Telangana High Court

Ammoda Developers And Promoters ... vs The State Of Telangana,And 17 ... on 30 January, 2023

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji

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

             WRIT APPEAL Nos.781 AND 821 OF 2022


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

      This judgment will dispose of both writ appeal

Nos.781 and 821 of 2022.


2.    While writ appeal No.781 of 2022 is directed against

the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Single

Judge in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in W.P.No.33086 of 2022, writ

appeal No.821 of 2022 is directed against the order dated

29.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

the review petition being I.A.No.3 of 2022 for review of

order dated 27.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in

W.P.No.33086 of 2022.


3.    We have heard Mr. Mayur Reddy and Mr. K.Vivek

Reddy,      learned       Senior      Counsel        appearing      for

Mr. P.Sathwik Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in

writ appeal No.781 of 2022; Mr. P.Venu Gopal, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. T.Sudhakar Reddy,

learned counsel for the appellants in writ appeal No.821 of
                                      2




2022;    Mr.       Avinash     Desai,    learned         Senior   Counsel

appearing for Mr. M.Pavan, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.1 to 9 in writ appeal No.781 of 2022 and respondent

Nos.6 to 11, 15, 16 and 18 in writ appeal No.821 of 2022.

We have also heard Mr. C.Hanumantha Rao, learned

counsel for respondent No.18 in writ appeal No.781 of

2022 and respondent No.17 in writ appeal No.821 of 2022.

4. Appellants as the writ petitioners have instituted writ

petition No.33086 of 2022 seeking the following reliefs:

... declaring the action of respondent No.3 in entertaining the registration of the Development Agreement in respect of lands in survey Nos.90 and 91 of Tattiannaram village presented by the respondents No.6 to 16 in favour of the respondent No.18, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent No.3 not to entertain registration of any documents whatsoever, in respect of lands in survey Nos.90 and 91 of Tattiannaram village of Abdullapurmet Mandal...

5. Thus, appellants have taken exception to the action

of the Sub Registrar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District

(briefly, 'the Sub Registrar', hereinafter) in entertaining

registration of the development agreement presented by

respondent Nos.1 to 8 in writ appeal No.781 of 2022 (the

said respondents will be referred to as 'respondent Nos.1 to

8', hereinafter) in favour of respondent No.18 i.e.,

M/s.Vaishnaoi Urban Developers in respect of lands in

survey Nos.90 and 91 of Tattiannaram village in

Abdullapurmet Mandal in the district of Ranga Reddy

(briefly, 'the subject land', hereinafter). Further prayer

made is for a direction to the Sub Registrar not to entertain

any document for registration in respect of the subject

land.

6. From a perusal of the order dated 27.09.2022, it is

seen that writ petition No.33086 of 2022 was moved by way

of a lunch motion on 18.08.2022. Learned Single Judge

after considering the submissions made by learned counsel

for the appellants passed interim order directing the Sub

Registrar not to entertain any deed of conveyance in

respect of the subject land.

7. For vacation of the aforesaid interim order dated

18.08.2022, respondent Nos.1 to 9 filed I.A.No.2 of 2022.

After hearing the matter, learned Single Judge vide the

order dated 27.09.2022 vacated the interim order dated

18.08.2022. However, it has been clarified that any

transactions made by respondent Nos.1 to 8 would be

subject to the final judgment and decree that may be

passed in O.S.No.990 of 2019 filed by the appellants

themselves and pending on the file of the District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

8. It is against the aforesaid order dated 27.09.2022

that writ appeal No.781 of 2022 has been preferred by the

appellants.

9. Further, against the order dated 27.09.2022

appellants had filed an application for review being I.A.No.3

of 2022. By the order dated 29.10.2022, learned Single

Judge took the view that there is no error apparent on the

face of the record in the order dated 27.09.2022. Therefore,

learned Single Judge declined to entertain the review

application and accordingly dismissed the same.

10. It is against the order dated 29.10.2022 that writ

appeal No.821 of 2022 has been preferred.

11. Let us now briefly refer to the facts as has been

pleaded in the writ affidavit.

