri.R.Prashanth, Counsels for the Plaintiffs and of Sri.B.Guruva Reddy & Sri.E.Ravinder Reddy, Counsels for the Defendants; and thus the suit having stood over for consideration till this day, and after hearing both sides, perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:
-: JUDGM ENT :-
This suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants for
Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Declaring the sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018,
dt:29.10.2018 as null and void along with consequential Permanent
Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E,
Page No. 3 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
situated in Nagareddyguda village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District (Hereinafter referred as Suit Schedule property).
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that Karshetty Muthaiah was the original owner of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E, situated at
Nagireddyguda vg, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (Hereinafter referred as Suit schedule property) who sold the same to Cheraka
Narasimulu through simple unregistered sale deed, dt:26.11.1963 for a valid sale consideration and delivered vacant possession, since then
Cheraka Narsimulu is in continuous possession over the same as absolute owner till his death, thereafter his legal heirs followed by plaintiffs being the grand children of Cheraka Narsimulu. It is submitted that the Def.No.1 / son of Karishetty Muttaiah suppressing the fact of alienation of suit schedule property to Cheraka Narsimulu, had obtained mutation in his favor vide No.4460/87, dt:25.06.1988 and basing on the same, Def.No.1 herein had filed a suit for Perpetual Injunction vide OS.No. 58 of 2003
before the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella against Plaintiffs Nos.1 & 2 herein,
which was renumbered as OS.No. 135 of 2003 after receipt of the same by transfer at Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad which was dismissed after conducting due trial holding that ancestors of plaintiffs are in possession over suit schedule property. As there are multiple cases pending between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 before various forums, therefore in order to avoid ambiguity, such litigations were mentioned in chronology, forum wise in the following paras; [a]Plaintiffs submit that, after disposal of OS.No. 135 of 2003,
Def.No.1 filed appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad vide
A.S.No.19 of 2007 which was erroneously allowed, against which the
plaintiffs Nos.1 & 2 herein filed Second Appeal vide S.A.No. 778 of 2009
before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, wherein the
Hon’ble High Court had passed an interim orders dt:18.09.2009 directing
parties to maintain Status-Quo which is still subsisting as none of Def.No.1
Page No. 4 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
had filed petition to vacate said orders and the S.A.No. 778 of 2009 is still pending for disposal before the Hon’ble High Court.
[b]After disposal of OS.No. 135 of 2003 before the Junior Civil
Judge, Vikarabad, apart from filing appeal against the said judgment,
Def.No.1 along with Def.Nos.5 & 11 had filed another suit for Declaration of Title and to declare the entry in possession column from 1955 as invalid with consequential relief of Injunction to declare vide O.S.No.819 of 2007
before the Hon’ble V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar which was decreed exparte on 08.07.2016. On knowing the said exparte decree, plaintiffs filed petition to set aside the exparte decree along with petition vide IA.No. 640 of 2016 to condone delay of 8 days and on 13.03.2017, orders were passed condoning the delay period of 8 days, followed by registering IA.No. 259 of 2017 filed to set aside exparte order dt:08.07.2016 which was also allowed by separate order
dt:08.06.2018, thereby suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 is pending for trial.
Plaintiffs submit that, without disclosing pendency of set aside applications vide IA.No. 259 of 2017 Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 obtained mutation proceedings
No. C/4066/16, dt:09.05.2017 issued by the then Revenue Divisional
Officer, who also ignored plaintiffs objections as to pendency of IA.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007.
[c]Thereafter, Plaintiffs herein had filed a Writ Petition No.31169 of 2017 questioning the issuance of Proceedings No.C/4066/16 by RDO during pendency of Set aside application vide IA.No. 259 of 2017 in
OS.No. 819 of 2007 in which the Hon’ble High Court had passed interim
orders suspending proceedings No. C/4066/2016 vide W.P.M.P.No.38840 of 2017, dt:14.09.2017 which is later extended until further orders. At this juncture, Def.Nos.1 to 5 in spite of being well aware about suspension of
RDO proceedings C/4046/16 vide W.P.M.P.No.38840 of 2017, they alienated part of suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts through registered sale deed vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt: 12.01.2018 in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 on the premise of exparte decree in OS.No. 819
Page No. 5 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
of 2007 passed in their favor though the IA.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007 to set aside exparte decree is still pending for disposal. On the other hand, after execution of sale deed on 15.05.2018, Def.No.1 filed criminal complaint before SHO, Moinabad P.S. against plaintiffs alleging that they are interfering into Def.Nos.1 to 5 possession over suit schedule property upon which Cr.No.215 of 2018 was registered which in itself shows that the Sale deed Doc.No.579 of 2018 is a sham document.
Plaintiffs preferred CRLP.No. 3748 of 2019 challenging the Charge Sheet filed in Cr.No. 215 of 2018 which the Hon’ble High Court stayed.
[d]At this juncture, inspite of knowledge of aforesaid proceedings, Def.No’s.1 to 14 in collusion with each other with a fraudulent motive described Schedule land is situated in Sy.No.105/12/UU instead of Sy.No.105/12/E which through Def.No.11 alienated balance land to Def.Nos.15 to 17 through registered sale deeds vide Doc.No.16997/18 (Ac.0.14 gts), Doc.No.16998/18 (Ac.0.10 gts), Doc.No.16999 of 2018 (Ac.0.07 gts) basing on the same, mutation proceedings vide No’s.
B/2388,B/2390 & B/2391, dt:23.01.2019 were also issued on Def.Nos.15 to 17 for their respective lands. On knowing about mutation vide
Proceedings No’s. B/2388, B/2390 & B/2391, dt:23.01.2019 when plaintiffs filed another Writ Petition vide W.P.No.26475 of 2019 before the
Hon’ble High Court along with two different interim applications vide
I.A.No. 01 of 2019 praying to direct the Tahsildar, Moinabad not to issue pattedar passbooks for Suit schedule property and I.A.No. 02 of 2019 to restrain defendants from causing any interference in plaintiffs possession over the suit schedule property, on considering the same, on 29/11/2019 the Hon’ble High Court passed interim orders.
3.Plaintiffs further submits that Def.Nos.1 to 14 in collusion with each executed sale deeds stated supra during pendency of litigation vide
OS.No. 819 of 2007 in favor of prospective purchasers suppressing the
fact of pending I.A.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007 for setting aside exparte decree and also suspension of proceedings No.
Page No. 6 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
C/4066/2016, dt:09.05.2017 issued by RDO, Chevella through the orders of the Hon’ble High Court as stated supra. Whereas, Def.Nos.15 to 17 taking advantage of mutation proceedings mentioned supra, mere entries in pahanies for the years 2017, 2019, Def.Nos.15 to 17 trying to dispossess plaintiffs from the suit schedule property as a result, plaintiffs were constrained to file another writ petition vide WP.No. 1203 of 2020 seeking police aid to restrain Def.Nos.6 to 10, 15 to 17 from violating previous orders vide IA.No. 01/2019 & 02/2019 in WP.No. 26475/2019 and if such registered sale deeds mentioned supra, left outstanding the same would cause serious injury to plaintiffs as such the same should be declared to void and also the revenue entries on defendants name shall be rectified by deleting their names in the interest of justice. Hence this Suit.
4. Upon receiving summons, Defendant No’s 1 to 10, 15 & 17 together filed written statement on their behalf denying entire contents of plaint including the execution of simple sale deed dated:26.11.1963 except those which are specifically admitted herein. Def.No’s.11 to 14 &
Def.No.16 adopted the written statement filed by Def.No.1 to 10, 15 & 17 by filing respective adoption memos. Defendants submit that they obtained mutation proceedings from the then RDO in accordance with law after hearing plaintiffs herein and that the suit filed by Def.No.1 against
Plaintiffs Nos.1 & 2 vide OS.No. 135 of 2003 was erroneously dismissed against which they preferred A.S.No. 19 of 2007 which was allowed in favor of Def.No.1 against the said orders, Plaintiffs herein filed appeal vide
S.A.No. 778 of 2009 before the Hon’ble High Court for the state of
Telangana in which the Hon’ble High Court had directed both parties to main status-quo, but nor suspending the orders as claimed by the plaintiffs. Defendants admit that they filed another suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 before the Hon’ble Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District against plaintiffs herein which was decreed exparte on 08.07.2016 as none of the plaintiffs contested, thereafter plaintiffs filed interim applications to keep the said litigation on for demanding huge amounts
Page No. 7 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
from them invoking chance litigation through this suit filed by plaintiffs seeking cancellation of sale deeds is liable to be dismissed in limini as it is illegal claim.
5.Defendants further submits that defendants had filed vacate petition in WP.No. 31169 of 2017, but plaintiffs herein delayed the disposal of the same on one pretext or the other. It is submitted that, Def.Nos.1 to 5 sold
Ac.1.20 gts in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 through registered sale deed vide
Doc.No.579 of 2018 for their family necessities and that Def.No.1 filed a criminal case vide CC.No.1609 of 2018 pending before the II Addl. JCJ cum M.M. Defendants admit that after execution of Doc.No.579 of 2018,
Def.Nos.11 to 14 had sold the remaining land of suit schedule property to
Def.Nos.15 to 17 vide Doc.Nos.16997, 16998 & 16999 of 2018 basing on which mutation on Def.Nos.15 to 17 as stated in plaint as there are no prohibitory orders from any court for sale of land by Def.Nos.1 to 5 & 11 to 14 to third parties, which cannot be questioned by anyone including plaintiffs who have no right or title over the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the present suit is not properly valued as the Court Fee paid is insufficient when neither plaintiffs nor their family members were not in possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
6.After amendment of suit schedule boundaries as per the orders in
IA.No. 83 of 2025, dt:10.03.2025 Defendant No.8 filed additional written
statement which was adopted by other defendants by filing adoption memo. In their additional written statement, Defendants submit that neither plaintiffs nor their counsel on record never pleaded in written statement filed in OS.No. 135 of 2003 that they have taken steps about wrong boundaries mentioned till the same was elicited by defendants counsel in cross of Pw1 as against their burden to mention correct boundaries to secure their relief of Declaration of title, however even the amended boundaries plaintiffs would not accrue any rights in this case as they themselves filed this present suit mentioning different boundaries. It
Page No. 8 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
is submitted that even if assumed without admitting that Charka
Narsimulu purchased suit schedule property through Ex.A37, plaintiffs cannot acquire any right as Charka Narsimulu is not their grandfather, that too, when said Charka Narsimulu died prior to 1953 which itself makes impossible to purchase suit property in 1963 as claimed by plaintiffs who created Exs.A37 & 38 without mentioning any boundaries for the purpose of this suit. Defendants also submit that plaintiffs are not in possession over Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU/1 nor they are in possession over land as per amended boundaries, as the plaintiffs misrepresented before this court by suppressing the material facts that Ex.A37 reflects
Sy.No.105/12/E quite distinct with Ex.A38 reflecting Sy.No.105/12/UU, that too when pahani for the year 1963 reflects an extent of Ac.0.30 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU belongs to one Chinna Balaiah. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
7.Basing on the pleadings on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants this court framed the following issues;
(1) W hether the execution of unregistered sale deed dated
26.11.1963 by Muttaiah in favor of Charka Narsimulu is true
and valid or not?
(2) Whether the sale deed vide Doc.No.579/2018, dt:
12.01.2018 executed by Def.Nos.1 to 5 in favor of
Defendants Nos.6 to 10 is illegal or not?
(3) Whether the Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018
executed by Def.Nos.11 to 14 in favor of Defendants Nos.15
to 17 are illegal or not?
(4) Whether the suit is barred by Limitation or not?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
declaration of Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 &
16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void or not?
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
Perpetual Injunction against defendants from interfering
into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit
schedule lands as prayed for or not?
Page No. 9 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
(7) To what relief?
8.During the trial Plaintiff No.1 examined himself as Pw1 and also examined three others namely Cherka Mallesh as Pw2, K.Sadguna Chary as Pw3 & Jeenugunta Narayana as Pw4, of them the evidence of Pw3 was eschewed. Exs.A1 to A44 were marked on behalf of plaintiffs. While adducing defendants evidence, Def.No.10 examined himself as Dw1 and examined third parties namely Tuppari Ramesh, Dharulupally Yadagiri,
Baindla Yadagiri & Yerra Ramulu as Dws.2 to 5. Exs.B1 to B48 were marked on defendants behalf.
9.Pw1 reiterated entire contents of his plaint as his chief. In cross,
Pw1 admitting his relationship with plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4, testified that the originally hail from Ghanapuram, Mahabubnagar, but their grandfather
Cherka Narsimulu migrated to Nagireddyguda vg. Pw1 testified that he knew Danaiah, Muthaiah, Jangaiah & Balaiah who are co-sharers along with Cherka Narsimulu, of them, Danaiah, Cherka Narsimulu & Muthaiah were having an extent of Ac.2.12 gts each in Sy.No.105/12, in addition to division of another extent of Ac.2.12 gts equally for Ac.0.31 gts among
Danaiah, Muthaiah, Jangaiah & Balaiah. Pw1 admitted that Cherka
Narsimulu was allotted Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/AA and Muttaiah was allotted Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E. Pw1 also admitted that suit schedule property is situated towards northern side of Cherka Narsimulu’s land in Sy.No.105/12/AA, but he do not know that land in
Sy.No.105/12/UU is on Muttaiah’s name. Pw1 admitted that they filed application before MRO for validation of “Unregistered Sale deed,
dt:26.11.1963 / Ex.A37 and in Ex.A38, survey number is mentioned as
Sy.No.105/12/UU, but Pw1 do not know that alphabet ‘E” is included after scribing Ex.A37. Pw1 testifies that his grandfather Cherka Narsimulu died about 4 / 5 yrs after execution of Ex.A37.
10.Pw1 admitted that as per entries in pahanies vide Exs.A1 to A4 till 1985 to 86, Sy.No.105/12/E is on Muttaiah’s name and after Muttaiah’s
Page No. 10 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
death in 1987 his sons namely Yadagiri, Maisaiah & Gnaneshwar obtained succession over said land adding that it was done without his knowledge but he didn’t filed any appeal before RDO against such succession proceedings. Pw1 testifies that they didn’t approach the then MRO for panchanama to ascertain their possession over suit schedule property during pendency of OS.No. 135 of 2003, adding that they approached village patwari / Mal Reddy about issuance of passbooks on Yadagir,
Maisaiah & Gnaneshwar. Pw1 testifies that he do not know whether they mentioned in their complaint / Ex.A39 that they purchased suit schedule property by way of “Mojuvani” / Oral sale nor knew that any deficit stamp duty or registration charges were paid for Ex.A37, but they filed Exs.A37 &
A38 in their evidence in OS.No. 135 of 2003 after they were traced. Pw1 admitted that there is no schedule of property mentioned in Ex.A37 and that their land is situated towards southern side to suit land of Bikshapthis is on southern side of suit land but the same was not mentioned in schedule of property of this suit adding that land on eastern side of suit land is bounded by his land which was purchased from one Chakali
Sattaiah. Pw1 admitted that, land on western side to suit land belongs to
Jinkunta Narayana adding that the said above boundaries were pertaining to the year 2003.
11.Pw1 testified that he do not know the boundaries of suit schedule property mentioned in his plaint as the same were not enquired by his counsel admitting that they did not sought declaratory relief basing on
Exs.A37 & 38. Pw1 admits that Def.No’s.5 to 10 & 15 to 17 purchased the suit lands after passing exparte decree in OS.No. 819 of 2007 adding that they filed set aside petitions in O.S.No. 819 of 2007. Pw1 further admitted that after exparte decree in O.S.No. 819 of 2007, entries in possessory column of Exs.A1 to A9 were rectified and also entries in Exs.A29 to A35 were rectified basing on RDO, Moinabad orders vide Proceedings
No.C/4066/2016 adding that they were done in collusion with revenue authorities.
Page No. 11 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
12.Pw2 & Pw4 deposed in similar lines in their chief affidavits, that about 50 yrs back, the plaintiffs grandfather / Cherka Narsimulu purchased the suit schedule property from the Karishetty Muthaiah / father of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and since then plaintiffs are in possession, enjoyment of suit schedule property. Pw2 & Pw4 also deposed that the aforesaid sale transaction took place in Nagireddyguda vg. in their presence and other villagers. Apart from above, Pw4 further deposed that the sale execution was done by way of Unregistered sale deed but he is not attesting witness to such document. During cross, Pw2 testified that he didn’t instructed anything in his chief which was drafted by his counsel and he along with Plaintiff No.2 had five sisters namely Laxamma,
Nagamani, Girija, Ellamma & Lavaynya who were not arrayed as parties in this suit nor Pw2 mentioned about this fact or that Cherka Narsimulu is his grandfather in his chief. Pw2 testified that he was born on 12/03/1981 and his grandfather Cherka Narsimulu died prior to his birth as such he do not know about purchase of property from Karishetty Muttaiah and as per
Pw2’s date of birth, his age will be 44 yrs, but it was mentioned as 55 yrs in his chief. Pw2 admitted that he falsely mentioned in his chief that he was present when Cherka Narsimulu purchased suit property 50 yrs back and since then plaintiffs are in possession adding that Pw2 didn’t instructed the said fact to his counsel. Pw2 testified that he do not know who scribed Ex.A37 nor who attested their signature on it.
13.In cross, Pw4 testifies that he got Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.105 of
Nagireddyguda vg. which he acquired from his ancestors. Pw4 admits that land in Sy.No.105 originally belongs to Danaiah, Muthaiah, Jangaiah &
Balaiah who got Ac.2.12 gts each, of them Cherka Narsimulu acquired
Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105 from Muthaiah. Pw4 testifies that when Pw4 was aged about 20 yrs, Cherka Narsimulu’s father by name “Narsimulu” died about 40 / 50 yrs back at the age of 80 yrs. Pw4 testifies that father of
Cherka Narsimulu acquired land from his ancestors but not by purchase
Pw4 admitted that after death of Muthaiah, his land was mutated in the
Page No. 12 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
name of his children Yadagiri, Maisaiah & Gnaneshwar, but he do not know they cultivated the land after death of Muthaiah nor knew who are cultivating the suit schedule lands. Pw4 admits that he didn’t mention in his chief that plaintiffs are in cultivation and possession over suit schedule property nor stated that he was present at the time of execution of
Unregistered sale deed / Ex.A37.
14.Defendants commenced their evidence by filing chief of Def.No.10 who examined himself as Dw1, wherein apart from reiterating the contents of his written statements, Dw1 further deposed that plaintiffs pleaded differently in their plaint that Ex.A37 was executed on 26.11.1963 in contra to their written statement of OS.No. 58 of 2003, where they pleaded that they purchased suit property in the year 1965 and that the documents vide Exs.A37 & 38 were inadvertently marked without proper stamp duty. Dw1 deposes that as per Ex.A38, survey number was mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/UU, but there’s no record with that survey number on the name of Mutthaiah, even if it is assumed to be true, the said Sy.No.105/12/UU is in the name of Kalichetti Yadagiri & his brother as per 1994-95 pahani. Dw1 also deposes that in Ex.A37 “E” was inserted adjacent to Sy.No.105/12 and plaintiffs themselves admitted about mention of “Mojuvani / Oral sale” in Ex.A39 which in itself elicits that it was created for this suit. Dw1 deposes that this Hon’ble Court had dismissed I.A.No. 201 & 202 of 2020 on 02.08.2023 against which plaintiffs preferred CMA.No. 588 & 591 of 2023 before the Hon’ble High
Court which are pending. Dw1 specifically deposes that after purchase, they developed suit property by raising wet crops using their borewell in
Sy.No.105/14
15.In cross, Dw1 specifically admitted that he is deposing evidence on behalf of him and all other defendants Nos.1 to 17 and plaintiffs are residents of his village. Dw1 admitted that Def.Nos.1 to 5, 11 reside in
Shaikpet vg., but he do not know when they moved to Shaikpet vg. nor
Dw1 saw father of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 / Muttaiah. Dw1 testified that he
Page No. 13 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
along with Def.Nos.6 to 9 purchased Ac.1.21 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU from
Def.Nos.1 & 5 which is bounded by Cherka Narsimulu’s family land toward
Southern side, East: Road and Def.Nos.15 to 17 purchased Ac.0.31 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU from Def.Nos.11 to 14 through three registered sale deeds / Exs.B22 to B24. Dw1 admitted that the actual extent of land in
Sy.No.105 held by Muthaiah is only Ac.2.12 gts as there are no other lands in Sy.No.105 owned by Muttaiah. Dw1 testifies that neither he knew the actual extent of land in Sy.No.105 of Nagireddyguda vg. nor knew since how long there are disputes between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 pertaining to lands in Sy.No.105. Dw1 admits that Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 do not have any residential house in Nagireddyguda vg., but plaintiffs have other extent of lands in Nagireddyguda vg. Dw1 admits that Cherka
Narsimulu was the grandfather of Plaintiffs and Dw1 along with other defendants together got prepared our written statement through their counsel.
16.Dw1 testifies that he came to know about pendency of civil litigation proceedings between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 after they purchased the property by receiving summons in this suit denying that the same was not mentioned in his chief. Dw1 testifies that he came to know about plaintiffs attempts to encroach suit schedule property in the year 2018 which is three years prior to their purchase by Ex.B21, but again testified that at the time of their purchase, the came to know that there are no civil proceedings pending between Plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 on whose words, they believed to proceed with purchase of property by Ex.B21.
Dw1 admitted that he didn’t verified any plaint, written statements, judgments or orders pertaining to civil suits, appeals pending between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and he do not know reasons for such civil litigation stated supra. Dw1 admitted that he did not seen or verified any judgment or order wherein Def.Nos.1,5 & 11 were adjudicated as real owners of suit schedule property and he cannot say in which year another suit pending between plaintiffs with Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 was filed before
Page No. 14 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
LB.Nagar court nor he saw any plaint, written statement or documents pertaining to such suit pending in L.B. Nagar adding that he perused the same at L.B. Nagar Court after knowing about the said suit. Dw1 initially testified that he cannot say exact suit numbers pending at different court pertaining to suit schedule property, but again admitted that he, himself mentioned entire suits details in his written statement & Chief.
17.In further cross, Dw1 admitted that Def.No.9 is wife of his elder brother / Pavan Yadav and Def.No.15’s son-in-law / Rajamallesh worked as Police Constables in May, 2020 at Moinabad Police Station. Dw1 admitted that Def.No.6 filed criminal case vide Cr.No.190 of 2020 against plaintiffs, their family members adding that it was registered for damaging bund of suit schedule property. Dw1 testifies that he do not know plaintiffs also filed registered another case Vide Cr.No.191 of 2020 against Pavan
Yadav & Others. Dw1 admitted that as per Ex.A1 shown for the years 1965-66 & 1970, father of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 / Muttaiah was shown as
Pattedar and in Column 16 of Ex.A1, Narsimha name was mentioned with word “Self / Sontham”. Dw1 also admitted that, in Column No.17 of Ex.A1 mentioned a Purchase / Khareedu. Dw1 admits that in Column No.16 of
Ex.A2 pahani for the years 1979-80, names of Narsimha, Muthaiah &
Ramulu shown as Cultivators adding that on knowing about the same after purchase of property, against which they filed a civil suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 for rectification of revenue entries which is pending. Dw1 admitted that in Col.No.13 of Ex.A5 for year 1996-97, Narsimha & Others were mentioned as Possessors by striking “Yadagiri” / Def.No.1 and in
Col.No.12 of Exs.A6 to A9, names of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 noted as Pattedars in addition to noting “Cherka Narsimulu” as possessor in Col.No.13.
18.Dw1 in his cross admitted that Plaintiffs filed Exs.A37 & 38 in the year 2003 in OS.No. 135 / 2003 at Vikarabad court instituted by
Def.No.11 against plaintiffs, their family members but Dw1 didn’t know
Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 filed any criminal cases against plaintiffs or their family members for creating Exs.A37 & 38 or even in the year 2018 after
Page No. 15 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
purchase by Def.Nos.6 to 10 by Ex.B21 / A18. Dw1 admitted that OS.No.
135 of 2003 was dismissed in favor of plaintiffs herein, against which
Def.No.11 preferred appeal vide AS.No. 19/2007 which was allowed in favor of Def.No.11 and against such orders, plaintiffs filed Second appeal vide S.A.No. 778/2009 before the Hon’ble High Court in which, status-quo order / Ex.A13 was issued. Dw1 specifically admits that during pendency of OS.No. 135 of 2003, Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 filed another suit vide OS.No.
819 of 2007 before the V Addl. District Judge, L.B. Nagar. Dw1 admits that as per Exs.A18 to A22, survey number of property purchased mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/E, of which in page No.3 of Exs.A18 to 20, it is mentioned that Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 were decided as absolute owners through court exparte decree in OS.No. 819 of 2007, dt:08.07.2016 basing on which RDO Chevella issued Proceedings No.C/4066/2016 in respect of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E I.e. suit schedule property which was purchased by Def.Nos.6 to 10 vide Exs.A19 to A22 mentioning the same in said deeds.
19.Dw1 testifies that much prior to the execution of Exs.A18, 20 to 22, on 14.09.2017 plaintiffs approached the Hon’ble High Court vide WP.No.
31169 of 2017 in which vide its orders dt:09.05.2017 / Ex.A15 & A16 the
Hon’ble High Court had suspended RDO proceedings No.C/4066/2016.
Dw1 testifies that he do not know that on 08.06.2018 orders in IA.No. 259 of 2017, exparte decree in OS.No.819 of 2007 was set aside vide Ex.A14, but specifically admitted that OS.No.819 of 2007 is still pending in which
Def.Nos.6 to 17 didn’t impleaded as parties till date. Dw1 further admits that basing on Exs.A18, 20 to 22, defendants also obtained subsequent mutations vide Exs.A23 to 25 in their favor were also stayed by the
Hon’ble High Court vide IA.No. 01 of 2019 in WP.No.26475 of 2019 /
Ex.A26. Dw1 admits that as per pahanies for 1965-66 / Ex.B4 & 1971- 72 / Ex.B5 Narsimha is shown as possessor of Ac.2.12 gts / suit schedule property. Dw1 admitted that he didn’t gave any publication prior to purchase of suit schedule property adding that he verified documents
Page No. 16 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
legally prior to purchase. Dw1 also admits that, as on date of their purchase, suit schedule property was not partitioned among Def.No.s1, 5 & 11 who were cultivating together.
20.Dw2 deposed that originally Kalishetti Mutthaiah was owner, possessor of suit land of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E (OLD) which is corresponding new survey numbers & extents as Ac.0.31 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU2, Ac.0.30 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU3, Ac.0.14 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU/1, Ac.0.10 gts in Sy.No.101/12/UU1 & Ac.0.07 gts in
Sy.No.101/12/UU1, situated at Nagireddyguda vg. and after death of the
Muttaiah, his sons Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 succeeded the same. Dw2 deposes that, Def.Nos.1 to 5 jointly sold their entitlement in suit property to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts through registered sale deed vide Doc.No.579 of 2018 in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 which is bounded by land of Cherka
Narsimha at Southern Side. Later, Def.Nos.11 to 14 alienated remaining
Ac.0.31 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E in three different extents of Ac.0.14 gts,
Ac.0.10 gts & Ac.0.07 gts respectively to Def.Nos.15 to 17 through sale deeds vide Doc.No’s. 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018 after receipt of entire sale consideration paid in presence of Dw2 & Yadaiah, of them Dw2 attested as witness in all three sale deeds. Dw2 further deposes that, neither Kalishetty Muttaiah nor Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 had sold suit property in favor of plaintiffs grandfather / Cherka Narsimulu, who never cultivated suit property at any point of time.
21.In cross, Dw2 testified that he haven’t seen Kalishetti Muttaiah who might have died prior to 1960 and that Dw2 is aged about 40 yrs being born in 1985. Dw2 denied that Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 and their family members are residing in Shaikpet but not residing at Nagireddyguda vg, adding that they recently shifted to Shaikpet for livelihood. Dw2 testifies that he accompanied Dw1 couple of times to this court and Honble High
Court and that the sale consideration for Ac.1.21 gts vide Doc.No.579 of 2018 / Ex.B21 was Rs.20,00,000/- per acre but he do not have idea about actual market value of lands alienated vide Exs.B21 to B24 or that they
Page No. 17 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
valued more than one crore per acre. Dw2 testifies that after death of
Kalishetty Muttaiah, his sons / Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 partitioned the sole landed property of Ac.2.12 gts land in Sy.No.105, Nagireddyguda vg. Dw2 admitted that his grandfather alienated their land in Sy.No.105 prior to his birth and he haven’t seen any transactions pertaining to suit schedule property made in 1963, but he heard about such transactions. Dw2 testified that boundaries mentioned in his chief are for total Ac.2.12 gts
I.e. suit schedule property and he knew contents of Exs.B21 to B24 being attesting witness. Dw2 testifies that in 2007, Def.No.7 filed suit against plaintiffs which was disposed in favor of Def.No.11 denying that the said suit is still pending before the Addl. District Judge’s Court, Chevella. Dw2 further testifies that he do not have any idea about writ petitions filed by plaintiffs herein nor about proceedings No.C/4066/2016 mentioned in
Ex.B21, but denied that such proceedings were suspended by the Hon’ble
High Court vide Ex.A16. Dw2 specifically testifies that family members of
Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 are cultivating suit lands by raising various crops as on today.
22. In his chief, Dw3 deposed in similar lines as that of Dw2 about acquisition of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E by Def.Nos.1,5 & 11 who inturn alienated the same in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 through registered sale deeds, except adding that Dw3 arranged the sale of
Ac.0.31 gts to Def.Nos.15 to 17 vide Exs.B21 to 24 and that Dw3 also singed as attesting witness in Doc.No.579 of 2018 executed by Def.Nos.1, 5 in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10. During cross, Dw3 testified that as he is into real estate business, on request of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 in 2018, Dw3 arranged sale of Ac.1.20 gts through his friend to Def.No.6 vide Ex.B21 in which only Dw3 singed as attesting witness, but Dw3 do not know any particulars about suit or proceedings mentioned in Ex.B21. Dw3 further testifies that as Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 informed him that land alienated vide
Ex.B21 is of clear title relying on the same, Def.No.6 purchased it when the actual market value was about 60 to 80 lakhs on date of execution of
Page No. 18 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.B21. Dw3 specifically testifies that he do not know anything about civil disputes or any case details pending between plaintiffs family and
Def.Nos.1,5 &11 nor know the reason for filing this suit or against whom.
Dw3 testified that suit schedule land is bounded by East: Road, West:
Buchireddy land, North & South by Bestha Community people.
23.Defendants further examined the then neighboring land owners as
Dw4 & Dw5, who deposed in similar lines that Kalishetty Muttaiah was owner of suit property, after his death Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 succeeded the same, later sold it to Def.No.6 in the year 2018. Dws.4 & 5 further deposed that during life time of Muttaiah, he never sold suit land to anyone and plaintiffs were never in possession over it at any point of time.
Apart from above, Dw4 deposed in specific that his family owned Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/17 located towards western side of suit property, but his father sold it about 20 yrs back. Dw5 deposes that, his father owned
Ac.1.02 gts in Sy.No.105 located near suit property towards western side which he sold it about 5 yrs back to third parties.
24.In cross Dw4 testified that he came to know through K.Narsimha /
Def.No.6 & others in 2018 about purchase of land and Dw4 haven’t seen
Muthaiah when he died as he was aged about 12 yrs but after death of
Mutthaiah, his sons shifted to Tolichowki due to disputes with their agnates. Dw4 specifically testifies that Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 possess Ac.2.12 gts i.e. suit land only and about 2 or 3 yrs back, disputes arose with plaintiffs with respect to suit lands, but he cannot say whether such disputes were in respect of bund between each other lands. Dw4 admitted that disputes also arose between Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 with plaintiffs in respect of suit lands for which criminal cases were registered against each other, as Dw4 along with other villagers went to
Moinabad P.S. at time of quarrel. Dw4 admits that Dw2, Jeenikuntla Raju,
Davit & Def.Nos.6 to 8 & 10 were present in Moinabad Police Station, but either plaintiffs or Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 were not present in police station where Pavan Yadav / husband of Def.No.9 and Rajamallesh / agnate of
Page No. 19 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Def.Nos.6 to 10 family were working as constables in Moinabad P.S. at that time.
25.Dw5 in his cross testified that he saw Muttaiah who used to stay in hut had died about 50 yrs back in their village and after 5 or 6 yrs of death, Muttaiah’s sons migrated to city. Dw5 testified that wife of Muttiah predeceased him, but he do not know when she died and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 might be of 40 to 50 yrs of age when their father / Muttaiah died. Dw5 admitted that plaintiffs have their own land adjacent to suit lands and Dw5 land was situated at a distance of one K.M. from suit land. Dw5 testified that he do not know any disputes or quarrel took place among plaintiffs and Dw5 was not an attesting witness to any sale transaction between
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and Def.Nos.6 to 10 or 15 to 17. Dw5 specifically testified that on the request of defendants he came to court and deposing but he do not know who filed this suit or what relief sought.
26.Before dwelling into adjudication of the issues involved in this suit, this court had noticed that there are couple of issues which were framed solely basing on the pleadings of both parties, taking consideration of the disputed facts. Whereas, after conclusion of trial and upon hearing both parties, it is evident that disputed fact in Issue No.1 relating to the validity of “unregistered sale deed” dt:26.11.1963 is directly and substantially in question in previous instituted suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 for
Declaration of title which is pending before the Hon’ble XVIIIAdditional
District Judge, At Chevella which received by transfer from the Hon’ble V
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar cannot be
dealt in this suit which is instituted basing on different cause of action, that too, after lapse of about 13 yrs. So also, Issue No.6 dealing with the relief of Perpetual Injunction is also directly and substantially in question to be adjudicated by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana vide S.A.No.778 of 2009 preferred by plaintiffs herein is also pending for adjudication. As stated supra, disputed facts as per Issues Nos.1 & 6 were pending from several years, much prior to institution of this present suit before this
Page No. 20 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
court which is on the lower pedestal to the above referred courts and adjudicating the same in either way would be nonetheless than surpassing jurisdiction of this court which wouldn’t be proper or necessary to adjudicate the actual issues involved in this suit. Therefore, with utmost obedience this court opines that invoking Order XIV Rule 5 of Code of Civil
Procedure, thereby deleting issues Nos.1 & 6 in the interest of justice.
27.This court also opines, it is just and necessary to address the contentions of the defendants counsel about the maintainability of this suit as the same would fall within the purview of Stay of subsequent suit as provided Under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code which was based on the same analogy as opined by this court in above para. The contentions of the defendants are that the matters in dispute in this are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit and adjudication of those issues in such previous instituted suits or proceedings would operate as res-judicata U/sec. 11 of Civil Procedure Code, therefore the present suit shall be stayed. In reply to the above said contentions, the plaintiffs counsel reverted that the present suit is filed basing on the subsequent events occurred post institution of the OS.No. 819 of 2007 and S.A.No.778 of 2009, stemming up from altogether different cause of action(s) took place after lapse of more than 10 yrs of pendency above proceedings whose reliefs are quite distinct with the present suit which in itself dispels the claim of defendants stated supra as to the maintainability of this suit.
