Telangana High Court
R.Srujan Kumar Reddy vs R.Kala Bai on 9 September, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1442 and 1422 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1442 and 1422 of 2024 are filed challenging the common order dated 19.03.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.2527 of 2022 and 3884 of 2023 in ASSR.No.14339 of 2022, respectively, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2. Since the issues involved in both the Revisions are interconnected and their outcome is interdependent, both the Revisions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Heard Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for the petitioners. No representation on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 13 despite service of notice, therefore, the matter is adjudicated basing on the material available on record.
4. The revision petitioners herein are appellant Nos.1 to 5 in the appeal before the lower appellate Court and third parties to the suit LNA,J CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 2 in OS.No.1604 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Respondent No.1 herein is respondent No.1 in the appeal, and plaintiff in the suit, and Respondent Nos.2 to 13 herein are respondents in the Appeal and defendants in the Suit.
5. The facts of the case, in brief, required for adjudication of the present Revision Petitions, are that the appellants, who were not parties to the original suit, filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, along with two applications, viz., one seeking leave to file appeal and another to condone delay in filing the Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2007 passed in O.S.No.1604 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
6. The case of appellant Nos.1 to 5 is that they are absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same from one Naveen Reddy Valipireddy through a registered sale deed bearing document No.4136 of 2022 dated 11.02.2022; that their vendor purchased the suit schedule property from respondent Nos.2 to 7 represented by their Agreement of LNA,J CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 3 Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney holders i.e., respondent Nos.8 and 9, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.4367 of 2003, dated 30.06.2003. While so, when respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 7 attempted to trespass into the suit schedule property and disturb the peaceful possession of the appellants, they lodged a complaint with police, which was duly acknowledged on 27.09.2022.
7. The further case of the appellants is that on enquiry, they came to know that respondent No.1, in collusion with respondent Nos.2 to 7 (defendants), instituted a suit in O.S.No.1604 of 2006 for partition and obtained fraudulent preliminary decree on 12.07.2007 and later, filed I.A.No.121 of 2009 for passing a final decree, which was allowed on 26.07.2022. That immediately, the appellants filed O.S.No.550 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, which is the subject matter of suit-OS.No.1604 of 2006, and the said suit is pending. That apart, the appellants also filed an application vide I.A.No.3884 of 2023 seeking leave to file LNA,J CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 4 an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2007 passed in O.S.No.1604 of 2006, along with an application vide I.A.No.2527 of 2022 to condone the delay in filing the Appeal.
8. Opposing the aforesaid applications, respondent No.1 filed counter, wherein it is inter alia averred that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of Sheethal Singh; that respondent Nos.1 to 7 are legal heirs of Sheethal Singh and as such, they have equal right in the suit schedule property. It was further averred that the vendors of the appellants have no valid title to pass on to the appellants. Respondent No.1 further denied the averment of appellants that the decree was fraudulently obtained in OS.No.1604 of 2006 and in fact, decree was passed in the said suit after it was contested for more than 15 years.
9. Respondent No.1 has specifically averred that she is the absolute owner of her respective share of the suit schedule property and has been in peaceful possession thereof since the date of delivery of possession. She further averred that the Appeal is filed by the appellants only to defeat, overreach and obstruct the final decree order passed in OS.No.1604 of 2006.
LNA,J CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 5
10. The lower appellate Court, considering the pleadings put forth by both the parties and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for them, passed the impugned order, dismissing the Appeal. In the impugned order, the First Appellate Court observed as hereunder:-
"The appellants are third parties to the suit and they are affected by the decree in O.S.No.1604 of 2006. However, it is to be noted that the appellants have already filed O.S.No.550 of 2022 against respondent Nos.1 to 12 seeking declaration of the title and perpetual of injunction. The appellants are trying to prosecute proceedings before two forums for the same relief. This is not permissible under law. The Appellants had the option of either filing an appeal against decree dated 16.04.2006 before this Court or filing a suit before the trial Court for declaration, but the Appellants have elected to file both the suit and an appeal before this Court for the same remedy, which is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, even though the Appellants are affected parties, this abuse of the process of law cannot be permitted."
