Telangana High Court
Chukka Mallesh vs Smt. Jala Laxmi on 11 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3366 of 2024
ORDER:
This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2024 passed in C.M.A. No.22 of 2023 by the Principal District Judge at Medak, wherein the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by confirming the order, dated 13.10.2023in I.A.No.1132 of 2023 in O.S.No.402 of 2023 passed by the trial Court.
2. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Challa, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Manohar, learned counsel for respondentNo.1 and no representation on behalf of other respondents, despite service of notice.Perused the record.
3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they arearrayed in the suit.
4. The brief facts of the case arethat the plaintiffs filed a suit vide O.S.No.402 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medak against the respondents to declare 2 LNA, J C.R.P.No.3366 of 2024 the sale deed No.4738 of 2003, dated 18.10.2003 as null and void and also for perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.1 from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property.The petitioners also filed I.A.No.1132 of 2023 for ad- interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit.Respondent No.1 filed counter resisting the application.
5. Thetrial Court videorder dated 13.10.2023 dismissed the said I.A.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal videC.M.A.No.22 of 2023 and the appellate Court videimpugned order dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally, Chukka Balaiah was the pattedar of the agricultural land admeasuring Acs.4.14guntas in Sy.No.292, situated at Kallakal Village, Manoharabad Mandal, Medak District. The said Chukka Balaih hastwo sons namely, Chukka Narsaiah and Chukka Balaiah and after the death of Chukka Narsaiah, his legal heirs were impleaded as respondent Nos.3 to 9. Chukka Balaiahhas a daughter by name Chukka Veeramani and she was given land to an extent 3 LNA, J C.R.P.No.3366 of 2024 of Ac.1.33 guntas by grandfather namely, Chukka Balaiah and balance extent of Acs.2.22 guntas fell to the share of Chukka Narsaiah and his three sons and after the demise of Chukka Balaiah, the said land was inherited by Chukka Narsaiah and his sons i.e., petitioners herein. He would further submit that the petitionersfiled suit for partition in O.S.No.76 of 2022in which respondent No.1 was made party as respondent No.5; the respondent No.1 filed written statement stating that she purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1.31 guntas in Sy.No.284/A/2 (old) and 291/2 (new) under the registered sale deed documentNo.4738 of 2003, dated 18.10.2003 from respondent No.2 herein, who in turn purchased the said property under the registered sale deed document No.2743 of 1996, dated 05.08.1996 from one Amarnath Agarwal and who inturn purchased the said property under a registered sale deed document No.920 of 1995, dated 20.02.1995 from Veerakka Balamani.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that respondent No.1 has claimed right over the suit schedule property by basing on resurvey. Therefore, burden is on respondent No.1 to prove that Sy.No.284/A/2 4 LNA, J C.R.P.No.3366 of 2024 was changed to Sy.No.291/2 and as the respondent No.1 was trying to alienate the suit schedule property, the petitioners filed the suit along with application for ad-interim injunction. He would submit that the trial Court dismissed the application on erroneous findings and without considering the documents placed on record by the petitioners. He would further submit that the appellate Court also committed error in dismissing the appeal on perverse findings and failed to consider the fact that the property claimed by respondent No.1 and the property being claimed by the petitioners is different.
8. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the respondents by taking advantage of their names in the revenue records are trying to alienate the suit schedule property. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioners ought to have been allowed restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property, till the disposal of the suit and if the respondents are allowed to alienate the suit schedule property, it will unnecessarily lead to multiplicity of litigation and the suit filed by the petitioners would be frustrated.
5
LNA, J C.R.P.No.3366 of 2024
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that respondent No.1 had purchased land admeasuring Ac.1.33guntas in Sy.No.284/A/2 (old) and 291/2 (new) under registered sale deed document No.4738 of 2003, dated 18.10.2003 from respondent No.2 and the said factwas clearly mentioned in the written statement filed by respondent No.1 in O.S.No.76 of 2003 filed by the petitioners for partition. He would further submit that alienation of land to an extent of Ac.1.33 guntas in Sy.No.292 under a registered sale deed document No.3170 of 1984 was made in favour of one M.N.Lingappaand the petitioners have suppressed the fact of alienation of the land admeasuring Ac.1.37 guntas in Sy.No.292 and Ac.00.03 gunta in Sy.No.291 situated at Kallakal Village in favour of one Potel Rukmini Yadav and also suppressed that the father of the petitioners along with late Chukka Narsaiah and Chukka Sattaiah, have jointly executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.4093 of 1984, dated 11.12.1984 and in view of the said alienation, the petitioners do not possess any land.