28.It is evident from the pleadings of both sides and the material on record, that the main relief sought in this present suit is that to declaration of sale deeds vide Doc.No’s: 579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as void which were executed during pendency of OS.No. 819 of 2007 and Issues Nos.1 & 6 which are similar with that of core issues to be dealt in OS.No. 819 of 2007 and S.A.No.778 of 2009 which cannot be considered to be that of the substantial issues to be adjudicated in present suit. In order to ascertain the impact of Section 10 on the present suit, this court relies on
Page No. 21 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 1996 (1)
APLJ 202 (HC) - Karri Satyanarayana & Ors Vs. Pichika Veerraju &
Ors, wherein it was held as “It is necessary to note that for Section 10 to apply, there must be identity of the subject matter. Mere fact that one of the questions in issue is the same as in the other suit, would not make the subject matter identical. The use of definite article ‘the’ in the ‘the matter in issue’ occurring in Section 10 CPC suggests that the rule will not apply where only a ‘matter in issue’ is common” . This court further relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2013) 4 SCC 333 -
Aspijal and Another vs Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor, wherein it was held as “The fundamental test to attract Sec. 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as resjudicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits are identical.”
29.In the light of aforesaid judgments, it is cogently clear that though there is identity of subject matter in all these three proceedings is same but in all these proceedings, the parties indulged are not identical as there is much variance in the parties involved in those suits as such the same cannot be considered for stay of present suit, that too, when there are distinct issues to be dealt in this present suit when compared with that of the previous suits / proceedings vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 & SA.No. 778 of 2009 which itself establishes that adjudication of these previous proceedings would neither operate as Res-Judicata to the present suit nor conclusively deals with the relief of declaration of sale deeds as void as sought in this present suit which indeed was filed altogether under different set of facts, unfolded during pendency of aforesaid previous suits. It is imperative to note that the whole issues or subject matter herein are not incidental to the previous suits, except the identity of the matter with the present suit, therefore the application of Sec. 10 will not apply as only couple of issues Nos.1 & 6 appears to be common.
Page No. 22 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
30.Further, this court opines that it would appropriate to concise few aspects such as the relevancy of impact of unregistered sale deed & receipt / Exs.A37 & 38, marking certified copies of Exs.A37 & 38, ambiguity of survey numbers pertaining to suit schedule property and the claim of improper payment of court fees which would pave way depicting the rationale in placing these aspects herein without including them in adjudication of core issues Nos.2, 3 & 5 of this suit. Of these aspects, the the most pressed one was about the authenticity of Exs.A37 & 38 and its marking by this court, upon considering the submissions, this court opines that these aspects are directly relevant to the adjudication of title over the suit schedule property for which the Def.Nos.1 & 5 had already filed
OS.No.819 of 2007 which is pending for adjudication as on today. The
Defendants counsel relied that these exhibits vide Exs.A37 & 38 were created for the purpose of civil disputes pending before various courts as the plaintiffs themselves came up with different version that they purchased suit schedule property by Oral sale / Mojuvani in their complaint filed before police Moinabad vide Ex.A39. Defendants further put forth that there is no mention of boundaries in Exs.A37 & 38 and mentioning of different binumbers in both Exs.A37 & 38, patently mentioning alphabet “UU” in Ex.A37 establishes that they are fabricated to suit their case. More so, this court ought not to have marked the certified copies as Exs.A37 & 38, relying on the order of the Hon’ble High Court in
CRP.No.’s.375 of 2025 & 379 of 2025, wherein it was held as “Photocopies or certified copies of photocopies, the same therefore would become inadmissible in evidence”
31.In reply to the aforesaid contentions, plaintiffs counsel brought to the fore that the aforesaid documents / Exs.A37 & 38 was filed before the concerned court in the first civil dispute initiated by Defendants No.1 vide
OS.No. 135 of 2003 before Junior Civil Judge court, Vikarabad where none
of the contesting defendants or their counsels had made any objections as to the insufficiency or deficit of stamp duty or registration charges on
Page No. 23 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Exs.A37 & 38 as such the then court had marked the same, basing on the same said suit was adjudicated, thereafter, the said proceedings were continued before the Hon’ble High Court vide S.A.No. 778 of 2009 from where the present certified copies were obtained which were marked as
Exs.A37 & 38 herein which in itself prohibits the defendants to raise the said objection at this juncture in different suit which is filed for distinct reliefs. Further, it is noted that as raised by plaintiffs, till date none of the defendants had made any effort or initiated any proceedings before any forum either to establish that these exhibits / Exs.A37 & 38 are forged, fabricated documents or action against plaintiffs for doing so. The judgments relied upon by the defendants in 2006 (6) ALT 523 (FB),
Civil Appeal No.7350 of 2008, 2015 (2) ALD 291, 2003 4 ALT 84,
2010 3 ALT 165, 2025 4 ALT (SC) 19, 2008 4 ALT 421 and 2000 3
ALT 229 are not relevant to the present suit in hand as the Issues Nos.1 & 6 were deleted by this court as stated supra.
32.Apart from the above, the version of eliciting of different boundaries mentioned initially in suit during cross of Pw1 and rectifying the same by amendment was not tenable as it was done to fill up lacunae will not hold water, which in fact was considered by the court to affirm the identity of suit schedule property is the same for which other civil disputes were also pending between the parties, that too, when both parties more particularly defendants themselves pressed about the subject matter in dispute is similar in all pending proceedings that too, when there is cogent ambiguity about suit survey numbers claimed by both sides, which would be dealt in subsequent paras. In view of the above discussion, the dispute as to the authenticity of Exs.A37 & 38 is not point of relevancy in this present suit as the same is core of OS.No. 819 of 2007 dealing with title dispute of both parties. It is noted that except making mere claim, defendants didn’t corroborated their claim that Exs.A37 & 38 are the certified copies of the photocopies obtained from the court, which otherwise was the documents obtained from the Hon’ble High Court where the second appeal is pending
Page No. 24 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
in which the originals of Exs.A37 & 38 were claimed to have filed, as such it cannot be considered that plaintiffs obtained certified copies of photocopies.
33.In continuation of the above, the next aspect is about ambiguity of survey numbers of suit schedule property was it Sy.No.105/12/E or
Sy.No.105/12/UU as both survey numbers were averred by both parties either in their documents or evidence relied by them. To begin with the plaintiffs, who averred that suit schedule property is in Sy.No.105/12/E, but in Ex.A38 it was mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/UU different with suit survey number with which there is no record showing property in
Sy.No.105/12/UU on Muttaiah’s name but on the name of Balaiah for smaller extent. In response to the above, the plaintiffs counsel argued that the defendants themselves aren’t sure about the actual survey number of their property as both survey numbers I.e. Sy.No.105/12/E & 105/12/UU were referred invariably in the documents defendants relied upon.
34.This court had noticed that the Sy.No.105/12/E was referred by defendant in Exs.A18 to A22 mentioning that the said property was decided in favor of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 and basing on the same RDO, Chevella had issued proceedings No.C/4066/2016,
dt:09.05.2017 in respect of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E which was
acquired by Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 through registered sale deeds, but all such claims were made in contra to the version of Dws.1 to 5, of them
Dw1 who deposed on behalf of other defendants too, deposed that they purchased Ac.1.21 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU from Def.Nos.11 to 14 vide
Exs.B22 to 24 which further asserted by the mediator of said sale transactions examined as Dw2 who came up with new version that the suit survey number I.e. Sy.No.105/12/E is old survey number to which new corresponding survey numbers for different extents were issued I.e.
Sy.No.105/12/UU1 (Ac.0.31 gts), Sy.No.105/12/UU2 (Ac.0.31 gts),
Sy.No.105/12/UU3 (Ac.0.30 gts) which summed up to exact extent of
Page No. 25 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ac.2.12 gts of suit schedule property which in itself clears the ambiguity in survey numbers pertaining to suit schedule property which was in
Sy.No.105/12/E as on the date of commencement of civil disputes between the parties.
35.Up next is the defendants contentions about the maintainability of the suit on payment of insufficient court fees U/sec. 37 of The TGSV & CF
Act instead of Sec. 24 which was paid for cancellation of sale deeds. On keen perusal of the material available on record, at first, the court fee paid for the aforesaid cancellation relief was based on the advolarem for entire consideration U/sec. 37 of The Act and plaintiffs specifically pleaded relief to declare the alleged sale deeds as null & void as evident from the pleadings. More so, the amount of court fees paid by the plaintiffs for the relief of cancellation was twice as that of the amount to be paid for the relief of Declaration which in itself is more than sufficient court fees paid by the plaintiffs. More so, as the aforesaid objections were not pressed by the defendants when this court had framed issues pertaining to the relief of declaration or otherwise, instead proceeded to conclude trial but raised the same in their arguments would not hold water as the issue framed for declaratory relief was done with an intent to bring facts to fore, for proper adjudication of the disputes in this suit.
36.In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, this court proceeds with the adjudication of core issues pertaining to this suit I.e. Issues Nos.2, 3 & 5 are dealt together as the same were based on same facts and evidence adduced brought on record having cascading effect on these issues.
Further this court opines that it is just and necessary to adjudicate Issues
Nos.2, 3 & 5 together so as to avoid redundancy, ambiguity in appreciating the evidence on record for just disposal of this lis;
ISSUES No’s: 2, 3 & 5:
(2) Whether the sale deed vide Doc.No.579/2018, dt:
12.01.2018 executed by Def.Nos.1 to 5 in favor of
Defendant Nos.6 to 10 is illegal or not?
Page No. 26 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
(3) Whether the Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018
executed by Def.Nos.11 to 14 in favor of Defendants Nos.5
to 17 are illegal or not?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
declaration of Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 &
16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void or not?
P O I N T : [a] On perusal of the material available on record including the arguments put forth by both counsels, this court observed there are certain facts to be noted prior to proceeding with adjudication of these issues, of them, there is no dispute that the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.105/12 in Nagireddyguda (V), Moinabad (M), R.R.Dist.
and the said Sy.No.105/12 comprising of several parcels of lands which were noted with different bi-numbers, one of such bi-number was
Sy.No.105/12/E i.e. suit survey number pertaining to suit schedule property and the ambiguity aspect pertaining to suit survey number was dealt in detail in above paras. It is also noted that it is admitted that Late.
Cherka Narsimulu and Kalishetti Muttaiah were having lands to an extent of Ac.2.12 gts each in Sy.No.105/12 and it is the defendants witnesses who categorically admitted that Cherka Narsimulu land is different with that of the suit schedule property which is situated towards southern side of the suit land. Also, it is categorically admitted by Dws.1 to 3, that except the suit schedule property Kalisheety Muttaiah is not having any other land in Sy.No.105/12 which itself crystallizes that the suit schedule property is distinct situated in Sy.No.105/12/E (Sy.No.105/12/UU New number). To avoid ambiguity, the suit survey number is hereby mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/E. It is not out of place to mention here that in cross
Dw2 specifically testified that he had heard about the alleged sale transaction between Cherka Narsimulu and Kalishetty Muttaiah in 1963.
[b]It is an admitted fact as elicited during cross of witnesses from both sides that civil disputes are pending between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1,
Page No. 27 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
5 & 11 from very long time much prior to the institution of the present suit, at first Defendant No.11 instituted OS.No.135/2003 (Old.OS.No.58/2003) against plaintiffs herein to restrain plaintiffs from interfering into their possession which was dismissed in favor of plaintiffs herein, against which had Def.No.11 preferred First Appeal vide A.S.No.19 of 2007 and the same was allowed setting aside the judgment in
OS.No.135 of 2003 of original part. Thereafter, against such orders
plaintiffs herein had preferred second appeal vide S.A.No. 778 of 2009
before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana which is pending for
adjudication. Here comes the validity of sale transactions, Mutation proceedings Vide No.C/4066/2016 that whether the same was issued during pendency of proceedings vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 is crucial one in dealing with aforesaid issues, as OS.No. 819 of 2007 was initially decreed exparte, but later the said exparte decree was set aside vide I.A.No.259 of 2017, dt:08.06.2018 by the Hon’ble V Addl District Court, Ranga Reddy
District from where the said suit is still pending for adjudication before the
Hon’ble XVIII Addl. District Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.
[c]As patently evident from the record, there are multiple litigations pending between plaintiffs and defendants before various forums including the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, but as stated supra only two proceedings vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 and Writ Petitions vide
WP.No. 31169 of 2017 & WP.No. 26475 of 2019 are relevant to the
present suit in hand as the alleged sale deeds vide Doc.No’s: 579/2018,
dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018
were executed in spite of suspension orders. It would be proper to specify the events unfolded events in their chronological order for proper appreciation, of which as stated supra Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 themselves had filed OS.No. 819 of 2007 which was decreed exparte on 08.07.2016 against such exparte decree, plaintiffs herein had filed two separate petitions vide IA.No. 640 of 2016 to condone delay of eight (8) days along with other petition IA.No. 259 of 2017 to set aside exparte decree in
Page No. 28 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
OS.No. 819 of 2007. It is born out of record that, the first petition filed to
condone delay vide IA.No. 640 of 2016 was allowed on 13.03.2017 keeping pendency of IA.No. 259 of 2017 for disposal. The most crucial point here to be considered is the date I.e. 13.03.2017 on which IA.No.
640 of 2016 was allowed breathing new life to the litigation of plaintiffs herein in OS.No. 819 of 2007.
[d]Now comes the actual acts done by Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 creating utter chaos, to begin with, upon the applications filed by Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 the then RDO, Chevella had issued a proceedings vide No.C/4066/2016
dt:09.05.2017 / Ex.A15 for mutation of revenue entries on Def.Nos.1, 5 &
11 and the then RDO, Chevella in Ex.A15 had specifically mentioned that the Thasildar, Moinabad had mentioned that “no cases, appeals were pending in their office” which itself goes contra to the version when there is specific mention of OS.No. 819 of 2007 exparte decree itself hints the suspicion about issuance of proceedings vide Ex.A15. It is pertinent to mention here that, defendants didn’t elicited the need for securing mutation of revenue records on their names when already one proceeding was issued on their name after death of their father vide Ex.A10 and not to forget the defendants neither filed the said proceedings vide No.
4460/1987, dt:25.06.1988 issued by MRO, Moinabad nor negated as to why the name of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and their mother / Smt.Lingammma was mentioned when she pre-deceased her husband. This court observes that surname of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11’s father was mentioned “Baista
Muttaiah” instead of “Kalishetty Muttaiah” which also casts cloud of suspicion as to claim of defendants on suit schedule property.
[e]It is crucial to analyze the events unfolded during pendency of
IA.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007 which patently elicits the intent
of the Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 towards the suit schedule property, of which, securing mutation vide Ex.A15 was secured after lapse of more than two months of allowing IA.No. 640 of 2016, as such the plaintiffs approached the Hon’ble High Court filing WP.No. 31169 of 2017 along with WP.No.
Page No. 29 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
38840 of 2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court in its orders dated 14.09.2017 & 13.10.2017 vide Exs.A16 & 17 had categorically suspended the proceedings No.C/4066/2016 which was ordered to extended until further orders. At this juncture, basing on the mutation proceedings and exparte decree in OS.No. 819 of 2007 though the same was pending,
Def.Nos.1 to 5 had executed a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 alienating Ac.1.21 gts out of suit schedule property in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 against the orders of the Hon’ble High Court vide WP.MP.No.38840 of 2017. Later, Def.Nos.11 to 14 further alienated the remaining extent of Ac.0.31 gts in favor of Def.Nos.15 to 17 vide 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 basing on the same, mutation proceedings vide Exs.A23 to A25 were issued in favor of
Def.Nos.15 to 17 against which plaintiffs herein once again approached the Hon’ble High Court vide WP.No. 26475 of 2019 in which vide separate interim orders had suspended mutation proceedings vide Exs.A23 to 25 in its order vide Ex.A26. The aforesaid saga cogently elicits that defendants
Nos.1, 5 & 11 had intentionally alienated the suit schedule property to
Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 as stated supra being well aware about the pendency of OS.No. 819 of 2007 for declaration of their title apart from suspension of revenue proceedings.
[f]Now, it would also relevant to ascertain about the intent of subsequent purchasers I.e Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 who purchased the suit schedule property as stated supra and on careful perusal of the cross examination of Def.No.10 who was the only person examined and deposed on behalf of Def.Nos.1 to 17, there wont be any doubt even as suttle point that they were not aware about pendency of proceedings pertaining to the suit schedule property before they acquired. At first, as Dw1 himself categorically admitted that he came to know about plaintiffs attempts to encroach suit schedule property and pendency of civil litigation with
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 three years prior to purchase of suit schedule land vide
Ex.B21, but they proceeded with purchase basing on the words of
Page No. 30 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 who informed that no civil proceedings are pending.
Further, though Dw1 was aware about pendency of proceedings, as admitted he didn’t verified any judgment or orders which adjudicated
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 as absolute owners or he verified any documents prior to his purchase establishes the malafide intent of Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 to acquired property under litigation. To corroborate the same,
Def.Nos.6 to 10 initiated criminal proceedings against plaintiffs in
Moinabad P.S. where Def.No.9’s husband and relative of Def.Nos.6 to 10 were working as police constables.
[g]This courts has taken pragmatic approach in this suit to ascertain the intent of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 to alienate the suit property which Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 readily purchased even on being aware about pendency of proceedings before civil court and the Hon’ble High court vide proceedings supra and such approach by any individuals shall be dealt with iron fist to discourage such mode of acquisition of properties which not only reduces the unwanted litigation in courts but also avoids abuse of process of law meant for dispensing of justice but not to use it as a tool for securing unfair means. This court has no hinch of doubt that the sale deeds vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 and 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 were executed during pendency of litigations and suspension of mutation orders vide
Proceedings No.C/4066/2016 which is illegal on face of it, making such documents to be declared as null & void.
Issues Nos.2 3 & 5 were decided in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
37.Issue No.4: Whether the suit is barred by Limitation or not?
P O I N T : Another contention of the defendants was that the present suit is not maintainable as the same was filed after lapse of limitation period solely relying on the unregistered sale deed vide Ex.A37 which was
Page No. 31 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
allegedly executed in the year 1963 which in itself bars the present suit.
Whereas, it is evident that the present suit was filed seeking declaration of sale deeds vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 and 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void basing on the subsequent cause of action arose in the year 2018. As it is evident that period of three years was prescribed under The Limitation Act to file any suit seeking declaratory reliefs and in the present suit which was filed in the year 2020 before Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad which was renumbered after receiving it by transfer the said fact in itself establishes that the suit was filed within the limitation period.
Issue No.4 was decided against the defendants and in favor of plaintiffs.
38.To What relief?
As the core relief of plaintiffs was to declare the sale deeds vide
Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 and 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void which was adjudicated in their favor, as such plaintiffs are not entitled for any other relief.
In the result, this suit is partly decreed without costs in favor of plaintiffs declaring the sale deeds vide Doc.No. 579 of 2018, dt:
12.01.2018, Doc.No’s: 16997 of 2018, 16998 of 2018 & 16999 of 2018 all
dated 29.10.2018 as null and void which were pertaining to the land to an
extent of Ac.2.12 gts, situated in Sy.No.105/12/E, Nagireddyguda village,
Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
(Typed to my dictation on Computer to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 23rd day of December, 2025).
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Chevella, R.R.District
Page No. 32 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Pw1: Charka Eshwaraiah Dw1: K. Ashok Pw2: Cherka Mallesh Dw2: Tuppari Ramesh Pw3: K.Sadguna Chary(eschewed) Dw3: Dharulupally Yadagiri Pw4: Jeenugunta Narayana Dw4: Baindla Yadagiri Dw5: Yerra Ramulu
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1: CC of pahani for the year 1970-71 Ex.A2: CC of pahani for the year 1973-74 & 1979-80 Ex.A3: CC of pahani for the year 1965-66 Ex.A4: CC of pahani for the year 1985-86 & 1987-88, 1990-91 Ex.A5: CC of pahani for the year 1995-96 & 1996-97 Ex.A6: CC of pahani for the year 1997-98 & 2000-01 Ex.A7: CC of pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex.A8: CC of pahani for the year 2003-04 Ex.A9: CC of pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex.A10: CC of Proceeding vide File No.B/4460/1987, dated 25.06.1988 Ex.A11: CC of Judgment & Decree copy vide OS.No.58/2003 (old) and
OS.No.135/2003 (new) dated 21.03.2007
Ex.A12: CC of Judgment & Decree Appeal suit vide No.19/2007 Ex.A13: CC of Second Appeal Order vide S.A.No.778/2009 Ex.A14: CC of I.A. Order vide I.A.No.259/2017 in OS.No.819/2007 Ex.A15: CC of set-aside order copy vide File No.4066/2016 Ex.A16: CC of WP vide No.31169/2017, dated 14.09.2017 Ex.A17: CC of WPMP No.38840/2017, dated 13.10.2017 Ex.A18: CC of sale deed document No.579/2018, dated 12.01.2018 Ex.A19: Copy of Criminal Petition vide No.5887/2018 Ex.A20: CC of Sale Deed document No.16997/2018, dated 29.10.2018 Ex.A21: CC o Sale Deed document No.16998/2018, dated 29.10.2018 Ex.A22: CC of Sale Deed document No.16999/2018, dated 29.10.2018 Ex.A23: CC of Proceedings No.B/2388/2018 Ex.A24: CC of Proceedings No.B/2390/2018 Ex.A25: CC of Proceedings No.B/2391/2018 Ex.A26: CC of IA Nos.1 & 2 of 2019 in WP.No.26475/2019 Ex.A27: CC of WP No.1203/2020 Ex.A28: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.9,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Page No. 33 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.A29: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.10,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A30: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.7,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A31: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.8,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A32: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.6,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A33: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.17,
dt: 24.02.2020
Ex.A34: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.15,
dt: 24.02.2020
Ex.A35: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.16,
dt: 24.02.2020
Ex.A36: Copy of Encumbrance Certificate, dated 22.02.2020 Ex.A37: CC of unregistered sale deed dated 26.11.1963 Ex.A38: CC of receipt dated 26.11.1963 Ex.A39: CC of police complaint dated 27.05.2003 Ex.A40: CC of chief examination affidavit of Pw1 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A41: CC of chief-examination affidavit of Pw1 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A42: CC of cross-examination of Dw1 in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A43: CC of chief-examination affidavit of Dw3 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A44: CC of chief-examination affidavit of Dw4 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1: CC of kasra pahani for the year 1954-55 Ex.B2: CC of chessala pahani for the year 1955-58 (3 Pages) Ex.B3: CC of pahani for the year 1962-63 (2 pages) Ex.B4: CC of pahani for the year 1965-66 (1 pages) Ex.B5: CC of pahani for the year 1971-72 (2 pages) Ex.B6: CC of pahani for the year 1973-74 (2 pages) Ex.B7: CC of pahani for the year 1976-77 (2 pages) Ex.B8: CC of pahani for the year 1977-78 (2 pages) Ex.B9: CC of pahani for the year 1985-86 (2 pages) Ex.B10: CC of pahani for the year 1987-88 (2 pages) Ex.B11: CC of pahani for the year 1989-90 (2 pages) Ex.B12: CC of pahani for the year 1994-95 (1 pages)
Page No. 34 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.B13: CC of pahani for the year 1998-99 (1 pages) Ex.B14: CC of pahani for the year 2002-03 (1 pages) Ex.B15: CC of pahani for the year 2005-06 (1 pages) Ex.B16: CC of pahani for the year 2007-08 (2 pages) Ex.B17: CC of pahani for the year 2010-11 (2 pages) Ex.B18: CC of pahani for the year 2013-14 (1 pages) Ex.B19: CC of pahani for the year 2015-16 (1 pages) Ex.B20: CC of pahani for the year 2020-21 (2 pages) Ex.B21: CC of sale deed dated.12.01.2018 bearing Doc.No.579 of 2018 Ex.B22: CC of sale deed dated.29.10.2018 bearing Doc.No.16997 of 2018 Ex.B23: CC of sale deed dated.29.10.2018 bearing Doc.No.16998 of 2018 Ex.B24: CC of sale deed dated.29.10.2018 bearing Doc.No.16999 of 2018 Ex.B25: CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2388 of 2018 Ex.B26: CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2389 of 2018 Ex.B27: CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2390 of 2018 Ex.B28:CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2391 of 2018 Ex.B29: Photographs (6 pages / 24 pics) along with pen drive containing videos Ex.B30: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Narsimha Ex.B31: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Balraj Yadav Ex.B32: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Venkatesh yadav Ex.B33: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Jyothi Ex.B34: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of K. Ashok Ex.B35: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Bantu Gnyaneshwar Ex.B36: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Mamindla Nagamani Ex.B37: CC of pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12/UU3/1 Ex.B38: CC of pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12/UU/3/1 Ex.B39: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12/UU2/2 Ex.B40: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU3/2 Ex.B41: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/3 Ex.B42: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/3 Ex.B43: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/4 Ex.B44: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/4
Page No. 35 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.B45: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/5 Ex.B46: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU3/5 Ex.B47: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU1/2 Ex.B48: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU1/1/1
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Chevella, R.R.District
Page No. 1 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT :: CHEVELLA, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Tuesday, the 23 rd day of December, 2025
Present:- Katragadda Dasharatha Ramaiah,
Senior Civil Judge, At: Chvella, Ranga Reddy District.
O.S No. 231 of 2022
Between:-
1.Charka Eshwaraiah S/o: Venkataiah, aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture.
2.Pedda Charka Sathaiah S/o: Sailoo, aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture.
3.Charka Naresh S/o: Late. Pedda Charka Laxmaiah, aged about 22 years, Occ: Agriculture.
4.Charka Suresh S/o: Late. Pedda Charka Laxmaiah, aged about 22 years, Occ: Agriculture. All are R/o: H.No.1-20, Nagireddyguda Village, Aziz Nagar, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ….Plaintiffs AND
1.Kalachitti Maisaiah S/o: Late. Mutaiah, aged about 58 years, Occ: Business.
2.Kalachitti Manoj Kumar S/o: K. Maisaiah, aged about 26 years, Occ: Business. Both R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
3.Arolu Archana W/o: A.Chandrashekar, aged about 31 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.2-3-790/ 15/A/49/1, Tulsi Ram Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.
4.K.Sreedevi D/o: K.Maisaiah, aged about 28 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
5.K.Gyaneshwar S/o: Late Mutaiah, aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, N/o: Nagireddyguda Village, Aziz Nagar, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, R/o: H.No.8-1- 136/2/1, Shaikpet, Near Sai Baba Temple, Hyderabad.
6.Kodicherla Narsimha S/o: K.Yadaiah, aged about 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-43/1, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
7.Kodicherla Bal Raj S/o: K.Yadaiah, aged about 41 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-48/2, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
8.Kodicherla Venkatesh Yadav S/o: K.Yadaiah Yadav, aged about 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-43/2, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.Dist.
Page No. 2 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
9.Kodicherla Jyothi W/o: K.Papaiah (Pavan Yadav), aged about 29 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.1-43, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.Dist.
10.K.Ashok S/o: K.Yadaiah, aged about 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-43, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
11.K.Yadagiri S/o: K.Mutaiah, aged about 66 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
12.K.Datta Sai S/o: K.Yadagiri, aged about 29 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
13.Kalishetty Datta Mukesh S/o: K.Yadagiri, aged about 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/ 2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
14.Pasham Puspalatha W/o: P.Chitti Babu D/o: K.Yadagiri, aged about 33 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.6-2- 853/1, Thommala Basti, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
15.Dasari Srisailam S/o: Dasari Mallesh, aged about 27 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.5-101, Nandigama Village, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
16.Smt.Mamindla Nagamani W/o: Mamindla Yadaiah, aged about 52 years, Occ: Household, R/o: H.No.3-1/2, Ravalkol, Medchal Mandal, Malkajgiri District.
17.Bantu Gnaneshwar S/o: Sangaiah, aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.2-67, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Defendants
This Suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Sampoorna Anand & Sri.R.Prashanth, Counsels for the Plaintiffs and of Sri.B.Guruva Reddy & Sri.E.Ravinder Reddy, Counsels for the Defendants; and thus the suit having stood over for consideration till this day, and after hearing both sides, perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:
-: JUDGM ENT :-
This suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants for
Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Declaring the sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018,
dt:29.10.2018 as null and void along with consequential Permanent
Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E,
Page No. 3 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
situated in Nagareddyguda village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District (Hereinafter referred as Suit Schedule property).
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that Karshetty Muthaiah was the original owner of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E, situated at
Nagireddyguda vg, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (Hereinafter referred as Suit schedule property) who sold the same to Cheraka
Narasimulu through simple unregistered sale deed, dt:26.11.1963 for a valid sale consideration and delivered vacant possession, since then
Cheraka Narsimulu is in continuous possession over the same as absolute owner till his death, thereafter his legal heirs followed by plaintiffs being the grand children of Cheraka Narsimulu. It is submitted that the Def.No.1 / son of Karishetty Muttaiah suppressing the fact of alienation of suit schedule property to Cheraka Narsimulu, had obtained mutation in his favor vide No.4460/87, dt:25.06.1988 and basing on the same, Def.No.1 herein had filed a suit for Perpetual Injunction vide OS.No. 58 of 2003
before the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella against Plaintiffs Nos.1 & 2 herein,
which was renumbered as OS.No. 135 of 2003 after receipt of the same by transfer at Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad which was dismissed after conducting due trial holding that ancestors of plaintiffs are in possession over suit schedule property. As there are multiple cases pending between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 before various forums, therefore in order to avoid ambiguity, such litigations were mentioned in chronology, forum wise in the following paras; [a]Plaintiffs submit that, after disposal of OS.No. 135 of 2003,
Def.No.1 filed appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad vide
A.S.No.19 of 2007 which was erroneously allowed, against which the
plaintiffs Nos.1 & 2 herein filed Second Appeal vide S.A.No. 778 of 2009
before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, wherein the
Hon’ble High Court had passed an interim orders dt:18.09.2009 directing
parties to maintain Status-Quo which is still subsisting as none of Def.No.1
Page No. 4 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
had filed petition to vacate said orders and the S.A.No. 778 of 2009 is still pending for disposal before the Hon’ble High Court.
[b]After disposal of OS.No. 135 of 2003 before the Junior Civil
Judge, Vikarabad, apart from filing appeal against the said judgment,
Def.No.1 along with Def.Nos.5 & 11 had filed another suit for Declaration of Title and to declare the entry in possession column from 1955 as invalid with consequential relief of Injunction to declare vide O.S.No.819 of 2007
before the Hon’ble V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar which was decreed exparte on 08.07.2016. On knowing the said exparte decree, plaintiffs filed petition to set aside the exparte decree along with petition vide IA.No. 640 of 2016 to condone delay of 8 days and on 13.03.2017, orders were passed condoning the delay period of 8 days, followed by registering IA.No. 259 of 2017 filed to set aside exparte order dt:08.07.2016 which was also allowed by separate order
dt:08.06.2018, thereby suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 is pending for trial.
Plaintiffs submit that, without disclosing pendency of set aside applications vide IA.No. 259 of 2017 Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 obtained mutation proceedings
No. C/4066/16, dt:09.05.2017 issued by the then Revenue Divisional
Officer, who also ignored plaintiffs objections as to pendency of IA.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007.
[c]Thereafter, Plaintiffs herein had filed a Writ Petition No.31169 of 2017 questioning the issuance of Proceedings No.C/4066/16 by RDO during pendency of Set aside application vide IA.No. 259 of 2017 in
OS.No. 819 of 2007 in which the Hon’ble High Court had passed interim
orders suspending proceedings No. C/4066/2016 vide W.P.M.P.No.38840 of 2017, dt:14.09.2017 which is later extended until further orders. At this juncture, Def.Nos.1 to 5 in spite of being well aware about suspension of
RDO proceedings C/4046/16 vide W.P.M.P.No.38840 of 2017, they alienated part of suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts through registered sale deed vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt: 12.01.2018 in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 on the premise of exparte decree in OS.No. 819
Page No. 5 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
of 2007 passed in their favor though the IA.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007 to set aside exparte decree is still pending for disposal. On the other hand, after execution of sale deed on 15.05.2018, Def.No.1 filed criminal complaint before SHO, Moinabad P.S. against plaintiffs alleging that they are interfering into Def.Nos.1 to 5 possession over suit schedule property upon which Cr.No.215 of 2018 was registered which in itself shows that the Sale deed Doc.No.579 of 2018 is a sham document.
Plaintiffs preferred CRLP.No. 3748 of 2019 challenging the Charge Sheet filed in Cr.No. 215 of 2018 which the Hon’ble High Court stayed.
[d]At this juncture, inspite of knowledge of aforesaid proceedings, Def.No’s.1 to 14 in collusion with each other with a fraudulent motive described Schedule land is situated in Sy.No.105/12/UU instead of Sy.No.105/12/E which through Def.No.11 alienated balance land to Def.Nos.15 to 17 through registered sale deeds vide Doc.No.16997/18 (Ac.0.14 gts), Doc.No.16998/18 (Ac.0.10 gts), Doc.No.16999 of 2018 (Ac.0.07 gts) basing on the same, mutation proceedings vide No’s.
B/2388,B/2390 & B/2391, dt:23.01.2019 were also issued on Def.Nos.15 to 17 for their respective lands. On knowing about mutation vide
Proceedings No’s. B/2388, B/2390 & B/2391, dt:23.01.2019 when plaintiffs filed another Writ Petition vide W.P.No.26475 of 2019 before the
Hon’ble High Court along with two different interim applications vide
I.A.No. 01 of 2019 praying to direct the Tahsildar, Moinabad not to issue pattedar passbooks for Suit schedule property and I.A.No. 02 of 2019 to restrain defendants from causing any interference in plaintiffs possession over the suit schedule property, on considering the same, on 29/11/2019 the Hon’ble High Court passed interim orders.
3.Plaintiffs further submits that Def.Nos.1 to 14 in collusion with each executed sale deeds stated supra during pendency of litigation vide
OS.No. 819 of 2007 in favor of prospective purchasers suppressing the
fact of pending I.A.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007 for setting aside exparte decree and also suspension of proceedings No.
Page No. 6 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
C/4066/2016, dt:09.05.2017 issued by RDO, Chevella through the orders of the Hon’ble High Court as stated supra. Whereas, Def.Nos.15 to 17 taking advantage of mutation proceedings mentioned supra, mere entries in pahanies for the years 2017, 2019, Def.Nos.15 to 17 trying to dispossess plaintiffs from the suit schedule property as a result, plaintiffs were constrained to file another writ petition vide WP.No. 1203 of 2020 seeking police aid to restrain Def.Nos.6 to 10, 15 to 17 from violating previous orders vide IA.No. 01/2019 & 02/2019 in WP.No. 26475/2019 and if such registered sale deeds mentioned supra, left outstanding the same would cause serious injury to plaintiffs as such the same should be declared to void and also the revenue entries on defendants name shall be rectified by deleting their names in the interest of justice. Hence this Suit.
