Bodapunti Sudhaker v. Syed Saleemuddin,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K.LAKSHMAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-13. Bodapunti Sudhaker v. Syed Saleemuddin,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4360 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 11-08-2025 passed in l. A. No. 356 of 2025 in A. S. SR. No. 2734 of 2025 on the file of the court of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge Cum Principal Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri, at Kukatpally. Between: Bodapunti Sudhaker, S/o B. Raghavulu, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 1-12-12619, Vinayaka Nagar, Nizamabad, Telangana ... Petitioner /1"t Respondent /1't Respondent AND 1. Syed Saleemuddin, S/o Late Syed Azeemuddin, Aged about 76 Years, Occ. Business, Residing at H. No. 5-3-970, Fasih Jung Lane, Mouzamjahi Market, Hyderabad. Presently residing at Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Rep by his General Power of Attorney, Syed Kaleemuddin, S/o Late Syed Azeemuddin, Aged aboutT2 Years, Occ. Advocate, Residing at H. No. 5-3-970, Fasih Jung Lane, Mouzamjahi Market, Hyderabad. ... RespondenUPetitionerAppellant 2. Bodapunti Laxman, S/o Late Boudapunti Narayana, Aged about 64 Years, Occ. Business, Residing at Flat No. 302, Yijaya Grandeur, Street No. 1, Czech Colony, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad. 3. M. Sri Hari, S/o Late Narasimha, Aged about 80 Years, Occ. Advocate, Residing at Flat No. 302, Rose Apts, Abids,Hyderabad. 4. Nawab Fareed Nawaz Jung, S/o Nawab Sultanul tvlulk, Aged about 88 Years, Occ. Business, 0/a G-33, Navakethan Colony, Clock Tower, S. D. Road, Secunderabad. 5. Nawab Nazeer Nawaz Jung, S/o Nawab Sultanul Mulk, Aged about 80 Years, Occ. Business, 0/o G-33, Navakethan Colony, Clock Tower, S. D. Road, Secunderabad. 6. Nawab Mohammed Mifahuddin Khan, S/o Late Nawab M. Abdul Fatah Khan, Aged about 55 Years, Occ.
Business, 0/o G-33, Navakethan Colony, Clock Tower,S. D. Road, Secunderabad. 7. Mohammarj Sirajuddin Khan, S/o Late Nawab M. Abdul Fatah Khan, Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Business,0/o G-33, Navakethan Colony, Clock Tower, S. D. Road, Secunderabad 8. Abedunnis;r Begum. D/o Late Nawab M. Abdul Fatah Khan, Aged about 60 Years, Oc<:. Housewife, 0/o G-33, Navakethan Colony, Clock Tower, S. D. Road, Secunderabad. 9. Fazalunnisa Begum, D/o Late Nawab M. Abdul Fatah Khan, Aged about 50 Years, Oc<:. Housewife, 0/o G-33, Navakethan Colony, Clock Tower, S. D. Road, Secunderabad. 10. Qasimunni,;a Begum, D/o Late Nawab M. Abdul Fatah Khan, Aged about 50 Years, Oc<:. Housewife, 0/o G-33, Navakethan Colony, Clock Tower, S. D. Road, Secunderabad. 1 1. Bashirunnir;a Begum, D/o Late Nawab Khair Nawaz Jung, Aged about 50 Years, Oc<:. Housewife, 0/o G-33, Navakethan Colony, Clock Tower, S. D. Road, Secunderabad. 12. Nawab Eqtedaruddin Khan, S/o Late Nawab Khair Nawaz Jung, Aged about 55 Years, {Jcc.
Business, 0/o G-33, Navakethan Colony, Clock Tower, S. D. Road, Sectrnderabad. 13. Nawab Harniduddin Khan, S/o Late Nawab Khalr Nawaz Jung, Aged about 53 Years, Oct:. Business, 0/o G-33, Navakethan Colony, Clock Tower, S. D. Road, Secunderabad. 14. Nawab Raliuddin Khan, S/o Late Nawab Khair Nawaz Jung, . Aged about 50 Years, Ocr:. Business, 0/o G-33, Navakethan Colony, Clock Tower, S. D. Road, Secunderabad. 15. Nawab Masood Khan, S/o Late Nawab Khair Nawaz Jung, Aged about 50 Yeari, Occ. Business, 0/o G-33, Navakethan Colony, Clock Tower, S. D. Road, Secunderabad. 16. Nawab Mormood Jung, S/o Late Nawab Khair Nawaz Jung, Aged about 51 Years, Ocr;. Business, 0/o G-33, Navakethan Colony, Clock Tower, S. D. Road, Secunderabad. 17. Nawab Betrbood Ali Khan S/o Late Nawab Khair Nawaz Jung, Aged about 48 Years, Occ;. Business, 0/o G-33, Navakethan Colony, Clock Tower, S. D. Road, Secunderabad. 18. B. Shankarlal, S/o Banarsilal, Aged. Major, Occ. Business, Residing at H. No.
