Telangana High Court
Dinesh Choudhary And Another vs Mohammed Sumair And 9 Others on 11 March, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD.
****
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
C.M.A.Nos.78 and 92 of 2023
DATE :11-03-2026
CMA No.78 of 2023
Between :
Dinesh Choudhary and another
...Appellants
And
Mohammed Sumair and 9 others.
...Respondents
COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar) Since these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the common order dated 05.12.2022, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Sri Sathvik Makunur, learned counsel on record for the appellants and Sri Dida Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Both the CMAs are filed being aggrieved by the common order dated 05.12.2022 passed in I.A.Nos.730 and 731 of 2022 in O.S.No.217 of 2022 by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2 Sangareddy District (for short 'Trial Court'), which were filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') seeking to restrain the respondents and their men from interfering with schedule A and B properties and also to restrain the respondents from alienating, mortgaging or creating any third party interest over the schedule C property.
4. The brief facts leading to file I.A.Nos.730 and 731 of 2022 in O.S.No.217 of 2022 are that originally, one Manohar Lal and his two sons were the owners and possessors of an extent of Acs.8.34 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.177, 178 and 179 situated at Indresham Village, Patancheru Mandal. Out of the said extent, they alienated Ac.0.30 guntas in Sy.No.178 in favour of one Kishore Babu under registered sale deed dated 23.10.1986 vide Document No.8390 of 1986. On the same day, they also alienated Acs.2.16 guntas in favour of K. Prathap and Dr. P. Aruna under registered sale deed vide Document No.8389 of 1986. Subsequently, on 20.05.1998, they sold Acs.3.14 guntas to respondent No.2 under registered sale deed vide Document No.1788 of 1998.
5. It is further stated therein that the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas purchased by Kishore Babu was sold to M/s. Sai Landscape Homes under registered sale deed dated 13.03.2003. M/s. Sai Landscape Homes, in turn, sold the said extent to Joseph Thomas 3 under registered sale deed dated 29.03.2003 and delivered possession. Thereafter, Joseph Thomas sold the land to T. Santosh Kumar under registered sale deed dated 22.06.2006. As the sale consideration was allegedly not paid, the said sale deed was cancelled and a reconveyance deed dated 22.08.2007 was executed, restoring title to Joseph Thomas. Joseph Thomas died on 23.03.2010 leaving behind his wife and two daughters as legal heirs. The legal heirs sold the said extent of Ac.0.30 guntas to M/s. Incredible India Projects Private Limited under registered sale deed dated 06.11.2010 and delivered vacant possession. M/s. Incredible India Projects thereafter sold the said extent of Ac.0.30 guntas to petitioner No.1 under registered sale deed dated 12.08.2016 (Schedule 'A' property), and possession was delivered. Petitioner No.1 claims to have converted the land to commercial use by obtaining mutation proceedings from the Tahsildar, Patancheru. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 sold Ac.0.15 guntas out of the said Ac.0.30 guntas to petitioner No.2 under registered sale deed dated 02.01.2021 (Schedule 'B' property), delivering possession.
6. Thus, according to the petitioners, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the absolute owners and possessors of Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties respectively. It is their case that on 11.06.2022, when respondent No.1 and his men attempted to interfere with their peaceful possession, petitioner No.1 filed O.S.No.899 of 2022 for perpetual injunction before 4 the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Mobile Court at Sangareddy. In the said suit, respondent No.1 filed written statement claiming ownership over Plot Nos.1 to 28 described as Schedule 'C' property. Thereafter, respondent No.1 himself filed O.S.No.595 of 2022 against the petitioners for injunction on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Excise Court, Sangareddy, claiming title in respect of Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. The petitioners later withdrew the O.S.No.899 of 2022 and filed the suit in O.S.No.217 of 2022 before the learned Trial Court and subsequently filed IA for injunction.
7. The petitioners further pleaded in the learned Trial Court in the said IA that respondent No.2, who had purchased Acs.3.14 guntas under sale deed dated 20.05.1998, subsequently obtained layout permission dated 26.03.2001 from Gram Panchayat, Indresham, and formed a layout known as "Citizens Colony" comprising Blocks 'A' to 'E'. According to the petitioners, no Block 'F' existed in the original approved layout. It was contended that the land of respondent No.2 lies on the eastern side of the road leading from Doulthabad to Patancheru and that neither respondent No.2 nor respondent No.1 had any land on the western side of the said road.
8. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.1 is falsely claiming to have purchased Plot Nos.1 to 28 in Block 'F' (Schedule 'C' 5 property) from respondent No.2 under registered sale deed dated 12.04.2022 (Document No.16391 of 2022). It is alleged that respondent No.2 had no land corresponding to Block 'F' and that the said sale deed is a fabricated and bogus document brought into existence with an intention to encroach upon Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. It is further stated that respondent Nos.3 to 10 also attempted interference and encroachment, and therefore, O.S.No.217 of 2022 was filed seeking declaration and consequential injunction.
9. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 and 10 filed their counter-affidavits denying the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the interlocutory applications.
10. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.1, while admitting the original ownership of Manohar Lal and his sons over Acs.8.34 guntas, contended that respondent No.2 validly purchased Acs.3.14 guntas under registered sale deed dated 20.05.1998 and later obtained layout approval forming Blocks 'A' to 'E', and upon survey, an additional extent of Ac.1.22 guntas on the western side of the 80 feet road was identified. A revised layout was allegedly approved showing the said portion as Block 'F'. Respondent No.1 claims to have purchased Plot Nos.1 to 28 in Block 'F' admeasuring 7847.30 square yards under registered sale deed dated 12.04.2022 and to be in lawful possession thereof.
6
11. Respondent No.1 further contended that the boundaries mentioned in sale deeds dated 23.10.1986 vide Document Nos.8389 and 8390 of 1986 are identical, and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim separate extents under the guise of different transactions. It is alleged that the land claimed by the petitioners does not physically exist as described and that several subsequent sale deeds were brought into existence to overlap and encroach upon the land forming part of Schedule 'C' property. He also pointed out that petitioner No.1 had earlier filed O.S.No.899 of 2022 and withdrawn the same, and therefore, the present suit is not bona fide. He further stated that when the petitioners attempted to interfere with and unlawfully grab his property through false assertions, he filed O.S. No.595 of 2022 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, which is pending. He also asserted that there is a serious dispute regarding the very existence and identity of the Ac.0.30 guntas claimed by the petitioners and that, despite this, Petitioner No.1 in collusion with Petitioner No.2 executed a sale deed dated 02.01.2021 falsely describing and claiming his property, forming part of Schedule C property, as their own, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the applications.
12. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit denying all allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the applications and specifically denied the claim of respondent No.1 that Plot Nos.1 to 28 in Block F 7 were purchased from him through a registered sale deed dated 12.04.2022, asserting that he neither executed nor signed the said document and that it is a forged and fabricated document created by respondent No.1, further stating that there is no Block F in the layout. He stated that he had obtained a layout plan in respect of land in Sy.Nos.165/A, 165/AA, 148/A, and 148/E and had sold residential plots to various purchasers, who have constructed houses and are residing there with their families.
13. He contended that Respondent No.1 and one Prabhakar Reddy colluded and, instead of registering a document for 83 square yards of an open plot, forged his signatures to create a document in respect of Plot Nos.1 to 28 of Block F and obtained his thumb impression. He further stated that he was under the bona fide impression that he was executing a sale deed for 83 square yards in RK1 layout and not for Plot Nos.1 to 28 of Block F, emphasizing that there was no Block F in the earlier layout and that he did not possess any such property. He also contended that by forging his signatures, W.P.No.28630 of 2021 was filed before the Court and interim orders in I.A.No.1 of 2021 were obtained by suppressing material facts, and that he submitted representations to the DGP and the Superintendent of Police, Sangareddy, seeking action against Respondent No.1 and his associates for creating the said documents. He maintained that he 8 never interfered with the land situated on the western side of the road, that the petitioners are not entitled to any injunction against him, and that the petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed. Respondent Nos.7 and 10 filed a separate counter-affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the applications and stated that they are the owners and possessors of residential plots situated in Sy.Nos.65 and 66 of Pocharam Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, having purchased the same in 2021 through registered sale deeds from the original owners Koduri @ Peddamana Narsimulu, Kishtaiah, and Venkamma. They further stated that Sy.Nos.65 and 66 of Pocharam Village are Government lands and that, after the Naksha bata between Pocharam and Indresham Villages, Sy.No.178 of Indresham lies far away from their plots, making any interference with the suit Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties impossible. They asserted that their lands are distinct and geographically separate from the Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties, denied any interference, and prayed for dismissal of the interlocutory applications.
14. Upon hearing both sides and considering Exs.P1 to P22 marked on behalf of the petitioners, the Trial Court framed points for consideration relating to existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
9
15. The Trial Court observed that the earlier suit filed by petitioner No.1 in O.S.No.899 of 2022 for perpetual injunction was withdrawn, yet the petitioners chose to institute the present suit instead of seeking amendment in the earlier proceedings, reflecting on their conduct. The Court further noted that the petitioners failed to file any specific reply to the respondents' counter-affidavits and did not disclose parallel proceedings before the District Panchayat Officer, Sangareddy, and held that unless the layout of Block F is set aside by a competent authority, the petitioners have no locus to challenge its authenticity. Since the petitioners admitted the execution of the sale deed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 (Ex.P17) and the layout plan showing Block F (Ex.P16), they are estopped from disputing the same at this stage.