4. Upon receiving summons, Defendant No’s 1 to 10, 15 & 17 together filed written statement on their behalf denying entire contents of plaint including the execution of simple sale deed dated:26.11.1963 except those which are specifically admitted herein. Def.No’s.11 to 14 &
Def.No.16 adopted the written statement filed by Def.No.1 to 10, 15 & 17 by filing respective adoption memos. Defendants submit that they obtained mutation proceedings from the then RDO in accordance with law after hearing plaintiffs herein and that the suit filed by Def.No.1 against
Plaintiffs Nos.1 & 2 vide OS.No. 135 of 2003 was erroneously dismissed against which they preferred A.S.No. 19 of 2007 which was allowed in favor of Def.No.1 against the said orders, Plaintiffs herein filed appeal vide
S.A.No. 778 of 2009 before the Hon’ble High Court for the state of
Telangana in which the Hon’ble High Court had directed both parties to main status-quo, but nor suspending the orders as claimed by the plaintiffs. Defendants admit that they filed another suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 before the Hon’ble Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District against plaintiffs herein which was decreed exparte on 08.07.2016 as none of the plaintiffs contested, thereafter plaintiffs filed interim applications to keep the said litigation on for demanding huge amounts
Page No. 7 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
from them invoking chance litigation through this suit filed by plaintiffs seeking cancellation of sale deeds is liable to be dismissed in limini as it is illegal claim.
5.Defendants further submits that defendants had filed vacate petition in WP.No. 31169 of 2017, but plaintiffs herein delayed the disposal of the same on one pretext or the other. It is submitted that, Def.Nos.1 to 5 sold
Ac.1.20 gts in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 through registered sale deed vide
Doc.No.579 of 2018 for their family necessities and that Def.No.1 filed a criminal case vide CC.No.1609 of 2018 pending before the II Addl. JCJ cum M.M. Defendants admit that after execution of Doc.No.579 of 2018,
Def.Nos.11 to 14 had sold the remaining land of suit schedule property to
Def.Nos.15 to 17 vide Doc.Nos.16997, 16998 & 16999 of 2018 basing on which mutation on Def.Nos.15 to 17 as stated in plaint as there are no prohibitory orders from any court for sale of land by Def.Nos.1 to 5 & 11 to 14 to third parties, which cannot be questioned by anyone including plaintiffs who have no right or title over the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the present suit is not properly valued as the Court Fee paid is insufficient when neither plaintiffs nor their family members were not in possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
6.After amendment of suit schedule boundaries as per the orders in
IA.No. 83 of 2025, dt:10.03.2025 Defendant No.8 filed additional written
statement which was adopted by other defendants by filing adoption memo. In their additional written statement, Defendants submit that neither plaintiffs nor their counsel on record never pleaded in written statement filed in OS.No. 135 of 2003 that they have taken steps about wrong boundaries mentioned till the same was elicited by defendants counsel in cross of Pw1 as against their burden to mention correct boundaries to secure their relief of Declaration of title, however even the amended boundaries plaintiffs would not accrue any rights in this case as they themselves filed this present suit mentioning different boundaries. It
Page No. 8 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
is submitted that even if assumed without admitting that Charka
Narsimulu purchased suit schedule property through Ex.A37, plaintiffs cannot acquire any right as Charka Narsimulu is not their grandfather, that too, when said Charka Narsimulu died prior to 1953 which itself makes impossible to purchase suit property in 1963 as claimed by plaintiffs who created Exs.A37 & 38 without mentioning any boundaries for the purpose of this suit. Defendants also submit that plaintiffs are not in possession over Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU/1 nor they are in possession over land as per amended boundaries, as the plaintiffs misrepresented before this court by suppressing the material facts that Ex.A37 reflects
Sy.No.105/12/E quite distinct with Ex.A38 reflecting Sy.No.105/12/UU, that too when pahani for the year 1963 reflects an extent of Ac.0.30 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU belongs to one Chinna Balaiah. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
7.Basing on the pleadings on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants this court framed the following issues;
(1) W hether the execution of unregistered sale deed dated
26.11.1963 by Muttaiah in favor of Charka Narsimulu is true
and valid or not?
(2) Whether the sale deed vide Doc.No.579/2018, dt:
12.01.2018 executed by Def.Nos.1 to 5 in favor of
Defendants Nos.6 to 10 is illegal or not?
(3) Whether the Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018
executed by Def.Nos.11 to 14 in favor of Defendants Nos.15
to 17 are illegal or not?
(4) Whether the suit is barred by Limitation or not?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
declaration of Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 &
16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void or not?
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
Perpetual Injunction against defendants from interfering
into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit
schedule lands as prayed for or not?
Page No. 9 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
(7) To what relief?
8.During the trial Plaintiff No.1 examined himself as Pw1 and also examined three others namely Cherka Mallesh as Pw2, K.Sadguna Chary as Pw3 & Jeenugunta Narayana as Pw4, of them the evidence of Pw3 was eschewed. Exs.A1 to A44 were marked on behalf of plaintiffs. While adducing defendants evidence, Def.No.10 examined himself as Dw1 and examined third parties namely Tuppari Ramesh, Dharulupally Yadagiri,
Baindla Yadagiri & Yerra Ramulu as Dws.2 to 5. Exs.B1 to B48 were marked on defendants behalf.
9.Pw1 reiterated entire contents of his plaint as his chief. In cross,
Pw1 admitting his relationship with plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4, testified that the originally hail from Ghanapuram, Mahabubnagar, but their grandfather
Cherka Narsimulu migrated to Nagireddyguda vg. Pw1 testified that he knew Danaiah, Muthaiah, Jangaiah & Balaiah who are co-sharers along with Cherka Narsimulu, of them, Danaiah, Cherka Narsimulu & Muthaiah were having an extent of Ac.2.12 gts each in Sy.No.105/12, in addition to division of another extent of Ac.2.12 gts equally for Ac.0.31 gts among
Danaiah, Muthaiah, Jangaiah & Balaiah. Pw1 admitted that Cherka
Narsimulu was allotted Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/AA and Muttaiah was allotted Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E. Pw1 also admitted that suit schedule property is situated towards northern side of Cherka Narsimulu’s land in Sy.No.105/12/AA, but he do not know that land in
Sy.No.105/12/UU is on Muttaiah’s name. Pw1 admitted that they filed application before MRO for validation of “Unregistered Sale deed,
dt:26.11.1963 / Ex.A37 and in Ex.A38, survey number is mentioned as
Sy.No.105/12/UU, but Pw1 do not know that alphabet ‘E” is included after scribing Ex.A37. Pw1 testifies that his grandfather Cherka Narsimulu died about 4 / 5 yrs after execution of Ex.A37.
10.Pw1 admitted that as per entries in pahanies vide Exs.A1 to A4 till 1985 to 86, Sy.No.105/12/E is on Muttaiah’s name and after Muttaiah’s
Page No. 10 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
death in 1987 his sons namely Yadagiri, Maisaiah & Gnaneshwar obtained succession over said land adding that it was done without his knowledge but he didn’t filed any appeal before RDO against such succession proceedings. Pw1 testifies that they didn’t approach the then MRO for panchanama to ascertain their possession over suit schedule property during pendency of OS.No. 135 of 2003, adding that they approached village patwari / Mal Reddy about issuance of passbooks on Yadagir,
Maisaiah & Gnaneshwar. Pw1 testifies that he do not know whether they mentioned in their complaint / Ex.A39 that they purchased suit schedule property by way of “Mojuvani” / Oral sale nor knew that any deficit stamp duty or registration charges were paid for Ex.A37, but they filed Exs.A37 &
A38 in their evidence in OS.No. 135 of 2003 after they were traced. Pw1 admitted that there is no schedule of property mentioned in Ex.A37 and that their land is situated towards southern side to suit land of Bikshapthis is on southern side of suit land but the same was not mentioned in schedule of property of this suit adding that land on eastern side of suit land is bounded by his land which was purchased from one Chakali
Sattaiah. Pw1 admitted that, land on western side to suit land belongs to
Jinkunta Narayana adding that the said above boundaries were pertaining to the year 2003.
11.Pw1 testified that he do not know the boundaries of suit schedule property mentioned in his plaint as the same were not enquired by his counsel admitting that they did not sought declaratory relief basing on
Exs.A37 & 38. Pw1 admits that Def.No’s.5 to 10 & 15 to 17 purchased the suit lands after passing exparte decree in OS.No. 819 of 2007 adding that they filed set aside petitions in O.S.No. 819 of 2007. Pw1 further admitted that after exparte decree in O.S.No. 819 of 2007, entries in possessory column of Exs.A1 to A9 were rectified and also entries in Exs.A29 to A35 were rectified basing on RDO, Moinabad orders vide Proceedings
No.C/4066/2016 adding that they were done in collusion with revenue authorities.
Page No. 11 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
12.Pw2 & Pw4 deposed in similar lines in their chief affidavits, that about 50 yrs back, the plaintiffs grandfather / Cherka Narsimulu purchased the suit schedule property from the Karishetty Muthaiah / father of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and since then plaintiffs are in possession, enjoyment of suit schedule property. Pw2 & Pw4 also deposed that the aforesaid sale transaction took place in Nagireddyguda vg. in their presence and other villagers. Apart from above, Pw4 further deposed that the sale execution was done by way of Unregistered sale deed but he is not attesting witness to such document. During cross, Pw2 testified that he didn’t instructed anything in his chief which was drafted by his counsel and he along with Plaintiff No.2 had five sisters namely Laxamma,
Nagamani, Girija, Ellamma & Lavaynya who were not arrayed as parties in this suit nor Pw2 mentioned about this fact or that Cherka Narsimulu is his grandfather in his chief. Pw2 testified that he was born on 12/03/1981 and his grandfather Cherka Narsimulu died prior to his birth as such he do not know about purchase of property from Karishetty Muttaiah and as per
Pw2’s date of birth, his age will be 44 yrs, but it was mentioned as 55 yrs in his chief. Pw2 admitted that he falsely mentioned in his chief that he was present when Cherka Narsimulu purchased suit property 50 yrs back and since then plaintiffs are in possession adding that Pw2 didn’t instructed the said fact to his counsel. Pw2 testified that he do not know who scribed Ex.A37 nor who attested their signature on it.
13.In cross, Pw4 testifies that he got Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.105 of
Nagireddyguda vg. which he acquired from his ancestors. Pw4 admits that land in Sy.No.105 originally belongs to Danaiah, Muthaiah, Jangaiah &
Balaiah who got Ac.2.12 gts each, of them Cherka Narsimulu acquired
Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105 from Muthaiah. Pw4 testifies that when Pw4 was aged about 20 yrs, Cherka Narsimulu’s father by name “Narsimulu” died about 40 / 50 yrs back at the age of 80 yrs. Pw4 testifies that father of
Cherka Narsimulu acquired land from his ancestors but not by purchase
Pw4 admitted that after death of Muthaiah, his land was mutated in the
Page No. 12 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
name of his children Yadagiri, Maisaiah & Gnaneshwar, but he do not know they cultivated the land after death of Muthaiah nor knew who are cultivating the suit schedule lands. Pw4 admits that he didn’t mention in his chief that plaintiffs are in cultivation and possession over suit schedule property nor stated that he was present at the time of execution of
Unregistered sale deed / Ex.A37.
14.Defendants commenced their evidence by filing chief of Def.No.10 who examined himself as Dw1, wherein apart from reiterating the contents of his written statements, Dw1 further deposed that plaintiffs pleaded differently in their plaint that Ex.A37 was executed on 26.11.1963 in contra to their written statement of OS.No. 58 of 2003, where they pleaded that they purchased suit property in the year 1965 and that the documents vide Exs.A37 & 38 were inadvertently marked without proper stamp duty. Dw1 deposes that as per Ex.A38, survey number was mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/UU, but there’s no record with that survey number on the name of Mutthaiah, even if it is assumed to be true, the said Sy.No.105/12/UU is in the name of Kalichetti Yadagiri & his brother as per 1994-95 pahani. Dw1 also deposes that in Ex.A37 “E” was inserted adjacent to Sy.No.105/12 and plaintiffs themselves admitted about mention of “Mojuvani / Oral sale” in Ex.A39 which in itself elicits that it was created for this suit. Dw1 deposes that this Hon’ble Court had dismissed I.A.No. 201 & 202 of 2020 on 02.08.2023 against which plaintiffs preferred CMA.No. 588 & 591 of 2023 before the Hon’ble High
Court which are pending. Dw1 specifically deposes that after purchase, they developed suit property by raising wet crops using their borewell in
Sy.No.105/14
15.In cross, Dw1 specifically admitted that he is deposing evidence on behalf of him and all other defendants Nos.1 to 17 and plaintiffs are residents of his village. Dw1 admitted that Def.Nos.1 to 5, 11 reside in
Shaikpet vg., but he do not know when they moved to Shaikpet vg. nor
Dw1 saw father of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 / Muttaiah. Dw1 testified that he
Page No. 13 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
along with Def.Nos.6 to 9 purchased Ac.1.21 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU from
Def.Nos.1 & 5 which is bounded by Cherka Narsimulu’s family land toward
Southern side, East: Road and Def.Nos.15 to 17 purchased Ac.0.31 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU from Def.Nos.11 to 14 through three registered sale deeds / Exs.B22 to B24. Dw1 admitted that the actual extent of land in
Sy.No.105 held by Muthaiah is only Ac.2.12 gts as there are no other lands in Sy.No.105 owned by Muttaiah. Dw1 testifies that neither he knew the actual extent of land in Sy.No.105 of Nagireddyguda vg. nor knew since how long there are disputes between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 pertaining to lands in Sy.No.105. Dw1 admits that Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 do not have any residential house in Nagireddyguda vg., but plaintiffs have other extent of lands in Nagireddyguda vg. Dw1 admits that Cherka
Narsimulu was the grandfather of Plaintiffs and Dw1 along with other defendants together got prepared our written statement through their counsel.
16.Dw1 testifies that he came to know about pendency of civil litigation proceedings between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 after they purchased the property by receiving summons in this suit denying that the same was not mentioned in his chief. Dw1 testifies that he came to know about plaintiffs attempts to encroach suit schedule property in the year 2018 which is three years prior to their purchase by Ex.B21, but again testified that at the time of their purchase, the came to know that there are no civil proceedings pending between Plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 on whose words, they believed to proceed with purchase of property by Ex.B21.
Dw1 admitted that he didn’t verified any plaint, written statements, judgments or orders pertaining to civil suits, appeals pending between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and he do not know reasons for such civil litigation stated supra. Dw1 admitted that he did not seen or verified any judgment or order wherein Def.Nos.1,5 & 11 were adjudicated as real owners of suit schedule property and he cannot say in which year another suit pending between plaintiffs with Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 was filed before
Page No. 14 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
LB.Nagar court nor he saw any plaint, written statement or documents pertaining to such suit pending in L.B. Nagar adding that he perused the same at L.B. Nagar Court after knowing about the said suit. Dw1 initially testified that he cannot say exact suit numbers pending at different court pertaining to suit schedule property, but again admitted that he, himself mentioned entire suits details in his written statement & Chief.
17.In further cross, Dw1 admitted that Def.No.9 is wife of his elder brother / Pavan Yadav and Def.No.15’s son-in-law / Rajamallesh worked as Police Constables in May, 2020 at Moinabad Police Station. Dw1 admitted that Def.No.6 filed criminal case vide Cr.No.190 of 2020 against plaintiffs, their family members adding that it was registered for damaging bund of suit schedule property. Dw1 testifies that he do not know plaintiffs also filed registered another case Vide Cr.No.191 of 2020 against Pavan
Yadav & Others. Dw1 admitted that as per Ex.A1 shown for the years 1965-66 & 1970, father of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 / Muttaiah was shown as
Pattedar and in Column 16 of Ex.A1, Narsimha name was mentioned with word “Self / Sontham”. Dw1 also admitted that, in Column No.17 of Ex.A1 mentioned a Purchase / Khareedu. Dw1 admits that in Column No.16 of
Ex.A2 pahani for the years 1979-80, names of Narsimha, Muthaiah &
Ramulu shown as Cultivators adding that on knowing about the same after purchase of property, against which they filed a civil suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 for rectification of revenue entries which is pending. Dw1 admitted that in Col.No.13 of Ex.A5 for year 1996-97, Narsimha & Others were mentioned as Possessors by striking “Yadagiri” / Def.No.1 and in
Col.No.12 of Exs.A6 to A9, names of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 noted as Pattedars in addition to noting “Cherka Narsimulu” as possessor in Col.No.13.
18.Dw1 in his cross admitted that Plaintiffs filed Exs.A37 & 38 in the year 2003 in OS.No. 135 / 2003 at Vikarabad court instituted by
Def.No.11 against plaintiffs, their family members but Dw1 didn’t know
Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 filed any criminal cases against plaintiffs or their family members for creating Exs.A37 & 38 or even in the year 2018 after
Page No. 15 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
purchase by Def.Nos.6 to 10 by Ex.B21 / A18. Dw1 admitted that OS.No.
135 of 2003 was dismissed in favor of plaintiffs herein, against which
Def.No.11 preferred appeal vide AS.No. 19/2007 which was allowed in favor of Def.No.11 and against such orders, plaintiffs filed Second appeal vide S.A.No. 778/2009 before the Hon’ble High Court in which, status-quo order / Ex.A13 was issued. Dw1 specifically admits that during pendency of OS.No. 135 of 2003, Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 filed another suit vide OS.No.
819 of 2007 before the V Addl. District Judge, L.B. Nagar. Dw1 admits that as per Exs.A18 to A22, survey number of property purchased mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/E, of which in page No.3 of Exs.A18 to 20, it is mentioned that Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 were decided as absolute owners through court exparte decree in OS.No. 819 of 2007, dt:08.07.2016 basing on which RDO Chevella issued Proceedings No.C/4066/2016 in respect of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E I.e. suit schedule property which was purchased by Def.Nos.6 to 10 vide Exs.A19 to A22 mentioning the same in said deeds.
19.Dw1 testifies that much prior to the execution of Exs.A18, 20 to 22, on 14.09.2017 plaintiffs approached the Hon’ble High Court vide WP.No.
31169 of 2017 in which vide its orders dt:09.05.2017 / Ex.A15 & A16 the
Hon’ble High Court had suspended RDO proceedings No.C/4066/2016.
Dw1 testifies that he do not know that on 08.06.2018 orders in IA.No. 259 of 2017, exparte decree in OS.No.819 of 2007 was set aside vide Ex.A14, but specifically admitted that OS.No.819 of 2007 is still pending in which
Def.Nos.6 to 17 didn’t impleaded as parties till date. Dw1 further admits that basing on Exs.A18, 20 to 22, defendants also obtained subsequent mutations vide Exs.A23 to 25 in their favor were also stayed by the
Hon’ble High Court vide IA.No. 01 of 2019 in WP.No.26475 of 2019 /
Ex.A26. Dw1 admits that as per pahanies for 1965-66 / Ex.B4 & 1971- 72 / Ex.B5 Narsimha is shown as possessor of Ac.2.12 gts / suit schedule property. Dw1 admitted that he didn’t gave any publication prior to purchase of suit schedule property adding that he verified documents
Page No. 16 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
legally prior to purchase. Dw1 also admits that, as on date of their purchase, suit schedule property was not partitioned among Def.No.s1, 5 & 11 who were cultivating together.
20.Dw2 deposed that originally Kalishetti Mutthaiah was owner, possessor of suit land of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E (OLD) which is corresponding new survey numbers & extents as Ac.0.31 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU2, Ac.0.30 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU3, Ac.0.14 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU/1, Ac.0.10 gts in Sy.No.101/12/UU1 & Ac.0.07 gts in
Sy.No.101/12/UU1, situated at Nagireddyguda vg. and after death of the
Muttaiah, his sons Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 succeeded the same. Dw2 deposes that, Def.Nos.1 to 5 jointly sold their entitlement in suit property to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts through registered sale deed vide Doc.No.579 of 2018 in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 which is bounded by land of Cherka
Narsimha at Southern Side. Later, Def.Nos.11 to 14 alienated remaining
Ac.0.31 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E in three different extents of Ac.0.14 gts,
Ac.0.10 gts & Ac.0.07 gts respectively to Def.Nos.15 to 17 through sale deeds vide Doc.No’s. 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018 after receipt of entire sale consideration paid in presence of Dw2 & Yadaiah, of them Dw2 attested as witness in all three sale deeds. Dw2 further deposes that, neither Kalishetty Muttaiah nor Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 had sold suit property in favor of plaintiffs grandfather / Cherka Narsimulu, who never cultivated suit property at any point of time.
21.In cross, Dw2 testified that he haven’t seen Kalishetti Muttaiah who might have died prior to 1960 and that Dw2 is aged about 40 yrs being born in 1985. Dw2 denied that Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 and their family members are residing in Shaikpet but not residing at Nagireddyguda vg, adding that they recently shifted to Shaikpet for livelihood. Dw2 testifies that he accompanied Dw1 couple of times to this court and Honble High
Court and that the sale consideration for Ac.1.21 gts vide Doc.No.579 of 2018 / Ex.B21 was Rs.20,00,000/- per acre but he do not have idea about actual market value of lands alienated vide Exs.B21 to B24 or that they
Page No. 17 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
valued more than one crore per acre. Dw2 testifies that after death of
Kalishetty Muttaiah, his sons / Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 partitioned the sole landed property of Ac.2.12 gts land in Sy.No.105, Nagireddyguda vg. Dw2 admitted that his grandfather alienated their land in Sy.No.105 prior to his birth and he haven’t seen any transactions pertaining to suit schedule property made in 1963, but he heard about such transactions. Dw2 testified that boundaries mentioned in his chief are for total Ac.2.12 gts
I.e. suit schedule property and he knew contents of Exs.B21 to B24 being attesting witness. Dw2 testifies that in 2007, Def.No.7 filed suit against plaintiffs which was disposed in favor of Def.No.11 denying that the said suit is still pending before the Addl. District Judge’s Court, Chevella. Dw2 further testifies that he do not have any idea about writ petitions filed by plaintiffs herein nor about proceedings No.C/4066/2016 mentioned in
Ex.B21, but denied that such proceedings were suspended by the Hon’ble
High Court vide Ex.A16. Dw2 specifically testifies that family members of
Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 are cultivating suit lands by raising various crops as on today.
22. In his chief, Dw3 deposed in similar lines as that of Dw2 about acquisition of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E by Def.Nos.1,5 & 11 who inturn alienated the same in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 through registered sale deeds, except adding that Dw3 arranged the sale of
Ac.0.31 gts to Def.Nos.15 to 17 vide Exs.B21 to 24 and that Dw3 also singed as attesting witness in Doc.No.579 of 2018 executed by Def.Nos.1, 5 in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10. During cross, Dw3 testified that as he is into real estate business, on request of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 in 2018, Dw3 arranged sale of Ac.1.20 gts through his friend to Def.No.6 vide Ex.B21 in which only Dw3 singed as attesting witness, but Dw3 do not know any particulars about suit or proceedings mentioned in Ex.B21. Dw3 further testifies that as Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 informed him that land alienated vide
Ex.B21 is of clear title relying on the same, Def.No.6 purchased it when the actual market value was about 60 to 80 lakhs on date of execution of
Page No. 18 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.B21. Dw3 specifically testifies that he do not know anything about civil disputes or any case details pending between plaintiffs family and
Def.Nos.1,5 &11 nor know the reason for filing this suit or against whom.
Dw3 testified that suit schedule land is bounded by East: Road, West:
Buchireddy land, North & South by Bestha Community people.
23.Defendants further examined the then neighboring land owners as
Dw4 & Dw5, who deposed in similar lines that Kalishetty Muttaiah was owner of suit property, after his death Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 succeeded the same, later sold it to Def.No.6 in the year 2018. Dws.4 & 5 further deposed that during life time of Muttaiah, he never sold suit land to anyone and plaintiffs were never in possession over it at any point of time.
Apart from above, Dw4 deposed in specific that his family owned Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/17 located towards western side of suit property, but his father sold it about 20 yrs back. Dw5 deposes that, his father owned
Ac.1.02 gts in Sy.No.105 located near suit property towards western side which he sold it about 5 yrs back to third parties.
24.In cross Dw4 testified that he came to know through K.Narsimha /
Def.No.6 & others in 2018 about purchase of land and Dw4 haven’t seen
Muthaiah when he died as he was aged about 12 yrs but after death of
Mutthaiah, his sons shifted to Tolichowki due to disputes with their agnates. Dw4 specifically testifies that Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 possess Ac.2.12 gts i.e. suit land only and about 2 or 3 yrs back, disputes arose with plaintiffs with respect to suit lands, but he cannot say whether such disputes were in respect of bund between each other lands. Dw4 admitted that disputes also arose between Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 with plaintiffs in respect of suit lands for which criminal cases were registered against each other, as Dw4 along with other villagers went to
Moinabad P.S. at time of quarrel. Dw4 admits that Dw2, Jeenikuntla Raju,
Davit & Def.Nos.6 to 8 & 10 were present in Moinabad Police Station, but either plaintiffs or Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 were not present in police station where Pavan Yadav / husband of Def.No.9 and Rajamallesh / agnate of
Page No. 19 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Def.Nos.6 to 10 family were working as constables in Moinabad P.S. at that time.
25.Dw5 in his cross testified that he saw Muttaiah who used to stay in hut had died about 50 yrs back in their village and after 5 or 6 yrs of death, Muttaiah’s sons migrated to city. Dw5 testified that wife of Muttiah predeceased him, but he do not know when she died and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 might be of 40 to 50 yrs of age when their father / Muttaiah died. Dw5 admitted that plaintiffs have their own land adjacent to suit lands and Dw5 land was situated at a distance of one K.M. from suit land. Dw5 testified that he do not know any disputes or quarrel took place among plaintiffs and Dw5 was not an attesting witness to any sale transaction between
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and Def.Nos.6 to 10 or 15 to 17. Dw5 specifically testified that on the request of defendants he came to court and deposing but he do not know who filed this suit or what relief sought.
26.Before dwelling into adjudication of the issues involved in this suit, this court had noticed that there are couple of issues which were framed solely basing on the pleadings of both parties, taking consideration of the disputed facts. Whereas, after conclusion of trial and upon hearing both parties, it is evident that disputed fact in Issue No.1 relating to the validity of “unregistered sale deed” dt:26.11.1963 is directly and substantially in question in previous instituted suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 for
Declaration of title which is pending before the Hon’ble XVIIIAdditional
District Judge, At Chevella which received by transfer from the Hon’ble V
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar cannot be
dealt in this suit which is instituted basing on different cause of action, that too, after lapse of about 13 yrs. So also, Issue No.6 dealing with the relief of Perpetual Injunction is also directly and substantially in question to be adjudicated by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana vide S.A.No.778 of 2009 preferred by plaintiffs herein is also pending for adjudication. As stated supra, disputed facts as per Issues Nos.1 & 6 were pending from several years, much prior to institution of this present suit before this
Page No. 20 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
court which is on the lower pedestal to the above referred courts and adjudicating the same in either way would be nonetheless than surpassing jurisdiction of this court which wouldn’t be proper or necessary to adjudicate the actual issues involved in this suit. Therefore, with utmost obedience this court opines that invoking Order XIV Rule 5 of Code of Civil
Procedure, thereby deleting issues Nos.1 & 6 in the interest of justice.
27.This court also opines, it is just and necessary to address the contentions of the defendants counsel about the maintainability of this suit as the same would fall within the purview of Stay of subsequent suit as provided Under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code which was based on the same analogy as opined by this court in above para. The contentions of the defendants are that the matters in dispute in this are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit and adjudication of those issues in such previous instituted suits or proceedings would operate as res-judicata U/sec. 11 of Civil Procedure Code, therefore the present suit shall be stayed. In reply to the above said contentions, the plaintiffs counsel reverted that the present suit is filed basing on the subsequent events occurred post institution of the OS.No. 819 of 2007 and S.A.No.778 of 2009, stemming up from altogether different cause of action(s) took place after lapse of more than 10 yrs of pendency above proceedings whose reliefs are quite distinct with the present suit which in itself dispels the claim of defendants stated supra as to the maintainability of this suit.
28.It is evident from the pleadings of both sides and the material on record, that the main relief sought in this present suit is that to declaration of sale deeds vide Doc.No’s: 579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as void which were executed during pendency of OS.No. 819 of 2007 and Issues Nos.1 & 6 which are similar with that of core issues to be dealt in OS.No. 819 of 2007 and S.A.No.778 of 2009 which cannot be considered to be that of the substantial issues to be adjudicated in present suit. In order to ascertain the impact of Section 10 on the present suit, this court relies on
Page No. 21 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 1996 (1)
APLJ 202 (HC) - Karri Satyanarayana & Ors Vs. Pichika Veerraju &
Ors, wherein it was held as “It is necessary to note that for Section 10 to apply, there must be identity of the subject matter. Mere fact that one of the questions in issue is the same as in the other suit, would not make the subject matter identical. The use of definite article ‘the’ in the ‘the matter in issue’ occurring in Section 10 CPC suggests that the rule will not apply where only a ‘matter in issue’ is common” . This court further relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2013) 4 SCC 333 -
Aspijal and Another vs Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor, wherein it was held as “The fundamental test to attract Sec. 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as resjudicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits are identical.”
29.In the light of aforesaid judgments, it is cogently clear that though there is identity of subject matter in all these three proceedings is same but in all these proceedings, the parties indulged are not identical as there is much variance in the parties involved in those suits as such the same cannot be considered for stay of present suit, that too, when there are distinct issues to be dealt in this present suit when compared with that of the previous suits / proceedings vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 & SA.No. 778 of 2009 which itself establishes that adjudication of these previous proceedings would neither operate as Res-Judicata to the present suit nor conclusively deals with the relief of declaration of sale deeds as void as sought in this present suit which indeed was filed altogether under different set of facts, unfolded during pendency of aforesaid previous suits. It is imperative to note that the whole issues or subject matter herein are not incidental to the previous suits, except the identity of the matter with the present suit, therefore the application of Sec. 10 will not apply as only couple of issues Nos.1 & 6 appears to be common.
Page No. 22 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
30.Further, this court opines that it would appropriate to concise few aspects such as the relevancy of impact of unregistered sale deed & receipt / Exs.A37 & 38, marking certified copies of Exs.A37 & 38, ambiguity of survey numbers pertaining to suit schedule property and the claim of improper payment of court fees which would pave way depicting the rationale in placing these aspects herein without including them in adjudication of core issues Nos.2, 3 & 5 of this suit. Of these aspects, the the most pressed one was about the authenticity of Exs.A37 & 38 and its marking by this court, upon considering the submissions, this court opines that these aspects are directly relevant to the adjudication of title over the suit schedule property for which the Def.Nos.1 & 5 had already filed
OS.No.819 of 2007 which is pending for adjudication as on today. The
Defendants counsel relied that these exhibits vide Exs.A37 & 38 were created for the purpose of civil disputes pending before various courts as the plaintiffs themselves came up with different version that they purchased suit schedule property by Oral sale / Mojuvani in their complaint filed before police Moinabad vide Ex.A39. Defendants further put forth that there is no mention of boundaries in Exs.A37 & 38 and mentioning of different binumbers in both Exs.A37 & 38, patently mentioning alphabet “UU” in Ex.A37 establishes that they are fabricated to suit their case. More so, this court ought not to have marked the certified copies as Exs.A37 & 38, relying on the order of the Hon’ble High Court in
CRP.No.’s.375 of 2025 & 379 of 2025, wherein it was held as “Photocopies or certified copies of photocopies, the same therefore would become inadmissible in evidence”
31.In reply to the aforesaid contentions, plaintiffs counsel brought to the fore that the aforesaid documents / Exs.A37 & 38 was filed before the concerned court in the first civil dispute initiated by Defendants No.1 vide
OS.No. 135 of 2003 before Junior Civil Judge court, Vikarabad where none
of the contesting defendants or their counsels had made any objections as to the insufficiency or deficit of stamp duty or registration charges on
Page No. 23 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Exs.A37 & 38 as such the then court had marked the same, basing on the same said suit was adjudicated, thereafter, the said proceedings were continued before the Hon’ble High Court vide S.A.No. 778 of 2009 from where the present certified copies were obtained which were marked as
Exs.A37 & 38 herein which in itself prohibits the defendants to raise the said objection at this juncture in different suit which is filed for distinct reliefs. Further, it is noted that as raised by plaintiffs, till date none of the defendants had made any effort or initiated any proceedings before any forum either to establish that these exhibits / Exs.A37 & 38 are forged, fabricated documents or action against plaintiffs for doing so. The judgments relied upon by the defendants in 2006 (6) ALT 523 (FB),
Civil Appeal No.7350 of 2008, 2015 (2) ALD 291, 2003 4 ALT 84,
2010 3 ALT 165, 2025 4 ALT (SC) 19, 2008 4 ALT 421 and 2000 3
ALT 229 are not relevant to the present suit in hand as the Issues Nos.1 & 6 were deleted by this court as stated supra.
32.Apart from the above, the version of eliciting of different boundaries mentioned initially in suit during cross of Pw1 and rectifying the same by amendment was not tenable as it was done to fill up lacunae will not hold water, which in fact was considered by the court to affirm the identity of suit schedule property is the same for which other civil disputes were also pending between the parties, that too, when both parties more particularly defendants themselves pressed about the subject matter in dispute is similar in all pending proceedings that too, when there is cogent ambiguity about suit survey numbers claimed by both sides, which would be dealt in subsequent paras. In view of the above discussion, the dispute as to the authenticity of Exs.A37 & 38 is not point of relevancy in this present suit as the same is core of OS.No. 819 of 2007 dealing with title dispute of both parties. It is noted that except making mere claim, defendants didn’t corroborated their claim that Exs.A37 & 38 are the certified copies of the photocopies obtained from the court, which otherwise was the documents obtained from the Hon’ble High Court where the second appeal is pending
Page No. 24 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
in which the originals of Exs.A37 & 38 were claimed to have filed, as such it cannot be considered that plaintiffs obtained certified copies of photocopies.
33.In continuation of the above, the next aspect is about ambiguity of survey numbers of suit schedule property was it Sy.No.105/12/E or
Sy.No.105/12/UU as both survey numbers were averred by both parties either in their documents or evidence relied by them. To begin with the plaintiffs, who averred that suit schedule property is in Sy.No.105/12/E, but in Ex.A38 it was mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/UU different with suit survey number with which there is no record showing property in
Sy.No.105/12/UU on Muttaiah’s name but on the name of Balaiah for smaller extent. In response to the above, the plaintiffs counsel argued that the defendants themselves aren’t sure about the actual survey number of their property as both survey numbers I.e. Sy.No.105/12/E & 105/12/UU were referred invariably in the documents defendants relied upon.
34.This court had noticed that the Sy.No.105/12/E was referred by defendant in Exs.A18 to A22 mentioning that the said property was decided in favor of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 and basing on the same RDO, Chevella had issued proceedings No.C/4066/2016,
dt:09.05.2017 in respect of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E which was
acquired by Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 through registered sale deeds, but all such claims were made in contra to the version of Dws.1 to 5, of them
Dw1 who deposed on behalf of other defendants too, deposed that they purchased Ac.1.21 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU from Def.Nos.11 to 14 vide
Exs.B22 to 24 which further asserted by the mediator of said sale transactions examined as Dw2 who came up with new version that the suit survey number I.e. Sy.No.105/12/E is old survey number to which new corresponding survey numbers for different extents were issued I.e.
Sy.No.105/12/UU1 (Ac.0.31 gts), Sy.No.105/12/UU2 (Ac.0.31 gts),
Sy.No.105/12/UU3 (Ac.0.30 gts) which summed up to exact extent of
Page No. 25 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ac.2.12 gts of suit schedule property which in itself clears the ambiguity in survey numbers pertaining to suit schedule property which was in
Sy.No.105/12/E as on the date of commencement of civil disputes between the parties.