12. According to the appellants, the subject land

admeasuring Acs.19.04 guntas in survey Nos.90 and 91 of

Tattiannaram village along with other survey numbers

originally belonged to one Nawab Suryar Jung who was

Jagirdar in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. On his death

in the year 1912, he was survived by his two minor sons,

namely Mir Ahmed Ali Khan and Mir Sadat Ali Khan

through two different wives. The entire property of Nawab

Suryar Jung was taken under the custody and supervision

of the Court of Wards. By the order dated 11.11.1950, the

Court of Wards had released half share of the agricultural

lands in favour of the grandson Bande Ali Khan, son of Mir

Ahmed Ali Khan. Subsequently, other half was released in

favour of the legal representatives of Mir Sadat Ali Khan.

13. Legal heirs of Mir Sadat Ali Khan had filed a suit for

partition before the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Courts,

Hyderabad being O.S.No.887 of 1987 leading to

C.C.C.A.No.30 of 1993 before this Court. Parties in

C.C.C.A.No.30 of 1993 had compromised the matter

amongst themselves whereafter they obtained their

respective shares as per the terms of the compromise. The

terms of the compromise were recorded by this Court vide

the order dated 15.02.2001 in C.M.P.No.2994 of 2001 in

C.C.C.A.No.30 of 1993.

14. According to the appellants, they had purchased the

subject land from the vendors through registered sale

deeds bearing document No.4001 of 2005 dated

05.08.2005, document No.3929 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005

and document No.3930 of 2005 dated 05.08.2005.

15. It has been averred that mutation was also effected in

the revenue records duly recording the name of appellant

No.1 in the year 2009 in respect of the subject land.

16. One M.Satyanarayana Reddy claiming to be the

tenant of the land had filed a civil suit bearing No.244/1 of

1953-54 before the Court of Munsif Magistrate, East and

North District, Hyderabad against the officials of the Court

of Wards and legal heirs of Mir Sadat Ali Khan. The said

suit was dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated

30.09.1956 holding that the said M.Satyanarayana Reddy

was not the owner of the subject land being only a tenant.

Since M.Satyanarayana Reddy did not challenge the

aforesaid judgment and decree dated 30.09.1956 by

preferring appeal, the same had attained finality.

17. One Md.Khasim had filed a suit for declaration of title

and for perpetual injunction against M.Satyanarayana

Reddy and others in respect of the subject land, which was

registered as O.S.No.184 of 1989 on the file of the Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy. The said suit was decreed

in favour of Md.Khasim on 28.09.1989. Tagore Township

and Welfare Association (briefly, 'the Association'

hereinafter) alleged that the judgment and decree dated

28.09.1989 came to be passed on the basis of collusion

between Md.Khasim and the legal heirs of

M.Satyanarayana Reddy. Therefore, the Association filed

O.S.No.302 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy, assailing the judgment and decree

dated 28.09.1989 passed in O.S.No.184 of 1989. However,

the said suit i.e., O.S.No.302 of 1990 was dismissed by the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, vide the judgment and decree

dated 08.06.1998. Thereafter, the Association and others

preferred first appeal before this Court being A.S.No.912 of

1999. This Court vide the judgment and decree dated

23.03.2018 set aside the judgment and decree dated

08.06.1998 holding that the judgment and decree dated

28.09.1989 passed in O.S.No.184 of 1989 was not binding

on the plaintiffs in O.S.No.302 of 1990. Accordingly,

A.S.No.912 of 1999 was allowed.

18. Therefore, it was contended that claim of respondent

Nos.1 to 8 cannot be considered. In case any transaction is

allowed to be made by respondent Nos.1 to 8, the same

would lead to multiplicity of litigation. That apart, innocent

purchasers would be put to great loss and prejudice.

If the development agreement executed by respondent

Nos.1 to 8 is allowed to be registered in favour of

respondent No.9, Sri Vaishnaoi Urban Developers, it will

lead to further litigation causing irreparable loss and injury

to the appellants.

19. Respondent Nos.1 to 8 contended before the learned

Single Judge that the writ petition itself was not

maintainable. Interim order dated 18.08.2022 was

obtained by the appellants by suppression of material

facts, thus misleading the Court. Appellants do not have

any title over the subject land and is also not in physical

possession thereof. Appellants have filed a suit for

declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the

subject land being O.S.No.990 of 2019 on the file of the

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

However, appellants could not obtain any interim order

from the civil court. After more than three years, the

related writ petition came to be filed wherein interim order

dated 18.08.2022 was obtained by suppression of material

fact. It is in this connection that I.A.No.2 of 2022 was filed

by the said respondents.

