Smt. Gurram Yadamma vs State Of Telangana And 10 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 927 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                   WRIT APPEAL No.218 of 2023

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the

appellant.


2.     This appeal is directed against the order dated

27.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.46035 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ

petitioner.


3.      Appellant had filed the related writ petition seeking a

direction to the Joint Sub-Registrar - cum - Tahsildar,

Moinabad Mandal (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Joint

Sub-Registrar'), not to effect mutation and entertain any

documents submitted by respondents No.4 to 11 in respect

of land admeasuring Acs.2.25 guntas in Survey No.607/AA

situated at Chinnamangalaram Village, Moinabad Mandal

(briefly, 'the subject land').

4. Learned Single Judge found from the materials on

record that respondents No.4 and 5 had earlier filed

O.S.No.208 of 2008 against the husband of the appellant

and six others seeking partition and separate possession of

the subject land. The suit was decreed on 08.09.2009.

Contending that the final decree was obtained against a

dead person i.e., husband of the appellant, appellant filed

O.S.No.20 of 2022 against respondents No.4 to 11 for a

declaration that final decree dated 05.09.2018 was

obtained fraudulently as against a dead person. Appellant

has also filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking injunction, which is

pending.

5. In the meanwhile, the Joint Sub-Registrar had issued

notice dated 24.07.2020 for entertaining the documents

submitted by respondents No.4 to 11 and for mutation of

the subject land in the revenue records. In such

circumstances, appellant filed the related writ petition

seeking a direction to the Joint Sub-Registrar not to

entertain any request for change in the revenue records on

the basis of final decree dated 05.09.2018 in respect of the

subject land.

6. Learned Single Judge noted that appellant had filed

I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.20 of 2022 wherein notice was

ordered and respondents No.4 to 11 who have been

arrayed as defendants have filed counter affidavit. When

I.A.No.1 of 2022 was pending, appellant could not have

invoked the writ jurisdiction and thus pursued parallel

proceedings. Learned Single Judge held as follows:

4. She has filed aforesaid suit vide O.S.No.20 of 2022 on 24.12.2021 itself and Tahsildar, Moinabad Mandal is a party to the aforesaid suit i.e., defendant No.9. She has filed aforesaid Interlocutory Application on 29.08.2020. The aforesaid I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.20 of 2022 filed by the petitioner is pending, notice was ordered, respondent also filed counter. During the pendency of the aforesaid I.A in the suit, petitioner herein cannot seek a direction to respondent No.3 not to effect mutation in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 11 basing on the aforesaid final decree. Just because she is a party to the aforesaid suit, notice was ordered in the I.A, she cannot seek a direction to the respondent No.3 not to effect mutation and not to entertain any document to be submitted by respondent Nos.4 to 11. She has to pursue the aforesaid I.A, obtain

an order and submit copy of the said order to the respondent No.3.

5. The aforesaid facts also would reveal that petitioner herein is pursuing parallel remedies by way of filing suit vide O.S.No.20 of 2022 and present Writ Petition. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief much less relief sought in the present Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue the aforesaid I.A, and on obtaining an order, submit copy of the same to the respondent No.3 with a request not to effect the mutation and not to entertain any documents to be submitted by respondent Nos.4 to 11 in respect of subject property. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. When the injunction application of the appellant is

pending before the civil Court, on the same set of prayer,

appellant could not have filed the related writ petition. It is

trite law that a litigant cannot pursue parallel remedies on

the same cause of action at the same time. We, therefore,

find no error or infirmity with the view taken by the learned

Single Judge.

8. Consequently, writ appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 23.02.2023 vs