35.Up next is the defendants contentions about the maintainability of the suit on payment of insufficient court fees U/sec. 37 of The TGSV & CF
Act instead of Sec. 24 which was paid for cancellation of sale deeds. On keen perusal of the material available on record, at first, the court fee paid for the aforesaid cancellation relief was based on the advolarem for entire consideration U/sec. 37 of The Act and plaintiffs specifically pleaded relief to declare the alleged sale deeds as null & void as evident from the pleadings. More so, the amount of court fees paid by the plaintiffs for the relief of cancellation was twice as that of the amount to be paid for the relief of Declaration which in itself is more than sufficient court fees paid by the plaintiffs. More so, as the aforesaid objections were not pressed by the defendants when this court had framed issues pertaining to the relief of declaration or otherwise, instead proceeded to conclude trial but raised the same in their arguments would not hold water as the issue framed for declaratory relief was done with an intent to bring facts to fore, for proper adjudication of the disputes in this suit.
36.In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, this court proceeds with the adjudication of core issues pertaining to this suit I.e. Issues Nos.2, 3 & 5 are dealt together as the same were based on same facts and evidence adduced brought on record having cascading effect on these issues.
Further this court opines that it is just and necessary to adjudicate Issues
Nos.2, 3 & 5 together so as to avoid redundancy, ambiguity in appreciating the evidence on record for just disposal of this lis;
ISSUES No’s: 2, 3 & 5:
(2) Whether the sale deed vide Doc.No.579/2018, dt:
12.01.2018 executed by Def.Nos.1 to 5 in favor of
Defendant Nos.6 to 10 is illegal or not?
Page No. 26 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
(3) Whether the Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018
executed by Def.Nos.11 to 14 in favor of Defendants Nos.5
to 17 are illegal or not?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
declaration of Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 &
16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void or not?
P O I N T : [a] On perusal of the material available on record including the arguments put forth by both counsels, this court observed there are certain facts to be noted prior to proceeding with adjudication of these issues, of them, there is no dispute that the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.105/12 in Nagireddyguda (V), Moinabad (M), R.R.Dist.
and the said Sy.No.105/12 comprising of several parcels of lands which were noted with different bi-numbers, one of such bi-number was
Sy.No.105/12/E i.e. suit survey number pertaining to suit schedule property and the ambiguity aspect pertaining to suit survey number was dealt in detail in above paras. It is also noted that it is admitted that Late.
Cherka Narsimulu and Kalishetti Muttaiah were having lands to an extent of Ac.2.12 gts each in Sy.No.105/12 and it is the defendants witnesses who categorically admitted that Cherka Narsimulu land is different with that of the suit schedule property which is situated towards southern side of the suit land. Also, it is categorically admitted by Dws.1 to 3, that except the suit schedule property Kalisheety Muttaiah is not having any other land in Sy.No.105/12 which itself crystallizes that the suit schedule property is distinct situated in Sy.No.105/12/E (Sy.No.105/12/UU New number). To avoid ambiguity, the suit survey number is hereby mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/E. It is not out of place to mention here that in cross
Dw2 specifically testified that he had heard about the alleged sale transaction between Cherka Narsimulu and Kalishetty Muttaiah in 1963.
[b]It is an admitted fact as elicited during cross of witnesses from both sides that civil disputes are pending between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1,
Page No. 27 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
5 & 11 from very long time much prior to the institution of the present suit, at first Defendant No.11 instituted OS.No.135/2003 (Old.OS.No.58/2003) against plaintiffs herein to restrain plaintiffs from interfering into their possession which was dismissed in favor of plaintiffs herein, against which had Def.No.11 preferred First Appeal vide A.S.No.19 of 2007 and the same was allowed setting aside the judgment in
OS.No.135 of 2003 of original part. Thereafter, against such orders
plaintiffs herein had preferred second appeal vide S.A.No. 778 of 2009
before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana which is pending for
adjudication. Here comes the validity of sale transactions, Mutation proceedings Vide No.C/4066/2016 that whether the same was issued during pendency of proceedings vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 is crucial one in dealing with aforesaid issues, as OS.No. 819 of 2007 was initially decreed exparte, but later the said exparte decree was set aside vide I.A.No.259 of 2017, dt:08.06.2018 by the Hon’ble V Addl District Court, Ranga Reddy
District from where the said suit is still pending for adjudication before the
Hon’ble XVIII Addl. District Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.
[c]As patently evident from the record, there are multiple litigations pending between plaintiffs and defendants before various forums including the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, but as stated supra only two proceedings vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 and Writ Petitions vide
WP.No. 31169 of 2017 & WP.No. 26475 of 2019 are relevant to the
present suit in hand as the alleged sale deeds vide Doc.No’s: 579/2018,
dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018
were executed in spite of suspension orders. It would be proper to specify the events unfolded events in their chronological order for proper appreciation, of which as stated supra Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 themselves had filed OS.No. 819 of 2007 which was decreed exparte on 08.07.2016 against such exparte decree, plaintiffs herein had filed two separate petitions vide IA.No. 640 of 2016 to condone delay of eight (8) days along with other petition IA.No. 259 of 2017 to set aside exparte decree in
Page No. 28 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
OS.No. 819 of 2007. It is born out of record that, the first petition filed to
condone delay vide IA.No. 640 of 2016 was allowed on 13.03.2017 keeping pendency of IA.No. 259 of 2017 for disposal. The most crucial point here to be considered is the date I.e. 13.03.2017 on which IA.No.
640 of 2016 was allowed breathing new life to the litigation of plaintiffs herein in OS.No. 819 of 2007.
[d]Now comes the actual acts done by Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 creating utter chaos, to begin with, upon the applications filed by Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 the then RDO, Chevella had issued a proceedings vide No.C/4066/2016
dt:09.05.2017 / Ex.A15 for mutation of revenue entries on Def.Nos.1, 5 &
11 and the then RDO, Chevella in Ex.A15 had specifically mentioned that the Thasildar, Moinabad had mentioned that “no cases, appeals were pending in their office” which itself goes contra to the version when there is specific mention of OS.No. 819 of 2007 exparte decree itself hints the suspicion about issuance of proceedings vide Ex.A15. It is pertinent to mention here that, defendants didn’t elicited the need for securing mutation of revenue records on their names when already one proceeding was issued on their name after death of their father vide Ex.A10 and not to forget the defendants neither filed the said proceedings vide No.
4460/1987, dt:25.06.1988 issued by MRO, Moinabad nor negated as to why the name of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and their mother / Smt.Lingammma was mentioned when she pre-deceased her husband. This court observes that surname of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11’s father was mentioned “Baista
Muttaiah” instead of “Kalishetty Muttaiah” which also casts cloud of suspicion as to claim of defendants on suit schedule property.
[e]It is crucial to analyze the events unfolded during pendency of
IA.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007 which patently elicits the intent
of the Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 towards the suit schedule property, of which, securing mutation vide Ex.A15 was secured after lapse of more than two months of allowing IA.No. 640 of 2016, as such the plaintiffs approached the Hon’ble High Court filing WP.No. 31169 of 2017 along with WP.No.
Page No. 29 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
38840 of 2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court in its orders dated 14.09.2017 & 13.10.2017 vide Exs.A16 & 17 had categorically suspended the proceedings No.C/4066/2016 which was ordered to extended until further orders. At this juncture, basing on the mutation proceedings and exparte decree in OS.No. 819 of 2007 though the same was pending,
Def.Nos.1 to 5 had executed a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 alienating Ac.1.21 gts out of suit schedule property in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 against the orders of the Hon’ble High Court vide WP.MP.No.38840 of 2017. Later, Def.Nos.11 to 14 further alienated the remaining extent of Ac.0.31 gts in favor of Def.Nos.15 to 17 vide 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 basing on the same, mutation proceedings vide Exs.A23 to A25 were issued in favor of
Def.Nos.15 to 17 against which plaintiffs herein once again approached the Hon’ble High Court vide WP.No. 26475 of 2019 in which vide separate interim orders had suspended mutation proceedings vide Exs.A23 to 25 in its order vide Ex.A26. The aforesaid saga cogently elicits that defendants
Nos.1, 5 & 11 had intentionally alienated the suit schedule property to
Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 as stated supra being well aware about the pendency of OS.No. 819 of 2007 for declaration of their title apart from suspension of revenue proceedings.
[f]Now, it would also relevant to ascertain about the intent of subsequent purchasers I.e Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 who purchased the suit schedule property as stated supra and on careful perusal of the cross examination of Def.No.10 who was the only person examined and deposed on behalf of Def.Nos.1 to 17, there wont be any doubt even as suttle point that they were not aware about pendency of proceedings pertaining to the suit schedule property before they acquired. At first, as Dw1 himself categorically admitted that he came to know about plaintiffs attempts to encroach suit schedule property and pendency of civil litigation with
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 three years prior to purchase of suit schedule land vide
Ex.B21, but they proceeded with purchase basing on the words of
Page No. 30 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 who informed that no civil proceedings are pending.
Further, though Dw1 was aware about pendency of proceedings, as admitted he didn’t verified any judgment or orders which adjudicated
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 as absolute owners or he verified any documents prior to his purchase establishes the malafide intent of Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 to acquired property under litigation. To corroborate the same,
Def.Nos.6 to 10 initiated criminal proceedings against plaintiffs in
Moinabad P.S. where Def.No.9’s husband and relative of Def.Nos.6 to 10 were working as police constables.
[g]This courts has taken pragmatic approach in this suit to ascertain the intent of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 to alienate the suit property which Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 readily purchased even on being aware about pendency of proceedings before civil court and the Hon’ble High court vide proceedings supra and such approach by any individuals shall be dealt with iron fist to discourage such mode of acquisition of properties which not only reduces the unwanted litigation in courts but also avoids abuse of process of law meant for dispensing of justice but not to use it as a tool for securing unfair means. This court has no hinch of doubt that the sale deeds vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 and 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 were executed during pendency of litigations and suspension of mutation orders vide
Proceedings No.C/4066/2016 which is illegal on face of it, making such documents to be declared as null & void.
Issues Nos.2 3 & 5 were decided in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
37.Issue No.4: Whether the suit is barred by Limitation or not?
P O I N T : Another contention of the defendants was that the present suit is not maintainable as the same was filed after lapse of limitation period solely relying on the unregistered sale deed vide Ex.A37 which was
Page No. 31 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
allegedly executed in the year 1963 which in itself bars the present suit.
Whereas, it is evident that the present suit was filed seeking declaration of sale deeds vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 and 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void basing on the subsequent cause of action arose in the year 2018. As it is evident that period of three years was prescribed under The Limitation Act to file any suit seeking declaratory reliefs and in the present suit which was filed in the year 2020 before Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad which was renumbered after receiving it by transfer the said fact in itself establishes that the suit was filed within the limitation period.
Issue No.4 was decided against the defendants and in favor of plaintiffs.
38.To What relief?
As the core relief of plaintiffs was to declare the sale deeds vide
Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 and 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void which was adjudicated in their favor, as such plaintiffs are not entitled for any other relief.
In the result, this suit is partly decreed without costs in favor of plaintiffs declaring the sale deeds vide Doc.No. 579 of 2018, dt:
12.01.2018, Doc.No’s: 16997 of 2018, 16998 of 2018 & 16999 of 2018 all
dated 29.10.2018 as null and void which were pertaining to the land to an
extent of Ac.2.12 gts, situated in Sy.No.105/12/E, Nagireddyguda village,
Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
(Typed to my dictation on Computer to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 23rd day of December, 2025).
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Chevella, R.R.District
Page No. 32 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Pw1: Charka Eshwaraiah Dw1: K. Ashok Pw2: Cherka Mallesh Dw2: Tuppari Ramesh Pw3: K.Sadguna Chary(eschewed) Dw3: Dharulupally Yadagiri Pw4: Jeenugunta Narayana Dw4: Baindla Yadagiri Dw5: Yerra Ramulu
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1: CC of pahani for the year 1970-71 Ex.A2: CC of pahani for the year 1973-74 & 1979-80 Ex.A3: CC of pahani for the year 1965-66 Ex.A4: CC of pahani for the year 1985-86 & 1987-88, 1990-91 Ex.A5: CC of pahani for the year 1995-96 & 1996-97 Ex.A6: CC of pahani for the year 1997-98 & 2000-01 Ex.A7: CC of pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex.A8: CC of pahani for the year 2003-04 Ex.A9: CC of pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex.A10: CC of Proceeding vide File No.B/4460/1987, dated 25.06.1988 Ex.A11: CC of Judgment & Decree copy vide OS.No.58/2003 (old) and
OS.No.135/2003 (new) dated 21.03.2007
Ex.A12: CC of Judgment & Decree Appeal suit vide No.19/2007 Ex.A13: CC of Second Appeal Order vide S.A.No.778/2009 Ex.A14: CC of I.A. Order vide I.A.No.259/2017 in OS.No.819/2007 Ex.A15: CC of set-aside order copy vide File No.4066/2016 Ex.A16: CC of WP vide No.31169/2017, dated 14.09.2017 Ex.A17: CC of WPMP No.38840/2017, dated 13.10.2017 Ex.A18: CC of sale deed document No.579/2018, dated 12.01.2018 Ex.A19: Copy of Criminal Petition vide No.5887/2018 Ex.A20: CC of Sale Deed document No.16997/2018, dated 29.10.2018 Ex.A21: CC o Sale Deed document No.16998/2018, dated 29.10.2018 Ex.A22: CC of Sale Deed document No.16999/2018, dated 29.10.2018 Ex.A23: CC of Proceedings No.B/2388/2018 Ex.A24: CC of Proceedings No.B/2390/2018 Ex.A25: CC of Proceedings No.B/2391/2018 Ex.A26: CC of IA Nos.1 & 2 of 2019 in WP.No.26475/2019 Ex.A27: CC of WP No.1203/2020 Ex.A28: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.9,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Page No. 33 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.A29: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.10,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A30: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.7,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A31: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.8,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A32: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.6,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A33: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.17,
dt: 24.02.2020
Ex.A34: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.15,
dt: 24.02.2020
Ex.A35: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.16,
dt: 24.02.2020
Ex.A36: Copy of Encumbrance Certificate, dated 22.02.2020 Ex.A37: CC of unregistered sale deed dated 26.11.1963 Ex.A38: CC of receipt dated 26.11.1963 Ex.A39: CC of police complaint dated 27.05.2003 Ex.A40: CC of chief examination affidavit of Pw1 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A41: CC of chief-examination affidavit of Pw1 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A42: CC of cross-examination of Dw1 in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A43: CC of chief-examination affidavit of Dw3 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A44: CC of chief-examination affidavit of Dw4 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1: CC of kasra pahani for the year 1954-55 Ex.B2: CC of chessala pahani for the year 1955-58 (3 Pages) Ex.B3: CC of pahani for the year 1962-63 (2 pages) Ex.B4: CC of pahani for the year 1965-66 (1 pages) Ex.B5: CC of pahani for the year 1971-72 (2 pages) Ex.B6: CC of pahani for the year 1973-74 (2 pages) Ex.B7: CC of pahani for the year 1976-77 (2 pages) Ex.B8: CC of pahani for the year 1977-78 (2 pages) Ex.B9: CC of pahani for the year 1985-86 (2 pages) Ex.B10: CC of pahani for the year 1987-88 (2 pages) Ex.B11: CC of pahani for the year 1989-90 (2 pages) Ex.B12: CC of pahani for the year 1994-95 (1 pages)
Page No. 34 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.B13: CC of pahani for the year 1998-99 (1 pages) Ex.B14: CC of pahani for the year 2002-03 (1 pages) Ex.B15: CC of pahani for the year 2005-06 (1 pages) Ex.B16: CC of pahani for the year 2007-08 (2 pages) Ex.B17: CC of pahani for the year 2010-11 (2 pages) Ex.B18: CC of pahani for the year 2013-14 (1 pages) Ex.B19: CC of pahani for the year 2015-16 (1 pages) Ex.B20: CC of pahani for the year 2020-21 (2 pages) Ex.B21: CC of sale deed dated.12.01.2018 bearing Doc.No.579 of 2018 Ex.B22: CC of sale deed dated.29.10.2018 bearing Doc.No.16997 of 2018 Ex.B23: CC of sale deed dated.29.10.2018 bearing Doc.No.16998 of 2018 Ex.B24: CC of sale deed dated.29.10.2018 bearing Doc.No.16999 of 2018 Ex.B25: CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2388 of 2018 Ex.B26: CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2389 of 2018 Ex.B27: CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2390 of 2018 Ex.B28:CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2391 of 2018 Ex.B29: Photographs (6 pages / 24 pics) along with pen drive containing videos Ex.B30: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Narsimha Ex.B31: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Balraj Yadav Ex.B32: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Venkatesh yadav Ex.B33: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Jyothi Ex.B34: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of K. Ashok Ex.B35: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Bantu Gnyaneshwar Ex.B36: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Mamindla Nagamani Ex.B37: CC of pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12/UU3/1 Ex.B38: CC of pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12/UU/3/1 Ex.B39: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12/UU2/2 Ex.B40: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU3/2 Ex.B41: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/3 Ex.B42: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/3 Ex.B43: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/4 Ex.B44: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/4
Page No. 35 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.B45: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/5 Ex.B46: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU3/5 Ex.B47: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU1/2 Ex.B48: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU1/1/1
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Chevella, R.R.District
Page No. 1 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT :: CHEVELLA, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Tuesday, the 23 rd day of December, 2025
Present:- Katragadda Dasharatha Ramaiah,
Senior Civil Judge, At: Chvella, Ranga Reddy District.
O.S No. 231 of 2022
Between:-
1.Charka Eshwaraiah S/o: Venkataiah, aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture.
2.Pedda Charka Sathaiah S/o: Sailoo, aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture.
3.Charka Naresh S/o: Late. Pedda Charka Laxmaiah, aged about 22 years, Occ: Agriculture.
4.Charka Suresh S/o: Late. Pedda Charka Laxmaiah, aged about 22 years, Occ: Agriculture. All are R/o: H.No.1-20, Nagireddyguda Village, Aziz Nagar, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ….Plaintiffs AND
1.Kalachitti Maisaiah S/o: Late. Mutaiah, aged about 58 years, Occ: Business.
2.Kalachitti Manoj Kumar S/o: K. Maisaiah, aged about 26 years, Occ: Business. Both R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
3.Arolu Archana W/o: A.Chandrashekar, aged about 31 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.2-3-790/ 15/A/49/1, Tulsi Ram Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.
4.K.Sreedevi D/o: K.Maisaiah, aged about 28 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
5.K.Gyaneshwar S/o: Late Mutaiah, aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, N/o: Nagireddyguda Village, Aziz Nagar, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, R/o: H.No.8-1- 136/2/1, Shaikpet, Near Sai Baba Temple, Hyderabad.
6.Kodicherla Narsimha S/o: K.Yadaiah, aged about 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-43/1, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
7.Kodicherla Bal Raj S/o: K.Yadaiah, aged about 41 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-48/2, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
8.Kodicherla Venkatesh Yadav S/o: K.Yadaiah Yadav, aged about 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-43/2, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.Dist.
Page No. 2 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
9.Kodicherla Jyothi W/o: K.Papaiah (Pavan Yadav), aged about 29 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.1-43, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.Dist.
10.K.Ashok S/o: K.Yadaiah, aged about 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-43, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
11.K.Yadagiri S/o: K.Mutaiah, aged about 66 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
12.K.Datta Sai S/o: K.Yadagiri, aged about 29 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
13.Kalishetty Datta Mukesh S/o: K.Yadagiri, aged about 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/ 2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
14.Pasham Puspalatha W/o: P.Chitti Babu D/o: K.Yadagiri, aged about 33 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.6-2- 853/1, Thommala Basti, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
15.Dasari Srisailam S/o: Dasari Mallesh, aged about 27 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.5-101, Nandigama Village, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
16.Smt.Mamindla Nagamani W/o: Mamindla Yadaiah, aged about 52 years, Occ: Household, R/o: H.No.3-1/2, Ravalkol, Medchal Mandal, Malkajgiri District.
17.Bantu Gnaneshwar S/o: Sangaiah, aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.2-67, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Defendants
This Suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Sampoorna Anand & Sri.R.Prashanth, Counsels for the Plaintiffs and of Sri.B.Guruva Reddy & Sri.E.Ravinder Reddy, Counsels for the Defendants; and thus the suit having stood over for consideration till this day, and after hearing both sides, perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:
-: JUDGM ENT :-
This suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants for
Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Declaring the sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018,
dt:29.10.2018 as null and void along with consequential Permanent
Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E,
Page No. 3 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
situated in Nagareddyguda village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District (Hereinafter referred as Suit Schedule property).
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that Karshetty Muthaiah was the original owner of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E, situated at
Nagireddyguda vg, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (Hereinafter referred as Suit schedule property) who sold the same to Cheraka
Narasimulu through simple unregistered sale deed, dt:26.11.1963 for a valid sale consideration and delivered vacant possession, since then
Cheraka Narsimulu is in continuous possession over the same as absolute owner till his death, thereafter his legal heirs followed by plaintiffs being the grand children of Cheraka Narsimulu. It is submitted that the Def.No.1 / son of Karishetty Muttaiah suppressing the fact of alienation of suit schedule property to Cheraka Narsimulu, had obtained mutation in his favor vide No.4460/87, dt:25.06.1988 and basing on the same, Def.No.1 herein had filed a suit for Perpetual Injunction vide OS.No. 58 of 2003
before the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella against Plaintiffs Nos.1 & 2 herein,
which was renumbered as OS.No. 135 of 2003 after receipt of the same by transfer at Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad which was dismissed after conducting due trial holding that ancestors of plaintiffs are in possession over suit schedule property. As there are multiple cases pending between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 before various forums, therefore in order to avoid ambiguity, such litigations were mentioned in chronology, forum wise in the following paras; [a]Plaintiffs submit that, after disposal of OS.No. 135 of 2003,
Def.No.1 filed appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad vide
A.S.No.19 of 2007 which was erroneously allowed, against which the
plaintiffs Nos.1 & 2 herein filed Second Appeal vide S.A.No. 778 of 2009
before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, wherein the
Hon’ble High Court had passed an interim orders dt:18.09.2009 directing
parties to maintain Status-Quo which is still subsisting as none of Def.No.1
Page No. 4 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
had filed petition to vacate said orders and the S.A.No. 778 of 2009 is still pending for disposal before the Hon’ble High Court.
[b]After disposal of OS.No. 135 of 2003 before the Junior Civil
Judge, Vikarabad, apart from filing appeal against the said judgment,
Def.No.1 along with Def.Nos.5 & 11 had filed another suit for Declaration of Title and to declare the entry in possession column from 1955 as invalid with consequential relief of Injunction to declare vide O.S.No.819 of 2007
before the Hon’ble V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar which was decreed exparte on 08.07.2016. On knowing the said exparte decree, plaintiffs filed petition to set aside the exparte decree along with petition vide IA.No. 640 of 2016 to condone delay of 8 days and on 13.03.2017, orders were passed condoning the delay period of 8 days, followed by registering IA.No. 259 of 2017 filed to set aside exparte order dt:08.07.2016 which was also allowed by separate order
dt:08.06.2018, thereby suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 is pending for trial.
Plaintiffs submit that, without disclosing pendency of set aside applications vide IA.No. 259 of 2017 Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 obtained mutation proceedings
No. C/4066/16, dt:09.05.2017 issued by the then Revenue Divisional
Officer, who also ignored plaintiffs objections as to pendency of IA.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007.
[c]Thereafter, Plaintiffs herein had filed a Writ Petition No.31169 of 2017 questioning the issuance of Proceedings No.C/4066/16 by RDO during pendency of Set aside application vide IA.No. 259 of 2017 in
OS.No. 819 of 2007 in which the Hon’ble High Court had passed interim
orders suspending proceedings No. C/4066/2016 vide W.P.M.P.No.38840 of 2017, dt:14.09.2017 which is later extended until further orders. At this juncture, Def.Nos.1 to 5 in spite of being well aware about suspension of
RDO proceedings C/4046/16 vide W.P.M.P.No.38840 of 2017, they alienated part of suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts through registered sale deed vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt: 12.01.2018 in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 on the premise of exparte decree in OS.No. 819
Page No. 5 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
of 2007 passed in their favor though the IA.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007 to set aside exparte decree is still pending for disposal. On the other hand, after execution of sale deed on 15.05.2018, Def.No.1 filed criminal complaint before SHO, Moinabad P.S. against plaintiffs alleging that they are interfering into Def.Nos.1 to 5 possession over suit schedule property upon which Cr.No.215 of 2018 was registered which in itself shows that the Sale deed Doc.No.579 of 2018 is a sham document.
Plaintiffs preferred CRLP.No. 3748 of 2019 challenging the Charge Sheet filed in Cr.No. 215 of 2018 which the Hon’ble High Court stayed.
[d]At this juncture, inspite of knowledge of aforesaid proceedings, Def.No’s.1 to 14 in collusion with each other with a fraudulent motive described Schedule land is situated in Sy.No.105/12/UU instead of Sy.No.105/12/E which through Def.No.11 alienated balance land to Def.Nos.15 to 17 through registered sale deeds vide Doc.No.16997/18 (Ac.0.14 gts), Doc.No.16998/18 (Ac.0.10 gts), Doc.No.16999 of 2018 (Ac.0.07 gts) basing on the same, mutation proceedings vide No’s.
B/2388,B/2390 & B/2391, dt:23.01.2019 were also issued on Def.Nos.15 to 17 for their respective lands. On knowing about mutation vide
Proceedings No’s. B/2388, B/2390 & B/2391, dt:23.01.2019 when plaintiffs filed another Writ Petition vide W.P.No.26475 of 2019 before the
Hon’ble High Court along with two different interim applications vide
I.A.No. 01 of 2019 praying to direct the Tahsildar, Moinabad not to issue pattedar passbooks for Suit schedule property and I.A.No. 02 of 2019 to restrain defendants from causing any interference in plaintiffs possession over the suit schedule property, on considering the same, on 29/11/2019 the Hon’ble High Court passed interim orders.
3.Plaintiffs further submits that Def.Nos.1 to 14 in collusion with each executed sale deeds stated supra during pendency of litigation vide
OS.No. 819 of 2007 in favor of prospective purchasers suppressing the
fact of pending I.A.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007 for setting aside exparte decree and also suspension of proceedings No.
Page No. 6 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
C/4066/2016, dt:09.05.2017 issued by RDO, Chevella through the orders of the Hon’ble High Court as stated supra. Whereas, Def.Nos.15 to 17 taking advantage of mutation proceedings mentioned supra, mere entries in pahanies for the years 2017, 2019, Def.Nos.15 to 17 trying to dispossess plaintiffs from the suit schedule property as a result, plaintiffs were constrained to file another writ petition vide WP.No. 1203 of 2020 seeking police aid to restrain Def.Nos.6 to 10, 15 to 17 from violating previous orders vide IA.No. 01/2019 & 02/2019 in WP.No. 26475/2019 and if such registered sale deeds mentioned supra, left outstanding the same would cause serious injury to plaintiffs as such the same should be declared to void and also the revenue entries on defendants name shall be rectified by deleting their names in the interest of justice. Hence this Suit.
4. Upon receiving summons, Defendant No’s 1 to 10, 15 & 17 together filed written statement on their behalf denying entire contents of plaint including the execution of simple sale deed dated:26.11.1963 except those which are specifically admitted herein. Def.No’s.11 to 14 &
Def.No.16 adopted the written statement filed by Def.No.1 to 10, 15 & 17 by filing respective adoption memos. Defendants submit that they obtained mutation proceedings from the then RDO in accordance with law after hearing plaintiffs herein and that the suit filed by Def.No.1 against
Plaintiffs Nos.1 & 2 vide OS.No. 135 of 2003 was erroneously dismissed against which they preferred A.S.No. 19 of 2007 which was allowed in favor of Def.No.1 against the said orders, Plaintiffs herein filed appeal vide
S.A.No. 778 of 2009 before the Hon’ble High Court for the state of
Telangana in which the Hon’ble High Court had directed both parties to main status-quo, but nor suspending the orders as claimed by the plaintiffs. Defendants admit that they filed another suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 before the Hon’ble Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District against plaintiffs herein which was decreed exparte on 08.07.2016 as none of the plaintiffs contested, thereafter plaintiffs filed interim applications to keep the said litigation on for demanding huge amounts
Page No. 7 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
from them invoking chance litigation through this suit filed by plaintiffs seeking cancellation of sale deeds is liable to be dismissed in limini as it is illegal claim.
5.Defendants further submits that defendants had filed vacate petition in WP.No. 31169 of 2017, but plaintiffs herein delayed the disposal of the same on one pretext or the other. It is submitted that, Def.Nos.1 to 5 sold
Ac.1.20 gts in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 through registered sale deed vide
Doc.No.579 of 2018 for their family necessities and that Def.No.1 filed a criminal case vide CC.No.1609 of 2018 pending before the II Addl. JCJ cum M.M. Defendants admit that after execution of Doc.No.579 of 2018,
Def.Nos.11 to 14 had sold the remaining land of suit schedule property to
Def.Nos.15 to 17 vide Doc.Nos.16997, 16998 & 16999 of 2018 basing on which mutation on Def.Nos.15 to 17 as stated in plaint as there are no prohibitory orders from any court for sale of land by Def.Nos.1 to 5 & 11 to 14 to third parties, which cannot be questioned by anyone including plaintiffs who have no right or title over the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the present suit is not properly valued as the Court Fee paid is insufficient when neither plaintiffs nor their family members were not in possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
6.After amendment of suit schedule boundaries as per the orders in
IA.No. 83 of 2025, dt:10.03.2025 Defendant No.8 filed additional written
statement which was adopted by other defendants by filing adoption memo. In their additional written statement, Defendants submit that neither plaintiffs nor their counsel on record never pleaded in written statement filed in OS.No. 135 of 2003 that they have taken steps about wrong boundaries mentioned till the same was elicited by defendants counsel in cross of Pw1 as against their burden to mention correct boundaries to secure their relief of Declaration of title, however even the amended boundaries plaintiffs would not accrue any rights in this case as they themselves filed this present suit mentioning different boundaries. It
Page No. 8 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
is submitted that even if assumed without admitting that Charka
Narsimulu purchased suit schedule property through Ex.A37, plaintiffs cannot acquire any right as Charka Narsimulu is not their grandfather, that too, when said Charka Narsimulu died prior to 1953 which itself makes impossible to purchase suit property in 1963 as claimed by plaintiffs who created Exs.A37 & 38 without mentioning any boundaries for the purpose of this suit. Defendants also submit that plaintiffs are not in possession over Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU/1 nor they are in possession over land as per amended boundaries, as the plaintiffs misrepresented before this court by suppressing the material facts that Ex.A37 reflects
Sy.No.105/12/E quite distinct with Ex.A38 reflecting Sy.No.105/12/UU, that too when pahani for the year 1963 reflects an extent of Ac.0.30 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU belongs to one Chinna Balaiah. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
7.Basing on the pleadings on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants this court framed the following issues;
(1) W hether the execution of unregistered sale deed dated
26.11.1963 by Muttaiah in favor of Charka Narsimulu is true
and valid or not?
(2) Whether the sale deed vide Doc.No.579/2018, dt:
12.01.2018 executed by Def.Nos.1 to 5 in favor of
Defendants Nos.6 to 10 is illegal or not?
(3) Whether the Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018
executed by Def.Nos.11 to 14 in favor of Defendants Nos.15
to 17 are illegal or not?
(4) Whether the suit is barred by Limitation or not?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
declaration of Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 &
16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void or not?
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
Perpetual Injunction against defendants from interfering
into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit
schedule lands as prayed for or not?
Page No. 9 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
(7) To what relief?
8.During the trial Plaintiff No.1 examined himself as Pw1 and also examined three others namely Cherka Mallesh as Pw2, K.Sadguna Chary as Pw3 & Jeenugunta Narayana as Pw4, of them the evidence of Pw3 was eschewed. Exs.A1 to A44 were marked on behalf of plaintiffs. While adducing defendants evidence, Def.No.10 examined himself as Dw1 and examined third parties namely Tuppari Ramesh, Dharulupally Yadagiri,
Baindla Yadagiri & Yerra Ramulu as Dws.2 to 5. Exs.B1 to B48 were marked on defendants behalf.
9.Pw1 reiterated entire contents of his plaint as his chief. In cross,
Pw1 admitting his relationship with plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4, testified that the originally hail from Ghanapuram, Mahabubnagar, but their grandfather
Cherka Narsimulu migrated to Nagireddyguda vg. Pw1 testified that he knew Danaiah, Muthaiah, Jangaiah & Balaiah who are co-sharers along with Cherka Narsimulu, of them, Danaiah, Cherka Narsimulu & Muthaiah were having an extent of Ac.2.12 gts each in Sy.No.105/12, in addition to division of another extent of Ac.2.12 gts equally for Ac.0.31 gts among
Danaiah, Muthaiah, Jangaiah & Balaiah. Pw1 admitted that Cherka
Narsimulu was allotted Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/AA and Muttaiah was allotted Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E. Pw1 also admitted that suit schedule property is situated towards northern side of Cherka Narsimulu’s land in Sy.No.105/12/AA, but he do not know that land in
Sy.No.105/12/UU is on Muttaiah’s name. Pw1 admitted that they filed application before MRO for validation of “Unregistered Sale deed,
dt:26.11.1963 / Ex.A37 and in Ex.A38, survey number is mentioned as
Sy.No.105/12/UU, but Pw1 do not know that alphabet ‘E” is included after scribing Ex.A37. Pw1 testifies that his grandfather Cherka Narsimulu died about 4 / 5 yrs after execution of Ex.A37.
10.Pw1 admitted that as per entries in pahanies vide Exs.A1 to A4 till 1985 to 86, Sy.No.105/12/E is on Muttaiah’s name and after Muttaiah’s
Page No. 10 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
death in 1987 his sons namely Yadagiri, Maisaiah & Gnaneshwar obtained succession over said land adding that it was done without his knowledge but he didn’t filed any appeal before RDO against such succession proceedings. Pw1 testifies that they didn’t approach the then MRO for panchanama to ascertain their possession over suit schedule property during pendency of OS.No. 135 of 2003, adding that they approached village patwari / Mal Reddy about issuance of passbooks on Yadagir,
Maisaiah & Gnaneshwar. Pw1 testifies that he do not know whether they mentioned in their complaint / Ex.A39 that they purchased suit schedule property by way of “Mojuvani” / Oral sale nor knew that any deficit stamp duty or registration charges were paid for Ex.A37, but they filed Exs.A37 &
A38 in their evidence in OS.No. 135 of 2003 after they were traced. Pw1 admitted that there is no schedule of property mentioned in Ex.A37 and that their land is situated towards southern side to suit land of Bikshapthis is on southern side of suit land but the same was not mentioned in schedule of property of this suit adding that land on eastern side of suit land is bounded by his land which was purchased from one Chakali
Sattaiah. Pw1 admitted that, land on western side to suit land belongs to
Jinkunta Narayana adding that the said above boundaries were pertaining to the year 2003.