19.1. It was pointed out that by order dated 03.07.2018

passed in Review I.A.Nos.1 and 3 of 2018 in A.S.No.912 of

1999, this Court had confined the judgment and decree

dated 23.03.2018 passed in A.S.No.912 of 1999 only to the

19 appellants (plaintiffs) therein out of original 34 plaintiffs

in O.S.No.302 of 1990. It was also clarified that each

appellant is only entitled to 300 square yards of land.

19.2. Attention of the learned Single Judge was drawn to

the status quo order dated 25.02.2016 passed by this Court

in W.P.Nos.25102 of 2012, 26853 of 2012 and 40594 of

2015. W.P.No.25102 of 2012 filed by respondent No.1,

M.Anji Reddy pertaining to Survey Nos.90 and 91 of

Tattiannaram Village was withdrawn on 10.10.2007.

Insofar the other two writ petitions are concerned, it is

stated that those are in respect of other survey numbers of

Tattiannaram village and not in respect of survey Nos.90

and 91. Therefore, the order of status quo passed on

25.02.2016 was not in existence when the interim order

dated 18.08.2022 was passed. The fact that W.P.No.25102

of 2012 was withdrawn was not informed to the learned

Single Judge.

20. On the contrary, respondent Nos.1 to 8 are claiming

title through registered sale deeds executed in their favour

and are in physical possession of the land as on date.

Subject land has already been converted into non-

agricultural land by the concerned authority after payment

of requisite fee. Therefore, any contra revenue entry made

would be without any authority of law. In any case,

mutation of revenue entry does not confer title. Therefore,

answering respondents sought for dismissal of the writ

petition.

21. Tagore Township and Welfare Association submitted

before the learned Single Judge that both the appellants

and respondent Nos.1 to 8 do not have any title over the

subject land. It is only Tagore Township and Welfare

Association which is having title over the subject land.

Entire subject land was already converted into plots way

back in the year 1978, whereafter registered sale deeds

were executed in favour of various individuals.

22. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on

perusal of the averments as well as materials on record,

learned Single Judge vide the order dated 27.09.2022

vacated the interim order dated 18.08.2022. However, it

has been clarified that any transactions made by

respondent Nos.1 to 8 would be subject to final judgment

and decree likely to be passed in O.S.No.990 of 2019 on

the file of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar.

23. Appellants filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 for review of the

aforesaid order dated 27.09.2022. However, by the order

dated 29.10.2022 learned Single Judge dismissed the

review petition.

24. Mr. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants in W.A.No.781 of 2022 argued that learned

Single Judge was not justified in vacating the order dated

18.08.2022. He submits that not only the subject land is

entangled in various litigations, the same is included in the

prohibited list of properties published by the Registration

and Stamps Department, Government of Telangana. In this

connection, he has drawn the attention of the Court to

page Nos.262 and 263 of the paper book and submits

therefrom that since the subject land is included in the

prohibited list, there can be no registration of any

document dealing with alienation of the subject land. This

aspect was overlooked by the learned Single Judge while

vacating the interim order.

25. On the other hand, Mr. P.Venu Gopal, learned Senior

Counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.821 of 2022

vehemently argued that learned Single Judge had not

considered the reply affidavit to the interlocutory

application for vacating stay. Supporting the contentions of

Mr. Mayur Reddy, he submits that the subject land is

included in the prohibited list, question of registering any

document by the Sub Registrar regarding alienation of the

subject land cannot arise. The review application was not

decided properly by the learned Single Judge. He therefore

submits that the matter may be remanded back to the

learned Single Judge to re-hear the application for vacating

stay by giving due opportunity to all the contesting parties.

26. Mr. Avinesh Desai, learned Senior Counsel for

respondent Nos.1 to 9 submits that as rightly held by

learned Single Judge, the writ petition raises disputed

questions of fact. Therefore, the writ petition itself should

have been dismissed. He further submits that appellants

had suppressed the material fact that appellants had filed

interlocutory application for injunction in the pending suit

but injunction was declined by the civil Court. This fact

was suppressed by the appellants. In this connection, he

has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in

Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 in support of his

contention that in case of suppression of material facts, a

litigant is not entitled to any relief from the Court.