16. The learned Trial Court observed that the sale deeds dated 23.10.1986 vide Document Nos. 8389 and 8390 contain identical boundaries and therefore, the petitioners' claim that the lands covered under these deeds are distinct is, prima facie, unsustainable. As a result, the petitioners cannot rely on these deeds to create multiple transactions or assert any claim over Schedule C property, which forms part of the land purchased by respondent No.1 from respondent No.2 under the registered sale deed dated 20.05.1998 (Ex.P13). The Court 10 also noted that O.S.No.595 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 against petitioner No.1 is pending.
17. The Trial Court found that a dispute exists regarding the physical possession of the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas claimed as Schedule A and B properties. To resolve this, respondent No.1 sought the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under I.A.No.874 of 2022 for survey and demarcation of individual extents in Sy.No.178, including Acs.3.14 guntas belonging to respondent No.2 and Acs.2.16 guntas under Document No.8389 of 1986, with reference to village maps and Tippon, highlighting the complex factual questions involved.
18. The learned Trial Court observed that the original owner, Manohar Lal and sons, sold Acs.17.14 guntas in Sy.Nos.177, 178 and 179 to respondent No.2, who obtained layout permission, revised the layout to include Block F, and sold Schedule C property to respondent No.1 with well-defined boundaries. The Court further noted that respondent Nos.7 and 10's lands in Pocharam Village are distinct, and respondent No.2 cannot deny the sale of Schedule C property to respondent No.1 except through proper cancellation proceedings. In view of these facts, the learned Trial Court held that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case, the balance of convenience is not 11 in their favour, and accordingly dismissed their applications, giving rise to the present CMAs.
19. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the Trial Court ignored 32 documents filed by the appellants and has based its order on a non-existent revised layout plan that is not even part of the record. It is also contended that the Trial Court based on erroneous readings of the boundaries in sale deed Nos.8389 of 1986 and 8390 of 1986 came to the conclusion that the land claimed by the appellants is the same as another. Finally, that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the clear flow of title demonstrated by way of cogent material evidence by the appellants and consequently holding that there is no prima facie case in favour of the appellants.
20. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar v/s. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs. 1, wherein it was held that where the issue of title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law, or where court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis that title was at issue, the Court should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction.
21. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit reiterating the averments in the counter filed before the Trial Court and he mainly 1 (2008) 4 SCC 594 12 contended that he is neither the owner nor possessor of schedule C property and prays to dismiss the CMAs.
22. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions urged by both the parties and perused the record.
23. It is trite law that for grant of temporary injunction, the petitioners must establish (i) a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience in their favour, and (iii) likelihood of irreparable injury.
24. In the present case, serious disputes exist with regard to the identity and existence of the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas claimed as Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties, the correctness of the boundaries mentioned in Sale Deed Nos.8389 of 1986 and 8390 of 1986, and the validity and effect of the alleged Block 'F' layout and the sale in favour of respondent No.1. The Trial Court has noticed that both the sale deeds relied upon by the petitioners contain identical boundaries, which creates a substantial doubt regarding the distinct identity of the land claimed by them. Such a dispute goes beyond a mere allegation of interference with possession and raises a serious cloud over the title and identification of the property.
25. The petitioners trace their title through a chain of registered sale deeds originating from the transaction of the year 1986, whereas respondent No.1 claims rights over Plot Nos.1 to 28 in Block 'F' under a registered sale deed dated 12.04.2022. At the same time, respondent 13 No.2 disputes the very execution of the said document and alleges that it is forged and fabricated. These rival claims demonstrate that the controversy involves competing claims of title, validity of documents, and identification of the land, which cannot be adjudicated in interlocutory proceedings.
26. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar (supra) makes it clear that where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and the dispute involves complicated questions relating to title and identity of property, such issues ought to be resolved in a properly constituted suit after full trial. In the present case, the determination of possession itself is dependent upon the adjudication of title and identification of the respective extents, which necessarily requires detailed evidence, including survey and demarcation.
27. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners had earlier instituted O.S.No.899 of 2022, which was subsequently withdrawn, and that O.S.No.595 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 and O.S.No.217 of 2022 filed by the appellants are still pending. The pendency of the said suit, coupled with the request for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for survey and demarcation, clearly indicates that the dispute relating to possession and identity of the property requires a full-fledged trial. 14 When the issues are already the subject matter of adjudication before the Trial Court, this Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory order, need not undertake a parallel examination of such disputed questions.
28. The contention of the appellants that the Trial Court failed to consider certain documents or relied upon a revised layout plan, relates to appreciation of material on record. However, it is well settled that an appellate Court will not interfere with the discretionary order of the Trial Court unless such discretion is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to settled principles of law. No such infirmity is demonstrated in the present case.
29. In view of the serious cloud over the title and identity of the property and the pendency of substantive proceedings between the parties, the petitioners have failed to establish a prima facie case. Consequently, the balance of convenience does not lie in their favour, and no irreparable injury is made out so as to warrant interference at this stage.
30. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Court dismissing the applications for temporary injunction.
15
31. Accordingly, CMA Nos.78 and 92 of 2023 are dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J ____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date:11.03.2026 GJ