11.Pw1 testified that he do not know the boundaries of suit schedule property mentioned in his plaint as the same were not enquired by his counsel admitting that they did not sought declaratory relief basing on
Exs.A37 & 38. Pw1 admits that Def.No’s.5 to 10 & 15 to 17 purchased the suit lands after passing exparte decree in OS.No. 819 of 2007 adding that they filed set aside petitions in O.S.No. 819 of 2007. Pw1 further admitted that after exparte decree in O.S.No. 819 of 2007, entries in possessory column of Exs.A1 to A9 were rectified and also entries in Exs.A29 to A35 were rectified basing on RDO, Moinabad orders vide Proceedings
No.C/4066/2016 adding that they were done in collusion with revenue authorities.
Page No. 11 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
12.Pw2 & Pw4 deposed in similar lines in their chief affidavits, that about 50 yrs back, the plaintiffs grandfather / Cherka Narsimulu purchased the suit schedule property from the Karishetty Muthaiah / father of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and since then plaintiffs are in possession, enjoyment of suit schedule property. Pw2 & Pw4 also deposed that the aforesaid sale transaction took place in Nagireddyguda vg. in their presence and other villagers. Apart from above, Pw4 further deposed that the sale execution was done by way of Unregistered sale deed but he is not attesting witness to such document. During cross, Pw2 testified that he didn’t instructed anything in his chief which was drafted by his counsel and he along with Plaintiff No.2 had five sisters namely Laxamma,
Nagamani, Girija, Ellamma & Lavaynya who were not arrayed as parties in this suit nor Pw2 mentioned about this fact or that Cherka Narsimulu is his grandfather in his chief. Pw2 testified that he was born on 12/03/1981 and his grandfather Cherka Narsimulu died prior to his birth as such he do not know about purchase of property from Karishetty Muttaiah and as per
Pw2’s date of birth, his age will be 44 yrs, but it was mentioned as 55 yrs in his chief. Pw2 admitted that he falsely mentioned in his chief that he was present when Cherka Narsimulu purchased suit property 50 yrs back and since then plaintiffs are in possession adding that Pw2 didn’t instructed the said fact to his counsel. Pw2 testified that he do not know who scribed Ex.A37 nor who attested their signature on it.
13.In cross, Pw4 testifies that he got Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.105 of
Nagireddyguda vg. which he acquired from his ancestors. Pw4 admits that land in Sy.No.105 originally belongs to Danaiah, Muthaiah, Jangaiah &
Balaiah who got Ac.2.12 gts each, of them Cherka Narsimulu acquired
Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105 from Muthaiah. Pw4 testifies that when Pw4 was aged about 20 yrs, Cherka Narsimulu’s father by name “Narsimulu” died about 40 / 50 yrs back at the age of 80 yrs. Pw4 testifies that father of
Cherka Narsimulu acquired land from his ancestors but not by purchase
Pw4 admitted that after death of Muthaiah, his land was mutated in the
Page No. 12 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
name of his children Yadagiri, Maisaiah & Gnaneshwar, but he do not know they cultivated the land after death of Muthaiah nor knew who are cultivating the suit schedule lands. Pw4 admits that he didn’t mention in his chief that plaintiffs are in cultivation and possession over suit schedule property nor stated that he was present at the time of execution of
Unregistered sale deed / Ex.A37.
14.Defendants commenced their evidence by filing chief of Def.No.10 who examined himself as Dw1, wherein apart from reiterating the contents of his written statements, Dw1 further deposed that plaintiffs pleaded differently in their plaint that Ex.A37 was executed on 26.11.1963 in contra to their written statement of OS.No. 58 of 2003, where they pleaded that they purchased suit property in the year 1965 and that the documents vide Exs.A37 & 38 were inadvertently marked without proper stamp duty. Dw1 deposes that as per Ex.A38, survey number was mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/UU, but there’s no record with that survey number on the name of Mutthaiah, even if it is assumed to be true, the said Sy.No.105/12/UU is in the name of Kalichetti Yadagiri & his brother as per 1994-95 pahani. Dw1 also deposes that in Ex.A37 “E” was inserted adjacent to Sy.No.105/12 and plaintiffs themselves admitted about mention of “Mojuvani / Oral sale” in Ex.A39 which in itself elicits that it was created for this suit. Dw1 deposes that this Hon’ble Court had dismissed I.A.No. 201 & 202 of 2020 on 02.08.2023 against which plaintiffs preferred CMA.No. 588 & 591 of 2023 before the Hon’ble High
Court which are pending. Dw1 specifically deposes that after purchase, they developed suit property by raising wet crops using their borewell in
Sy.No.105/14
15.In cross, Dw1 specifically admitted that he is deposing evidence on behalf of him and all other defendants Nos.1 to 17 and plaintiffs are residents of his village. Dw1 admitted that Def.Nos.1 to 5, 11 reside in
Shaikpet vg., but he do not know when they moved to Shaikpet vg. nor
Dw1 saw father of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 / Muttaiah. Dw1 testified that he
Page No. 13 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
along with Def.Nos.6 to 9 purchased Ac.1.21 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU from
Def.Nos.1 & 5 which is bounded by Cherka Narsimulu’s family land toward
Southern side, East: Road and Def.Nos.15 to 17 purchased Ac.0.31 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU from Def.Nos.11 to 14 through three registered sale deeds / Exs.B22 to B24. Dw1 admitted that the actual extent of land in
Sy.No.105 held by Muthaiah is only Ac.2.12 gts as there are no other lands in Sy.No.105 owned by Muttaiah. Dw1 testifies that neither he knew the actual extent of land in Sy.No.105 of Nagireddyguda vg. nor knew since how long there are disputes between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 pertaining to lands in Sy.No.105. Dw1 admits that Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 do not have any residential house in Nagireddyguda vg., but plaintiffs have other extent of lands in Nagireddyguda vg. Dw1 admits that Cherka
Narsimulu was the grandfather of Plaintiffs and Dw1 along with other defendants together got prepared our written statement through their counsel.
16.Dw1 testifies that he came to know about pendency of civil litigation proceedings between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 after they purchased the property by receiving summons in this suit denying that the same was not mentioned in his chief. Dw1 testifies that he came to know about plaintiffs attempts to encroach suit schedule property in the year 2018 which is three years prior to their purchase by Ex.B21, but again testified that at the time of their purchase, the came to know that there are no civil proceedings pending between Plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 on whose words, they believed to proceed with purchase of property by Ex.B21.
Dw1 admitted that he didn’t verified any plaint, written statements, judgments or orders pertaining to civil suits, appeals pending between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and he do not know reasons for such civil litigation stated supra. Dw1 admitted that he did not seen or verified any judgment or order wherein Def.Nos.1,5 & 11 were adjudicated as real owners of suit schedule property and he cannot say in which year another suit pending between plaintiffs with Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 was filed before
Page No. 14 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
LB.Nagar court nor he saw any plaint, written statement or documents pertaining to such suit pending in L.B. Nagar adding that he perused the same at L.B. Nagar Court after knowing about the said suit. Dw1 initially testified that he cannot say exact suit numbers pending at different court pertaining to suit schedule property, but again admitted that he, himself mentioned entire suits details in his written statement & Chief.
17.In further cross, Dw1 admitted that Def.No.9 is wife of his elder brother / Pavan Yadav and Def.No.15’s son-in-law / Rajamallesh worked as Police Constables in May, 2020 at Moinabad Police Station. Dw1 admitted that Def.No.6 filed criminal case vide Cr.No.190 of 2020 against plaintiffs, their family members adding that it was registered for damaging bund of suit schedule property. Dw1 testifies that he do not know plaintiffs also filed registered another case Vide Cr.No.191 of 2020 against Pavan
Yadav & Others. Dw1 admitted that as per Ex.A1 shown for the years 1965-66 & 1970, father of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 / Muttaiah was shown as
Pattedar and in Column 16 of Ex.A1, Narsimha name was mentioned with word “Self / Sontham”. Dw1 also admitted that, in Column No.17 of Ex.A1 mentioned a Purchase / Khareedu. Dw1 admits that in Column No.16 of
Ex.A2 pahani for the years 1979-80, names of Narsimha, Muthaiah &
Ramulu shown as Cultivators adding that on knowing about the same after purchase of property, against which they filed a civil suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 for rectification of revenue entries which is pending. Dw1 admitted that in Col.No.13 of Ex.A5 for year 1996-97, Narsimha & Others were mentioned as Possessors by striking “Yadagiri” / Def.No.1 and in
Col.No.12 of Exs.A6 to A9, names of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 noted as Pattedars in addition to noting “Cherka Narsimulu” as possessor in Col.No.13.
18.Dw1 in his cross admitted that Plaintiffs filed Exs.A37 & 38 in the year 2003 in OS.No. 135 / 2003 at Vikarabad court instituted by
Def.No.11 against plaintiffs, their family members but Dw1 didn’t know
Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 filed any criminal cases against plaintiffs or their family members for creating Exs.A37 & 38 or even in the year 2018 after
Page No. 15 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
purchase by Def.Nos.6 to 10 by Ex.B21 / A18. Dw1 admitted that OS.No.
135 of 2003 was dismissed in favor of plaintiffs herein, against which
Def.No.11 preferred appeal vide AS.No. 19/2007 which was allowed in favor of Def.No.11 and against such orders, plaintiffs filed Second appeal vide S.A.No. 778/2009 before the Hon’ble High Court in which, status-quo order / Ex.A13 was issued. Dw1 specifically admits that during pendency of OS.No. 135 of 2003, Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 filed another suit vide OS.No.
819 of 2007 before the V Addl. District Judge, L.B. Nagar. Dw1 admits that as per Exs.A18 to A22, survey number of property purchased mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/E, of which in page No.3 of Exs.A18 to 20, it is mentioned that Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 were decided as absolute owners through court exparte decree in OS.No. 819 of 2007, dt:08.07.2016 basing on which RDO Chevella issued Proceedings No.C/4066/2016 in respect of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E I.e. suit schedule property which was purchased by Def.Nos.6 to 10 vide Exs.A19 to A22 mentioning the same in said deeds.
19.Dw1 testifies that much prior to the execution of Exs.A18, 20 to 22, on 14.09.2017 plaintiffs approached the Hon’ble High Court vide WP.No.
31169 of 2017 in which vide its orders dt:09.05.2017 / Ex.A15 & A16 the
Hon’ble High Court had suspended RDO proceedings No.C/4066/2016.
Dw1 testifies that he do not know that on 08.06.2018 orders in IA.No. 259 of 2017, exparte decree in OS.No.819 of 2007 was set aside vide Ex.A14, but specifically admitted that OS.No.819 of 2007 is still pending in which
Def.Nos.6 to 17 didn’t impleaded as parties till date. Dw1 further admits that basing on Exs.A18, 20 to 22, defendants also obtained subsequent mutations vide Exs.A23 to 25 in their favor were also stayed by the
Hon’ble High Court vide IA.No. 01 of 2019 in WP.No.26475 of 2019 /
Ex.A26. Dw1 admits that as per pahanies for 1965-66 / Ex.B4 & 1971- 72 / Ex.B5 Narsimha is shown as possessor of Ac.2.12 gts / suit schedule property. Dw1 admitted that he didn’t gave any publication prior to purchase of suit schedule property adding that he verified documents
Page No. 16 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
legally prior to purchase. Dw1 also admits that, as on date of their purchase, suit schedule property was not partitioned among Def.No.s1, 5 & 11 who were cultivating together.
20.Dw2 deposed that originally Kalishetti Mutthaiah was owner, possessor of suit land of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E (OLD) which is corresponding new survey numbers & extents as Ac.0.31 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU2, Ac.0.30 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU3, Ac.0.14 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU/1, Ac.0.10 gts in Sy.No.101/12/UU1 & Ac.0.07 gts in
Sy.No.101/12/UU1, situated at Nagireddyguda vg. and after death of the
Muttaiah, his sons Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 succeeded the same. Dw2 deposes that, Def.Nos.1 to 5 jointly sold their entitlement in suit property to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts through registered sale deed vide Doc.No.579 of 2018 in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 which is bounded by land of Cherka
Narsimha at Southern Side. Later, Def.Nos.11 to 14 alienated remaining
Ac.0.31 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E in three different extents of Ac.0.14 gts,
Ac.0.10 gts & Ac.0.07 gts respectively to Def.Nos.15 to 17 through sale deeds vide Doc.No’s. 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018 after receipt of entire sale consideration paid in presence of Dw2 & Yadaiah, of them Dw2 attested as witness in all three sale deeds. Dw2 further deposes that, neither Kalishetty Muttaiah nor Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 had sold suit property in favor of plaintiffs grandfather / Cherka Narsimulu, who never cultivated suit property at any point of time.
21.In cross, Dw2 testified that he haven’t seen Kalishetti Muttaiah who might have died prior to 1960 and that Dw2 is aged about 40 yrs being born in 1985. Dw2 denied that Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 and their family members are residing in Shaikpet but not residing at Nagireddyguda vg, adding that they recently shifted to Shaikpet for livelihood. Dw2 testifies that he accompanied Dw1 couple of times to this court and Honble High
Court and that the sale consideration for Ac.1.21 gts vide Doc.No.579 of 2018 / Ex.B21 was Rs.20,00,000/- per acre but he do not have idea about actual market value of lands alienated vide Exs.B21 to B24 or that they
Page No. 17 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
valued more than one crore per acre. Dw2 testifies that after death of
Kalishetty Muttaiah, his sons / Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 partitioned the sole landed property of Ac.2.12 gts land in Sy.No.105, Nagireddyguda vg. Dw2 admitted that his grandfather alienated their land in Sy.No.105 prior to his birth and he haven’t seen any transactions pertaining to suit schedule property made in 1963, but he heard about such transactions. Dw2 testified that boundaries mentioned in his chief are for total Ac.2.12 gts
I.e. suit schedule property and he knew contents of Exs.B21 to B24 being attesting witness. Dw2 testifies that in 2007, Def.No.7 filed suit against plaintiffs which was disposed in favor of Def.No.11 denying that the said suit is still pending before the Addl. District Judge’s Court, Chevella. Dw2 further testifies that he do not have any idea about writ petitions filed by plaintiffs herein nor about proceedings No.C/4066/2016 mentioned in
Ex.B21, but denied that such proceedings were suspended by the Hon’ble
High Court vide Ex.A16. Dw2 specifically testifies that family members of
Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 are cultivating suit lands by raising various crops as on today.
22. In his chief, Dw3 deposed in similar lines as that of Dw2 about acquisition of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E by Def.Nos.1,5 & 11 who inturn alienated the same in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 through registered sale deeds, except adding that Dw3 arranged the sale of
Ac.0.31 gts to Def.Nos.15 to 17 vide Exs.B21 to 24 and that Dw3 also singed as attesting witness in Doc.No.579 of 2018 executed by Def.Nos.1, 5 in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10. During cross, Dw3 testified that as he is into real estate business, on request of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 in 2018, Dw3 arranged sale of Ac.1.20 gts through his friend to Def.No.6 vide Ex.B21 in which only Dw3 singed as attesting witness, but Dw3 do not know any particulars about suit or proceedings mentioned in Ex.B21. Dw3 further testifies that as Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 informed him that land alienated vide
Ex.B21 is of clear title relying on the same, Def.No.6 purchased it when the actual market value was about 60 to 80 lakhs on date of execution of
Page No. 18 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.B21. Dw3 specifically testifies that he do not know anything about civil disputes or any case details pending between plaintiffs family and
Def.Nos.1,5 &11 nor know the reason for filing this suit or against whom.
Dw3 testified that suit schedule land is bounded by East: Road, West:
Buchireddy land, North & South by Bestha Community people.
23.Defendants further examined the then neighboring land owners as
Dw4 & Dw5, who deposed in similar lines that Kalishetty Muttaiah was owner of suit property, after his death Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 succeeded the same, later sold it to Def.No.6 in the year 2018. Dws.4 & 5 further deposed that during life time of Muttaiah, he never sold suit land to anyone and plaintiffs were never in possession over it at any point of time.
Apart from above, Dw4 deposed in specific that his family owned Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/17 located towards western side of suit property, but his father sold it about 20 yrs back. Dw5 deposes that, his father owned
Ac.1.02 gts in Sy.No.105 located near suit property towards western side which he sold it about 5 yrs back to third parties.
24.In cross Dw4 testified that he came to know through K.Narsimha /
Def.No.6 & others in 2018 about purchase of land and Dw4 haven’t seen
Muthaiah when he died as he was aged about 12 yrs but after death of
Mutthaiah, his sons shifted to Tolichowki due to disputes with their agnates. Dw4 specifically testifies that Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 possess Ac.2.12 gts i.e. suit land only and about 2 or 3 yrs back, disputes arose with plaintiffs with respect to suit lands, but he cannot say whether such disputes were in respect of bund between each other lands. Dw4 admitted that disputes also arose between Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 with plaintiffs in respect of suit lands for which criminal cases were registered against each other, as Dw4 along with other villagers went to
Moinabad P.S. at time of quarrel. Dw4 admits that Dw2, Jeenikuntla Raju,
Davit & Def.Nos.6 to 8 & 10 were present in Moinabad Police Station, but either plaintiffs or Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 were not present in police station where Pavan Yadav / husband of Def.No.9 and Rajamallesh / agnate of
Page No. 19 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Def.Nos.6 to 10 family were working as constables in Moinabad P.S. at that time.
25.Dw5 in his cross testified that he saw Muttaiah who used to stay in hut had died about 50 yrs back in their village and after 5 or 6 yrs of death, Muttaiah’s sons migrated to city. Dw5 testified that wife of Muttiah predeceased him, but he do not know when she died and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 might be of 40 to 50 yrs of age when their father / Muttaiah died. Dw5 admitted that plaintiffs have their own land adjacent to suit lands and Dw5 land was situated at a distance of one K.M. from suit land. Dw5 testified that he do not know any disputes or quarrel took place among plaintiffs and Dw5 was not an attesting witness to any sale transaction between
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and Def.Nos.6 to 10 or 15 to 17. Dw5 specifically testified that on the request of defendants he came to court and deposing but he do not know who filed this suit or what relief sought.
26.Before dwelling into adjudication of the issues involved in this suit, this court had noticed that there are couple of issues which were framed solely basing on the pleadings of both parties, taking consideration of the disputed facts. Whereas, after conclusion of trial and upon hearing both parties, it is evident that disputed fact in Issue No.1 relating to the validity of “unregistered sale deed” dt:26.11.1963 is directly and substantially in question in previous instituted suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 for
Declaration of title which is pending before the Hon’ble XVIIIAdditional
District Judge, At Chevella which received by transfer from the Hon’ble V
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar cannot be
dealt in this suit which is instituted basing on different cause of action, that too, after lapse of about 13 yrs. So also, Issue No.6 dealing with the relief of Perpetual Injunction is also directly and substantially in question to be adjudicated by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana vide S.A.No.778 of 2009 preferred by plaintiffs herein is also pending for adjudication. As stated supra, disputed facts as per Issues Nos.1 & 6 were pending from several years, much prior to institution of this present suit before this
Page No. 20 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
court which is on the lower pedestal to the above referred courts and adjudicating the same in either way would be nonetheless than surpassing jurisdiction of this court which wouldn’t be proper or necessary to adjudicate the actual issues involved in this suit. Therefore, with utmost obedience this court opines that invoking Order XIV Rule 5 of Code of Civil
Procedure, thereby deleting issues Nos.1 & 6 in the interest of justice.
27.This court also opines, it is just and necessary to address the contentions of the defendants counsel about the maintainability of this suit as the same would fall within the purview of Stay of subsequent suit as provided Under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code which was based on the same analogy as opined by this court in above para. The contentions of the defendants are that the matters in dispute in this are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit and adjudication of those issues in such previous instituted suits or proceedings would operate as res-judicata U/sec. 11 of Civil Procedure Code, therefore the present suit shall be stayed. In reply to the above said contentions, the plaintiffs counsel reverted that the present suit is filed basing on the subsequent events occurred post institution of the OS.No. 819 of 2007 and S.A.No.778 of 2009, stemming up from altogether different cause of action(s) took place after lapse of more than 10 yrs of pendency above proceedings whose reliefs are quite distinct with the present suit which in itself dispels the claim of defendants stated supra as to the maintainability of this suit.
28.It is evident from the pleadings of both sides and the material on record, that the main relief sought in this present suit is that to declaration of sale deeds vide Doc.No’s: 579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as void which were executed during pendency of OS.No. 819 of 2007 and Issues Nos.1 & 6 which are similar with that of core issues to be dealt in OS.No. 819 of 2007 and S.A.No.778 of 2009 which cannot be considered to be that of the substantial issues to be adjudicated in present suit. In order to ascertain the impact of Section 10 on the present suit, this court relies on
Page No. 21 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 1996 (1)
APLJ 202 (HC) - Karri Satyanarayana & Ors Vs. Pichika Veerraju &
Ors, wherein it was held as “It is necessary to note that for Section 10 to apply, there must be identity of the subject matter. Mere fact that one of the questions in issue is the same as in the other suit, would not make the subject matter identical. The use of definite article ‘the’ in the ‘the matter in issue’ occurring in Section 10 CPC suggests that the rule will not apply where only a ‘matter in issue’ is common” . This court further relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2013) 4 SCC 333 -
Aspijal and Another vs Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor, wherein it was held as “The fundamental test to attract Sec. 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as resjudicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits are identical.”
29.In the light of aforesaid judgments, it is cogently clear that though there is identity of subject matter in all these three proceedings is same but in all these proceedings, the parties indulged are not identical as there is much variance in the parties involved in those suits as such the same cannot be considered for stay of present suit, that too, when there are distinct issues to be dealt in this present suit when compared with that of the previous suits / proceedings vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 & SA.No. 778 of 2009 which itself establishes that adjudication of these previous proceedings would neither operate as Res-Judicata to the present suit nor conclusively deals with the relief of declaration of sale deeds as void as sought in this present suit which indeed was filed altogether under different set of facts, unfolded during pendency of aforesaid previous suits. It is imperative to note that the whole issues or subject matter herein are not incidental to the previous suits, except the identity of the matter with the present suit, therefore the application of Sec. 10 will not apply as only couple of issues Nos.1 & 6 appears to be common.
Page No. 22 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
30.Further, this court opines that it would appropriate to concise few aspects such as the relevancy of impact of unregistered sale deed & receipt / Exs.A37 & 38, marking certified copies of Exs.A37 & 38, ambiguity of survey numbers pertaining to suit schedule property and the claim of improper payment of court fees which would pave way depicting the rationale in placing these aspects herein without including them in adjudication of core issues Nos.2, 3 & 5 of this suit. Of these aspects, the the most pressed one was about the authenticity of Exs.A37 & 38 and its marking by this court, upon considering the submissions, this court opines that these aspects are directly relevant to the adjudication of title over the suit schedule property for which the Def.Nos.1 & 5 had already filed
OS.No.819 of 2007 which is pending for adjudication as on today. The
Defendants counsel relied that these exhibits vide Exs.A37 & 38 were created for the purpose of civil disputes pending before various courts as the plaintiffs themselves came up with different version that they purchased suit schedule property by Oral sale / Mojuvani in their complaint filed before police Moinabad vide Ex.A39. Defendants further put forth that there is no mention of boundaries in Exs.A37 & 38 and mentioning of different binumbers in both Exs.A37 & 38, patently mentioning alphabet “UU” in Ex.A37 establishes that they are fabricated to suit their case. More so, this court ought not to have marked the certified copies as Exs.A37 & 38, relying on the order of the Hon’ble High Court in
CRP.No.’s.375 of 2025 & 379 of 2025, wherein it was held as “Photocopies or certified copies of photocopies, the same therefore would become inadmissible in evidence”
31.In reply to the aforesaid contentions, plaintiffs counsel brought to the fore that the aforesaid documents / Exs.A37 & 38 was filed before the concerned court in the first civil dispute initiated by Defendants No.1 vide
OS.No. 135 of 2003 before Junior Civil Judge court, Vikarabad where none
of the contesting defendants or their counsels had made any objections as to the insufficiency or deficit of stamp duty or registration charges on
Page No. 23 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Exs.A37 & 38 as such the then court had marked the same, basing on the same said suit was adjudicated, thereafter, the said proceedings were continued before the Hon’ble High Court vide S.A.No. 778 of 2009 from where the present certified copies were obtained which were marked as
Exs.A37 & 38 herein which in itself prohibits the defendants to raise the said objection at this juncture in different suit which is filed for distinct reliefs. Further, it is noted that as raised by plaintiffs, till date none of the defendants had made any effort or initiated any proceedings before any forum either to establish that these exhibits / Exs.A37 & 38 are forged, fabricated documents or action against plaintiffs for doing so. The judgments relied upon by the defendants in 2006 (6) ALT 523 (FB),
Civil Appeal No.7350 of 2008, 2015 (2) ALD 291, 2003 4 ALT 84,
2010 3 ALT 165, 2025 4 ALT (SC) 19, 2008 4 ALT 421 and 2000 3
ALT 229 are not relevant to the present suit in hand as the Issues Nos.1 & 6 were deleted by this court as stated supra.
32.Apart from the above, the version of eliciting of different boundaries mentioned initially in suit during cross of Pw1 and rectifying the same by amendment was not tenable as it was done to fill up lacunae will not hold water, which in fact was considered by the court to affirm the identity of suit schedule property is the same for which other civil disputes were also pending between the parties, that too, when both parties more particularly defendants themselves pressed about the subject matter in dispute is similar in all pending proceedings that too, when there is cogent ambiguity about suit survey numbers claimed by both sides, which would be dealt in subsequent paras. In view of the above discussion, the dispute as to the authenticity of Exs.A37 & 38 is not point of relevancy in this present suit as the same is core of OS.No. 819 of 2007 dealing with title dispute of both parties. It is noted that except making mere claim, defendants didn’t corroborated their claim that Exs.A37 & 38 are the certified copies of the photocopies obtained from the court, which otherwise was the documents obtained from the Hon’ble High Court where the second appeal is pending
Page No. 24 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
in which the originals of Exs.A37 & 38 were claimed to have filed, as such it cannot be considered that plaintiffs obtained certified copies of photocopies.
33.In continuation of the above, the next aspect is about ambiguity of survey numbers of suit schedule property was it Sy.No.105/12/E or
Sy.No.105/12/UU as both survey numbers were averred by both parties either in their documents or evidence relied by them. To begin with the plaintiffs, who averred that suit schedule property is in Sy.No.105/12/E, but in Ex.A38 it was mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/UU different with suit survey number with which there is no record showing property in
Sy.No.105/12/UU on Muttaiah’s name but on the name of Balaiah for smaller extent. In response to the above, the plaintiffs counsel argued that the defendants themselves aren’t sure about the actual survey number of their property as both survey numbers I.e. Sy.No.105/12/E & 105/12/UU were referred invariably in the documents defendants relied upon.
34.This court had noticed that the Sy.No.105/12/E was referred by defendant in Exs.A18 to A22 mentioning that the said property was decided in favor of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 and basing on the same RDO, Chevella had issued proceedings No.C/4066/2016,
dt:09.05.2017 in respect of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E which was
acquired by Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 through registered sale deeds, but all such claims were made in contra to the version of Dws.1 to 5, of them
Dw1 who deposed on behalf of other defendants too, deposed that they purchased Ac.1.21 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU from Def.Nos.11 to 14 vide
Exs.B22 to 24 which further asserted by the mediator of said sale transactions examined as Dw2 who came up with new version that the suit survey number I.e. Sy.No.105/12/E is old survey number to which new corresponding survey numbers for different extents were issued I.e.
Sy.No.105/12/UU1 (Ac.0.31 gts), Sy.No.105/12/UU2 (Ac.0.31 gts),
Sy.No.105/12/UU3 (Ac.0.30 gts) which summed up to exact extent of
Page No. 25 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ac.2.12 gts of suit schedule property which in itself clears the ambiguity in survey numbers pertaining to suit schedule property which was in
Sy.No.105/12/E as on the date of commencement of civil disputes between the parties.
35.Up next is the defendants contentions about the maintainability of the suit on payment of insufficient court fees U/sec. 37 of The TGSV & CF
Act instead of Sec. 24 which was paid for cancellation of sale deeds. On keen perusal of the material available on record, at first, the court fee paid for the aforesaid cancellation relief was based on the advolarem for entire consideration U/sec. 37 of The Act and plaintiffs specifically pleaded relief to declare the alleged sale deeds as null & void as evident from the pleadings. More so, the amount of court fees paid by the plaintiffs for the relief of cancellation was twice as that of the amount to be paid for the relief of Declaration which in itself is more than sufficient court fees paid by the plaintiffs. More so, as the aforesaid objections were not pressed by the defendants when this court had framed issues pertaining to the relief of declaration or otherwise, instead proceeded to conclude trial but raised the same in their arguments would not hold water as the issue framed for declaratory relief was done with an intent to bring facts to fore, for proper adjudication of the disputes in this suit.
36.In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, this court proceeds with the adjudication of core issues pertaining to this suit I.e. Issues Nos.2, 3 & 5 are dealt together as the same were based on same facts and evidence adduced brought on record having cascading effect on these issues.
Further this court opines that it is just and necessary to adjudicate Issues
Nos.2, 3 & 5 together so as to avoid redundancy, ambiguity in appreciating the evidence on record for just disposal of this lis;
ISSUES No’s: 2, 3 & 5:
(2) Whether the sale deed vide Doc.No.579/2018, dt:
12.01.2018 executed by Def.Nos.1 to 5 in favor of
Defendant Nos.6 to 10 is illegal or not?
Page No. 26 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
(3) Whether the Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018
executed by Def.Nos.11 to 14 in favor of Defendants Nos.5
to 17 are illegal or not?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
declaration of Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 &
16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void or not?
P O I N T : [a] On perusal of the material available on record including the arguments put forth by both counsels, this court observed there are certain facts to be noted prior to proceeding with adjudication of these issues, of them, there is no dispute that the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.105/12 in Nagireddyguda (V), Moinabad (M), R.R.Dist.
and the said Sy.No.105/12 comprising of several parcels of lands which were noted with different bi-numbers, one of such bi-number was
Sy.No.105/12/E i.e. suit survey number pertaining to suit schedule property and the ambiguity aspect pertaining to suit survey number was dealt in detail in above paras. It is also noted that it is admitted that Late.
Cherka Narsimulu and Kalishetti Muttaiah were having lands to an extent of Ac.2.12 gts each in Sy.No.105/12 and it is the defendants witnesses who categorically admitted that Cherka Narsimulu land is different with that of the suit schedule property which is situated towards southern side of the suit land. Also, it is categorically admitted by Dws.1 to 3, that except the suit schedule property Kalisheety Muttaiah is not having any other land in Sy.No.105/12 which itself crystallizes that the suit schedule property is distinct situated in Sy.No.105/12/E (Sy.No.105/12/UU New number). To avoid ambiguity, the suit survey number is hereby mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/E. It is not out of place to mention here that in cross
Dw2 specifically testified that he had heard about the alleged sale transaction between Cherka Narsimulu and Kalishetty Muttaiah in 1963.
[b]It is an admitted fact as elicited during cross of witnesses from both sides that civil disputes are pending between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1,
Page No. 27 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
5 & 11 from very long time much prior to the institution of the present suit, at first Defendant No.11 instituted OS.No.135/2003 (Old.OS.No.58/2003) against plaintiffs herein to restrain plaintiffs from interfering into their possession which was dismissed in favor of plaintiffs herein, against which had Def.No.11 preferred First Appeal vide A.S.No.19 of 2007 and the same was allowed setting aside the judgment in
OS.No.135 of 2003 of original part. Thereafter, against such orders
plaintiffs herein had preferred second appeal vide S.A.No. 778 of 2009
before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana which is pending for
adjudication. Here comes the validity of sale transactions, Mutation proceedings Vide No.C/4066/2016 that whether the same was issued during pendency of proceedings vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 is crucial one in dealing with aforesaid issues, as OS.No. 819 of 2007 was initially decreed exparte, but later the said exparte decree was set aside vide I.A.No.259 of 2017, dt:08.06.2018 by the Hon’ble V Addl District Court, Ranga Reddy
District from where the said suit is still pending for adjudication before the
Hon’ble XVIII Addl. District Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.
[c]As patently evident from the record, there are multiple litigations pending between plaintiffs and defendants before various forums including the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, but as stated supra only two proceedings vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 and Writ Petitions vide
WP.No. 31169 of 2017 & WP.No. 26475 of 2019 are relevant to the
present suit in hand as the alleged sale deeds vide Doc.No’s: 579/2018,
dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018
were executed in spite of suspension orders. It would be proper to specify the events unfolded events in their chronological order for proper appreciation, of which as stated supra Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 themselves had filed OS.No. 819 of 2007 which was decreed exparte on 08.07.2016 against such exparte decree, plaintiffs herein had filed two separate petitions vide IA.No. 640 of 2016 to condone delay of eight (8) days along with other petition IA.No. 259 of 2017 to set aside exparte decree in
Page No. 28 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
OS.No. 819 of 2007. It is born out of record that, the first petition filed to
condone delay vide IA.No. 640 of 2016 was allowed on 13.03.2017 keeping pendency of IA.No. 259 of 2017 for disposal. The most crucial point here to be considered is the date I.e. 13.03.2017 on which IA.No.
640 of 2016 was allowed breathing new life to the litigation of plaintiffs herein in OS.No. 819 of 2007.
[d]Now comes the actual acts done by Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 creating utter chaos, to begin with, upon the applications filed by Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 the then RDO, Chevella had issued a proceedings vide No.C/4066/2016
dt:09.05.2017 / Ex.A15 for mutation of revenue entries on Def.Nos.1, 5 &
11 and the then RDO, Chevella in Ex.A15 had specifically mentioned that the Thasildar, Moinabad had mentioned that “no cases, appeals were pending in their office” which itself goes contra to the version when there is specific mention of OS.No. 819 of 2007 exparte decree itself hints the suspicion about issuance of proceedings vide Ex.A15. It is pertinent to mention here that, defendants didn’t elicited the need for securing mutation of revenue records on their names when already one proceeding was issued on their name after death of their father vide Ex.A10 and not to forget the defendants neither filed the said proceedings vide No.
4460/1987, dt:25.06.1988 issued by MRO, Moinabad nor negated as to why the name of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and their mother / Smt.Lingammma was mentioned when she pre-deceased her husband. This court observes that surname of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11’s father was mentioned “Baista
Muttaiah” instead of “Kalishetty Muttaiah” which also casts cloud of suspicion as to claim of defendants on suit schedule property.
[e]It is crucial to analyze the events unfolded during pendency of
IA.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007 which patently elicits the intent
of the Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 towards the suit schedule property, of which, securing mutation vide Ex.A15 was secured after lapse of more than two months of allowing IA.No. 640 of 2016, as such the plaintiffs approached the Hon’ble High Court filing WP.No. 31169 of 2017 along with WP.No.
Page No. 29 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
38840 of 2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court in its orders dated 14.09.2017 & 13.10.2017 vide Exs.A16 & 17 had categorically suspended the proceedings No.C/4066/2016 which was ordered to extended until further orders. At this juncture, basing on the mutation proceedings and exparte decree in OS.No. 819 of 2007 though the same was pending,
Def.Nos.1 to 5 had executed a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 alienating Ac.1.21 gts out of suit schedule property in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 against the orders of the Hon’ble High Court vide WP.MP.No.38840 of 2017. Later, Def.Nos.11 to 14 further alienated the remaining extent of Ac.0.31 gts in favor of Def.Nos.15 to 17 vide 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 basing on the same, mutation proceedings vide Exs.A23 to A25 were issued in favor of
Def.Nos.15 to 17 against which plaintiffs herein once again approached the Hon’ble High Court vide WP.No. 26475 of 2019 in which vide separate interim orders had suspended mutation proceedings vide Exs.A23 to 25 in its order vide Ex.A26. The aforesaid saga cogently elicits that defendants
Nos.1, 5 & 11 had intentionally alienated the suit schedule property to
Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 as stated supra being well aware about the pendency of OS.No. 819 of 2007 for declaration of their title apart from suspension of revenue proceedings.
