Telangana High Court
Sri Divi Satya Sayee Babu vs Late Smt. M Sridevi Since Died Per Lr on 11 June, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1798 of 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order dated 30.04.2024 in CMA.No.10 of 2024, passed by the X Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court'), confirming the order of interim injunction dated 15.12.2023 in IA.No.277 of 2019 in OS No.64 of 2019 passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court').
2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the present Civil Revision Petition, are that:
2.1 The petitioners are absolute owners of Acs.3-12 Gts of land located in Survey No.692 of Janwada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that the said land was once part of a larger extent held by one Jagannatha Reddy and was cultivated jointly by protected tenants-Potti Lingaiah and Tallari Lakshmaiah LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 2 and subsequently, by the legal heirs of the Potti/Maheshwaram and Tallari families and were recognized as successors.
2.2 In 1997, under the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'), succession of tenancy rights over Acs.5-27 Gts of land was granted to Potti Maisaiah and Potti Krishna and after partial surrender of their protected tenancy rights by the said persons under Section 19(1) of the Act, possession over the remaining extent of Acs.3-12 gts of land was handed over to Potti Venkataiah, Tallari Shankaraiah and their brothers, who are in all ten in number, in 2004, who in turn, filed an application for grant of certificate declaring them as purchasers under Section 38(6) of the Act upon depositing the price fixed under section 38 (3) of the Act; that the said application was allowed by Collector-
cum-RDO, Chevella Division and pursuant to the same, the ten legal heirs of the protected tenants deposited a sum of Rs.165/- and they were declared 'owners' and were also issued Occupancy Certificates and pattadar passbooks in 2005. 2.4 Later, the said ten legal heirs of protected tenents executed an Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 3 one Rangaraju Ravi Kumar, who sold the land admeasuring Acs.2- 28 Gts. to one D Seema and land admeasuring Ac. 0-24 Gts to one S Sreedevi. D Seema gifted her share to her daughter-D.Vasanthi. In 2016, both Vasanthi and Sreedevi sold the entire extent of land to one B Sujatha (Ac.0-39 Gts.) and Sri Divi Satya Sayee Babu (Acs.2-13 Gts.), who later executed General Powers of Attorney in favour of one B.Lakshmana Rao.
2.5 Meanwhile, the respondents, without any legal right, fabricated a story that the protected tenants-Potti Lingaiah and Tallari Lakshmaiah have orally surrendered their tenancy rights to the original pattadar-Jagannatha Reddy, who, later sold the land under an unregistered deed to one Bojana Mallaiah. This claim, unsupported by any official record, led to a narrative that the land eventually passed through several hands and ultimately, to respondent No.1-M.Sri Devi, who allegedly purchased it in 2001; that in 2005, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Joint Collector challenging the ownership of heirs of protected tenants and the same was dismissed for default in 2006; and that respondent No.1 also filed two Tenancy Appeals before the Joint LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 4 Collector, Ranga Reddy District in 2006, challenging the succession order dated 04.11.1997, granted in favour of respondent No.1 and the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 25.08.2024 issued in favour of legal heirs of the protected tenants. 2.6 The Joint Collector, despite raising the plea of res judicata, erroneously invoked the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 (for short 'the ROR Act') and allowed both appeals vide order dated 28.03.2008, holding that the heirs of the protected tenants approached the authority with inordinate delay and as such, the Mandal Revenue Officer ought not to have issued proceedings, dated 04.11.1997 and accordingly, set aside the succession order dated 04.11.1997 and possession order dated 25.08.2002. However, no steps were taken pursuant to the said order until the respondents initiated mutation proceedings based on the said order in the year 2019. The Mandal Revenue Officer altered the entries in the revenue records, without notifying the petitioners whose names were already existing in the revenue records and the petitioners came to know about the mutation proceedings only on filing of OS.No.64 of 2019 by respondents LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 5 `herein- i.e., legal heir of M.Sridevi against them seeking relief of permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the mutation proceedings, the petitioners filed W.P.No.10643 of 2019 before the High Court to call for the records pertaining to the orders dated 28.03.2008 passed by the Joint Collector and mutation proceedings dated 11.02.2019 and to quash the same and the said writ petition is pending adjudication.
