APHC010488302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Wednesday, the fifth day of November two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition Between: Yellannagari Pedda Linganna and Yellannagari Ramakka and others Counsel for the petitioners: 1. Sodum Anvesha Counsel for the respondents: 1. Mallidi Aruna Sri Satya The Court made the following IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the fifth day of November two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.2382 of 2025 Yellannagari Pedda Linganna (died) and others ...Petitioners Yellannagari Ramakka and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sodum Anvesha Counsel for the respondents: Mallidi Aruna Sri Satya Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Wednesday, the fifth day of November two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioners ...Respondents 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2382 of 2025 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 04.07.2025, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.756 of 2025 in A.S.No.18 of 2025 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kurnool, at Nandyal filed by the appellants / defendants under Order XLI, Rule 5 and Section 151 C.P.C. to stay execution of the decree, dated 26.03.2025, in O.S.No.89 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, till disposal of the appeal. 2. The respondents / plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.89 of 2012, it seems, initially for mere injunction and subsequently for declaration of right, title, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction. Later, they got amended the reliefs in the plaint vide order in I.A.No.574 of 2022 seeking delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. The suit was decreed on 26.03.2025 granting all the reliefs, however, giving three (3) months time from the date of the decree to deliver possession of the properties. The aggrieved defendants filed the appeal and also filed petition in I.A.No.756 of 2025. The plaintiffs pleaded in the suit that certain properties fell to the share of (i) Yellannagari Pedda Linganna; (ii) Yellannagari Nadipi Linganna; and (iii) Yellannagari Chinna Linganna in an oral partition, and in turn, Yellannagari Nadipi Linganna executed a registered gift deed, dated 10.02.1958, in favour of Yellannagari Chinna Linganna in respect of the properties fell towards his share and out of them, the plaintiffs retained the suit schedule properties and therefore, they are the owners and possessors of those properties. The defendants denied the case of the plaintiffs about the oral partition and the execution of the gift deed and also the consequent ownership and 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2382 of 2025 possession claimed by the plaintiffs. The appellants contended that the respondents / plaintiffs failed to prove the oral partition and the registered gift deed and consequently, they have no right, yet, the suit was erroneously decreed. The appellants further contended that the plaintiffs initially made a false claim of their possession and when they realised that they could not succeed in the suit, they got the plaint amended by creating false cause of action, dated 23.11.2022. The appellants further contended that the trial Court erroneously observed that exhibits B1 to B3 stand in the name of the great grandfather of the 5th petitioner etc., but Yellannagari Linganna @ Pedda Linganna is the grandfather but not great grandfather as can be found from exhibits A7, A8, A12 and A13 and consequently, the observation of the trial Court that the suit schedule properties are not the absolute properties of the grandfather of the 5th petitioner is incorrect. They further contended that the revenue records under exhibits B4 to B9 and the admissions of PW1 would clearly show possession in favour of the defendants, besides their right and interest in the property. Under these circumstances, they prayed for an order of interim stay. 3. The petition was opposed by filing the counter of the respondents / plaintiffs denying the allegations in the affidavit enclosed to the petition stated supra. They further contended that the gift deed being 70 years old document is duly proved as per law by drawing conclusive presumption and that the trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and decreed the suit. They further contended that the execution of the decree cannot be stayed merely because the property is in the hands of the other parties even after the rights of the plaintiffs have been declared by a Court on merits. The respondents claim that the appellants are the trespassers as per law and cannot be given any 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2382 of 2025 benefit. Therefore, they contended that there is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners and prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Lengthy arguments were submitted by both the parties before the appellate Court even by submitting a detailed written arguments along with many decisions cited in support of the contentions of the respondents. The appellate Court observed that when a competent Court decided the rights of the parties and declared their right and directed delivery of possession of the properties in dispute, simply because an appeal has been filed, the respondents cannot be restrained from executing the decree. Hence, the petition was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that taking advantage of the absence of interim order of stay immediately after expiry of the time stipulated in the decree for delivery of property, an execution petition was filed by the plaintiffs and a false report of delivery of property was submitted to the execution Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the photographs filed before this Court show the transplantation of paddy sapplings by the revision petitioners, even after the alleged date of delivery of the property, would clearly establish that the said delivery of property is only a false paper report. It is further submitted that the report of delivery clearly shows that no signature of the revision petitioners was obtained by the Amin entrusted with the warrant of delivery of property and such omission, besides absence of statement in the report of Amin about serving notice or absence of the appellants at the time of delivery, would clearly indicate 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2382 of 2025 that the report of so called delivery is false. Therefore, it is vehemently contended that unless an interim order of stay is granted, taking advantage of the decree in favour of the plaintiffs, they create problems which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellate Court ought to have granted interim stay atleast for a limited period and finally dispose of the appeal, if necessary, by an early hearing; instead of dismissing the petition without any just reason. Copies of the proceedings relating to delivery of property in execution have been submitted before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted oral arguments and also written submissions. 8. At this juncture, this Court does not intend to go into the merits of the matter in appeal. Even with regard to the alleged delivery of the property in execution, in view of the aspects submitted by the revision petitioners, there is a serious dispute of actual delivery of the property and the same needs to be adjudicated at appropriate stage. But, it indicates that there is possibility of multiplicity of proceedings in case if delivery of the property is found to be correct and the appellants win their appeal. However, as on date, things as they stand, there is a report of delivery of the properties before the execution Court and the appellants alleged that they are still in possession and as such, there would be no further change of circumstances. If the hearing of the appeal is delayed under these circumstances, the matter becomes more complex irrespective of the decision in appeal on merits. Therefore, at this juncture, the proper course would be early disposal of the appeal on merits. 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2382 of 2025 9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of without going into merits, directing the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal within one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 05-11-2025 RAR