Gorala Narsinga Rao v. GontiYadgiri Yadav
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SUJANA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-16. Gorala Narsinga Rao v. GontiYadgiri Yadav. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 33851 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTIGE K. SUJANA GIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 2083 &2O85 ot 2021 Civil Revision Petition No. 2083 ol 2O21 Petttion under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 30-09-2021 passed in l. A. No:723 o'f 2021 in OS. No. 976 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Between: Gorala Narsinga Rao, S/o. Late G Muthaiah, Age: 53 years, Occ: Tea Vendor, H. No. 6-3-609/1 20111, Anand Nagar Colony, Khairthabad, Hyderabad. ... Petitioner AND 1. Gunti Yadaiah, S/o. Narayana, Age: 63 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 6-3- 609/1 19, Anandnagar Colony, Khairthabad, Hyderabad. 2. P. Kistaiah, S/o. Pocaiah, Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired Employee, Rl/o. H. No. 6-3-609/120, Anandnagar Colony, Khairthabad, Hyderabad.
(The 2nd Respondent was set exparte and as such not necessary party) ... RespondenUs lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 30-09-2021 in LA. No. 723 ot 2021 in OS. No. 976 of 2013, on the file of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri Syed RazzaqAhmed Civil Revision Petition No. 2085 of 2021 Petition under Article 227 ot the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 30-09-2021 passed in l. A. No. 87 of 2021 in OS. No. 976 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Between: Gglalq Rao, S/o. Late G Muthaiah, Age: 53 years, Occ: \qrginga Tea Vendor, H. No. 6-3-609/1 2O111 , Anand Nagar. Colony, Khairthabad, Hyderabad. ... Petitioner AND '1 .
Gonti Yadgiri Yadav, S/o Sattiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Self Employed 2. Gonti Srinivas Yadav, Sio Satthaiah, Age: 43 years, Occ: Self Employed Both resident of H. No. 6-3-609112015, Anandnagar Colony, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 3. Gunti Yadaiah, S/o Narayana, Age: 63 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. H. No. 6-3- 609/1 19, Anandnagar Colony, Khairthabad, Hyderabad. 4. P. Kislajah, S/o. Pocaiah, Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired Employee, Rt/o. H. No. - 6-3-609/120, Anandnagar Colony, Khairthabad, Hyderabad. (That no relief is sought against 3'd and 4th Respondents and as such are not necessary parties) ... RespondenUs lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 30-09-2021 in t. A. No. 87 of 2021 in O. S. No. 976 of 2013, on the file of the Honble XXV Addt. Chief Judge, City Civit Court.
lA NO: 5 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 23. 08. 2024 granted in lA No 4 ot 2024 in cRp No 2085 of 2021 fll further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: Sri Syed Razzaq Ahmed The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER K. SUJANA THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2O83 e2OaSl2O2l COMMON ORDER: Since the lis involved in both the revision petitions together and are being being same, they were heard disposed of by this common order. of 2O2l 2. CRP. Nos. 2083 and 2085 are filed challenging the challenging the common order dated 3O. Og. 2O2l passed in IA. Nos. 723 and 87 of 2O2l in OS. No. 976 of 2013 respectively.
IA'No 87 of 2021 was under Order I Rule 10 read hled by respondents herein with Section i 51 of CPC praying to implead them as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit and IA'No'723 of 2027 was filed under Order I Rule 13 read with Section 151 of plaintiffs in OS'No' 1953 of 2019 CPC praying to implead (the two petitioners in lA. No'87 of 2O2l\ as defendants in sides, the trial Court allowed the suit. After hearing both 2021 uide impugned common IA. Nos. 87 and 723 of 4- . i i) CRP. Nos. 2083 & 2OA5 OF 2021 ordr:r. Aggrieved thereby, these revision petitions are hled 3. Heard Sri Raja Shekar Rao Salvaj r, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri Syed Razzaq Ahmed, learned counsel for respondents, in both the petitions. 4.