10. Learned counsel for respondent further submits that the burden is on the petitioners to prove that on resurvey 6 LNA, J C.R.P.No.3366 of 2024 Sy.No.284/A/2 was changed to Sy.No.291/2 and that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application by duly taking into consideration the documents filed on behalf of the petitioners as well respondent No.1 and the appellate Court has also rightly dismissed the appeal. He finally submitted that the petitioners have failed to make out any case or to interfere with the impugned order and thus, prayed to dismiss the revision.
11. A perusal of the record would disclose that respondent No.1 is claiming that she purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1.31 guntas in Sy.No.284/A/2 and corresponding Sy.No.291/2 from respondent No.2 under the registered sale deed No.4738 of 2003, dated 18.10.2003. Respondent No.2 had purchased the same from one Amarnath Agarwal, under registered sale deed No.2743 of 1996, dated 05.08.1996, who in turn purchased the same under the registered sale deed bearing No.920 of 1995, dated 20.02.1995 from Veerakka Balamani. It is pertinent to mention that the father of the petitioners by name Chukka Balaiah is the signatory to the registered sale deed executed by VeerakkaBalamani in favour of Amarnath Agarwal. It is the specific contention of 7 LNA, J C.R.P.No.3366 of 2024 respondent No.1 that after resurvey Sy.No.284/A/2 (old) was changed to Sy.No.291/2 (new) and it is further case of respondent No.1 that having alienated the entire extent, the petitioners have no land in Sy.No.291/2 (new).
12. It is relevant to refer to the order passed by the trial Court wherein, it is specifically observed that though the petitioners are claiming that Sy.No.292 was changed to Sy.No.291, no document is filed by the petitioners to substantiate the said contention. The trial Court further observed that respondent No.1 claimed that Sy.No.284/A/2 was changed to Sy.No.291/2 and had filed photocopy of documents in support of her contention. The trial Court further observed that no documents have been filed by the petitioners to show that the suit schedule property belonged to them and also failed to prove prima-faciecase and balance of convenience.
13. The appellate Court specifically observed that the petitioners aredisputingthe transactions that were made by their own family members and that new survey number was allotted to their property, therefore, burden is on the petitioners to prove prima-facie case that new survey number 8 LNA, J C.R.P.No.3366 of 2024 has been allotted to the suit schedule property and since; the petitioners have failed to substantiate their claim, they are not entitled for any injunction. The trial Court further observed that the petitioners did not refer to the sale transaction i.e., earlier alienation made by Chukka Narsaiah and Chukka Sathaiah vide sale deed bearing Nos.4093 of 1984 and 1487 of 1987which amounts to suppression of material facts and alienation of land in Sy.No.292 and thus, the first appellate Court was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
14. A perusal of record would also disclose that prima-facie land in Sy.No.292 was alienated by Chukka Narsaiah and Chukka Sathaiah videsale deed bearing Nos.4093 of 1984 and 1487 of 1987 and the petitioners do not have any balance land in Sy.No.292. On the other hand, respondent No.1 has claimed that the suit schedule property was sold under a registered sale deed bearing No.4738 of 2003, dated 18.10.2003 by Respondent No.2 to which the father of the petitioners by name Chukka Balaiah was a signatory. The principal contention of the petitioners that in resurvey Sy.Nos.291was changed to 292 has not been substantiate by 9 LNA, J C.R.P.No.3366 of 2024 the petitioners. Further, the claims, counter claims and disputed question of facts have to be decided only after full fledged trial and therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into disputed questions of fact in this Revision.
15. In the light of above discussion, this Court considered view that the petitioners have failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the appellate Court and thus, revision fails. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 11.06.2025 EDS