26.1. Insofar writ appeal No.821 of 2022 is concerned, he

submits that there cannot be any intra-Court appeal under

clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order passed by

a learned Single Judge rejecting a review application. In

this connection, he has placed reliance on a Full Bench

decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in

B.F.Pushpaleela Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh2.

27. Responding to the submissions of Mr. Avinash Desai,

learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8,

Mr. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel who appeared in

the subsequent hearing for the appellants in writ appeal

No.781 of 2022 submits that appellants had disclosed all

the relevant facts; there is no withholding of any material

(2010) 2 SCC 114

2002 SCC OnLine 716 : 2002 (5) ALD 1 : 2002 (5) ALT 103

fact. If a fact which is alleged to have been suppressed is

not material for determination of the lis between the

parties, the Court may not refuse to exercise its

discretionary jurisdiction. In support of such submissions,

he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme

Court in S.J.S. Business Enterprises Private Limited v. State of

Bihar3 as well as in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India4.

Refuting the contention that the subject land is included in

the prohibited list, he has also referred to page Nos.691

and 692 of the paper book.

28. On the maintainability of writ appeal No.821 of 2022,

Mr. P.Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants in writ appeal No.821 of 2022 has referred to

various portions of the Full Bench decision of the Andhra

Pradesh High Court in B.F.Pushpaleela Devi (supra) including

paragraph 42 thereof and submits therefrom that such an

appeal would be maintainable if the order passed by the

learned Single Judge dismissing the review application is

construed to be a judgment within the meaning of clause

(2004) 7 SCC 166

(2007) 6 SCC 120

15 of the Letters Patent. Insofar the present appeal is

concerned, order passed by the learned Single Judge

dismissing the review application is certainly a judgment

within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent and

therefore, the appeal would be maintainable.

29. Mr. C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for

respondent No.18 in W.A.No.781 of 2022/respondent

No.17 in W.A.No.821 of 2022, namely Tagore Township and

Welfare Association reiterated the same submissions as

were made before the learned Single Judge. According to

him, both the contesting parties are raising their claims to

the subject land through fraudulent means, whereas it is

his client who has title over the subject land. He has made

extensive submissions from the counter affidavit filed by

his client.

30. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties

have received the due consideration of the Court. Also

perused the materials on record. At the conclusion of the

hearing we had requisitioned the record of W.P.No.33086 of

2022 which we have perused.

31. At the outset, we may advert to relevant portion of the

order passed by the learned Single Judge vacating the

interim stay. After referring to the rival pleadings and

submissions made at the bar, learned Single Judge

observed as follows:

A perusal of the documents filed before this Court shows that there are serious disputed questions of fact and rival claims with regard to title and possession by both the parties. Both the parties are claiming title over the subject property under various registered sale deeds executed in their favour, mutation order passed by the Revenue authorities, pattadar pass book and title deeds issued to them or their vendors, land conversion certificates converting the land into non-agriculture land and are also relying on the various judgments of the trial Court and this High Court to substantiate their right and title over the subject property. When present Writ Petition was taken up by way of a lunch motion on 18.08.2022, this Court was weighed by the documents relied by the petitioners, more particularly the observations made in the judgment passed in A.S. No.912 of 1999 and also the interim order of status quo dated 25.02.2016 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.25102 and 26853 of 2012 and 40594 of 2015. Even though this Court vide judgment dated 23.03.2018 has allowed A.S. No.912 of 1999 filed by respondent No.17 and eighteen others holding that judgment and decree dated 28.09.1989 passed in O.S. No.184 of 1989 is a

collusive one and not binding on the appellants therein i.e. respondent No.17 and eighteen others.

But, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the order dated 23.03.2018 passed by this Court in A.S. No.912 of 1999 has been modified vide order dated 03.07.2018 in Review I.A. Nos.1 and 3 of 2018 as follows:

"27. However, two clerical mistakes are also pointed out in the judgment in A.S.No.912 of 1999. They are - (1) that the appeal was filed only by 19 out of 34 plaintiffs; and (2) that the decree should be confined only to the entitlement of 300 sq. yds. of land for each of the 19 appellants, instead of the entire suit schedule property.