3. In the meantime, in OS.No.64 of 2019, the respondents sought to prevent the petitioners from interfering with their possession and alienating the land and they obtained an ad-interim injunction on 28.03.2019, which was later made absolute on 15.12.2023, despite the petitioners asserting their lawful title. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed CMA No.10 of 2024, but the First Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal on 30.04.2024, confirming the interim order of the trial court. Questioning the said order, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
4. This Court, on 14.06.2024, passed an interim order of Status Quo in IA.No.1 of 2024, which interim order, the petitioners LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 6 earlier had all along the pendency of CMA.No.10 of 2024 before the First Appellate Court.
5. Heard Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Sri Sannapaneni Lohit, learned counsel on record for the petitioners, and Sri Govardhan Venu, learned counsel representing M/s Nomos Vistas, learned counsel on record for the respondents.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the First Appellate Court erred in law and on facts in granting an order of temporary injunction in favor of Respondent No.1, vide impugned order. He further submitted that the findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are vitiated by perversity, non-appreciation of material evidence and misapplication of settled principles governing possession and title, particularly in the context of lands held under protected tenancy.
7. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the Petitioners have produced cogent documentary evidence demonstrating their possession and title, including a succession order dated LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 7 04.11.1997, possession proceedings dated 25.08.2004, a Panchanama dated 08.09.2004, and a certificate issued under Section 38(6) of the Tenancy Act. These documents establish that the Petitioners are the legal heirs of the protected tenants and as such, they were duly delivered possession in accordance with law. Learned senior counsel further submitted that that the First Appellate Court erred in treating the succession order alone as conclusive and disregarding the independent possession proceedings conducted under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. He further submitted that the plea of the respondents as regards the oral surrender of protected tenancy rights by the legal heirs of the protected tenants in favour of the original owner-Jagannatha Reddy in the year 1954, followed by an unregistered sale, is untenable in law and the said claim is not supported by any documentary evidence.
8. As regards the issue of possession, learned senior counsel submitted that the Respondents have failed to demonstrate their lawful possession at any point. The Petitioners, on the other hand, have established their continuous possession through pahanies, LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 8 construction of a compound wall and gate and the No Objection Certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat. The Panchanama dated 08.04.2019 issued by the Village Revenue Officer, though, later disowned through a memo, clearly recorded the Petitioners' possession and cannot be disregarded in the absence of a legally binding determination to the contrary. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the mutation proceedings dated 11.02.2019, relied upon by the Respondents are, in fact, passed without serving any notice to the Petitioners. These entries, being the subject matter of challenge in pending WP.No.10643 of 2019, the same cannot form the basis for adjudicating title or possession over the suit schedule property, particularly in a suit for injunction. He further submitted that the mutation entries are fiscal in nature and does not confer any title.
8. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the Respondents have instituted the suit for bare injunction without seeking declaratory relief of title, despite existence of a serious title dispute, and as such, the suit itself is not maintainable. He further pointed to the material discrepancies in the title documents LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 9 of the respondents, particularly the inconsistency in the extent of land purportedly conveyed thereunder. While the Respondents claim to have acquired Acs.7-25 guntas under document bearing No.3075 of 2001, their predecessor-in-title held only Acs.5-30 guntas under document No.2025 of 1981. No explanation has been offered by the respondent for the excess land claimed by them, thereby casting serious doubt on their title. By contending thus, learned senior counsel prayed to allow the Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned Order.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Petitioners, being third-party purchasers claiming under alleged successors of self-proclaimed protected tenants, are not recognized as protected tenants under Act XXI of 1950, and their reliance on the said Act is wholly misconceived. He further contended that the orders passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are well-reasoned and does not suffer from jurisdictional error or perversity. He further contended that the LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 10 present Revision Petition, in substance, is a Second Appeal, which is impermissible under Article 227 of the Constitution.