[f]Now, it would also relevant to ascertain about the intent of subsequent purchasers I.e Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 who purchased the suit schedule property as stated supra and on careful perusal of the cross examination of Def.No.10 who was the only person examined and deposed on behalf of Def.Nos.1 to 17, there wont be any doubt even as suttle point that they were not aware about pendency of proceedings pertaining to the suit schedule property before they acquired. At first, as Dw1 himself categorically admitted that he came to know about plaintiffs attempts to encroach suit schedule property and pendency of civil litigation with
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 three years prior to purchase of suit schedule land vide
Ex.B21, but they proceeded with purchase basing on the words of
Page No. 30 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 who informed that no civil proceedings are pending.
Further, though Dw1 was aware about pendency of proceedings, as admitted he didn’t verified any judgment or orders which adjudicated
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 as absolute owners or he verified any documents prior to his purchase establishes the malafide intent of Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 to acquired property under litigation. To corroborate the same,
Def.Nos.6 to 10 initiated criminal proceedings against plaintiffs in
Moinabad P.S. where Def.No.9’s husband and relative of Def.Nos.6 to 10 were working as police constables.
[g]This courts has taken pragmatic approach in this suit to ascertain the intent of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 to alienate the suit property which Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 readily purchased even on being aware about pendency of proceedings before civil court and the Hon’ble High court vide proceedings supra and such approach by any individuals shall be dealt with iron fist to discourage such mode of acquisition of properties which not only reduces the unwanted litigation in courts but also avoids abuse of process of law meant for dispensing of justice but not to use it as a tool for securing unfair means. This court has no hinch of doubt that the sale deeds vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 and 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 were executed during pendency of litigations and suspension of mutation orders vide
Proceedings No.C/4066/2016 which is illegal on face of it, making such documents to be declared as null & void.
Issues Nos.2 3 & 5 were decided in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
37.Issue No.4: Whether the suit is barred by Limitation or not?
P O I N T : Another contention of the defendants was that the present suit is not maintainable as the same was filed after lapse of limitation period solely relying on the unregistered sale deed vide Ex.A37 which was
Page No. 31 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
allegedly executed in the year 1963 which in itself bars the present suit.
Whereas, it is evident that the present suit was filed seeking declaration of sale deeds vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 and 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void basing on the subsequent cause of action arose in the year 2018. As it is evident that period of three years was prescribed under The Limitation Act to file any suit seeking declaratory reliefs and in the present suit which was filed in the year 2020 before Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad which was renumbered after receiving it by transfer the said fact in itself establishes that the suit was filed within the limitation period.
Issue No.4 was decided against the defendants and in favor of plaintiffs.
38.To What relief?
As the core relief of plaintiffs was to declare the sale deeds vide
Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 and 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void which was adjudicated in their favor, as such plaintiffs are not entitled for any other relief.
In the result, this suit is partly decreed without costs in favor of plaintiffs declaring the sale deeds vide Doc.No. 579 of 2018, dt:
12.01.2018, Doc.No’s: 16997 of 2018, 16998 of 2018 & 16999 of 2018 all
dated 29.10.2018 as null and void which were pertaining to the land to an
extent of Ac.2.12 gts, situated in Sy.No.105/12/E, Nagireddyguda village,
Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
(Typed to my dictation on Computer to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 23rd day of December, 2025).
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Chevella, R.R.District
Page No. 32 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Pw1: Charka Eshwaraiah Dw1: K. Ashok Pw2: Cherka Mallesh Dw2: Tuppari Ramesh Pw3: K.Sadguna Chary(eschewed) Dw3: Dharulupally Yadagiri Pw4: Jeenugunta Narayana Dw4: Baindla Yadagiri Dw5: Yerra Ramulu
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1: CC of pahani for the year 1970-71 Ex.A2: CC of pahani for the year 1973-74 & 1979-80 Ex.A3: CC of pahani for the year 1965-66 Ex.A4: CC of pahani for the year 1985-86 & 1987-88, 1990-91 Ex.A5: CC of pahani for the year 1995-96 & 1996-97 Ex.A6: CC of pahani for the year 1997-98 & 2000-01 Ex.A7: CC of pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex.A8: CC of pahani for the year 2003-04 Ex.A9: CC of pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex.A10: CC of Proceeding vide File No.B/4460/1987, dated 25.06.1988 Ex.A11: CC of Judgment & Decree copy vide OS.No.58/2003 (old) and
OS.No.135/2003 (new) dated 21.03.2007
Ex.A12: CC of Judgment & Decree Appeal suit vide No.19/2007 Ex.A13: CC of Second Appeal Order vide S.A.No.778/2009 Ex.A14: CC of I.A. Order vide I.A.No.259/2017 in OS.No.819/2007 Ex.A15: CC of set-aside order copy vide File No.4066/2016 Ex.A16: CC of WP vide No.31169/2017, dated 14.09.2017 Ex.A17: CC of WPMP No.38840/2017, dated 13.10.2017 Ex.A18: CC of sale deed document No.579/2018, dated 12.01.2018 Ex.A19: Copy of Criminal Petition vide No.5887/2018 Ex.A20: CC of Sale Deed document No.16997/2018, dated 29.10.2018 Ex.A21: CC o Sale Deed document No.16998/2018, dated 29.10.2018 Ex.A22: CC of Sale Deed document No.16999/2018, dated 29.10.2018 Ex.A23: CC of Proceedings No.B/2388/2018 Ex.A24: CC of Proceedings No.B/2390/2018 Ex.A25: CC of Proceedings No.B/2391/2018 Ex.A26: CC of IA Nos.1 & 2 of 2019 in WP.No.26475/2019 Ex.A27: CC of WP No.1203/2020 Ex.A28: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.9,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Page No. 33 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.A29: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.10,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A30: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.7,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A31: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.8,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A32: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.6,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A33: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.17,
dt: 24.02.2020
Ex.A34: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.15,
dt: 24.02.2020
Ex.A35: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.16,
dt: 24.02.2020
Ex.A36: Copy of Encumbrance Certificate, dated 22.02.2020 Ex.A37: CC of unregistered sale deed dated 26.11.1963 Ex.A38: CC of receipt dated 26.11.1963 Ex.A39: CC of police complaint dated 27.05.2003 Ex.A40: CC of chief examination affidavit of Pw1 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A41: CC of chief-examination affidavit of Pw1 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A42: CC of cross-examination of Dw1 in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A43: CC of chief-examination affidavit of Dw3 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A44: CC of chief-examination affidavit of Dw4 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1: CC of kasra pahani for the year 1954-55 Ex.B2: CC of chessala pahani for the year 1955-58 (3 Pages) Ex.B3: CC of pahani for the year 1962-63 (2 pages) Ex.B4: CC of pahani for the year 1965-66 (1 pages) Ex.B5: CC of pahani for the year 1971-72 (2 pages) Ex.B6: CC of pahani for the year 1973-74 (2 pages) Ex.B7: CC of pahani for the year 1976-77 (2 pages) Ex.B8: CC of pahani for the year 1977-78 (2 pages) Ex.B9: CC of pahani for the year 1985-86 (2 pages) Ex.B10: CC of pahani for the year 1987-88 (2 pages) Ex.B11: CC of pahani for the year 1989-90 (2 pages) Ex.B12: CC of pahani for the year 1994-95 (1 pages)
Page No. 34 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.B13: CC of pahani for the year 1998-99 (1 pages) Ex.B14: CC of pahani for the year 2002-03 (1 pages) Ex.B15: CC of pahani for the year 2005-06 (1 pages) Ex.B16: CC of pahani for the year 2007-08 (2 pages) Ex.B17: CC of pahani for the year 2010-11 (2 pages) Ex.B18: CC of pahani for the year 2013-14 (1 pages) Ex.B19: CC of pahani for the year 2015-16 (1 pages) Ex.B20: CC of pahani for the year 2020-21 (2 pages) Ex.B21: CC of sale deed dated.12.01.2018 bearing Doc.No.579 of 2018 Ex.B22: CC of sale deed dated.29.10.2018 bearing Doc.No.16997 of 2018 Ex.B23: CC of sale deed dated.29.10.2018 bearing Doc.No.16998 of 2018 Ex.B24: CC of sale deed dated.29.10.2018 bearing Doc.No.16999 of 2018 Ex.B25: CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2388 of 2018 Ex.B26: CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2389 of 2018 Ex.B27: CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2390 of 2018 Ex.B28:CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2391 of 2018 Ex.B29: Photographs (6 pages / 24 pics) along with pen drive containing videos Ex.B30: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Narsimha Ex.B31: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Balraj Yadav Ex.B32: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Venkatesh yadav Ex.B33: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Jyothi Ex.B34: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of K. Ashok Ex.B35: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Bantu Gnyaneshwar Ex.B36: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Mamindla Nagamani Ex.B37: CC of pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12/UU3/1 Ex.B38: CC of pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12/UU/3/1 Ex.B39: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12/UU2/2 Ex.B40: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU3/2 Ex.B41: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/3 Ex.B42: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/3 Ex.B43: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/4 Ex.B44: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/4
Page No. 35 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.B45: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/5 Ex.B46: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU3/5 Ex.B47: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU1/2 Ex.B48: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU1/1/1
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Chevella, R.R.District
Page No. 1 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT :: CHEVELLA, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
Tuesday, the 23 rd day of December, 2025
Present:- Katragadda Dasharatha Ramaiah,
Senior Civil Judge, At: Chvella, Ranga Reddy District.
O.S No. 231 of 2022
Between:-
1.Charka Eshwaraiah S/o: Venkataiah, aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture.
2.Pedda Charka Sathaiah S/o: Sailoo, aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture.
3.Charka Naresh S/o: Late. Pedda Charka Laxmaiah, aged about 22 years, Occ: Agriculture.
4.Charka Suresh S/o: Late. Pedda Charka Laxmaiah, aged about 22 years, Occ: Agriculture. All are R/o: H.No.1-20, Nagireddyguda Village, Aziz Nagar, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ….Plaintiffs AND
1.Kalachitti Maisaiah S/o: Late. Mutaiah, aged about 58 years, Occ: Business.
2.Kalachitti Manoj Kumar S/o: K. Maisaiah, aged about 26 years, Occ: Business. Both R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
3.Arolu Archana W/o: A.Chandrashekar, aged about 31 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.2-3-790/ 15/A/49/1, Tulsi Ram Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad.
4.K.Sreedevi D/o: K.Maisaiah, aged about 28 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
5.K.Gyaneshwar S/o: Late Mutaiah, aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, N/o: Nagireddyguda Village, Aziz Nagar, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, R/o: H.No.8-1- 136/2/1, Shaikpet, Near Sai Baba Temple, Hyderabad.
6.Kodicherla Narsimha S/o: K.Yadaiah, aged about 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-43/1, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
7.Kodicherla Bal Raj S/o: K.Yadaiah, aged about 41 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-48/2, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
8.Kodicherla Venkatesh Yadav S/o: K.Yadaiah Yadav, aged about 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-43/2, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.Dist.
Page No. 2 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
9.Kodicherla Jyothi W/o: K.Papaiah (Pavan Yadav), aged about 29 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.1-43, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.Dist.
10.K.Ashok S/o: K.Yadaiah, aged about 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.1-43, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
11.K.Yadagiri S/o: K.Mutaiah, aged about 66 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
12.K.Datta Sai S/o: K.Yadagiri, aged about 29 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
13.Kalishetty Datta Mukesh S/o: K.Yadagiri, aged about 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.8-1-136/ 2/1, Seetha Nagar, Shaikpet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
14.Pasham Puspalatha W/o: P.Chitti Babu D/o: K.Yadagiri, aged about 33 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No.6-2- 853/1, Thommala Basti, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
15.Dasari Srisailam S/o: Dasari Mallesh, aged about 27 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.5-101, Nandigama Village, Kothur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
16.Smt.Mamindla Nagamani W/o: Mamindla Yadaiah, aged about 52 years, Occ: Household, R/o: H.No.3-1/2, Ravalkol, Medchal Mandal, Malkajgiri District.
17.Bantu Gnaneshwar S/o: Sangaiah, aged about 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.2-67, Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Defendants
This Suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Sampoorna Anand & Sri.R.Prashanth, Counsels for the Plaintiffs and of Sri.B.Guruva Reddy & Sri.E.Ravinder Reddy, Counsels for the Defendants; and thus the suit having stood over for consideration till this day, and after hearing both sides, perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:
-: JUDGM ENT :-
This suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants for
Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Declaring the sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018,
dt:29.10.2018 as null and void along with consequential Permanent
Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E,
Page No. 3 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
situated in Nagareddyguda village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District (Hereinafter referred as Suit Schedule property).
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that Karshetty Muthaiah was the original owner of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E, situated at
Nagireddyguda vg, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (Hereinafter referred as Suit schedule property) who sold the same to Cheraka
Narasimulu through simple unregistered sale deed, dt:26.11.1963 for a valid sale consideration and delivered vacant possession, since then
Cheraka Narsimulu is in continuous possession over the same as absolute owner till his death, thereafter his legal heirs followed by plaintiffs being the grand children of Cheraka Narsimulu. It is submitted that the Def.No.1 / son of Karishetty Muttaiah suppressing the fact of alienation of suit schedule property to Cheraka Narsimulu, had obtained mutation in his favor vide No.4460/87, dt:25.06.1988 and basing on the same, Def.No.1 herein had filed a suit for Perpetual Injunction vide OS.No. 58 of 2003
before the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella against Plaintiffs Nos.1 & 2 herein,
which was renumbered as OS.No. 135 of 2003 after receipt of the same by transfer at Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad which was dismissed after conducting due trial holding that ancestors of plaintiffs are in possession over suit schedule property. As there are multiple cases pending between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 before various forums, therefore in order to avoid ambiguity, such litigations were mentioned in chronology, forum wise in the following paras; [a]Plaintiffs submit that, after disposal of OS.No. 135 of 2003,
Def.No.1 filed appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad vide
A.S.No.19 of 2007 which was erroneously allowed, against which the
plaintiffs Nos.1 & 2 herein filed Second Appeal vide S.A.No. 778 of 2009
before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, wherein the
Hon’ble High Court had passed an interim orders dt:18.09.2009 directing
parties to maintain Status-Quo which is still subsisting as none of Def.No.1
Page No. 4 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
had filed petition to vacate said orders and the S.A.No. 778 of 2009 is still pending for disposal before the Hon’ble High Court.
[b]After disposal of OS.No. 135 of 2003 before the Junior Civil
Judge, Vikarabad, apart from filing appeal against the said judgment,
Def.No.1 along with Def.Nos.5 & 11 had filed another suit for Declaration of Title and to declare the entry in possession column from 1955 as invalid with consequential relief of Injunction to declare vide O.S.No.819 of 2007
before the Hon’ble V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar which was decreed exparte on 08.07.2016. On knowing the said exparte decree, plaintiffs filed petition to set aside the exparte decree along with petition vide IA.No. 640 of 2016 to condone delay of 8 days and on 13.03.2017, orders were passed condoning the delay period of 8 days, followed by registering IA.No. 259 of 2017 filed to set aside exparte order dt:08.07.2016 which was also allowed by separate order
dt:08.06.2018, thereby suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 is pending for trial.
Plaintiffs submit that, without disclosing pendency of set aside applications vide IA.No. 259 of 2017 Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 obtained mutation proceedings
No. C/4066/16, dt:09.05.2017 issued by the then Revenue Divisional
Officer, who also ignored plaintiffs objections as to pendency of IA.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007.
[c]Thereafter, Plaintiffs herein had filed a Writ Petition No.31169 of 2017 questioning the issuance of Proceedings No.C/4066/16 by RDO during pendency of Set aside application vide IA.No. 259 of 2017 in
OS.No. 819 of 2007 in which the Hon’ble High Court had passed interim
orders suspending proceedings No. C/4066/2016 vide W.P.M.P.No.38840 of 2017, dt:14.09.2017 which is later extended until further orders. At this juncture, Def.Nos.1 to 5 in spite of being well aware about suspension of
RDO proceedings C/4046/16 vide W.P.M.P.No.38840 of 2017, they alienated part of suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts through registered sale deed vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt: 12.01.2018 in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 on the premise of exparte decree in OS.No. 819
Page No. 5 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
of 2007 passed in their favor though the IA.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007 to set aside exparte decree is still pending for disposal. On the other hand, after execution of sale deed on 15.05.2018, Def.No.1 filed criminal complaint before SHO, Moinabad P.S. against plaintiffs alleging that they are interfering into Def.Nos.1 to 5 possession over suit schedule property upon which Cr.No.215 of 2018 was registered which in itself shows that the Sale deed Doc.No.579 of 2018 is a sham document.
Plaintiffs preferred CRLP.No. 3748 of 2019 challenging the Charge Sheet filed in Cr.No. 215 of 2018 which the Hon’ble High Court stayed.
[d]At this juncture, inspite of knowledge of aforesaid proceedings, Def.No’s.1 to 14 in collusion with each other with a fraudulent motive described Schedule land is situated in Sy.No.105/12/UU instead of Sy.No.105/12/E which through Def.No.11 alienated balance land to Def.Nos.15 to 17 through registered sale deeds vide Doc.No.16997/18 (Ac.0.14 gts), Doc.No.16998/18 (Ac.0.10 gts), Doc.No.16999 of 2018 (Ac.0.07 gts) basing on the same, mutation proceedings vide No’s.
B/2388,B/2390 & B/2391, dt:23.01.2019 were also issued on Def.Nos.15 to 17 for their respective lands. On knowing about mutation vide
Proceedings No’s. B/2388, B/2390 & B/2391, dt:23.01.2019 when plaintiffs filed another Writ Petition vide W.P.No.26475 of 2019 before the
Hon’ble High Court along with two different interim applications vide
I.A.No. 01 of 2019 praying to direct the Tahsildar, Moinabad not to issue pattedar passbooks for Suit schedule property and I.A.No. 02 of 2019 to restrain defendants from causing any interference in plaintiffs possession over the suit schedule property, on considering the same, on 29/11/2019 the Hon’ble High Court passed interim orders.
3.Plaintiffs further submits that Def.Nos.1 to 14 in collusion with each executed sale deeds stated supra during pendency of litigation vide
OS.No. 819 of 2007 in favor of prospective purchasers suppressing the
fact of pending I.A.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007 for setting aside exparte decree and also suspension of proceedings No.
Page No. 6 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
C/4066/2016, dt:09.05.2017 issued by RDO, Chevella through the orders of the Hon’ble High Court as stated supra. Whereas, Def.Nos.15 to 17 taking advantage of mutation proceedings mentioned supra, mere entries in pahanies for the years 2017, 2019, Def.Nos.15 to 17 trying to dispossess plaintiffs from the suit schedule property as a result, plaintiffs were constrained to file another writ petition vide WP.No. 1203 of 2020 seeking police aid to restrain Def.Nos.6 to 10, 15 to 17 from violating previous orders vide IA.No. 01/2019 & 02/2019 in WP.No. 26475/2019 and if such registered sale deeds mentioned supra, left outstanding the same would cause serious injury to plaintiffs as such the same should be declared to void and also the revenue entries on defendants name shall be rectified by deleting their names in the interest of justice. Hence this Suit.
4. Upon receiving summons, Defendant No’s 1 to 10, 15 & 17 together filed written statement on their behalf denying entire contents of plaint including the execution of simple sale deed dated:26.11.1963 except those which are specifically admitted herein. Def.No’s.11 to 14 &
Def.No.16 adopted the written statement filed by Def.No.1 to 10, 15 & 17 by filing respective adoption memos. Defendants submit that they obtained mutation proceedings from the then RDO in accordance with law after hearing plaintiffs herein and that the suit filed by Def.No.1 against
Plaintiffs Nos.1 & 2 vide OS.No. 135 of 2003 was erroneously dismissed against which they preferred A.S.No. 19 of 2007 which was allowed in favor of Def.No.1 against the said orders, Plaintiffs herein filed appeal vide
S.A.No. 778 of 2009 before the Hon’ble High Court for the state of
Telangana in which the Hon’ble High Court had directed both parties to main status-quo, but nor suspending the orders as claimed by the plaintiffs. Defendants admit that they filed another suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 before the Hon’ble Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District against plaintiffs herein which was decreed exparte on 08.07.2016 as none of the plaintiffs contested, thereafter plaintiffs filed interim applications to keep the said litigation on for demanding huge amounts
Page No. 7 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
from them invoking chance litigation through this suit filed by plaintiffs seeking cancellation of sale deeds is liable to be dismissed in limini as it is illegal claim.
5.Defendants further submits that defendants had filed vacate petition in WP.No. 31169 of 2017, but plaintiffs herein delayed the disposal of the same on one pretext or the other. It is submitted that, Def.Nos.1 to 5 sold
Ac.1.20 gts in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 through registered sale deed vide
Doc.No.579 of 2018 for their family necessities and that Def.No.1 filed a criminal case vide CC.No.1609 of 2018 pending before the II Addl. JCJ cum M.M. Defendants admit that after execution of Doc.No.579 of 2018,
Def.Nos.11 to 14 had sold the remaining land of suit schedule property to
Def.Nos.15 to 17 vide Doc.Nos.16997, 16998 & 16999 of 2018 basing on which mutation on Def.Nos.15 to 17 as stated in plaint as there are no prohibitory orders from any court for sale of land by Def.Nos.1 to 5 & 11 to 14 to third parties, which cannot be questioned by anyone including plaintiffs who have no right or title over the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the present suit is not properly valued as the Court Fee paid is insufficient when neither plaintiffs nor their family members were not in possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
6.After amendment of suit schedule boundaries as per the orders in
IA.No. 83 of 2025, dt:10.03.2025 Defendant No.8 filed additional written
statement which was adopted by other defendants by filing adoption memo. In their additional written statement, Defendants submit that neither plaintiffs nor their counsel on record never pleaded in written statement filed in OS.No. 135 of 2003 that they have taken steps about wrong boundaries mentioned till the same was elicited by defendants counsel in cross of Pw1 as against their burden to mention correct boundaries to secure their relief of Declaration of title, however even the amended boundaries plaintiffs would not accrue any rights in this case as they themselves filed this present suit mentioning different boundaries. It
Page No. 8 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
is submitted that even if assumed without admitting that Charka
Narsimulu purchased suit schedule property through Ex.A37, plaintiffs cannot acquire any right as Charka Narsimulu is not their grandfather, that too, when said Charka Narsimulu died prior to 1953 which itself makes impossible to purchase suit property in 1963 as claimed by plaintiffs who created Exs.A37 & 38 without mentioning any boundaries for the purpose of this suit. Defendants also submit that plaintiffs are not in possession over Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU/1 nor they are in possession over land as per amended boundaries, as the plaintiffs misrepresented before this court by suppressing the material facts that Ex.A37 reflects
Sy.No.105/12/E quite distinct with Ex.A38 reflecting Sy.No.105/12/UU, that too when pahani for the year 1963 reflects an extent of Ac.0.30 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU belongs to one Chinna Balaiah. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
7.Basing on the pleadings on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants this court framed the following issues;
(1) W hether the execution of unregistered sale deed dated
26.11.1963 by Muttaiah in favor of Charka Narsimulu is true
and valid or not?
(2) Whether the sale deed vide Doc.No.579/2018, dt:
12.01.2018 executed by Def.Nos.1 to 5 in favor of
Defendants Nos.6 to 10 is illegal or not?
(3) Whether the Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018
executed by Def.Nos.11 to 14 in favor of Defendants Nos.15
to 17 are illegal or not?
(4) Whether the suit is barred by Limitation or not?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
declaration of Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 &
16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void or not?
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
Perpetual Injunction against defendants from interfering
into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit
schedule lands as prayed for or not?
Page No. 9 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
(7) To what relief?
8.During the trial Plaintiff No.1 examined himself as Pw1 and also examined three others namely Cherka Mallesh as Pw2, K.Sadguna Chary as Pw3 & Jeenugunta Narayana as Pw4, of them the evidence of Pw3 was eschewed. Exs.A1 to A44 were marked on behalf of plaintiffs. While adducing defendants evidence, Def.No.10 examined himself as Dw1 and examined third parties namely Tuppari Ramesh, Dharulupally Yadagiri,
Baindla Yadagiri & Yerra Ramulu as Dws.2 to 5. Exs.B1 to B48 were marked on defendants behalf.
9.Pw1 reiterated entire contents of his plaint as his chief. In cross,
Pw1 admitting his relationship with plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4, testified that the originally hail from Ghanapuram, Mahabubnagar, but their grandfather
Cherka Narsimulu migrated to Nagireddyguda vg. Pw1 testified that he knew Danaiah, Muthaiah, Jangaiah & Balaiah who are co-sharers along with Cherka Narsimulu, of them, Danaiah, Cherka Narsimulu & Muthaiah were having an extent of Ac.2.12 gts each in Sy.No.105/12, in addition to division of another extent of Ac.2.12 gts equally for Ac.0.31 gts among
Danaiah, Muthaiah, Jangaiah & Balaiah. Pw1 admitted that Cherka
Narsimulu was allotted Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/AA and Muttaiah was allotted Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E. Pw1 also admitted that suit schedule property is situated towards northern side of Cherka Narsimulu’s land in Sy.No.105/12/AA, but he do not know that land in
Sy.No.105/12/UU is on Muttaiah’s name. Pw1 admitted that they filed application before MRO for validation of “Unregistered Sale deed,
dt:26.11.1963 / Ex.A37 and in Ex.A38, survey number is mentioned as
Sy.No.105/12/UU, but Pw1 do not know that alphabet ‘E” is included after scribing Ex.A37. Pw1 testifies that his grandfather Cherka Narsimulu died about 4 / 5 yrs after execution of Ex.A37.
10.Pw1 admitted that as per entries in pahanies vide Exs.A1 to A4 till 1985 to 86, Sy.No.105/12/E is on Muttaiah’s name and after Muttaiah’s
Page No. 10 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
death in 1987 his sons namely Yadagiri, Maisaiah & Gnaneshwar obtained succession over said land adding that it was done without his knowledge but he didn’t filed any appeal before RDO against such succession proceedings. Pw1 testifies that they didn’t approach the then MRO for panchanama to ascertain their possession over suit schedule property during pendency of OS.No. 135 of 2003, adding that they approached village patwari / Mal Reddy about issuance of passbooks on Yadagir,
Maisaiah & Gnaneshwar. Pw1 testifies that he do not know whether they mentioned in their complaint / Ex.A39 that they purchased suit schedule property by way of “Mojuvani” / Oral sale nor knew that any deficit stamp duty or registration charges were paid for Ex.A37, but they filed Exs.A37 &
A38 in their evidence in OS.No. 135 of 2003 after they were traced. Pw1 admitted that there is no schedule of property mentioned in Ex.A37 and that their land is situated towards southern side to suit land of Bikshapthis is on southern side of suit land but the same was not mentioned in schedule of property of this suit adding that land on eastern side of suit land is bounded by his land which was purchased from one Chakali
Sattaiah. Pw1 admitted that, land on western side to suit land belongs to
Jinkunta Narayana adding that the said above boundaries were pertaining to the year 2003.
11.Pw1 testified that he do not know the boundaries of suit schedule property mentioned in his plaint as the same were not enquired by his counsel admitting that they did not sought declaratory relief basing on
Exs.A37 & 38. Pw1 admits that Def.No’s.5 to 10 & 15 to 17 purchased the suit lands after passing exparte decree in OS.No. 819 of 2007 adding that they filed set aside petitions in O.S.No. 819 of 2007. Pw1 further admitted that after exparte decree in O.S.No. 819 of 2007, entries in possessory column of Exs.A1 to A9 were rectified and also entries in Exs.A29 to A35 were rectified basing on RDO, Moinabad orders vide Proceedings
No.C/4066/2016 adding that they were done in collusion with revenue authorities.
Page No. 11 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
12.Pw2 & Pw4 deposed in similar lines in their chief affidavits, that about 50 yrs back, the plaintiffs grandfather / Cherka Narsimulu purchased the suit schedule property from the Karishetty Muthaiah / father of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and since then plaintiffs are in possession, enjoyment of suit schedule property. Pw2 & Pw4 also deposed that the aforesaid sale transaction took place in Nagireddyguda vg. in their presence and other villagers. Apart from above, Pw4 further deposed that the sale execution was done by way of Unregistered sale deed but he is not attesting witness to such document. During cross, Pw2 testified that he didn’t instructed anything in his chief which was drafted by his counsel and he along with Plaintiff No.2 had five sisters namely Laxamma,
Nagamani, Girija, Ellamma & Lavaynya who were not arrayed as parties in this suit nor Pw2 mentioned about this fact or that Cherka Narsimulu is his grandfather in his chief. Pw2 testified that he was born on 12/03/1981 and his grandfather Cherka Narsimulu died prior to his birth as such he do not know about purchase of property from Karishetty Muttaiah and as per
Pw2’s date of birth, his age will be 44 yrs, but it was mentioned as 55 yrs in his chief. Pw2 admitted that he falsely mentioned in his chief that he was present when Cherka Narsimulu purchased suit property 50 yrs back and since then plaintiffs are in possession adding that Pw2 didn’t instructed the said fact to his counsel. Pw2 testified that he do not know who scribed Ex.A37 nor who attested their signature on it.
13.In cross, Pw4 testifies that he got Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.105 of
Nagireddyguda vg. which he acquired from his ancestors. Pw4 admits that land in Sy.No.105 originally belongs to Danaiah, Muthaiah, Jangaiah &
Balaiah who got Ac.2.12 gts each, of them Cherka Narsimulu acquired
Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105 from Muthaiah. Pw4 testifies that when Pw4 was aged about 20 yrs, Cherka Narsimulu’s father by name “Narsimulu” died about 40 / 50 yrs back at the age of 80 yrs. Pw4 testifies that father of
Cherka Narsimulu acquired land from his ancestors but not by purchase
Pw4 admitted that after death of Muthaiah, his land was mutated in the
Page No. 12 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
name of his children Yadagiri, Maisaiah & Gnaneshwar, but he do not know they cultivated the land after death of Muthaiah nor knew who are cultivating the suit schedule lands. Pw4 admits that he didn’t mention in his chief that plaintiffs are in cultivation and possession over suit schedule property nor stated that he was present at the time of execution of
Unregistered sale deed / Ex.A37.
14.Defendants commenced their evidence by filing chief of Def.No.10 who examined himself as Dw1, wherein apart from reiterating the contents of his written statements, Dw1 further deposed that plaintiffs pleaded differently in their plaint that Ex.A37 was executed on 26.11.1963 in contra to their written statement of OS.No. 58 of 2003, where they pleaded that they purchased suit property in the year 1965 and that the documents vide Exs.A37 & 38 were inadvertently marked without proper stamp duty. Dw1 deposes that as per Ex.A38, survey number was mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/UU, but there’s no record with that survey number on the name of Mutthaiah, even if it is assumed to be true, the said Sy.No.105/12/UU is in the name of Kalichetti Yadagiri & his brother as per 1994-95 pahani. Dw1 also deposes that in Ex.A37 “E” was inserted adjacent to Sy.No.105/12 and plaintiffs themselves admitted about mention of “Mojuvani / Oral sale” in Ex.A39 which in itself elicits that it was created for this suit. Dw1 deposes that this Hon’ble Court had dismissed I.A.No. 201 & 202 of 2020 on 02.08.2023 against which plaintiffs preferred CMA.No. 588 & 591 of 2023 before the Hon’ble High
Court which are pending. Dw1 specifically deposes that after purchase, they developed suit property by raising wet crops using their borewell in
Sy.No.105/14
15.In cross, Dw1 specifically admitted that he is deposing evidence on behalf of him and all other defendants Nos.1 to 17 and plaintiffs are residents of his village. Dw1 admitted that Def.Nos.1 to 5, 11 reside in
Shaikpet vg., but he do not know when they moved to Shaikpet vg. nor
Dw1 saw father of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 / Muttaiah. Dw1 testified that he
Page No. 13 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
along with Def.Nos.6 to 9 purchased Ac.1.21 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU from
Def.Nos.1 & 5 which is bounded by Cherka Narsimulu’s family land toward
Southern side, East: Road and Def.Nos.15 to 17 purchased Ac.0.31 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU from Def.Nos.11 to 14 through three registered sale deeds / Exs.B22 to B24. Dw1 admitted that the actual extent of land in
Sy.No.105 held by Muthaiah is only Ac.2.12 gts as there are no other lands in Sy.No.105 owned by Muttaiah. Dw1 testifies that neither he knew the actual extent of land in Sy.No.105 of Nagireddyguda vg. nor knew since how long there are disputes between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 pertaining to lands in Sy.No.105. Dw1 admits that Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 do not have any residential house in Nagireddyguda vg., but plaintiffs have other extent of lands in Nagireddyguda vg. Dw1 admits that Cherka
Narsimulu was the grandfather of Plaintiffs and Dw1 along with other defendants together got prepared our written statement through their counsel.
16.Dw1 testifies that he came to know about pendency of civil litigation proceedings between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 after they purchased the property by receiving summons in this suit denying that the same was not mentioned in his chief. Dw1 testifies that he came to know about plaintiffs attempts to encroach suit schedule property in the year 2018 which is three years prior to their purchase by Ex.B21, but again testified that at the time of their purchase, the came to know that there are no civil proceedings pending between Plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 on whose words, they believed to proceed with purchase of property by Ex.B21.
Dw1 admitted that he didn’t verified any plaint, written statements, judgments or orders pertaining to civil suits, appeals pending between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and he do not know reasons for such civil litigation stated supra. Dw1 admitted that he did not seen or verified any judgment or order wherein Def.Nos.1,5 & 11 were adjudicated as real owners of suit schedule property and he cannot say in which year another suit pending between plaintiffs with Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 was filed before
Page No. 14 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
LB.Nagar court nor he saw any plaint, written statement or documents pertaining to such suit pending in L.B. Nagar adding that he perused the same at L.B. Nagar Court after knowing about the said suit. Dw1 initially testified that he cannot say exact suit numbers pending at different court pertaining to suit schedule property, but again admitted that he, himself mentioned entire suits details in his written statement & Chief.
17.In further cross, Dw1 admitted that Def.No.9 is wife of his elder brother / Pavan Yadav and Def.No.15’s son-in-law / Rajamallesh worked as Police Constables in May, 2020 at Moinabad Police Station. Dw1 admitted that Def.No.6 filed criminal case vide Cr.No.190 of 2020 against plaintiffs, their family members adding that it was registered for damaging bund of suit schedule property. Dw1 testifies that he do not know plaintiffs also filed registered another case Vide Cr.No.191 of 2020 against Pavan
Yadav & Others. Dw1 admitted that as per Ex.A1 shown for the years 1965-66 & 1970, father of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 / Muttaiah was shown as
Pattedar and in Column 16 of Ex.A1, Narsimha name was mentioned with word “Self / Sontham”. Dw1 also admitted that, in Column No.17 of Ex.A1 mentioned a Purchase / Khareedu. Dw1 admits that in Column No.16 of
Ex.A2 pahani for the years 1979-80, names of Narsimha, Muthaiah &
Ramulu shown as Cultivators adding that on knowing about the same after purchase of property, against which they filed a civil suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 for rectification of revenue entries which is pending. Dw1 admitted that in Col.No.13 of Ex.A5 for year 1996-97, Narsimha & Others were mentioned as Possessors by striking “Yadagiri” / Def.No.1 and in
Col.No.12 of Exs.A6 to A9, names of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 noted as Pattedars in addition to noting “Cherka Narsimulu” as possessor in Col.No.13.