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit- OS.No.550 of 2022 was filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, and that apart, as regards the decree passed in LNA,J CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 6 O.S.No.1604 of 2006, the appellants are entitled to either seek cancellation of the decree or prefer an appeal. The Appellants have opted for the latter remedy being more efficacious and filed appeal in ASSR.No.14339 of 2022. He further submitted that O.S.No.550 of 2022 and ASSR No.14339 of 2022 are filed for two distinct reliefs, one to protect their ownership rights, and another to challenge the decree which adversely affected their rights and therefore, the question of availing only one remedy does not arise.
12. Learned counsel for appellants further submitted that the vendors of the appellants have valid title; that the appellants are bona fide purchasers of the suit schedule property and as such, their rights are adversely affected by the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.1604 of 2006, wherein their vendor was also not made a party to the said suit and hence, the Appeal filed by the appellants is maintainable.
13. Learned counsel for appellants further submitted that the sale made by the joint owners, i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 7, represented by their GPA holders-respondent Nos.8 and 9, in favour of the vendor of the appellants is valid under law and hence, the LNA,J CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 7 appellants are entitled to work out equities by seeking allotment of the land sold to their vendor and protect their title and interest in respect thereof. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein remained ex-parte in the suit, which suggests that the preliminary decree in O.S.No.1604 of 2006 is obtained collusively and by playing fraud on the Court, without arraying the appellants herein, much less, the vendor of the appellants as a party to the said suit, admittedly, in whose favour respondent Nos.2 to 7 have executed registered sale deeds, through respondent Nos.8 and 9, who are their AGPA holders and as such, the said decree is liable to be set aside and accordingly, prayed this Court to allow the present Revisions.
14. Learned counsel for appellants, in support of his aforesaid contentions, has relied upon the following judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court:-
(1) Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Others Vs Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsingh Maharaj Bhosle and Others. 1 1 2024 SCC Online SC 3844 LNA,J CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 8 (2) State Bank of India, Settipalle branch, Tirupati rep. by its Chief Manager Vs P. Veeranarayana.2 (3) My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Vs. B.Mahesh and others. 3 (4) Sital Prashad vs. Kishorilal.4
15. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust's case (cited supra) is as regards the commencement of period of limitation for filing a suit in respect of a registered document.
16. The said judgment is neither relevant nor applicable to the instant case, inasmuch the question of limitation is raised by neither of the parties to the case.
17. In P.Veeranarayana's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as hereunder:
"Generally speaking, the decree of the appellate court supersedes the decree of the trial court even when it confirms that decree and therefore it is well-settled that 2 2013 SCC Online AP 932 3 2022 SCC Online SC 1063 4 1967 SCC Online SC 262 LNA,J CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 9 only the appellate court can amend the decree thereafter.:
[see Muhammad Sulaiman Khan v. Muhammad Yar Khan, (1888) ILR All 267 (FB)].
....... Further, it was observed in the last case that where an appellate Court sets aside or varies a preliminary decree it can, and indeed could, give direction for the setting aside or varying of the final decree, if the existence of the final decree is brought to its notice as in all cases it ought to be."
18. The core issue before this Court in the present Revisions is whether the appellants can be permitted to pursue two parallel remedies, though for distinct reliefs, in respect of the same subject property. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is not relevant for deciding the said issue.
19. In My Palace Mutuallu Aided Co-operative Society's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the judiciary in India possesses inherent power, specially, under Section 151 CPC, to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on Court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud..."
LNA,J CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 10
20. The case of the appellants is that respondent No.1 filed the suit-OS.No.1604 of 2006 by colluding with respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein-defendants, who remained ex parte, and obtained fraudulent preliminary decree, based on which, final decree was passed.
21. It is apt to note that in the said suit, there was neither representation nor misrepresentation of the case on behalf of the defendants before the trial Court, therefore, the question of playing fraud on the trial Court for obtaining decree does not arise. Hence, the aforesaid judgment does not come to aid of the appellants.