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondents further contended that the Petitioners' title and possession over the suit land are disputed; their documents are vague and contradictory; hence, the First Appellate Court rightly rejected their claims after detailed analysis, noting inconsistencies and lack of bona fide. It is also submitted that the Respondents asserted that the alleged protected tenancy was extinguished by valid oral surrender in 1951, prior to the notified date under the 1954 Amendment, and the land has since remained with the pattadar and his successors and therefore, the names of the alleged tenants do not appear in revenue records post- 1951.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the proceedings under Section 40 of the Act issued in the year 1997, the subsequent transactions, including the issuance of Section 38(6) certificates and mutations, were assailed as fraudulent and without jurisdiction by respondent No.1 and the said orders were set aside by the Joint Collector vide order dated 28.03.2008, which LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 11 remained unchallenged and hence, attained finality. Consequently, all derivative claims by the Petitioners are void ab initio. He further submitted that the title of the Respondents in respect of the suit schedule property and their possession thereof, is supported by the sale deeds and consistent revenue entries since the year 2001, i.e., the respondents derive title based on the sale deed bearing document No.3075/2001, dated 26.04.2001, and their possession of the suit schedule property is evident from the mutation proceedings of Tahsildar, Shankarapalli, dated 11.02.2019, and also the Panchanama of the Village Revenue Officer, dated 24.01.2018, issued in respect of the suit schedule property; and that considering all these aspects, the trial Court granted ad-interim injunction, which was affirmed in Appeal by the First Appellate Court. These concurrent findings cannot be disturbed in a revision and therefore, the claim of the Petitioners suffer from laches, lack of locus and are based on void proceedings. He finally prays to dismiss the Revision Petition as it is devoid of merits.
LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 12 CONSIDERATION:
13. From the above factual matrix of the case and the material placed on record, the only point for consideration in this Revision Petition is "whether the injunction order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, RR District, in IA.No.277/2019 in O.S.No. 64/2019, dated 15.12.2023, as was confirmed by the X Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar, in CMA.No.10 of 2024 dated 30.04.2024, needs interference or modification by this Court?"
14. To establish the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and to interfere with the order of the First Appellate Court, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
i. Muppidi Chandra Mohan Reddy and another vs Methuku Santosh1 ii. Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram2 iii. Mani Nariman Daruwala vs. Phiroz N. Bhatena and others3 1 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 305 2 (1986) 4 SCC 447 3 (1991) 3 SCC 141 LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 13 iv. Baby vs. Travancore Devaswom Board and others 4 In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court exercising power of Article 227 can interfere with even the impugned orders passed by the sub-ordinate Courts if there is any miscarriage of justice or any violation of law. In the exercise of the said power, the High Court can also interfere, ignore or set aside the findings which are perverse in law.
14.1 Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following cases to support of his contentions that revision is not maintainable:
i. Binodlal Sagarmal and ors. vs. Prem Prakash gupta and ors., 2003 (5) ALD 222 ii. Yeshwant Sakhalkar and anr. vs. Hirabat kamat Mhamai and anr., 2004 (6) SCC 71 iii. Ganta Chinna Shankaraiah vs. Nadunoori Swamy, 2006 (3) ALD 646 iv. Juvvaji Ravinder & anr. vs. Jakkula Pushpaleela, CDJ 2024 TSHC 346.
v. Govindhu Akasham Kongalla Akasham vs. Smt. Kongalla Sulochana Govindhu, (2019) 4 (1998) 8 SCC 310 LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 14 The power of the Hon'ble High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution was discussed in the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents.
15. It is a settled principle of law that an injunction cannot be granted when there is a cloud over the title, and the matter has to be decided in terms of possession. It is also a settled principle of law that when there are serious disputes of facts, then the issues shall be decided during the trial. The said principles have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, and to reiterate the same, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the following judgements:
i. Ananthula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy and ors.
(2008) 4 SCC 594 ii. T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy vs. M. Mallappa and anr.
(2021) 13 SCC 135.
iii. Saketa Vaksana LLP and ors. vs. Kaukutla Sarala and ors. (2020) 11 SCC 773.
16. It is pertinent to note that the title of the petitioners in the present case can be traced from their vendors, i.e., the ownership LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 15 certificate issued under Section 38(6) of the Act, and hence, the vendor becomes the absolute owner from whom the third parties and the present petitioner has obtained the title and the possession by the way of panchanama. Hence, considering this, the title and the possession are being claimed by both parties, and there is no clear prima facie case and balance of convenience on the part of the respondents as stated by the Trial Court and concurred by the First Appellate Court.