karned counsel for petitioners submittcd that the impugned common order passed by the trial Court is illegal, contrary to law and facts, weight of evidence, and probabilities of the case, and that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the original suit has been pending since the 1'ear 20 1 3, and that the said petitions were frivolous attempt to drag the matter. He contended that the schedule property in O. S. No. 19S3 of 2Ot9, filed by rhe cousrn of respondent No. 1, is entirely different from the suit property, and that respondent No. t has no Jocus standi to compel the plaintiff to include additional defendants against whom no relief is soughr. Therefore, while advocating that O. S. No. 1953 of 2Ol9 is a collusive suit filed on behalf of the respondent NO. l, prayecl this CRP. Nos. 2Oa3 & 2OaS OF 2O21 tra Court to allow the revision petitions, setting aside the impugned common order. for 5.
On the other hald, learned counsel the submissions made respondents, vehemently opposed petitioners and contended that by iearned counsel for gross misrepresentation of facts petitioner is guilty of and has come before this Court with unclean hands' He averred that petitioner/ plaintiff has frled the suit for declaration of title and injunction for land measuring 40O square yards, whereas, they are in actual physical possession of only 6O square yards and that the suit schedule property was originally part of a iarger land later purchased owned by Mohammed Mirza, which was by AG Co-operative Housing Society Limited in 1961 ' Further, the said Society then divided the land into 136 plots, with plot number s 27 arrd 28 being in the possession of the parties to the suit' He lamented that the petitioner/ plaintiff suppressed material facts' including the pendency of O'S'No' 1935 of 2019, which was filed by other families residing in the suit schedule ii ii ti. ,. , 3:l. r.. a l i CRP. Nos.
2083 & 2Oa5 OF 2021 property. Therefore, while advocating that there are no illegalities in the impugned common order, prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petitions, as the same lacl<s merits. 6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, this Court observes that there is a strong title dispute between the parties in'respect of the suit propert5r. The contention of petitioner/ plaintiff is that the suit property is part of a larger parcel of land purchased by his father and five others, while the respondents/ proposed defendants contend that the property is part of a development by AG Co-operaEve Society. In other words, it can be said that not only the title to the property is in dispute, but also the very identity of the suit property is in dispute.
Further, the proposed defendants, who contend to be the neighbours of the petitioner, were present when the Police came to the suit property and resisted the attempt of petitioner to dig a borewell. Furthermore, the proposed defendants contend to be in I : : CRP. Nos-2Oa3 & 2oa5 OF. 2021 possession of part of the suit property and that the petitioner is falsely claiming title to 400 square yards of land. 7. That apart, learned counsel for petilioner raised strong objection to the. impleading of the proposed defendalts, contending that they have not filed any documents to assert their title over the suit proper{r. t Further, the addresses of the parties would show that , they are all neighbours. Therefore, this Court is of the t opinion that impleading the proposed defendants will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner and will instead { help the Court to decide real question in -the controversy.
I The suit was filed for declaration of title in respect of immovable property, and that it is incumbent upon the trial Court to decide ail rival claims in one suit, rather than allowing the plaintiff to file muttiple declaratory suits against different neighbours. Therefore, this Court holds that the proposed defendants are proper and necessary parties to the suit and there are no infirmities or illegalities in the impugned common order. There are &2Oa5 OF 2O2l CRP. NoS. 2O83 r) same are petitions arrd the no merlts in these revision liable to be dismissed are Petitions these Civil Revision 8. Accordingly, be no order as to costs dismissed. There shail shall if any pending' applications' Miscellaneous also stand closed / A. r:3fo\Y'J+Hj,** //TRUE COPY// \ CTTON OFFICER To, Civil Court at Hyderabad Chief Judge' City Additional 1. The XXV 2. oneCCtoSriRaiaShekarRaoSalvaji,AdvocatetoPuc] Razzaq Ahmed' Advocate IOPUCI CC Sri Syed 3. One to 4.
Two CD CoPies Kam/gh I rl il li, llI t / HIGH COURT DATED:1611212024 ST4T 1 HE 6 ( I ( c ( c 0 5 I'il; 2025 c t COMMON ORDER I (, Dr s tATcP GRP. Nos. 2083 & 2085 ot 2021 THESE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED @f'Y:'o ,\ te l2
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.