::1:: APHC010409812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2234/2025 Between: 1. MERUVA KARTHK, S/O. SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE DOCTOR, R/O. DARSI TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GARNEPUDI JOHN KRUPA RAO, S/O. JOHN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. PASUPUGALLU VILLAGE MUNDLAMURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. GARNEPUDI SUDHAKAR, S/O. JOHN KRUPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. EDURUVARI BAZAAR, DARSI TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. GARNEPUDI PRASANNA, S/O. JOHN KRUPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. PASUPUGALLU VILLAGE, MUNDLAMURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. SOMU CHOWDI REDDY, S/O. RAMSWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC COMPUTER BUSINESS, R/O. PODILI ROAD, DARSI TOWN AND MANDAL, ::2:: PRAKASAM DISTRICT. . 5. MALLELA PRABHAKAR RAO, S/O. JOHN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC RTC CONDUCTOR, R/O. KSR VENTURE, KURICHEDU RAOD, DARSI TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to allow the Civil Revision petition by setting aside the order dt. 22-07-2025 in C.M.A. No. 2 of 2025 on the file of the Honble Senior Civil Judge Court, Darsi whereunder dismissed the CMA, by confirming the order dt. 13-03-2025 in I.A. No. 1489 of 2023 in O.S. No. 291 of 2023 on the file of the Honble Civil Judge (Junior Division) whereunder dismissed the injunction petition, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NAGA RAJU KOLLATI 2. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI ::3:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.No.2234 of 2025 This Court made the following ORDER: Brief facts of the case Plaintiff filed suit for grant of permanent injunction against the respondents herein restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff filed application for ad-interim injunction and initially granted the ad-interim injunction. Thereafter after enquiry the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same the CMA was filed and the same was dismissed by confirming the order and decree passed in IA No.1489/2023 in O.S.No.291/2023, dated 13.03.2025. The schedule property of the petitioner originally purchased by the parents of the petitioner under unregistered sale deeds from the respective original owners of the property in the year 2000. In the year 2017 on request of the parents of the petitioner herein vendors came forward and executed the sale deeds which were presented for registration before the registering authority, accordingly deeds were registered with pending ::4:: registration but not released so far. There is no dispute with regard to identification and rights of original owners. Those documents were rejected by the Sub-Registrar by giving pending registration number on the ground that this property was enlisted within the prohibitory property list because long back this land was sought to be acquired by the Government for establishing APSRTC Depot. Writ Petitions have been filed wherein the land acquisition notification was set aside by this Hon’ble Court and later APSRTC had acquired other land and got constructed the Depot somewhere else and APSRTC filed Writ Appeals which are pending before this Hon’ble Court. But in the year 2018 without knowing that fact the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court since his documents were rejected by the registering authority seeking a direction to the concerned authorities to take necessary action for deleting the subject property from the list of prohibitory property list. That writ petition was disposed directing the District Collector to take necessary action. In the meanwhile the Trial Court taken a view while dismissing the application i.e., (1) plaintiff not filed the unregistered possessory agreement of sale along with plaint (2) plaintiff did not prove that he is in possession of the property because the sale deeds which were presented for ::5:: registration were rejected which are no way concerned to the Court. Once the sale deeds have been executed by the valid and registered owners of the suit schedule property, the said property was put in possession of the parents and petitioner themselves long back. There is no dispute for that. The Respondents herein are strangers. So far as Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, their claim is that they are the custodian of the Christian property. Learned counsel further contended that there is no dispute that the property where petitioner’s schedule property is situated within Ac.3.00 cents. To substantiate the above fact, learned counsel referred the copy of sale deed dated 22.09.1994 wherein it is mentioned that Sri Sure Chinna Subba Rao purchased an extent of Ac.3.00 cents out of Ac.9.28 cents in Sy.No.791 comprised in Patta No.195 of Darsi Town within the Panchayat Limits of Darsi in Darsi Mandal of Prakasam District from the Property Association of Baptist Churches. Thereafter he sold pieces of land out of Ac.3.00 cents to several persons. Among them four persons i.e., petitioner’s vendors have purchased under the registered sale deeds. In all four documents the 1st respondent herein is the witness i.e., G. John Krupa Rao. The 1st respondent himself purchased some piece of land along with some others. Thus ::6:: learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to set aside the order of the trial Court and remand the matter to the trial Court. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counter-affidavits stating that petitioner filed the suit in respect of suit schedule property, against which the respondents association was granted decree and judgment dated 07.06.1983 in O.S.No.15/1983. Thus the said decree became final. The counter filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 claiming that the suit schedule property was belongs to them. Respondents are claiming Ac.5-00 cents out of Ac.9-28 cents in Sy.No.791. Whereas petitioner’s vendor’s vendor purchased Ac.3- 00 cents and same was mentioned in EP showing that Ac.3.00 cents of land was purchased by Sure Chinna Subba Rao in the Sy.No.791. 3. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that the society got a decree in a suit filed for specific performance against the very same vendors and also filed EP and during the pendency of EP the Government has placed the property under prohibitory properties list. Due to that a Writ Petition is filed and the same is pending consideration before this Hon’ble Court and same was filed along with the counter. During the EP, all these proceedings ::7:: are pending before this Hon’ble Court. Later this Hon’ble Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the notification issued by the Government. Against which the Government preferred an appeal in W.A.No.333/2012 which is pending even as on today. By considering all these facts further the suit schedule property way back in the year 1983 itself was sold to Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Further, she argued that an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed for sub-division of the property. She argued that petitioner never raised the contention that their property is different and respondents’ property is different and there was no argument to that extent before the Court below and prayed that the lower appellate Court rightly dismissed the CMA on the ground that the petitioner is not proved his possession and legal rights in his favour against the suit schedule property. Learned counsel for respondents further contending that by suppressing the real facts the petitioner father got created false story and filed the suit against the respondents herein with an intention to get wrongful gain. Moreover Ac.5.25 cents including palint schedule property covered by Sy.No.791/1 of Darsi Village was entered in prohibited list on 11.05.2007. Learned counsel further contended that the allegations that there is no dispute with respect to title of ::8:: petitioner’s vendor and that respondents were trying to interfere with petitioner’s possession are all false. The petitioner is sone of Meruva Subba Reddy, practicing as an Advocate at Darsi Bar Association and he also appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the suit. On perusing the reused sale deeds Nos.1 to 4, the counsel for petitioner Sri Meruva Subbareddy photo and his signature is shown as claimant column in 2nd page of each document. So Sri Meruva Subbareddy got knowledge about the documents was refused by the SRO, Darsi and not registered one. Even though he got ful knowledge about said documents and by suppressing the real facts, by fraud and miss-representation before the trial Court, the petitioner obtained ad-interim injunction orders against the respondents in I.A.No.1489/2023 and taking advantage of ad- interim injunction orders, the petitioner also filed petition for police aid and same is pending. In fact, the peiioenr has no knowledge about the suit schedule property and he never purchased the same at any point of time. Neither petitioner’s vendors nor petitioner had any rights over the schedule properties. They were never in possession and they created collusive sale deeds among themselves with an intention to grab the Suit Schedule Property, which was rightly confirmed by the Appellate Court below. ::9:: Therefore, the orders of Court below do not warrant any interference of this Hon’ble Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material placed on record. 5. The fact remains that the entire land admeasuring Ac.9.28 cents in Sy.No.791 situated at Darsi Town within the Panchayat Limits of Darsi in Darsi Mandal of Prakasam District originally held by the Association of Baptist Churches (for short “ABC”). It appears that the said ABC alienated the subject property in favour of various individuals including the vendors of the petitioner herein altogether the land alienated either by the ABC or by the purchasers/vendors certainly is more than the total extent of land in Sy.No.791 in view of the so many claims and pending litigations. The said fact was admitted by both the counsel. There might have been more number of transactions exceeding the total extent of land. The claim of the petitioner herein is that the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court rejected the claim of the petitioner herein said to have been acquired the property admeasuring Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.791 out of Ac.9.28 cents through registered ::10:: deeds duly stamped and executed by the vendors of the petitioner. Therefore, without admitting the subject pending registered deeds and dismissing the claim of the petitioner that he did not choose to file the original possessory agreement entered by the parents of the petitioner with his vendors is not necessary/compulsory document, in view of the pending registered deeds already filed by the petitioner herein. As such, the order of the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court liable to be set aside on the ground that once pending registered sale deeds were filed that would be proved that the petitioner herein was duly alienated the rights of title and possession of the property by his vendors unless contra proved by the respondents. Whereas the petitioner has been claiming his possession and enjoyment of the property through his predecessors is to be considered. 6. As contended by learned counsel for respondents that the vendors’ vendor of the petitioner alleged to have been acquired an extent of Ac.3.00 cents out of Ac.9.28 cents in Sy.No.791 but it seems that he got transferred the subject property multiple times in favour of various prospective purchasers and as such on the guise of the petitioner acquired the property out of Ac.3.00 cents but on ground he is trying to encroach the property of the respondent ::11:: association is valid and sustainable for the reason that there is no proper survey and demarcation not only between the petitioner and respondents but also between so many other purchasers claiming rights over the same subject property. Therefore identification, demarcation and the subject alienation in favour of the petitioner and respondents is valid or not should be determined by the Court below after having full-fledged trial only. Therefore, dismissing the claim of the petitioner in respect of plaint schedule property for want of non-filing of certain documents as narrated at the order of the Court below which can be curable by filing proper documents by the petitioner herein. Therefore, the petitioner herein is entitled to file all the relevant documents before the Court below to substantiate his rights over the subject property. As such, the contention of the petitioner before this Court to remand the matter for fresh consideration and to allow the petitioner to file all additional documents which were filed herewith to substantiate his claim is valid ground and can be accepted. At the time of hearing both the counsel proposed and agreed to remand the matter for fresh consideration to put-forth their respective claims before the trial Court for further adjudication. ::12:: 7. In view of the same, the order passed by the Court below dated 13.03.2025 in I.A.No.1489 of 2023 in O.S.No.291/2023 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Darsi and the order of First Appellate Court dated 22.07.2025 in C.M.A.No.02 of 2025 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Darsi are hereby set aside by remanding the same to the Trial Court for fresh consideration without influencing the observations made herein and after providing due opportunity to both the parties to substantiate their respective claims by allowing the additional documents, as filed before this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dt:19.02.2026 krk ::13:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.No.2234 of 2025 Dt: 19.02.2026 krk 286