18.Dw1 in his cross admitted that Plaintiffs filed Exs.A37 & 38 in the year 2003 in OS.No. 135 / 2003 at Vikarabad court instituted by
Def.No.11 against plaintiffs, their family members but Dw1 didn’t know
Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 filed any criminal cases against plaintiffs or their family members for creating Exs.A37 & 38 or even in the year 2018 after
Page No. 15 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
purchase by Def.Nos.6 to 10 by Ex.B21 / A18. Dw1 admitted that OS.No.
135 of 2003 was dismissed in favor of plaintiffs herein, against which
Def.No.11 preferred appeal vide AS.No. 19/2007 which was allowed in favor of Def.No.11 and against such orders, plaintiffs filed Second appeal vide S.A.No. 778/2009 before the Hon’ble High Court in which, status-quo order / Ex.A13 was issued. Dw1 specifically admits that during pendency of OS.No. 135 of 2003, Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 filed another suit vide OS.No.
819 of 2007 before the V Addl. District Judge, L.B. Nagar. Dw1 admits that as per Exs.A18 to A22, survey number of property purchased mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/E, of which in page No.3 of Exs.A18 to 20, it is mentioned that Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 were decided as absolute owners through court exparte decree in OS.No. 819 of 2007, dt:08.07.2016 basing on which RDO Chevella issued Proceedings No.C/4066/2016 in respect of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E I.e. suit schedule property which was purchased by Def.Nos.6 to 10 vide Exs.A19 to A22 mentioning the same in said deeds.
19.Dw1 testifies that much prior to the execution of Exs.A18, 20 to 22, on 14.09.2017 plaintiffs approached the Hon’ble High Court vide WP.No.
31169 of 2017 in which vide its orders dt:09.05.2017 / Ex.A15 & A16 the
Hon’ble High Court had suspended RDO proceedings No.C/4066/2016.
Dw1 testifies that he do not know that on 08.06.2018 orders in IA.No. 259 of 2017, exparte decree in OS.No.819 of 2007 was set aside vide Ex.A14, but specifically admitted that OS.No.819 of 2007 is still pending in which
Def.Nos.6 to 17 didn’t impleaded as parties till date. Dw1 further admits that basing on Exs.A18, 20 to 22, defendants also obtained subsequent mutations vide Exs.A23 to 25 in their favor were also stayed by the
Hon’ble High Court vide IA.No. 01 of 2019 in WP.No.26475 of 2019 /
Ex.A26. Dw1 admits that as per pahanies for 1965-66 / Ex.B4 & 1971- 72 / Ex.B5 Narsimha is shown as possessor of Ac.2.12 gts / suit schedule property. Dw1 admitted that he didn’t gave any publication prior to purchase of suit schedule property adding that he verified documents
Page No. 16 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
legally prior to purchase. Dw1 also admits that, as on date of their purchase, suit schedule property was not partitioned among Def.No.s1, 5 & 11 who were cultivating together.
20.Dw2 deposed that originally Kalishetti Mutthaiah was owner, possessor of suit land of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E (OLD) which is corresponding new survey numbers & extents as Ac.0.31 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU2, Ac.0.30 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU3, Ac.0.14 gts in
Sy.No.105/12/UU/1, Ac.0.10 gts in Sy.No.101/12/UU1 & Ac.0.07 gts in
Sy.No.101/12/UU1, situated at Nagireddyguda vg. and after death of the
Muttaiah, his sons Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 succeeded the same. Dw2 deposes that, Def.Nos.1 to 5 jointly sold their entitlement in suit property to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts through registered sale deed vide Doc.No.579 of 2018 in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 which is bounded by land of Cherka
Narsimha at Southern Side. Later, Def.Nos.11 to 14 alienated remaining
Ac.0.31 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E in three different extents of Ac.0.14 gts,
Ac.0.10 gts & Ac.0.07 gts respectively to Def.Nos.15 to 17 through sale deeds vide Doc.No’s. 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018 after receipt of entire sale consideration paid in presence of Dw2 & Yadaiah, of them Dw2 attested as witness in all three sale deeds. Dw2 further deposes that, neither Kalishetty Muttaiah nor Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 had sold suit property in favor of plaintiffs grandfather / Cherka Narsimulu, who never cultivated suit property at any point of time.
21.In cross, Dw2 testified that he haven’t seen Kalishetti Muttaiah who might have died prior to 1960 and that Dw2 is aged about 40 yrs being born in 1985. Dw2 denied that Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 and their family members are residing in Shaikpet but not residing at Nagireddyguda vg, adding that they recently shifted to Shaikpet for livelihood. Dw2 testifies that he accompanied Dw1 couple of times to this court and Honble High
Court and that the sale consideration for Ac.1.21 gts vide Doc.No.579 of 2018 / Ex.B21 was Rs.20,00,000/- per acre but he do not have idea about actual market value of lands alienated vide Exs.B21 to B24 or that they
Page No. 17 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
valued more than one crore per acre. Dw2 testifies that after death of
Kalishetty Muttaiah, his sons / Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 partitioned the sole landed property of Ac.2.12 gts land in Sy.No.105, Nagireddyguda vg. Dw2 admitted that his grandfather alienated their land in Sy.No.105 prior to his birth and he haven’t seen any transactions pertaining to suit schedule property made in 1963, but he heard about such transactions. Dw2 testified that boundaries mentioned in his chief are for total Ac.2.12 gts
I.e. suit schedule property and he knew contents of Exs.B21 to B24 being attesting witness. Dw2 testifies that in 2007, Def.No.7 filed suit against plaintiffs which was disposed in favor of Def.No.11 denying that the said suit is still pending before the Addl. District Judge’s Court, Chevella. Dw2 further testifies that he do not have any idea about writ petitions filed by plaintiffs herein nor about proceedings No.C/4066/2016 mentioned in
Ex.B21, but denied that such proceedings were suspended by the Hon’ble
High Court vide Ex.A16. Dw2 specifically testifies that family members of
Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 are cultivating suit lands by raising various crops as on today.
22. In his chief, Dw3 deposed in similar lines as that of Dw2 about acquisition of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E by Def.Nos.1,5 & 11 who inturn alienated the same in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 through registered sale deeds, except adding that Dw3 arranged the sale of
Ac.0.31 gts to Def.Nos.15 to 17 vide Exs.B21 to 24 and that Dw3 also singed as attesting witness in Doc.No.579 of 2018 executed by Def.Nos.1, 5 in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10. During cross, Dw3 testified that as he is into real estate business, on request of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 in 2018, Dw3 arranged sale of Ac.1.20 gts through his friend to Def.No.6 vide Ex.B21 in which only Dw3 singed as attesting witness, but Dw3 do not know any particulars about suit or proceedings mentioned in Ex.B21. Dw3 further testifies that as Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 informed him that land alienated vide
Ex.B21 is of clear title relying on the same, Def.No.6 purchased it when the actual market value was about 60 to 80 lakhs on date of execution of
Page No. 18 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.B21. Dw3 specifically testifies that he do not know anything about civil disputes or any case details pending between plaintiffs family and
Def.Nos.1,5 &11 nor know the reason for filing this suit or against whom.
Dw3 testified that suit schedule land is bounded by East: Road, West:
Buchireddy land, North & South by Bestha Community people.
23.Defendants further examined the then neighboring land owners as
Dw4 & Dw5, who deposed in similar lines that Kalishetty Muttaiah was owner of suit property, after his death Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 succeeded the same, later sold it to Def.No.6 in the year 2018. Dws.4 & 5 further deposed that during life time of Muttaiah, he never sold suit land to anyone and plaintiffs were never in possession over it at any point of time.
Apart from above, Dw4 deposed in specific that his family owned Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/17 located towards western side of suit property, but his father sold it about 20 yrs back. Dw5 deposes that, his father owned
Ac.1.02 gts in Sy.No.105 located near suit property towards western side which he sold it about 5 yrs back to third parties.
24.In cross Dw4 testified that he came to know through K.Narsimha /
Def.No.6 & others in 2018 about purchase of land and Dw4 haven’t seen
Muthaiah when he died as he was aged about 12 yrs but after death of
Mutthaiah, his sons shifted to Tolichowki due to disputes with their agnates. Dw4 specifically testifies that Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 possess Ac.2.12 gts i.e. suit land only and about 2 or 3 yrs back, disputes arose with plaintiffs with respect to suit lands, but he cannot say whether such disputes were in respect of bund between each other lands. Dw4 admitted that disputes also arose between Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 with plaintiffs in respect of suit lands for which criminal cases were registered against each other, as Dw4 along with other villagers went to
Moinabad P.S. at time of quarrel. Dw4 admits that Dw2, Jeenikuntla Raju,
Davit & Def.Nos.6 to 8 & 10 were present in Moinabad Police Station, but either plaintiffs or Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 were not present in police station where Pavan Yadav / husband of Def.No.9 and Rajamallesh / agnate of
Page No. 19 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Def.Nos.6 to 10 family were working as constables in Moinabad P.S. at that time.
25.Dw5 in his cross testified that he saw Muttaiah who used to stay in hut had died about 50 yrs back in their village and after 5 or 6 yrs of death, Muttaiah’s sons migrated to city. Dw5 testified that wife of Muttiah predeceased him, but he do not know when she died and Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 might be of 40 to 50 yrs of age when their father / Muttaiah died. Dw5 admitted that plaintiffs have their own land adjacent to suit lands and Dw5 land was situated at a distance of one K.M. from suit land. Dw5 testified that he do not know any disputes or quarrel took place among plaintiffs and Dw5 was not an attesting witness to any sale transaction between
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and Def.Nos.6 to 10 or 15 to 17. Dw5 specifically testified that on the request of defendants he came to court and deposing but he do not know who filed this suit or what relief sought.
26.Before dwelling into adjudication of the issues involved in this suit, this court had noticed that there are couple of issues which were framed solely basing on the pleadings of both parties, taking consideration of the disputed facts. Whereas, after conclusion of trial and upon hearing both parties, it is evident that disputed fact in Issue No.1 relating to the validity of “unregistered sale deed” dt:26.11.1963 is directly and substantially in question in previous instituted suit vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 for
Declaration of title which is pending before the Hon’ble XVIIIAdditional
District Judge, At Chevella which received by transfer from the Hon’ble V
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar cannot be
dealt in this suit which is instituted basing on different cause of action, that too, after lapse of about 13 yrs. So also, Issue No.6 dealing with the relief of Perpetual Injunction is also directly and substantially in question to be adjudicated by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana vide S.A.No.778 of 2009 preferred by plaintiffs herein is also pending for adjudication. As stated supra, disputed facts as per Issues Nos.1 & 6 were pending from several years, much prior to institution of this present suit before this
Page No. 20 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
court which is on the lower pedestal to the above referred courts and adjudicating the same in either way would be nonetheless than surpassing jurisdiction of this court which wouldn’t be proper or necessary to adjudicate the actual issues involved in this suit. Therefore, with utmost obedience this court opines that invoking Order XIV Rule 5 of Code of Civil
Procedure, thereby deleting issues Nos.1 & 6 in the interest of justice.
27.This court also opines, it is just and necessary to address the contentions of the defendants counsel about the maintainability of this suit as the same would fall within the purview of Stay of subsequent suit as provided Under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code which was based on the same analogy as opined by this court in above para. The contentions of the defendants are that the matters in dispute in this are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit and adjudication of those issues in such previous instituted suits or proceedings would operate as res-judicata U/sec. 11 of Civil Procedure Code, therefore the present suit shall be stayed. In reply to the above said contentions, the plaintiffs counsel reverted that the present suit is filed basing on the subsequent events occurred post institution of the OS.No. 819 of 2007 and S.A.No.778 of 2009, stemming up from altogether different cause of action(s) took place after lapse of more than 10 yrs of pendency above proceedings whose reliefs are quite distinct with the present suit which in itself dispels the claim of defendants stated supra as to the maintainability of this suit.
28.It is evident from the pleadings of both sides and the material on record, that the main relief sought in this present suit is that to declaration of sale deeds vide Doc.No’s: 579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as void which were executed during pendency of OS.No. 819 of 2007 and Issues Nos.1 & 6 which are similar with that of core issues to be dealt in OS.No. 819 of 2007 and S.A.No.778 of 2009 which cannot be considered to be that of the substantial issues to be adjudicated in present suit. In order to ascertain the impact of Section 10 on the present suit, this court relies on
Page No. 21 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 1996 (1)
APLJ 202 (HC) - Karri Satyanarayana & Ors Vs. Pichika Veerraju &
Ors, wherein it was held as “It is necessary to note that for Section 10 to apply, there must be identity of the subject matter. Mere fact that one of the questions in issue is the same as in the other suit, would not make the subject matter identical. The use of definite article ‘the’ in the ‘the matter in issue’ occurring in Section 10 CPC suggests that the rule will not apply where only a ‘matter in issue’ is common” . This court further relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2013) 4 SCC 333 -
Aspijal and Another vs Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor, wherein it was held as “The fundamental test to attract Sec. 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as resjudicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits are identical.”
29.In the light of aforesaid judgments, it is cogently clear that though there is identity of subject matter in all these three proceedings is same but in all these proceedings, the parties indulged are not identical as there is much variance in the parties involved in those suits as such the same cannot be considered for stay of present suit, that too, when there are distinct issues to be dealt in this present suit when compared with that of the previous suits / proceedings vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 & SA.No. 778 of 2009 which itself establishes that adjudication of these previous proceedings would neither operate as Res-Judicata to the present suit nor conclusively deals with the relief of declaration of sale deeds as void as sought in this present suit which indeed was filed altogether under different set of facts, unfolded during pendency of aforesaid previous suits. It is imperative to note that the whole issues or subject matter herein are not incidental to the previous suits, except the identity of the matter with the present suit, therefore the application of Sec. 10 will not apply as only couple of issues Nos.1 & 6 appears to be common.
Page No. 22 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
30.Further, this court opines that it would appropriate to concise few aspects such as the relevancy of impact of unregistered sale deed & receipt / Exs.A37 & 38, marking certified copies of Exs.A37 & 38, ambiguity of survey numbers pertaining to suit schedule property and the claim of improper payment of court fees which would pave way depicting the rationale in placing these aspects herein without including them in adjudication of core issues Nos.2, 3 & 5 of this suit. Of these aspects, the the most pressed one was about the authenticity of Exs.A37 & 38 and its marking by this court, upon considering the submissions, this court opines that these aspects are directly relevant to the adjudication of title over the suit schedule property for which the Def.Nos.1 & 5 had already filed
OS.No.819 of 2007 which is pending for adjudication as on today. The
Defendants counsel relied that these exhibits vide Exs.A37 & 38 were created for the purpose of civil disputes pending before various courts as the plaintiffs themselves came up with different version that they purchased suit schedule property by Oral sale / Mojuvani in their complaint filed before police Moinabad vide Ex.A39. Defendants further put forth that there is no mention of boundaries in Exs.A37 & 38 and mentioning of different binumbers in both Exs.A37 & 38, patently mentioning alphabet “UU” in Ex.A37 establishes that they are fabricated to suit their case. More so, this court ought not to have marked the certified copies as Exs.A37 & 38, relying on the order of the Hon’ble High Court in
CRP.No.’s.375 of 2025 & 379 of 2025, wherein it was held as “Photocopies or certified copies of photocopies, the same therefore would become inadmissible in evidence”
31.In reply to the aforesaid contentions, plaintiffs counsel brought to the fore that the aforesaid documents / Exs.A37 & 38 was filed before the concerned court in the first civil dispute initiated by Defendants No.1 vide
OS.No. 135 of 2003 before Junior Civil Judge court, Vikarabad where none
of the contesting defendants or their counsels had made any objections as to the insufficiency or deficit of stamp duty or registration charges on
Page No. 23 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Exs.A37 & 38 as such the then court had marked the same, basing on the same said suit was adjudicated, thereafter, the said proceedings were continued before the Hon’ble High Court vide S.A.No. 778 of 2009 from where the present certified copies were obtained which were marked as
Exs.A37 & 38 herein which in itself prohibits the defendants to raise the said objection at this juncture in different suit which is filed for distinct reliefs. Further, it is noted that as raised by plaintiffs, till date none of the defendants had made any effort or initiated any proceedings before any forum either to establish that these exhibits / Exs.A37 & 38 are forged, fabricated documents or action against plaintiffs for doing so. The judgments relied upon by the defendants in 2006 (6) ALT 523 (FB),
Civil Appeal No.7350 of 2008, 2015 (2) ALD 291, 2003 4 ALT 84,
2010 3 ALT 165, 2025 4 ALT (SC) 19, 2008 4 ALT 421 and 2000 3
ALT 229 are not relevant to the present suit in hand as the Issues Nos.1 & 6 were deleted by this court as stated supra.
32.Apart from the above, the version of eliciting of different boundaries mentioned initially in suit during cross of Pw1 and rectifying the same by amendment was not tenable as it was done to fill up lacunae will not hold water, which in fact was considered by the court to affirm the identity of suit schedule property is the same for which other civil disputes were also pending between the parties, that too, when both parties more particularly defendants themselves pressed about the subject matter in dispute is similar in all pending proceedings that too, when there is cogent ambiguity about suit survey numbers claimed by both sides, which would be dealt in subsequent paras. In view of the above discussion, the dispute as to the authenticity of Exs.A37 & 38 is not point of relevancy in this present suit as the same is core of OS.No. 819 of 2007 dealing with title dispute of both parties. It is noted that except making mere claim, defendants didn’t corroborated their claim that Exs.A37 & 38 are the certified copies of the photocopies obtained from the court, which otherwise was the documents obtained from the Hon’ble High Court where the second appeal is pending
Page No. 24 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
in which the originals of Exs.A37 & 38 were claimed to have filed, as such it cannot be considered that plaintiffs obtained certified copies of photocopies.
33.In continuation of the above, the next aspect is about ambiguity of survey numbers of suit schedule property was it Sy.No.105/12/E or
Sy.No.105/12/UU as both survey numbers were averred by both parties either in their documents or evidence relied by them. To begin with the plaintiffs, who averred that suit schedule property is in Sy.No.105/12/E, but in Ex.A38 it was mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/UU different with suit survey number with which there is no record showing property in
Sy.No.105/12/UU on Muttaiah’s name but on the name of Balaiah for smaller extent. In response to the above, the plaintiffs counsel argued that the defendants themselves aren’t sure about the actual survey number of their property as both survey numbers I.e. Sy.No.105/12/E & 105/12/UU were referred invariably in the documents defendants relied upon.
34.This court had noticed that the Sy.No.105/12/E was referred by defendant in Exs.A18 to A22 mentioning that the said property was decided in favor of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 and basing on the same RDO, Chevella had issued proceedings No.C/4066/2016,
dt:09.05.2017 in respect of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy.No.105/12/E which was
acquired by Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 through registered sale deeds, but all such claims were made in contra to the version of Dws.1 to 5, of them
Dw1 who deposed on behalf of other defendants too, deposed that they purchased Ac.1.21 gts in Sy.No.105/12/UU from Def.Nos.11 to 14 vide
Exs.B22 to 24 which further asserted by the mediator of said sale transactions examined as Dw2 who came up with new version that the suit survey number I.e. Sy.No.105/12/E is old survey number to which new corresponding survey numbers for different extents were issued I.e.
Sy.No.105/12/UU1 (Ac.0.31 gts), Sy.No.105/12/UU2 (Ac.0.31 gts),
Sy.No.105/12/UU3 (Ac.0.30 gts) which summed up to exact extent of
Page No. 25 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ac.2.12 gts of suit schedule property which in itself clears the ambiguity in survey numbers pertaining to suit schedule property which was in
Sy.No.105/12/E as on the date of commencement of civil disputes between the parties.
35.Up next is the defendants contentions about the maintainability of the suit on payment of insufficient court fees U/sec. 37 of The TGSV & CF
Act instead of Sec. 24 which was paid for cancellation of sale deeds. On keen perusal of the material available on record, at first, the court fee paid for the aforesaid cancellation relief was based on the advolarem for entire consideration U/sec. 37 of The Act and plaintiffs specifically pleaded relief to declare the alleged sale deeds as null & void as evident from the pleadings. More so, the amount of court fees paid by the plaintiffs for the relief of cancellation was twice as that of the amount to be paid for the relief of Declaration which in itself is more than sufficient court fees paid by the plaintiffs. More so, as the aforesaid objections were not pressed by the defendants when this court had framed issues pertaining to the relief of declaration or otherwise, instead proceeded to conclude trial but raised the same in their arguments would not hold water as the issue framed for declaratory relief was done with an intent to bring facts to fore, for proper adjudication of the disputes in this suit.
36.In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, this court proceeds with the adjudication of core issues pertaining to this suit I.e. Issues Nos.2, 3 & 5 are dealt together as the same were based on same facts and evidence adduced brought on record having cascading effect on these issues.
Further this court opines that it is just and necessary to adjudicate Issues
Nos.2, 3 & 5 together so as to avoid redundancy, ambiguity in appreciating the evidence on record for just disposal of this lis;
ISSUES No’s: 2, 3 & 5:
(2) Whether the sale deed vide Doc.No.579/2018, dt:
12.01.2018 executed by Def.Nos.1 to 5 in favor of
Defendant Nos.6 to 10 is illegal or not?
Page No. 26 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
(3) Whether the Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018
executed by Def.Nos.11 to 14 in favor of Defendants Nos.5
to 17 are illegal or not?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
declaration of Registered sale deeds vide Doc.No’s:
579/2018, dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 &
16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void or not?
P O I N T : [a] On perusal of the material available on record including the arguments put forth by both counsels, this court observed there are certain facts to be noted prior to proceeding with adjudication of these issues, of them, there is no dispute that the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.105/12 in Nagireddyguda (V), Moinabad (M), R.R.Dist.
and the said Sy.No.105/12 comprising of several parcels of lands which were noted with different bi-numbers, one of such bi-number was
Sy.No.105/12/E i.e. suit survey number pertaining to suit schedule property and the ambiguity aspect pertaining to suit survey number was dealt in detail in above paras. It is also noted that it is admitted that Late.
Cherka Narsimulu and Kalishetti Muttaiah were having lands to an extent of Ac.2.12 gts each in Sy.No.105/12 and it is the defendants witnesses who categorically admitted that Cherka Narsimulu land is different with that of the suit schedule property which is situated towards southern side of the suit land. Also, it is categorically admitted by Dws.1 to 3, that except the suit schedule property Kalisheety Muttaiah is not having any other land in Sy.No.105/12 which itself crystallizes that the suit schedule property is distinct situated in Sy.No.105/12/E (Sy.No.105/12/UU New number). To avoid ambiguity, the suit survey number is hereby mentioned as Sy.No.105/12/E. It is not out of place to mention here that in cross
Dw2 specifically testified that he had heard about the alleged sale transaction between Cherka Narsimulu and Kalishetty Muttaiah in 1963.
[b]It is an admitted fact as elicited during cross of witnesses from both sides that civil disputes are pending between plaintiffs and Def.Nos.1,
Page No. 27 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
5 & 11 from very long time much prior to the institution of the present suit, at first Defendant No.11 instituted OS.No.135/2003 (Old.OS.No.58/2003) against plaintiffs herein to restrain plaintiffs from interfering into their possession which was dismissed in favor of plaintiffs herein, against which had Def.No.11 preferred First Appeal vide A.S.No.19 of 2007 and the same was allowed setting aside the judgment in
OS.No.135 of 2003 of original part. Thereafter, against such orders
plaintiffs herein had preferred second appeal vide S.A.No. 778 of 2009
before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana which is pending for
adjudication. Here comes the validity of sale transactions, Mutation proceedings Vide No.C/4066/2016 that whether the same was issued during pendency of proceedings vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 is crucial one in dealing with aforesaid issues, as OS.No. 819 of 2007 was initially decreed exparte, but later the said exparte decree was set aside vide I.A.No.259 of 2017, dt:08.06.2018 by the Hon’ble V Addl District Court, Ranga Reddy
District from where the said suit is still pending for adjudication before the
Hon’ble XVIII Addl. District Judge, Chevella, R.R.Dist.
[c]As patently evident from the record, there are multiple litigations pending between plaintiffs and defendants before various forums including the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, but as stated supra only two proceedings vide OS.No. 819 of 2007 and Writ Petitions vide
WP.No. 31169 of 2017 & WP.No. 26475 of 2019 are relevant to the
present suit in hand as the alleged sale deeds vide Doc.No’s: 579/2018,
dt:12.01.2018, 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018
were executed in spite of suspension orders. It would be proper to specify the events unfolded events in their chronological order for proper appreciation, of which as stated supra Def.No’s.1, 5 & 11 themselves had filed OS.No. 819 of 2007 which was decreed exparte on 08.07.2016 against such exparte decree, plaintiffs herein had filed two separate petitions vide IA.No. 640 of 2016 to condone delay of eight (8) days along with other petition IA.No. 259 of 2017 to set aside exparte decree in
Page No. 28 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
OS.No. 819 of 2007. It is born out of record that, the first petition filed to
condone delay vide IA.No. 640 of 2016 was allowed on 13.03.2017 keeping pendency of IA.No. 259 of 2017 for disposal. The most crucial point here to be considered is the date I.e. 13.03.2017 on which IA.No.
640 of 2016 was allowed breathing new life to the litigation of plaintiffs herein in OS.No. 819 of 2007.
[d]Now comes the actual acts done by Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 creating utter chaos, to begin with, upon the applications filed by Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 the then RDO, Chevella had issued a proceedings vide No.C/4066/2016
dt:09.05.2017 / Ex.A15 for mutation of revenue entries on Def.Nos.1, 5 &
11 and the then RDO, Chevella in Ex.A15 had specifically mentioned that the Thasildar, Moinabad had mentioned that “no cases, appeals were pending in their office” which itself goes contra to the version when there is specific mention of OS.No. 819 of 2007 exparte decree itself hints the suspicion about issuance of proceedings vide Ex.A15. It is pertinent to mention here that, defendants didn’t elicited the need for securing mutation of revenue records on their names when already one proceeding was issued on their name after death of their father vide Ex.A10 and not to forget the defendants neither filed the said proceedings vide No.
4460/1987, dt:25.06.1988 issued by MRO, Moinabad nor negated as to why the name of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 and their mother / Smt.Lingammma was mentioned when she pre-deceased her husband. This court observes that surname of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11’s father was mentioned “Baista
Muttaiah” instead of “Kalishetty Muttaiah” which also casts cloud of suspicion as to claim of defendants on suit schedule property.
[e]It is crucial to analyze the events unfolded during pendency of
IA.No. 259 of 2017 in OS.No. 819 of 2007 which patently elicits the intent
of the Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 towards the suit schedule property, of which, securing mutation vide Ex.A15 was secured after lapse of more than two months of allowing IA.No. 640 of 2016, as such the plaintiffs approached the Hon’ble High Court filing WP.No. 31169 of 2017 along with WP.No.
Page No. 29 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
38840 of 2017, wherein the Hon’ble High Court in its orders dated 14.09.2017 & 13.10.2017 vide Exs.A16 & 17 had categorically suspended the proceedings No.C/4066/2016 which was ordered to extended until further orders. At this juncture, basing on the mutation proceedings and exparte decree in OS.No. 819 of 2007 though the same was pending,
Def.Nos.1 to 5 had executed a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 alienating Ac.1.21 gts out of suit schedule property in favor of Def.Nos.6 to 10 against the orders of the Hon’ble High Court vide WP.MP.No.38840 of 2017. Later, Def.Nos.11 to 14 further alienated the remaining extent of Ac.0.31 gts in favor of Def.Nos.15 to 17 vide 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 basing on the same, mutation proceedings vide Exs.A23 to A25 were issued in favor of
Def.Nos.15 to 17 against which plaintiffs herein once again approached the Hon’ble High Court vide WP.No. 26475 of 2019 in which vide separate interim orders had suspended mutation proceedings vide Exs.A23 to 25 in its order vide Ex.A26. The aforesaid saga cogently elicits that defendants
Nos.1, 5 & 11 had intentionally alienated the suit schedule property to
Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 as stated supra being well aware about the pendency of OS.No. 819 of 2007 for declaration of their title apart from suspension of revenue proceedings.
[f]Now, it would also relevant to ascertain about the intent of subsequent purchasers I.e Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 who purchased the suit schedule property as stated supra and on careful perusal of the cross examination of Def.No.10 who was the only person examined and deposed on behalf of Def.Nos.1 to 17, there wont be any doubt even as suttle point that they were not aware about pendency of proceedings pertaining to the suit schedule property before they acquired. At first, as Dw1 himself categorically admitted that he came to know about plaintiffs attempts to encroach suit schedule property and pendency of civil litigation with
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 three years prior to purchase of suit schedule land vide
Ex.B21, but they proceeded with purchase basing on the words of
Page No. 30 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 who informed that no civil proceedings are pending.
Further, though Dw1 was aware about pendency of proceedings, as admitted he didn’t verified any judgment or orders which adjudicated
Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 as absolute owners or he verified any documents prior to his purchase establishes the malafide intent of Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 to acquired property under litigation. To corroborate the same,
Def.Nos.6 to 10 initiated criminal proceedings against plaintiffs in
Moinabad P.S. where Def.No.9’s husband and relative of Def.Nos.6 to 10 were working as police constables.
[g]This courts has taken pragmatic approach in this suit to ascertain the intent of Def.Nos.1, 5 & 11 to alienate the suit property which Def.Nos.6 to 10 & 15 to 17 readily purchased even on being aware about pendency of proceedings before civil court and the Hon’ble High court vide proceedings supra and such approach by any individuals shall be dealt with iron fist to discourage such mode of acquisition of properties which not only reduces the unwanted litigation in courts but also avoids abuse of process of law meant for dispensing of justice but not to use it as a tool for securing unfair means. This court has no hinch of doubt that the sale deeds vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 and 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 were executed during pendency of litigations and suspension of mutation orders vide
Proceedings No.C/4066/2016 which is illegal on face of it, making such documents to be declared as null & void.
Issues Nos.2 3 & 5 were decided in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
37.Issue No.4: Whether the suit is barred by Limitation or not?
P O I N T : Another contention of the defendants was that the present suit is not maintainable as the same was filed after lapse of limitation period solely relying on the unregistered sale deed vide Ex.A37 which was
Page No. 31 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
allegedly executed in the year 1963 which in itself bars the present suit.
Whereas, it is evident that the present suit was filed seeking declaration of sale deeds vide Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 and 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void basing on the subsequent cause of action arose in the year 2018. As it is evident that period of three years was prescribed under The Limitation Act to file any suit seeking declaratory reliefs and in the present suit which was filed in the year 2020 before Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad which was renumbered after receiving it by transfer the said fact in itself establishes that the suit was filed within the limitation period.
Issue No.4 was decided against the defendants and in favor of plaintiffs.
38.To What relief?
As the core relief of plaintiffs was to declare the sale deeds vide
Doc.No.579 of 2018, dt:12.01.2018 and 16997/2018, 16998/2018 & 16999/2018, dt:29.10.2018 as null and void which was adjudicated in their favor, as such plaintiffs are not entitled for any other relief.
In the result, this suit is partly decreed without costs in favor of plaintiffs declaring the sale deeds vide Doc.No. 579 of 2018, dt:
12.01.2018, Doc.No’s: 16997 of 2018, 16998 of 2018 & 16999 of 2018 all
dated 29.10.2018 as null and void which were pertaining to the land to an
extent of Ac.2.12 gts, situated in Sy.No.105/12/E, Nagireddyguda village,
Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
(Typed to my dictation on Computer to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 23rd day of December, 2025).
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Chevella, R.R.District
Page No. 32 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Pw1: Charka Eshwaraiah Dw1: K. Ashok Pw2: Cherka Mallesh Dw2: Tuppari Ramesh Pw3: K.Sadguna Chary(eschewed) Dw3: Dharulupally Yadagiri Pw4: Jeenugunta Narayana Dw4: Baindla Yadagiri Dw5: Yerra Ramulu
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1: CC of pahani for the year 1970-71 Ex.A2: CC of pahani for the year 1973-74 & 1979-80 Ex.A3: CC of pahani for the year 1965-66 Ex.A4: CC of pahani for the year 1985-86 & 1987-88, 1990-91 Ex.A5: CC of pahani for the year 1995-96 & 1996-97 Ex.A6: CC of pahani for the year 1997-98 & 2000-01 Ex.A7: CC of pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex.A8: CC of pahani for the year 2003-04 Ex.A9: CC of pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex.A10: CC of Proceeding vide File No.B/4460/1987, dated 25.06.1988 Ex.A11: CC of Judgment & Decree copy vide OS.No.58/2003 (old) and
OS.No.135/2003 (new) dated 21.03.2007
Ex.A12: CC of Judgment & Decree Appeal suit vide No.19/2007 Ex.A13: CC of Second Appeal Order vide S.A.No.778/2009 Ex.A14: CC of I.A. Order vide I.A.No.259/2017 in OS.No.819/2007 Ex.A15: CC of set-aside order copy vide File No.4066/2016 Ex.A16: CC of WP vide No.31169/2017, dated 14.09.2017 Ex.A17: CC of WPMP No.38840/2017, dated 13.10.2017 Ex.A18: CC of sale deed document No.579/2018, dated 12.01.2018 Ex.A19: Copy of Criminal Petition vide No.5887/2018 Ex.A20: CC of Sale Deed document No.16997/2018, dated 29.10.2018 Ex.A21: CC o Sale Deed document No.16998/2018, dated 29.10.2018 Ex.A22: CC of Sale Deed document No.16999/2018, dated 29.10.2018 Ex.A23: CC of Proceedings No.B/2388/2018 Ex.A24: CC of Proceedings No.B/2390/2018 Ex.A25: CC of Proceedings No.B/2391/2018 Ex.A26: CC of IA Nos.1 & 2 of 2019 in WP.No.26475/2019 Ex.A27: CC of WP No.1203/2020 Ex.A28: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.9,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Page No. 33 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.A29: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.10,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A30: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.7,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A31: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.8,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A32: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.6,
dt: 24.02.2020 (2)
Ex.A33: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.17,
dt: 24.02.2020
Ex.A34: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.15,
dt: 24.02.2020
Ex.A35: CC of pahani Fasli year 2019 in the name of defendant No.16,
dt: 24.02.2020
Ex.A36: Copy of Encumbrance Certificate, dated 22.02.2020 Ex.A37: CC of unregistered sale deed dated 26.11.1963 Ex.A38: CC of receipt dated 26.11.1963 Ex.A39: CC of police complaint dated 27.05.2003 Ex.A40: CC of chief examination affidavit of Pw1 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A41: CC of chief-examination affidavit of Pw1 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A42: CC of cross-examination of Dw1 in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A43: CC of chief-examination affidavit of Dw3 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003 Ex.A44: CC of chief-examination affidavit of Dw4 along with cross- examination in OS.No.135/2003
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1: CC of kasra pahani for the year 1954-55 Ex.B2: CC of chessala pahani for the year 1955-58 (3 Pages) Ex.B3: CC of pahani for the year 1962-63 (2 pages) Ex.B4: CC of pahani for the year 1965-66 (1 pages) Ex.B5: CC of pahani for the year 1971-72 (2 pages) Ex.B6: CC of pahani for the year 1973-74 (2 pages) Ex.B7: CC of pahani for the year 1976-77 (2 pages) Ex.B8: CC of pahani for the year 1977-78 (2 pages) Ex.B9: CC of pahani for the year 1985-86 (2 pages) Ex.B10: CC of pahani for the year 1987-88 (2 pages) Ex.B11: CC of pahani for the year 1989-90 (2 pages) Ex.B12: CC of pahani for the year 1994-95 (1 pages)
Page No. 34 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.B13: CC of pahani for the year 1998-99 (1 pages) Ex.B14: CC of pahani for the year 2002-03 (1 pages) Ex.B15: CC of pahani for the year 2005-06 (1 pages) Ex.B16: CC of pahani for the year 2007-08 (2 pages) Ex.B17: CC of pahani for the year 2010-11 (2 pages) Ex.B18: CC of pahani for the year 2013-14 (1 pages) Ex.B19: CC of pahani for the year 2015-16 (1 pages) Ex.B20: CC of pahani for the year 2020-21 (2 pages) Ex.B21: CC of sale deed dated.12.01.2018 bearing Doc.No.579 of 2018 Ex.B22: CC of sale deed dated.29.10.2018 bearing Doc.No.16997 of 2018 Ex.B23: CC of sale deed dated.29.10.2018 bearing Doc.No.16998 of 2018 Ex.B24: CC of sale deed dated.29.10.2018 bearing Doc.No.16999 of 2018 Ex.B25: CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2388 of 2018 Ex.B26: CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2389 of 2018 Ex.B27: CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2390 of 2018 Ex.B28:CC of proc. Order dated.23.01.2019 in file No.B/2391 of 2018 Ex.B29: Photographs (6 pages / 24 pics) along with pen drive containing videos Ex.B30: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Narsimha Ex.B31: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Balraj Yadav Ex.B32: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Venkatesh yadav Ex.B33: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Kodicherla Jyothi Ex.B34: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of K. Ashok Ex.B35: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Bantu Gnyaneshwar Ex.B36: CC of 1-B (ROR) dated 21.12.2019 of Mamindla Nagamani Ex.B37: CC of pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12/UU3/1 Ex.B38: CC of pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12/UU/3/1 Ex.B39: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12/UU2/2 Ex.B40: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU3/2 Ex.B41: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/3 Ex.B42: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/3 Ex.B43: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/4 Ex.B44: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/4
Page No. 35 of 35 O.S No. 231 of 2022
Ex.B45: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU2/5 Ex.B46: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU3/5 Ex.B47: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU1/2 Ex.B48: CC of Pahani Fasli No.2019 dated 21.12.2019 in Sy.No.105/12UU1/1/1
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Chevella, R.R.District
Page 1 of 11 O.S No. 107 of 2015
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT CHEVELLA.