22. In Sital Prashad's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as hereunder:
"There can, in our opinion, be no doubt that if in appeal, the preliminary decree is reversed, the final decree must fall to the ground for there is no preliminary decree thereafter in support of it. It is not necessary in such a case for the defendant to go to the court passing the final decree and ask it to set aside the final decree. Even if the defendant does not file an application to the court for setting aside the final decree within three years because the preliminary decree has been reversed, the decree- holder cannot get the right to execute the final decree which has no preliminary decree in support of it. If an LNA,J CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 11 execution petition is made on such a final decree even though more than three years after the decree in appeal has been reversed, the defendant has simply to ask the court, where the execution petition is made, to refuse to execute the decree on the ground that the preliminary decree in support of it has been set aside."
23. There is no quarrel with regard to the above proposition of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
24. In the case on hand, the appellants sought leave to file Appeal against the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court, though final decree has been passed.
25. Respondent No.1 herein filed a suit vide O.S.No.1604 of 2006 against respondent Nos.2 to 9 herein for partition of the suit schedule property and as the said respondents remained ex parte, preliminary decree was passed on 12.07.2007. Respondent No.1 filed an application vide I.A.No.121 of 2009 to pass a final decree; that an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court in I.A.No.122 of 2009 to conduct survey and divide the schedule property by metes and bounds as per the preliminary decree; that the Advocate-Commissioner, accordingly, surveyed the suit LNA,J CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 12 schedule property and divided the same into six (6) equal shares and submitted a report to the trial Court on 22.07.2022.
26. The case of the appellants is that they came to know about passing of the final decree in O.S.No.1604 of 2006 only on 03.11.2022 and immediately, they filed a suit vide O.S.No.550 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for declaration of title and consequential, relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and the same is pending adjudication.
27. The Appellants also filed an appeal vide ASSR.No.14339 of 2022 seeking to set aside the preliminary decree passed in OS.No.1604 of 2006 along with an application vide I.A.No.3884 of 2023 seeking leave to file such an Appeal and an application vide I.A.No.2527 of 2022 to condone the delay in filing the Appeal.
28. Thus, from the above, it is evident that though the suit-OS.No.550 of 2022 and the Appeal filed by the appellants are in respect of the same schedule property, the reliefs sought for in both the above proceedings are entirely distinct.
LNA,J CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 13
29. The First Appellate Court lost sight of the fact that even if appellants succeed in the suit-OS.No.550 of 2022 filed by them, thereby, declaring them as owners of the suit schedule property, inasmuch as the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.1604 of 2006 would be staring at them, the decree passed in the suit-OS.No.550 of 2022 cannot be enforced and vice versa, and further, it would lead to multiplicity of litigation.
30. The appellants are claiming to be in possession of Plot Nos.11 and 12, which are part of suit schedule property in O.S.No.1604 of 2006, as of now.
31. From the above analysis of the facts of the case, it is discernible that the rights of the appellants in respect of the suit schedule property are adversely affected by the decree passed in OS.No.1604 of 2006 and further, in view of the fact that respondent Nos.2 to 7 filed the said suit without making Naveen Valipireddy, in whose favour they executed as many as seven sale deeds, through their AGPA holders, as a party to the said suit and also the fact of the defendants therein remaining ex parte, it appears that the decree obtained in the said suit, as alleged by the LNA,J CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 14 appellants, is a collusive one. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to challenge the same by way of filing an Appeal.
32. The aforesaid view of this Court is fortified by a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.Anjanappa and others Vs. A.Prabhakar and others 5, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal, which inter alia, includes that it is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court and a person aggrieved, to file an appeal, must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned.
33. The case of the appellants squarely falls under the aforesaid principles and as such, they are entitled to file an Appeal against the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.1604 of 2006
34. In view of the above discussion, in considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity, 5 2025 SCC Online SC 183 LNA,J CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024 15 which warrants interference by this Court and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside.
35. In the result, CRP.Nos.1442 of 2024 and 1422 of 2024 are allowed and the common order dated 19.03.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.2527 of 2022 and 3884 of 2023 in ASSR.No.14339 of 2022, respectively, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, is set aside and consequently, the applications-I.A.Nos.2527 of 2022 and 3884 of 2023 in ASSR.No.14339 of 2022 stand allowed. However, it is made clear that the First Appellate Court shall adjudicate and dispose of the Appeal basing on merits of the case, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present Order.
36. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:09.09.2025 dr