17. It is also to be noted that, the cardinal principles that govern the grant or refusal of injunctions are establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. And in the broad category of prima facie case, it is imperative for the Court to carefully analyse the pleadings and the documents on record. Only on that basis, the Court gives its findings, but here, in the present case, both the Courts have failed to look into the material placed on record. It is also pertinent to note that, though there are concurrent findings, the Trial Court did not discuss the documents and simply extracted the details of the documents produced by the respondents, based upon which it concluded that those documents LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 16 are conclusive with regard to the aspect of the possession of the respondents. That apart, the Appellate Court observed that the parties are claiming the scheduled land to be situated in different survey numbers. Hence, it is clear that the same is not a concurring finding of fact as far as the injunction is concerned.
18. Furthermore, it is clear that there is a cloud over the title, however, the suit is filed for injunction simpliator. As per the settled principles of law, the injunction cannot be sought and granted, when there is no clear title or possession on behalf of the parties. Hence, this Appellate Court and thereby, granting injunction when there is a clear cloud over the title and hence, this Court exercising the power under under Article 227 is inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court.
19. Further, there is serious dispute with regard to title over the suit schedule property and this aspect has to be adjudicated after full-fledged trial of the suit Therefore, this Court is not inclined to delve into the aspect of title of the parties.
LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 17
20. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents have further relied upon the following judgments, in support of their respective contentions:
i. Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (2012) 5 SCC 370 ii. Kotaiah and anr. vs. Property Association of the Baptist Churches (Pvt) Ltd., (1989) 3 SCC 424 iii. Bakaram Jangaiah vs. Gunde Laxmamma, 1998 SCC OnLine AP 864 iv. Thota Sridhar Reddy and ors. vs. Mandala Ramulamma and ors., (2021) 16 SCC 1 v. Venkanna and ors. vs. Pichikuntal Buchamma and ors., (1971) 2 APLJ 266 vi. Makkan Lakshmamma vs. Abdul Gafoor, (2024) 4 ALT 249 vii. Satish Mutually Aided Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Hyderabad vs. Joint collector, RR District and ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 2175 viii. Narangi Bai vs. Yadagiri Bal Raj, 2011 (1) ALT 323 ix. Mohd. Qutabuddin vs. Aziz Khan and ors., (2003) 7 ALT 69 x. Subhan Reddy vs. Konneti Mallappa & Ors., 1987 SCC OnLine AP 406 xi. V. Ramaswamy vs. The State of Telangana, (2021) 6 ALT 580 LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 18 xii. Rachappa vs. Bhumani Hanumaiah & Anr., 2011 (4) ALD 212 xiii. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579 xiv. Veduruthala Seetharamamma vs. Badnath Herija and anr. (1959) 1 ALT 650 xv. K. Galreddy vs. S. Nagaiah, (1986) 2 ALT (NRC) 262 xvi. Ponam Bai vs. Ajmeer Bhikku, (1988) 1 ALT 93 xvii. Syed Abdul Majeed @ Mia Pasha and ors. vs. Joint Collector - II, RR District and ors., 2006 (5) ALT 754 xviii. J. Narayana & ors. vs. Jainapalli Pedda Kistaiah & ors., (2013) xix. Kontham Anji Reddy and ors. vs. Nimmagudem Laxmaiah and ors., (2018) xx. B. Malla Reddy vs. The State of Telangana, (2021) xxi. Vorla Ramachandra Reddy vs. Joint Collector (2021) xxii. K. Narasimhulu Talla Narasimhulu vs. The State of Telangana, (2021) xxiii. K. Rukka Reddy vs. Joint Collector (2021) xxiv. Gaddam Ramulu vs. Joint Collector (2019) xxv. A Narasimha vs. A Krishna & ors., CDJ 2005 APHC 874 xxvi. Boddam Narsimha vs. Hasan Ali Khan & ors., 2007 (11) SCC 410 xxvii. Gone Rajamma & ors. vs. Chennamaneni Mohan Rao, CDJ 2010 APHC 195 LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 19 xxviii. Jt. Collector RR Dist & anr. vs. D. Narsing Rao & ors., 2015 (3) SCC 695 xxix. Home Care Retail Marts P. Ltd. vs. New Era Fabrics Ltd. AIRONLINE 2009 SC 364 xxx. M Bagi Reddy vs. T Krishna Reddy, CDJ 2000 APHC 469 xxxi. Shaik Nabi vs. N. Parijattha, CDJ 1995 APHC 583 xxxii. Gajam Krishna vs. Srikanth Reddy and anr., (2019)
21. The aforesaid judgments are rendered on various issues, viz., alienation of tenanted land, termination of protected tenancy, period of limitation under the Tenancy Act, ownership certificate under the Tenancy Act, alienation made in contravention of the Act, concept of laches, jurisdiction of Tahsildar under the Tenancy Act, tenant voluntarily surrendering the possession, succession under the Tenancy Act, correction of fraudulent entries in Khasra Pahani, grant of concurrent injunction during the existence of leave and license agreement, injunction in terms of inam lands under Inam Abolition Act and valid GPA holder in better position to convey the title. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that these cases are not relevant to the present issue at hand, i.e., with respect to the grant of injunction, and the same are to be dealt LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 20 with by the Trial Court while dealing with the questions of fact and law that arise for consideration while adjudication of the suit.
22. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments for not granting the relief of 'status quo' as prayed by the petitioners:
i. Chirapareddi Veeramma and ors. vs Sk. Mahaboob Subhani and Ors., 1991 (1) ALT 366 ii. Mangilal Chowdary vs. P. Kasinath Yadav, CDJ 2019 TSHC 242
23. In the aforesaid judgments, it was held that the Courts should not frequently resort to granting orders to maintain "status quo" and before passing such an order, it is incumbent on the Court to give a finding as to the particular status quo that it wants to be maintained.
24. In the case on hand, it is relevant to note that the petitioners are tracing their title over the suit schedule property from the protected tenants who have been issued a Certificate under Section 38(6) of the Act, whereas it is the specific case of the respondents that there was no protected tenants and in fact, the tenants have LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 21 surrendered their rights orally in the year 1951, i.e., prior to the notified date under 1954 Amendment.
25. The respondents are tracing their title through unregistered sale deed executed by one Bojana Mallaiah. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that a copy of the said unregistered sale deed purported to have been executed by Bojana Mallaiah is not placed on record. Further, it is also the contention of the petitioners that the respondents are claiming to have acquired an extent of Acs.7-25 guntas under document No.3075/2021, whereas their predecessor-in-title held only an extent of Acs.5.30 guntas under document No.2025/1998. Thus, there is serious dispute with regard to title in respect of the suit schedule property being claimed by both the parties.
26. It is also interesting to note that the petitioners are claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule property pursuant to possession proceedings dated 25.08.2004 and panchanama dated 08.09.2004, whereas the respondents are claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule property, basing on the unregistered LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 22 sale deed bearing document No.3075/2001 dated 26.04.2001, mutation proceedings of Tahsildar, Shankarapalli, dated 11.02.2019 and also the Panchanama of the Village Revenue Officer, dated 24.01.2018 issued in respect of the suit schedule property.
27. Thus, from the above, it is evident that there is serious dispute with regard to title as well as possession over the suit schedule property between both the parties and the same is the subject matter of adjudication in the suit.
28. Therefore, in considered view of this Court, granting order of interim injunction to either party may result in irreversible consequences, and if possession changes hands, it could disturb the balance of equities and potentially cause irreparable injury, particularly when there is a cloud over title in respect of the suit schedule property and both the parties are claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule property and the said issues can be comprehensively determined after a full-fledged trial in the suit. In such an event, grave injustice would be caused, if injunction is granted in favour of one of the parties, and as such, this Court LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 23 cannot concur with the impugned order of the First Appellate Court.
29. Furthermore, this Court is of the considered opinion that maintaining 'status quo' ensures that the rights of both the parties are safeguarded until the trial Court adjudicates the substantive issues, and it also prevents either party from altering the physical or legal character of the scheduled property during the pendency of the suit.
CONCLUSION:
30. In view of the above discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 30.04.2024 in CMA.No.10 of 2024 passed by the X Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar is hereby set aside. However, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct both the parties to maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit. Since the subject suit is of the year 2019, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
LNA,J C.R.P No.1798 of 2024 24
31. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated:11.06.2025 Dr