Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 568 (TS)

Tumu Gopala Rao v. Ravella Kalavathi

2025-05-01

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred seeking prayer as under: “…to suspend the impugned order dated 16.11.2024 in I.A.No.247 of 2023 in O.S.No.309 of 2023 and set aside the same on the file of the Agent to the Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. This Civil Revision petition is filed challenging the propriety and legality of the order dated 06.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.247 of 2023 in O.S.No.309 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, whereby the petition filed by the plaintiffs under Rule 42(a) and (c) of T.S. Agency Rules , 1924 Read with Section 151 C.P.C., seeking suspension of the fraudulent entries reflecting the name of defendant No.1 in the occupant column of the impugned pahanies in respect of the suit scheduled land was dismissed. 3. The plea of the petitioners/plaintiffs in I.A.No.247 of 2023 is that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land admeasuring Ac.1-30 guntas in Sy.Nos.39, 40/1, 41, 42/1 situated at Chandrugonda Village and Mandal of the Scheduled area of Bhadradri Kothagudem District and that the defendants by managing the Mandal Revenue Inspector-I, Chandrugonda on the basis of forged and fabricated unregistered gift deed allegedly executed by Smt. Alla Kanakamma, in respect of the suit land, got issued Memo dated 20.12.2025 in Rc.No.B/2468/2005 and on the basis of the same got entered the name of Defendant No.1 in occupation column of pahanies in respect of the suit land and that the said Kanakamma died about 30 years ago but the defendants falsely got her date of death registered in the Register of Death as 21.06.2003 and that they are trying to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. 4. The respondents/defendants filed Counter denying the allegations made by the petitioners. They asserted title and possession over the suit land on the basis of the alleged registered gift deed/will deed bearing document No.6 of 1977 dated 15.04.1977. They stated that after the death of Kanakamma on 21.06.2003, Defendant No.1 came into possession of the suit land and ever since she had been in possession and enjoyment of the land and Defendant No.1 perfected the title over the suit land. They stated that after the death of Kanakamma on 21.06.2003, Defendant No.1 came into possession of the suit land and ever since she had been in possession and enjoyment of the land and Defendant No.1 perfected the title over the suit land. The respondents/defendants also stated that they had filed O.S.No.452 of 2006 against the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land for perpetual injunction and the suit was decreed and in view of the decree in the suit, the present petition is not maintainable and they alleged that the suit is barred by limitation, since the death certificate of Kanakamma is challenged eighteen years after the date of registration of her death on 21.03.2003. 5. Heard Sri M. Murali Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Shaik Madar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Perused the Record. 6. The question whether the alleged registered gift deed/will deed is true or not can be decided only after a full-fledged trial in the suit. According to the plaintiffs, the entry of name of Defendant No.1 in the occupation column of the pahani record was made at the instance of the defendants, the then Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Revenue Officer and that aspect also can be gone into after holding full trial in the suit. 7. It is not in dispute that the defendants filed O.S.No.452 of 2006 for perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs herein and the suit was decreed in favour of the defendants and the decree became final. The decree supports the contention of the defendants that they had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is no doubt true that the plaintiffs sought for declaration that the decree in O.S.No.452 of 2006 is null and unenforceable and that question as to the validity of the decree can be decided after holding trial in the suit. In view of the above this Court finds that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners and the balance of convenience is not in their favour. 8. For the foregone reasons, this Court does not find any material irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court in I .A.No.247 of 2023 in O.S.No.309 of 2023 dated 16.11.2024. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. 8. For the foregone reasons, this Court does not find any material irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court in I .A.No.247 of 2023 in O.S.No.309 of 2023 dated 16.11.2024. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.