28. The above two mistakes require to be corrected, as they have crept in due to clerical mistakes.

29. In view of the above, the review applications are allowed in part correcting only the following two mistakes:

1. The benefit of the outcome of the appeal is confined only to the 19 appellants out of 34 plaintiffs; and

2. Each of the appellants will be entitled to 300 sq. yds. of land as claimed by them."

It is pertinent to note that the said Review Application has been filed by one M. Anji Reddy, who is arrayed as respondent No.6 in the present Writ Petition. The order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the Review I.A. has attained finality as respondent No.17 did not bother to challenge the same. Further, this Hon'ble Court in A.S No.912 of 1999, based on the documents, more particularly the pahanies from the year 1961 to 1986 and also the deposition of the

Mandal Revenue Officer who was arrayed as defendant No.10 in the said suit, has held that M. Satyanarayana Reddy is having a valid title over the subject property. In the counter filed by respondent Nos.6 to 16 and 18, they have taken a specific stand that the legal representatives of M. Satyanarayana Reddy have filed a suit in O.S. No.100 of 2002 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in respect of the subject lands and respondent No.6 has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the said legal representatives and thereafter the plaintiffs therein i.e. legal representatives of M. Satyanarayana Reddy have given up their claim in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.3-00 in survey Nos.90 part and 91 part of Tattiannaram Village.

That insofar as the interim order dated 25.02.2016 passed in W.P. Nos.25102 and 26853 of 2012 and 40594 of 2015 is concerned, operative portion of the said order is as under:

"However, since all the counsel seek to argue the writ petitions on merits, the impugned orders of the Deputy Collector and the Tahsildar, dated 02.02.2009 and 10.02.2009, if implemented in the revenue record, all the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to all the lands covered by the entries in the revenue record and shall not alienate or create any third party interest and their claims shall be subject to further orders in these writ petitions."

A perusal of the prayer in the above three writ petitions shows that W.P. No.25102 of 2012 is filed in respect of survey Nos.90 and 91 of Tattiannaram

Village, W.P. No.26853 of 2012 is filed in respect of survey Nos.94 to 101 and 108 to 111 of Tattiannaram Village, whereas W.P. No.40594 of 2015 is filed challenging the proceedings dated 02.02.2009 and 10.02.2009 of the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, deleting the names of the petitioners therein and incorporating the names of the unofficial respondents therein. Thereafter, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.25102 of 2012 has withdrawn the writ petition on 10.10.2017. Therefore, the interim order of status quo dated 25.02.2016 granted in respect of survey Nos.90 and 91 of Tattiannaram Village is no longer subsisting as on date. Even though the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the petitioners though aware of the withdrawal of the said writ petition, have suppressed the same and obtained the interim dated 18.08.2022 by playing fraud on the Court, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were aware of the withdrawal of the said W.P. No.25102 of 2012 on 10.10.2017.

32. From the above, it is evident that learned Single

Judge examined the scope of the three writ petitions i.e.,

W.P.Nos.25102 of 2012, 26853 of 2012 and 40594 of 2015

as well as the interim stay granted on 25.02.2016 which

was extracted as above. It was noticed that only writ

petition No.25102 of 2012 was in respect of survey Nos.90

and 91 of Tattiannaram village, whereas subject matter of

the other two writ petitions pertain to survey Nos.94 to 101

and 108 to 111 of Tattiannaram village and proceedings of

Deputy Collector and Tahsildar. Writ petition No.25102 of

2012 was withdrawn on 10.10.2017. On withdrawal of the

aforesaid writ petition, the interim order of status quo

dated 25.02.2016 in respect of survey Nos.90 and 91 no

longer existed. However, giving the benefit of doubt to the

appellants, learned Single Judge observed that there is

nothing on record to show that appellants were aware of

withdrawal of writ petition No.25102 of 2012 on

10.10.2017. Adverting to the prayer portion in O.S.No.990

of 2019, which is similar to the prayer portion of the

related writ petition, learned Single Judge noted that no

interim order has been passed by the trial Court in the

above suit for the last three years. Learned Single Judge

recorded that there is a serious dispute with regard to title

to the subject land between the contesting parties and that

such disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by a

writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Thereafter, learned Single Judge held as follows:

After giving an anxious thought and having regard to the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court referred to above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners having approached the Civil Court for the reliefs mentioned above and having failed to obtain any interim orders before the trial Court, are not entitled to any interim order for the very same relief in this High Court after a lapse of more than three years. Unless and until the petitioners succeed in the civil case filed by them against the respondents herein and the other defendants in that suit, no relief can be granted by this Court. All these disputed questions of fact and title can only be gone into by the Civil Court based on the evidence led by both the parties and this Court is not competent to do so under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in case the transactions are allowed to be executed by the parties i.e. respondent Nos.6 to 16 and 18, it will create multiplicity of litigation and innocent purchasers will be put to great and irreparable loss, is also misplaced for the reasons that the petitioners have to first succeed in the suit filed by them and the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, are always binding on the subsequent purchasers.