5-9-70112, Chirag All Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. Respondents/Respondents/Respondent No. 2 to 1B (Respondents No. 2 to 18 are Formal Parties and notices are not required for them) ... Respondents /RespondenURespondent No. 2 to 18 l. A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay '1 of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 1. 08. 2025 passed in lA No. 356 of 2025 in ASSR No. 2734 of 2O25 on the file of the Honble lll Additional Distrit and sessions Judge cum Principal Family court Medchal Malkajgiri at Kukatpally, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. l. A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under section 151 of 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 suspension order passed in lA No. 1 ot 2025 in CRP No. 4360 of 2025 daled 05. 12.
2025 which was expired on 12. 12. 2025 until further orders pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K Devanath Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 to 18 : - - - The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE I{[GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVIS TON PE TITION No. 4360 O F 2025 DATE: 13-02-2026 Betrveen: Petitioner Mr. Bodapu irti Sudhaker Vs Respondents Mr. Syed Saleemuddin & others This Court made the following: RAL DER: Heard Mr. K. Devanath, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr Raja Gopallar. an Tayi, learned counsel for respondent No. l Respondent Nos. 2 to 18 are not necessary partles 2. This revision is filed assailing the docket order dated 1 1. 08. 202j; in I. A. No. 356 of 2025 in ASSR No.
2734 of 2025 passed by learned lll Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Principal Family couft, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. 3. 1-he petitioner herein has filed a suit in o. S. No. 671 of 2o2l (Old O. S. No. 347 ot2020) against respondent Nos. 2 to 18, to declare the registe,red sale deed bearing No. 1341 of 1965, dated 02-06. 1965, t, KLJ CRP No. 4360 of2025 as illegal and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction' The same was decreed on 05. 10. 2023. It was al ex parte decree' 4. Challenging the said judgment and decree dated 05'10'2023, .. respondent No. 1 herein has preferred an appeal vide ASSR No'2734 of 2025. He has also filed an Interlocutory Application vide l'A' No. 356oflO}5seekingleavetopreferthesaidappeal. passed appellate Court 5. Vide order dated 11. 08. 2025, learned the following order: Perused the "Heard counsel for the petitioner' record.
Consideringtheaffidavitofthepetitioner aggrieved party of stating that the petitioner is the this in OS No'67112021' the judgment passed petitioner/third petition is allowed permitting the to . party to prefer appeal subject limitation. " -- ^ 6. Challenging the said order, the ptaintiff in the said suit, the petitioner herein, filed the present revision' 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein would contend that is ex is not based on reasons and it an parte order the impugned order to the petitioner herein' without giving opportunity 8. Whereas,learnedcounselforrespondentNo. lwould petitioner has filed the aforesaid suit against contend that the KLJ CRP No. 4360 of2025 respondenl Nos. 2 to 18 herein who are no more and died before the date of institution of the said suit itself. The petitioner herein has mentioned the addresses of respondent Nos. 4 to 17 as 'G-33, Navanikethan Colony, Clock Tower, S. D.
Road, Secunderabad' Thus, he has obtained the said judgment and decree by misrepresenting the trial Court and the said judgment and decree is against the dead persons. Respondent No. 1 herein has mentioned the specific reasons in the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I. A. No. 356 ol 2A25, to grant leave for preferring the appeal challenging the said judgment and decree. On consideration of the said aspects only, leanred appellate Court allowed the said I. A. No. 356 of 2025 and grante:d leave to respondent No. 1 herein to prefer the said appeal. *apt - -t;f . In-lhe-l ight the-afbmi-dffilmbmi ssions it-is to note that in H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakarl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 43 laid down the following principles governing the grant of leave to prefer an appeal: i. Sections 96 and 100 of the CPC. respectively provide -*--for preferring an appeal from-an-original-decree or decree in appeal respectively; . 2025 SCC ,Jnl-ine 183 ' SC KLJ CRP No.
4l60 of2025 of 11. The said provisions db not enumerate the categories persons who can f,rle an aPPeal; that stranger lll However, it a settled legal proposition a cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the . oii. t that he fatls within the category ofan aggrieved Person; judgment iv. It is only where a 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; one V A person aggrieved, to file an appeal, must be whose right is affected by reason of the judgrnent and decree sought to be imPugned; include The expression'operson aggrieved" does not a vl. who suffers from a psychological or an person imaginary injury; vll. It would be improper to grant leave to appeal to every person who may in some remote or indirect way be -byrclee resTri u:dgniErit I and v i i i.
Ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted to persons ,*,ho, though not parties to the proceedings, would be bound by the decree or judgment in that proceeding and jts who would be precluded -from-attacking -correctness in other proceedings. in [-A. 10. Respondent No. l has filed the aforesaid application 2025, seeking leave to prefer the No. 356 of 2025 in ASSR No. 2734 of appeal contending as follows: '7 -5 . KLJ CRP No. 4160 of2025 "4. I further submit that the Hon'ble IInd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, vide its orders dated 23-01-1965 in I. A. No. 14 of 1965 directed the Respondent No.
3 herein by permitting and authorizing to transfer alienate Prior sell the properties forming part of Sultan-Ul-Mulk and on 09- 02-1965 Hon'ble IInd Additional Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad, issued a sale l5 warrant authorizing the Advocate-Commissioner, who was appointed pursuant to an order in the Interlocutory Application in the civil suit referred to herein above, to convey to the partnership f,rrm, namely Friends & Co. the shares of the plaintiff in suit O. S. No. l0 of 1962 along with the share of other shareholders having accepting the amount deposited by the said partnership firm with the court. It is submitted that in furtherance to the order of the Hon'ble IInd Additional Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, tha. Court Receiver , executed sale deeds, conveying their shares in the property, including the property situate in survey No. 80, 80/l and 80lz admeasuring Acres 13-35 Guntas of Fateh Nagar Village, with which I am concerned in the instant suit.
All the partners of the said parErership firm have shares i, y. |i+ ttre l! _. __pto. p... g ryT pq. huqe! by partnership firm. I submit that the property situate in survey No. 80, 80/l and 80/2 admeasuring Acres 13- 35 Guntas of Fateh Nagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, ,7 KLJ CRP No. 4360 of2025 Ranga Reddy District devolved upon the firm. Thus, the partners of firm are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, situate in survey No. 80, 80/l and 80/2 admeasuring Acres 13-35 Guntas of Fateh Nagar Village. 5. I submit that, the Respondent No. I herein have filed the suit O. S. No. 67l of 2021, against the Respondent No. 2 to 18 herein before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District Court at Kukatpally, for Declaration of Sale Deed Doc. No. 1.
341 of L965 as null and void and lnjunction in respect of the Suit Schedule Property, and the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District Court at Kukatpally without appreciating the Oral and Documentary evidence available on record was pleased to allowed the suit, vide Judgment and Decree dated 05-10-2023. 6. I submit that aggrieved by Judgment and Decree ot 2021 the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri Hon'ble . *Court-Jo *-peruse-and *"- consider *the. - Mernorandum of Grounds . filed in the above Appeal, *part--and*parcel*bf--this*Affidavit " as for better appreciation of facts of the case. " . KI. J CRP No. 4360 of2025 However, without considering the said aspects, more particularly, the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court, vtde impugned order, learned appellate Court granted leave to respondent No. l to prefer the said appeal. Therefore, the aforesaid order is nbt on consideral. ion of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in H.
Anjanappa (Supra) and contentions of the appellant therein. It is a cryptic orrler without reasons 1 l. Perusal of affidavit filed by respondent No. l in support of I. A. No. 3:i6 of 2025 would reveal that he has not stated that all the defendantr; in the said suit are no more. However, in the counter filed by him in the present revision he has stated the said fact. 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order daled 1l-08. 2025 by learned Appellate_ Corrrt in LA. Nq,356 of 2025 inlA. SSRNo:2734G ZOZS is set aside. The mattef is remandetl back to leamed appellate Court with a direction to decide I. A. No. 356 of 2025 ir, ASSR No. 2734 of 2025 afresh stricrly in accordance with law by considering the aforesaid principles summarized by-the Apex ffi. i_ffi---court in Ir. Anjanappa (Supra). Liberty is granted to respondent No. l here:in to file better affidavit. The petitioner herein is also at KI. J CRP No. 4350 of2025 liberty to file counter in I. A. No. 356 of 2025.
Learned appellate Court shall consider the same and decide I. A. No. 356 of 2025 afresh as expeditiously as possible. 13. The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed. SD/- T. SRINTVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The lll Additional District and sessions Judge cum Principal Family court, tVledchal Matkajgiri, at Kukatpally 2. One CC to SRI K DEVANATH, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI, Advocate IoPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies W^" K/PSL HIGH COTJRT DATED: 1310212026 ES R o t o U 0 6 fitfl 20f6 z t ORDER o * CRP. No. 4l360 of 2025 I DITcH DISPOSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS b
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.