FRIDAY, THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT: SRI. KATRAGADDA DASHARATHA RAMAIAH
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, At: CHEVELLA.
O.S No. 107 of 2015
Between:
1.Kumari K. Shalini D/o. Pentoji Rao, aged about 06 years, Occ: Student.
2.Master K. Sai Kiran S/o. Pentoji Rao, aged about 03 years, Occ: Student.
Both being minors are represented by their Mother / guardian Smt. K. Vijayalaxmi, W/o. Pentoji Rao, aged about 27 years, Occ: Household R/o. Appareddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District.
...Plaintiffs
AND
1.K. Pentoji Rao S/o. Ram Chander Rao, aged about 49 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Appareddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.Dist.
2.Smt.Chandrakala D/o. Not known to the plaintiffs, aged about 37 years, Occ: Household, R/o: Appareddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.Dist.
3.Dr. Khaja Ameer Hussain S/o. Khaja Waheed Hussain, aged about 39 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o: H.No.2-3-190, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. …Defendants
This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Bal Redy, Counsel for Plaintiffs and Sri.Dinesh Mundada, Counsel for Defendant No.3; and this suit having stood over for consideration till this day, and after hearing both the counsels this Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T :: ::
This suit is instituted by the Plaintiffs against Defendants seeking
Partition and Separate Possession of land Ac.1-22 gts in Sy.No.420/AA/1,
Page 2 of 11 O.S No. 107 of 2015
situated at Kankamamidi Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule land) and to allot 1/3rd share to each plaintiffs and 1/3rd share to defendant No.1 in the suit schedule property.
2.The brief averments of plaint are that the marriage of Def.No.1 was performed with one Vijayalaxmi who were blessed with two children I.e plaintiffs herein out of their wed lock but off late, Def.No.1 started to live separately from his wife & children without looking after their welfare nor providing basic amenities. It is submitted that the forefathers of Def.No.1 acquired properties including the suit schedule property, which was succeeded on the name of Def.No.1’s father / Ram Chander Rao after whose death Def.No.1 succeeded the same as ancestral property which is in joint possession & enjoyment of Def.No.1 and plaintiffs. It is submitted that Vijaya Laxmi recently came to know that Def.No.1 is trying to transfer the suit property to Def.No.2 portraying her as his wife though he is no way related to Def.No.1, which in fact both Def.Nos.1 & 2 were cohabiting with each other, as a result on 10.07.2015 Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi demanded for partition to give their legitimate share to plaintiffs but Def.No.1 refused for the same. As the things stood thus, Def.No.1 asserted that he will transfer suit schedule property on to Def.No.2 & 3 names, which if made would be invalid nor binding on plaintiffs as they are in joint possession of the same. Plaintiffs submit that, though no relief is sought against
Def.Nos.2 & 3, they were arrayed as defendants on apprehension that
Def.No.1 might have created some interest in favor of Def.No.2 & 3.
Hence this suit.
3.Upon receipt of summons, none of the Defendants No.1 & 2 had made their appearance either in person or through their counsel, hence they were set exparte. Def.No.3 filed his written statement denying entire contents of plaint as false, vexatious and a freaky attempt for their unjust enrichment. Def.No.3 submits that the present suit is filed without
Page 3 of 11 O.S No. 107 of 2015
obtaining required permission from this court by plaintiffs guardian and basing on illusionary cause of action. It is submitted that name of
Def.No.3 is Khaja Hameed Hussain but not as Khaja Ameer Hussain as mentioned in plaint wherein the fact that Def.Nos.1 & 2 being legally married couple, their relationship was also suppressed by plaintiffs to grab suit schedule property from Def.No.3 who purchased the same under registered sale deed vide Doc.No.2721 of 2015, dt:13.04.2015 from
Def.No.2 for a valid sale consideration and since then Def.No.3 is continued his possession & enjoyment as absolute owner. It is also submitted that Def.No.1 had gifted the suit schedule property to his legally wedded wife / Def.No.2 vide Doc.No.2157 of 2008, dt:03.05.2008 as on which day, plaintiffs were not even born and from the same day, Def.No.1 lost his right, possession over suit schedule property. Def.No.3 further submits that though plaintiffs and their guardian / Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi were having knowledge about the said transactions stated supra, they intentionally chose not file any encumbrance certificate instead filing this present suit against Def.Nos.2 & 3 itself elicits about malicious suppression of said facts in collusion with Def.No.1 before this court for the purpose of this suit. It is specifically submitted that there is no mention as to the aspect of Limitation in plaint or the suit filed within limitation or not and on which ground alone this suit shall be rejected.
Hence, prayed to dismiss this present suit with exemplary and compensatory costs of Rs.2,00,000/-, in the interest of justice.
4.Basing on aforesaid pleadings on behalf of both sides, the then learned predecessor framed the following issues;
(1) Whether plaintiffs are able to prove suit schedule
property to be ancestral joint Hindu family property?
(2) Whether Defendant No.2 is legally wedded wife of
defendant No.1?
(3) Whether the registered gift deed Dt:03.05.2008
executed by defendant No.1 in favor of defendant No.2 is valid under the law?
Page 4 of 11 O.S No. 107 of 2015
(4) Whether defendant No.3 is bonafide purchaser of suit
schedule property with registered sale deed
dt:13.04.2015 being executed by defendant No.2?
(5) Whether plaintiffs along with defendant No.1 are
entitled for preliminary decree of partition and allotment of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property?
(6) To what relief?
5.During the trial, plaintiffs guardian / Smt.K.Vijayalaxmi examined herself as Pw1 and one Erra Narasimhulu examined as Pw2. Exs.A1 to A12 were marked on behalf of plaintiffs. Defendant No.3 examined himself as
Dw1 and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked on his behalf.
6.Pw1 reiterated entire contents of her plaint as her chief affidavit. In cross, Pw1 asserted that she knew contents of her chief affidavit as it was prepared on her instruction but she do not know that her age was mentioned as 27 yrs though she aged 35 yrs as she is illiterate. Pw1 testified that Def.No.1 had two brothers and one Sister who were not made as parties in this suit. Pw1 admitted that she didn’t filed either marriage card or photographs showing her marriage with Def.No.1 which was performed about 19 yrs back adding that she filed household card and
Aadhar cards of plaintiffs. Pw1 testified that she do not know that
Def.No.2 is legally wedded wife of Def.No.1 nor she knew that in the year 2008 Def.No.1 had executed a registered gift deed in favor Def.No.2. Pw1 testified that without their knowledge, Def.Nos.2 & 3 are trying to alienate suit schedule property as such she filed this present suit and defendants executed such gift deed cheating her though plaintiffs were born by that time. Pw1 admitted that she didn’t filed birth certificates of plaintiffs and she do not know that Plaintiff No.1 / Shalini born on 13.09.2008.
7.In her further cross, Pw1 admitted that in Ex.A10 name of her husband is mentioned as Venkat rao adding that it was wrongly
Page 5 of 11 O.S No. 107 of 2015
mentioned, but her Aadhar card shows correct name of her husband /
Def.No.1. Pw1 testifies that she do not know that in Ex.A10 age of Plaintiff
No.1 / Shalini is about 4 yrs showing she is born in the year 2009 adding the her husband gave such information. Pw1 identified signature of her husband when confronted with Ex.A2, but failed to identify picture of
Def.No.2 in Ex.A2 deposing that she do not know who Def.No.2 is. Pw1 admitted that she knew on 13.04.2015, Def.No.2 executed registered sale deed in favor of Def.No.3 and there are no other lands on Def.No.1 name except suit lands. Pw1 admitted that the suit schedule property was claimed as Budhan land by Bhoodan Board which was not arrayed as party in this suit and on the date of filing this suit, Def.No.1 had no right over suit schedule property. Pw1 testified that she informed her counsel to mention in her plaint that gift deed in favor of Def.No.2 and Sale deed in favor of Def.No.3 are not binding on them nor valid.
8.Pw2, who is third party to the suit, deposed in his chief that he know the suit schedule property is ancestral property of Def.No.1 and plaintiffs in which they have equal share, except whom no other person is having any right or interest over the suit schedule property. During cross, Pw2 testified that he do not know age difference of plaintiffs in affidavits with that of Aadhar cards and that the suit schedule land doesn’t belong to
Def.No.1 as the same is already gifted to Def.No.1’s legally wedded wife /
Def.No.2. Pw2 testified that he knew that before birth of plaintiffs, suit schedule property was gifted to Def.No.2 and plaintiffs not made siblings of Def.No.1 namely Pentoji Rao, Bikkoji Rao, Santosh & Anjura as parties to this suit. Pw2 admitted that Vijayalakshmi had not filed any document to show that she married to Def.No.1 and PW2 came to court at request of plaintiffs mother.
9.While leading defendants evidence, Def.No.3 filed his chief affidavit as Dw1 reiterating entire contents of his written statement as his chief.
During cross, Dw1 testified that he purchased suit schedule property from
Page 6 of 11 O.S No. 107 of 2015
Def.No.2 and enquired revenue records showing suit property belongs to
Def.No.2 as she acquired the same by way of gift settlement deed vide
Doc.No. 2175 of 2008 as she is the only wife of Def.No.1. Dw1 testified that at the time of purchase suit schedule property is considered as patta land as per the proceedings of MRO, Moinabad and when application for mutation was filed by Dw1, he was informed that Bhudan Board is also claiming the suit schedule property as such property claimed by
Government cannot be purchased. Dw1 admitted that the above suit filed is a false suit by mentioning his name as Khaja Ameer Hussain instead of
Khaja Hameed Hussain. In further cross, Dw1 admitted that neither plaintiffs nor defendants were in physical or peaceful joint possession over suit schedule property nor Dw1 filed any document to show his physical possession, adding that since the date of purchase he is in possession by constructing boundary wall, bore well in suit schedule property. Dw1 testifies that he do not know that plaintiffs mother is also wife of Def.No.1 nor he is aware that legitimate children have right on father’s property.
Dw1 admitted that he had filed a suit for Injunction vide OS.No. 39 of 2020 against one Abdulla Aslam Qureshi which was disposed on 21.07.2020 but not filed any suit either against plaintiffs guardian or
Def.No.1 During further cross, Dw1 further admitted that anybody neither plaintiffs nor himself cultivated in the suit schedule property. Dw1 further testified that he know all the contents of his additional chief affidavit and he has not executed a registered GPA in favour of third party. Dw1 admitted that the GPA which he has filed in OS.No.39/2020 is not filed in
OS.No.107/2015.
10.Heard both sides and counsel for plaintiffs also filed written arguments on behalf of plaintiffs.
11.Before proceeding with the adjudication of main dispute of partition, issues Nos. 1 to 4 had to be dealt together in order to avoid redundancy, as all these issues solely relied upon the same factual circumstances and
Page 7 of 11 O.S No. 107 of 2015
evidence brought on record which will be having cascading effect on each of these issues. More so, this would not only avoid ambiguity but also just and necessary for property adjudication of this lis.
I S S U E S NO’S: 1 TO 4
(1) Whether plaintiffs are able to prove suit schedule
property to be ancestral joint Hindu family property?
(2) Whether Defendant No.2 is legally wedded wife of
defendant No.1?
(3) Whether the registered gift deed Dt:03.05.2008
executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is
valid under the law?
(4) Whether defendant No.3 is bonafide purchaser of suit
schedule property with registered sale deed dt:13.04.2015
being executed by defendant No.2?
P O I N T: [a]On perusal of the evidence and material on record, it is not in dispute that the suit schedule property originally belongs to the family of the Def.No.1 who in turn acquired the same after death of his father. It is also noted that as per the averments of the gift deed vide
Doc.No.2157 of 2008 / Ex.A2 it is specifically mentioned that Def.No.1 acquired the said property as ancestral property which is also supported by the revenue records / Exs.A6, A8 & A9 reflecting the name of Def.No.1 as pattedar of suit schedule property and the version of Def.No.3 also goes in corroboration of such acquisition as Def.No.3 purchased the suit schedule property from Def.No.2 who in turn acquired by way of gift from
Def.No.1 as stated supra. More so, the independent witness examined as
Pw2 categorically deposed that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of Def.No.1 who indeed gifted the same to his legally wedded wife I.e Def.No.2 on whose favor the revenue records were also mutated, including the issuance of Title Deed / Ex.B3 in favor of Def.No.2.
[b]Up next the most crucial disputed fact to ascertained would be the relationship between Def.Nos.1 & 2, which was claimed to be a mere
Page 8 of 11 O.S No. 107 of 2015
cohabitation by the plaintiffs in their plaint denying any marital relationship between Def.Nos.1 & 2 which was negated by Def.No.3 stating that both Def.Nos.1 & 2 are legally wedded couple with a subsisting marital relationship with each other but during cross, it was none other than Pw1 herself deposed that she do not know that Def.No.2 is legally wedded wife of Def.No.1. More so, as admitted by Pw1 herself that no document was filed to elicit her marriage with Def.No.1 and her own admission that the details of her husband / Def.No.1 is wrongly mentioned in Household card / Ex.A10 as Venkat rao including the difference in surname mentioned as “Kancharla” instead of “Kunchala” of which
Def.No.1 belongs to, itself creates ambiguity as to the fact of relationship between Def.Nos.1 & 2 which needed to be established by plaintiffs. Apart from the above, Pw1 herself admitted that as per date of birth of Plaintiff
No.1 / Shalini mentioned in Ex.A11 she didn’t born prior to execution of gift deed in favor of Def.No.2.
[c]Whereas, Pw2 in his cross specifically admitted that Def.No.2 is none other than legally wedded wife of Def.No.1, who gifted the suit schedule property in favor of Def.No.2 cogently establishes the relationship between Def.Nos.1 & 2 is nothing but a valid marital relationship. It is observed that plaintiffs arraying Def.Nos.2 & 3 are parties to this suit on mere apprehension that Def.No.1 might alienate suit schedule property in their favor seems far fetched from the actual facts emanating from the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, to begin with, there is no denial that alleged gift deed vide Doc.No.2157/2008 /
Ex.A2 was executed on 03.05.2008 which is also affirmed by Pw2 in his cross, since then the said gift deed was in valid status, followed by issuance of mutation in favor of Def.No.2 vide Ex.B5 till the execution of registered sale deed vide Doc.No.2721/2015 / Ex.B2 in favor of Def.No.3 which are pertaining much prior to the date of institution of this suit which are well within the knowledge of plaintiffs guardian / Pw1 who herself admitted that she knew about execution of Ex.B2 and she informed her counsel to mention in her plaint that gift deed in favor of Def.No.2 and
Page 9 of 11 O.S No. 107 of 2015
Sale deed in favor of Def.No.3 are not binding on them nor valid but the same were not averred in the plaint. In addition to the above observations, it is evident from the revenue records, that name of
Def.No.2 was reflecting for about 10 yrs prior to the purchase by Def.No.3, who also filed Title Deed / Ex.B3, Encumbrance Certificate issued in favor of Def.No.2 elicits that the acquisition of suit schedule property by
Def.No.3 is a bonafide transaction.
In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, Issue No.1 is decided in favor of Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. Further, Issues Nos.2 to 4 were decided in favor of Defendants and against the plaintiffs.
12.Here comes the core issue to be adjudicated is Issue No.5;
Whether plaintiffs along with defendant No.1 are entitled for
preliminary decree of partition and allotment of 1/3rd share
in the suit schedule property?
P O I N T: In continuation of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is an admitted fact that father of Def.No.1 had four children namely Pentoji Rao,
Bikkoji Rao, Santosh & Anjura of them none of them were made as parties to this suit, when the main relief sought was partition of suit schedule property, which seems to have ignored by the plaintiffs who didn’t even mention any family pedigree in the plaint to identify as to who was the ancestor or how many persons are entitled for their share in the suit schedule property. It is surprising to note that, both parties categorically admitted that the suit schedule property was also claimed as Bhoodhan land by “Bhoodan Board” which was the sole reason for holding the mutation of revenue records on the name of Def.No.3 and such Boodhan lands are not alienable lands until the said dispute is cleared. Further, it is also noted by this court, that plaintiffs had not even bestowed caution to specify that the suit is filed within the period of limitation as they failed to mention the same in their plaint. It is evident from the cross of Pw1, who
Page 10 of 11 O.S No. 107 of 2015
herself admitted that Def.No.1 is not having any right over the suit schedule property which itself goes against the plaintiffs claim for partition which itself bars the plaintiffs from claiming partition in suit schedule property.
Therefore, issue No.5 is decided in favor of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
13.Issue No.6 : T o what relief?
As the main issues Nos.2 to 5 were decided against the plaintiffs, as such plaintiffs are not entitled for any other relief as sought before this court.
In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation on computer to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of December, 2025.
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Chevella, R.R. District.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: FOR THE DEFENDANT:
PW-1: Smt.K.VijayalaxmiDW-1: Dr.Khaja Hameed Hussain PW-2: Erra Narasimhulu
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.A1: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2006-2007
Ex.A2: Certified copy fo Regd. Gift Settlement Deed Doc.No.2157/2008
Ex.A3: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1955-58
Ex.A4: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1994-95
Page 11 of 11 O.S No. 107 of 2015
Ex.A5: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1960-61
Ex.A6: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2011-12
Ex.A7: Market value certificate
Ex.A8: Certified copy of Pahani for the fasli year 1424 dt: 20.04.2015
Ex.A9: Certified copy of Pahani for the fasli year 1427 dt: 21.03.2018
Ex.A10: Original household card
Ex.A11: Original Aadhaar card of plaintiff No.1
Ex.A12: Original Aadhar card of plaintiff No.2
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Ex.B1: Certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed Doc.No.2157/2008,
dated 03.05.2008
Ex.B2: Certified copy of Sale Deed Doc.No.2721/2015, dated 13.04.2015 Ex.B3: Original Title Deed of Kanchala Chandrakala Ex.B4: Original Encumbrance Certificate, dated 11.01.2023 Ex.B5: Certified copy of Proceedings No.B/551/2014, dated 19.11.2014 Ex.B6: Certified copy of Judgment and decree in OS.No.39/2020 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella. Ex.B7: Certified copy of Form-6A marked as Ex.A5 in OS.No.39/2020
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Chevella, R.R. District.
Order Record 104 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OS/231/2022 | Charka Eshwaraiah vs Kalachitti Maisaiah | 23 Dec 2025 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/27/2024 | Morri Amrutha vs Morri Bandhaiah | 23 Dec 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/107/2015 | Kummari shalini vs K.Pentoji Rao | 19 Dec 2025 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/6/2024 | G. Shekar vs C. Srilatha | 19 Dec 2025 | Order | — |
| H.M.O.P/9/2024 | Chakali Srisailam, S/o.Chakali Samaiah vs Smt.Chakali Mounika, W/o.Chakali Srisailam, D/o.Chakali Dawal | 17 Dec 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/114/2024 | Perumalla Venkata Maha Lakhsmi vs The Tahsildar, Moinabad Mandal, Hyderabad District | 16 Dec 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/400/2025 | Smt.Jonnada Lalitha vs The Tahsildar | 16 Dec 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/403/2022 | E. Devamma vs Gadde Lingam | 16 Dec 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/431/2025 | Boppana Lokeshwari vs The Sub Registrar Officer | 16 Dec 2025 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/25/2022 | Banda Raju Goud vs Aruna | 16 Dec 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/40/2013 | B.Papi Reddy vs P.Veeramma | 28 Nov 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/168/2005 | antharam Rukkammma vs Anthram Narsimly | 28 Nov 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/44/2025 | Nirathi Agro Farms Pvt.Ltd vs Kusumalatha Pakanati and another | 25 Nov 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/128/2015 | Smt. Pushpamma vs Kada Kanchi Pentaiah | 25 Nov 2025 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/15/2024 | Smt.Sabitha, W/o.P.Raji Reddy vs Sri Pulakandla Raji Reddy, S/o.Chandra Reddy | 25 Nov 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/136/2011 | Garugu Anjamma vs Neekanti Parwathmma and 2 others | 24 Nov 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/34/2025 | Yarabarla Gandhi and 2 others vs Deedigi Sandeep | 31 Oct 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/274/2025 | G. Srinivas Goud vs K. Srikanth Yadav and 01 other | 31 Oct 2025 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/6/2025 | Sri.Sarla Umakanth vs Smt.B.Swetha alias Sandhya | 31 Oct 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/141/2013 | Samannolla Narsimha Reddy vs S.Yellaiah and others | 30 Oct 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/150/2024 | Sukhal vs Samanolla Narsimha Reddy and 4 others | 30 Oct 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/348/2025 | Mohd Nasiruddin and 7 others vs B.Suresh Goud and 4 others | 29 Oct 2025 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/29/2022 | Sri. Gandla Chandra Shaker vs Smt. Gandla Shobha | 08 Oct 2025 | Order | — |
| H.M.O.P/4/2025 | Mangali Shirisha vs Mangali Mahender | 06 Oct 2025 | Order | — |
| H.M.O.P/22/2024 | Sri. Ch. Prathap vs Smt Ch. Radhika @ Mounika | 06 Oct 2025 | Order | — |
| H.M.O.P/5/2022 | Smt. S.Anitha vs Sama Raghava Reddy | 19 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| SC/151/2023 | State of Telangana Through PS Shankarpally vs Pala Venkateswarao and others | 09 Sep 2025 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/8/2025 | Vaishali Sharma vs Ankit Sharma | 04 Sep 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/256/2022 | Sh. Laxmi vs Venkat Reddy | 29 Aug 2025 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/5/2025 | Chakali Vinod Kumar vs Chakali Navya alias Sangitha | 29 Aug 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/127/2017 | Sri.sama Jaipal Reddy vs Sama Ram Reddy | 30 Jul 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/356/2025 | Smt.J.Padmamma vs Y.Shankaraiah and 3 others | 30 Jul 2025 | Judgment | — |
| SC/731/2023 | State of Telangana Through PS Shankarpally vs A1. Mohamed Harshad Khan @ Rashid S/o. Nasarath Khan | 30 Jun 2025 | Judgment | — |
| SC/732/2023 | State of Telangana Through PS Shankarpally vs A1. Mohammed Harshad Khan @ Rashid S/o. Nasarath Khan | 30 Jun 2025 | Judgment | — |
| AS/1/2022 | N. Ranganath vs T. Surekha | 27 Jun 2025 | Order | — |
| H.M.O.P/14/2024 | Smt.Goturi Bindhu Priya, W/o.Goundla Venkatesh Goud, D/o.Goturi Mallesh Goud vs Sri Goundla Venkatesh Goud, S/o.Goundla Rama Swamy Goud, | 27 Jun 2025 | Order | — |
| S.O.P/1/2024 | Kurdula Eshawaramma, W/o.Venkatramulu vs State Bank of India, Bank Manager Chevella Branch, R.R. District. | 27 Jun 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/116/2022 | B.Padma vs Borrakal Prakash | 26 Jun 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/189/2016 | Smt.Hasan Bhanu vs G.Srinivas Reddy | 24 Jun 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/118/2008 | Kum.S.Manga and another vs S.Narsi Reddy and 2 others | 23 Jun 2025 | Judgment | — |
| SC/469/2024 | State of Telangana Through PS. Shankarpally vs P. Rajender Reddy | 09 May 2025 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/11/2022 | Nappari Laxman Kumar vs Smt. Talari Prameela | 02 May 2025 | Order | — |
| H.M.O.P/26/2024 | Manchirevula Srikanth vs Begari Lasya @ Swathi | 02 May 2025 | Order | — |
| H.M.O.P/8/2024 | Vadde Jaipal, S/o.Vadde Ramesh vs All concerned | 01 May 2025 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/33/2024 | Peddaramamolla Chandra Shekar vs Peddaramamolla Vanaja | 01 May 2025 | Order | — |
| OS/126/2016 | Kenvar Geetha bai vs H.Tuljaram singh and 6 others | 30 Apr 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/8/2016 | K.Mallamma vs Borra bikshapthi | 29 Apr 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/153/2017 | Smt.Pariveda parvathamma vs Mallamma | 28 Apr 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/70/2015 | Perka Eshwaraiah and other vs Sri.Perka Srinivas and others | 17 Apr 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/307/2007 | Smt.Nazeema sultana vs M/s sameer Housing estates Develpers and promoters | 28 Mar 2025 | Judgment | — |
| SC/104/2024 | State of Telangana Through PS. Chevella vs Bijili Manikantha | 28 Mar 2025 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/2/2025 | Battu Puja alias Ashwitha vs Gongupalli Naresh | 28 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| H.M.O.P/28/2024 | Smt Neerati Deepika vs Sri Uppari Chandra Shekar | 28 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| H.M.O.P/32/2024 | Mala Meghna alias Mala Sujatha vs Mala Yadagiri | 28 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| H.M.O.P/29/2024 | Pulagurla Rajani vs B. Vamshidhar Reddy | 20 Mar 2025 | Order | — |
| SC/17/2024 | State of Telangana Through PS. Shabad vs Berri Laxmamma | 10 Mar 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/87/2016 | U.Anjamma vs Sir. U Bikshapathi | 28 Feb 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/119/2016 | Jangli Narayana vs S.MaLLAIAH | 28 Feb 2025 | Judgment | — |
| SC/288/2024 | State of Telangana Through PS.Mokila vs A. Srinivas and others | 28 Feb 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/34/2011 | Smt.M.Sathamma and one another vs Amadapuram Sailu and 4 others | 27 Feb 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/75/2023 | Mohd. Parvez vs Mohd Faryaz ali | 27 Feb 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/134/2015 | E.Tulasamma vs Bakkaiah | 24 Feb 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/22/2023 | Emani Venkat Phanindra satya Krishna vs V. Punyakoti and Sri Koti Prakash wilson Paul | 20 Feb 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/106/2012 | G.Parvathamma vs L.Narsimha Reddy | 31 Jan 2025 | Judgment | — |
| SC/347/2023 | THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP BY SHO PS CHEVELLA vs CHAND BASHA S/O LATE SYED MAHAMOOD | 31 Jan 2025 | Judgment | — |
| OS/92/2012 | venkatamma vs M.Bhujanga reddy | 30 Jan 2025 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/24/2024 | Tenugu Prasanna @ Vuradi Prasanna vs Vuradi Ravindar | 29 Jan 2025 | Order | — |
| SC/468/2024 | State of Telangana Through PS. Shabad vs Ch. Srihari | 23 Jan 2025 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/17/2023 | V. Kumar vs B. Ramadevi | 20 Jan 2025 | Order | — |
| AS/2/2022 | K. Anitha vs M. Yadi Reddy | 31 Dec 2024 | Order | — |
| OS/45/2024 | Bodalapati Siva Rao vs The Tahsildar Shankerpally Mandal R.R.Dist | 31 Dec 2024 | Judgment | — |
| OS/394/2022 | Medibai @ Chakali Papaiah and 8 others vs Medibai@ Chakali Srinivas and three others | 31 Dec 2024 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/23/2022 | Sri. Motam Aneesh vs Smt. M. Sumalatha | 18 Nov 2024 | Order | — |
| OS/13/2016 | Smt.Amruthamma vs Y.Parama Reddy and 11 others | 30 Oct 2024 | Judgment | — |
| OS/117/2017 | K. Bhagyamma vs Athyem Srisailam | 30 Oct 2024 | Judgment | — |
| SC/670/2022 | SHO.PS.Shankeraplly vs R.Ramdev Rao | 09 Oct 2024 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/1/2024 | Mangali Srinivas, S/o.Narsimulu vs Smt.Mangali Rupa Sri @ Pasupula Rupa Sri | 08 Oct 2024 | Order | — |
| OS/16/2004 | Smt.Zubedabee vs Smt.Sharifabee | 30 Sep 2024 | Judgment | — |
| OS/92/2005 | Shareefa bee and others vs Smt.sakina bee | 30 Sep 2024 | Judgment | — |
| OS/243/2022 | Smt. Pathi Shoba Rani vs A. Harshavardhana Rao | 30 Sep 2024 | Judgment | — |
| SC/10/2024 | State of Telangana Through PS. Shankarpally vs Turpati Srinu and others | 30 Sep 2024 | Judgment | — |
| SC/664/2022 | SHO.PS.Shankerpally vs Varthya Babu | 27 Sep 2024 | Judgment | — |
| SC/471/2023 | P.S SHABAD vs Adire Yadaiah | 26 Sep 2024 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/7/2024 | K. Mahendar vs D. Maduri | 19 Sep 2024 | Order | — |
| OS/133/2008 | K.Ambika Bai vs Katika Bandoji and others | 28 Aug 2024 | Judgment | — |
| SC/64/2019 | SHO.PS.Shankerpally vs Thonda Ravi | 28 Aug 2024 | Judgment | — |
| SC/744/2022 | SHO.PS.Shabad vs Vors Ramakrishna | 19 Aug 2024 | Judgment | — |
| OS/83/2012 | POlice Anthi Reddy and other vs Zilla Parishath High School and others | 31 Jul 2024 | Judgment | — |
| SC/485/2023 | State of Telangana Through PS Shankarpally vs Mangali Srinivas S/o. Late Rukkaiah | 30 Jul 2024 | Judgment | — |
| SC/91/2021 | SHO.PS.Shabad vs Kanchari Laxmi Devi @ Laxmamma | 26 Jul 2024 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/3/2024 | Smt.Yatakari Ashwini alias Lasya W/o.Kavali Amarnath vs Kavali Amarnath, S/o.Kavali Janardhan | 26 Jul 2024 | Order | — |
| OS/112/2008 | K.Yadava Reddy vs K.Chinna Venkat Reddy and 9 others | 11 Jul 2024 | Judgment | — |
| SC/487/2023 | State of Telangana Through PS Shabad vs M.Sharadamma W/o Late Malipatel Shyam Rao | 09 Jul 2024 | Judgment | — |
| SC/131/2023 | The State of Telangana vs Vadde Srinu | 05 Jul 2024 | Judgment | — |
| OS/40/2017 | Goturi Mohan Reddy vs Guturi Jonnada Savthiri | 28 Jun 2024 | Judgment | — |
| OS/554/2022 | Sujatha vs Nalla Chilkamma | 28 Jun 2024 | Judgment | — |
| SC/732/2022 | SHO.PS.Chevella vs Abdul Jabbar | 28 Jun 2024 | Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/21/2023 | D. Rama Krishna Goud vs D. Mamatha@Swarupa | 28 Jun 2024 | Order | — |
| SC/788/2023 | State of Telangana Through PS. Shankapally vs M. Shankaraiah | 21 Jun 2024 | Judgment | — |
| SC/103/2024 | State of Telangana Through PS. chevella vs E. Shivakumar and others | 20 Jun 2024 | Judgment | — |
Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)
| Dec 2025 | 13 | |
| Nov 2025 | 6 | |
| Oct 2025 | 9 | |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | |
| Aug 2025 | 2 | |
| Jul 2025 | 2 | |
| Jun 2025 | 8 | |
| May 2025 | 5 | |
| Apr 2025 | 5 | |
| Mar 2025 | 7 | |
| Feb 2025 | 7 | |
| Jan 2025 | 7 |
Log in for full trend data.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has K.Dasharatha Ramaiah handled?
K.Dasharatha Ramaiah has handled 111 court orders since 2024 at Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 4 orders per month.
What types of cases does K.Dasharatha Ramaiah hear?
Based on available records, K.Dasharatha Ramaiah primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Appeal Suits) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex.
Where is K.Dasharatha Ramaiah currently posted?
K.Dasharatha Ramaiah is posted as Senior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, RangaReddy District at Shadnagar at Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana.
Are judgments by K.Dasharatha Ramaiah available online?
Yes. 5 judgments by K.Dasharatha Ramaiah are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does K.Dasharatha Ramaiah dispose cases?
K.Dasharatha Ramaiah disposes approximately 4 cases per month, based on 111 orders handled over their tenure at Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex.
Since when is K.Dasharatha Ramaiah serving?
K.Dasharatha Ramaiah has been serving at Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex since 2024. and is currently posted there.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Nov 2025 — PresentSenior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, RangaReddy District at Shadnagar
-
Apr 2025 — Apr 2025Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge
-
Apr 2024 — PresentSenior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, RangaReddy District at Chevella · 111 orders
Other Judges at this Court