Mr.Deshpande Achyut Rao v. Sri.Ravinder Reddy
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-13. Mr.Deshpande Achyut Rao v. Sri.Ravinder Reddy. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 31831 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO: 673 OF 2024 Contempt Case filed Under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for willfully, deliberately and intentionally violating the orders of the High Court dated 11-12-2023 passed in W. P. No. 32825 of 2023. Between: Mr. Deshpande Achyut Rao, S/o. Late Vithal Rao Deshpande, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Retired Employee, R/o H. No. 7-2-166, Lodha Apartments, Block Eden "A", Flat No. '107, Opp. Bus stand, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad-S00 018 T. S. ... Petitioner AND 1 Sri. Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Not Known, Commissioner, Pedda Amberpet Municipality, Pedda Amberpet, Abdullapurmet (M), Ranga Reddy District- 501 505. 2. Anirudha Rao Deshpande, S/o late Vithal Rao Deshpande, Age about. 58 years, Occ. Law Officer, Bank of Maharashka, R/o H. No.
11-6-278, Pochamma Bagh, Road No. 01, Saroor Nagar, Ranga Reddy District- 500035 T. S. 3. Smt. Maneesha Anirudha Rao Deshpande, Wo Anirudh Rao Deshpande, Age about. 53 Years, Occ. Private Teacher, R/o H. No. 11-6- 278, Pochamma Bagh, Road No. 0'l , Saroor Nagar, Ranga Reddy Distriet-500035 T. S. (R2 and R3 are impleaded as per court order dl. 13-04-2026 in l. A. No. 1 of 2024 in CC. No. 673 ot 2024) ... Respondents/Contemnors r Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. MOHD. ANWAR ALI Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri. CH. JAGANNATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: Sri. P. GlRl KRISHNA The Court made the following: ORDER r ry + IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VTIAYSEN REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No. 573 0F 2024 DATE OF ORDER: L3. 04-2026 Between: Deshpande AchYut Rao . .
Petitioner AND Sri Ravinder ReddY "Respondent ORDER: (ORAL) 'fhis contempt case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the willul and passed by this Court in of the order dated 11'12'2023 deliberate disobedience W. P. No. 32825 of 2023. for the petitioner; Mohd. Anwar Ali, leamed counsel 2. Heard Mr. (in W'P' No'32825 of for respondent No'3 Mr. K. Giri Krishna, Ieamed counsel on record' 2023\ and perused the material for respondent No'3 placed on record the original 3. Leamed counsel demand drafts drawn by respondent No'3 bearing Nos'001610 for an amount of an amount of twenty three lakhs onty); 001651 for Rs. 23,00,000/- (Rupees amount of lakhs only); and 001612 for an Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees seven compliance five lakhs only), payable to the petitioner' in Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Court' 3l passed by this of the interim order dated '12'2025 -q ,l 4. The pctitioner-part1'- in-person, who was prescnt in the Court, stated that he is willing ro receive Rs. 35. 00.
000i- (Rupees thirry five rakhs only) and his rights, rvhatsoever! ovcr the prope(), admeasuring 240 square yards in Survey No. 122. T'hatti Annaram. Abdullapurmet Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, will be relinquished b1' exectrti^g neccssary document before the concemed Sub- Registrar OIfice. 5. However- learned counscr ior respondent No. 3 submitted that in the suit vide o. s- No. 430 of, 2024 insrituted by the sisters of the pelitioner before the learned I Addilional Scnior Cir. ir Judge, Ranga Reddy . trial District (for short court'), the petitioner filed r. vritten statement claiming that he has half share (% share) i. e. 120 square y'ards o. t or the square yards admeasuring 240 square yards. Thus, the pctitioner has ro execute rerinquishment deed for his entire Yz share ( I 20 squarc yards). r. eamed counser has also furnished copy of the draft relinquishment deed.
lt is submitted that the demand drafts may be handed over to the petitioner only upon cxecution of the relinquishment deed and registration thereof. Leamed counser further submitted that it rvourd be difficurt to get the relinquishment deod executed il the money under the said demand drafts is encashed by the petitioner. 6. In response. thc petitioner submitted that the dispute regarding the partition is pending before the trial court. It is not certain whether the petitioner ) t/z property admittedly was purchased in will be altotted share or l/4'h share. The the petitioner and the name of mother of the petitioner and after her demise, entitled share each being respondent No. 3 and their hryo sisters are for l/4b the relinquishment class- I legal heirs. Thus, the petitioner is ready to execute deed onty to an extent of 60 square yards or whatsoever share is allotted to him by the trial Court. 7. [_eamed counsel tbr respondent No.
3 submitted that execution of relinquishmcnt deed witl not prejudice the petitioner or respondent No. 3 in as much as the petitioner is giving up all his rights over the property admeasuring 240 square yards; thus, the petitioner without any objection has to execute the relinquishment deed for Yz share as per the assertions in his written statement. 8 Draft copy of the relinquishment deed is handed over to the leamed counsel for the petitioner. g. ln the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate if the demand drafts are kept in the custody of the Registrar Judicial-I, High Court for the State of Telangana. It may be noted that the relinquishment deed can be executed by making slight modifications. Alternatively, part compromise can be recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the \ \ Code of Civil Procedure (C. P. C. ) or the parties may also approach the Lok Adalat to record settlemenVcompromise. , i ) ,/, 'Gi I \, \ 10.
It appears that thc petitioner apprehends that in the relinquishment deed, if the extent ol the land is mentioncd as 120 square yards, it would amount to admitting that hc is receiving lts 15. 00. 000/-in lieu of r20 square yards i. e. /, share . However, it is the opinion ol respondent No. 3 that relinquishment deed has 1o be necessarily cxecuted by the petitioner, as otherwise, he would have tough time in contesting thc suit belore the trial Court. 11. It is madc clear rhat the dispute herein will not have any bearing on the suit procecdings as this cou( is neither hearing the partition suit nor deciding any property rights. 12. In view olthe seltlenrent betwecn the parties, this contempt case is closed. The petitioner is given liber11,b approach this Court seeking for release of the demand drafts subject ro execution of the relinquishment deed,/compromise/ settlement belore the Lok Adalat: the demand. <trafts w,ill be released upon recording full satislaction of respondent No. 3.
There shafi be no order as to costs As a sequel thercto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the contempt case. stand closed. A SD/. N SRIHARI, DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// e SECTION OFFICER To '1. On" CC to Sri. Mohd. Anwar Ali, Advocate IOPUCI 2. One CC to Sri. Ch. Jagannatha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. P. Giri Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Cooies a;> HIGH COURT DATED: 1310412026 s ri -! I /i,Y iI 1-) \\' ii '. ;. , \ \.. 7" ORDER CC. No. 673 ot 2024 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS *(,
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.