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act envisages that:

'During the pendency in any court having authority within the limits of India... of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under the

decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose.'

In LIC of India vs. R. Dhandapani5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"12. The principles specified in Section 52 of the TP Act are in accordance with equity, good conscience or justice because they rest upon an equitable and just foundation that it will be impossible to bring an action or suit to a successful termination if alienations are permitted to prevail. A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree just as much as he was a party to the suit. The principle of lis pendens embodied in Section 52 of the TP Act being a principle of public policy, no question of good faith or bona fide arises. The principle underlying Section 52 is that a litigating party is exempted from taking notice of a title acquired during the pendency of the litigation. The mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with the property constituting the subject-matter of the suit. The section only postulates a condition that the alienation will in no manner affect the rights of the other party under any decree which may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of the Court."

For the afore-stated reasons and the ratio laid down in the above referred judgments, the interim order granted by this Court on 18.08.2022 in W.P. No.33086 of 2022 is vacated. However, it is made clear that any transactions made by the respondents will be subject to the final judgment and decree likely to be

(2006) 13 SCC 613

passed in O.S. No.990 of 2019 on the file of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

33. We find no error or infirmity in the view taken by the

learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge noted that the

earlier status quo order in respect of Survey Nos.90 and 91

of Tattiannaram village no longer existed with the

withdrawal of W.P.No.25102 of 2012 on 10.10.2017.

Therefore there is no impediment to registration of

document(s) in respect of the above survey numbers.

Appellants had earlier filed civil suit seeking the same relief

as in the related writ petition. Appellants failed to obtain

any injunction therein. Thus learned Single Judge has

exercised his discretion in a fair and judicious manner

while vacating the order dated 18.08.2022 which calls for

no interference in an intra-Court appeal. While vacating

the interim order, learned Single Judge has clarified that

any transaction made by respondent Nos.1 to 8 would be

subject to outcome of O.S.No.990 of 2019.

34. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain

writ appeal No.781 of 2022.

35. Insofar writ appeal No.821 of 2022 is concerned,

Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is

relevant. Order XLVII deals with review. While Order XLVII

Rule 1 lays down the grounds on which an application for

review of judgment may be filed, Rule 7 thereof makes it

clear that order of rejection of an application for review is

not appealable. Clause (1) thereof says that an order of the

Court rejecting an application for review shall not be

appealable. The order granting an application is

appealable.

36. A Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in

B.F.Pushpaleela Devi (supra) had examined as to whether an

appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against

an order passed by a learned Single Judge in a review

petition declining to review the order is maintainable or

not? While answering the above question, Full Bench

observed as follows:

32. An order passed in an application for review refusing to review a final order passed in a writ proceeding simply confirming the original order by a cryptic order, in our view, is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In such cases, we are of the view

that the order passed in the review application is nothing but reiterating the earlier final order and it merges with the earlier final order passed in the original proceeding. Therefore, no appeal is maintainable against such order and the only remedy available to the party is to file an appeal against the original order at once, if it is so permissible as per law. However, if the order passed on the review application has re-determined the rights of the parties to the controversy and modified the earlier final order on the basis of any new and important matter or evidence which could not be produced by the applicant or within his knowledge even after the exercise of due diligence at the time when the decree was passed or order made in our considered opinion, the earlier final order passed in the original proceeding merges with the order passed in the review applicati9on and against such modified order passed in a review application if a party is aggrieved, he will have a right of appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent as the same could be construed as "judgment" within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Even sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of Order 47 provides that an order granting application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in any appeal from the final decree or order passed or made in the suit.

37. Finally, the Full Bench held that order of the Court

rejecting an application for review shall not be appealable

but an order granting the application may be objected to at

once by an appeal from the order granting the application.

38. That apart, insofar the order of the learned Single

Judge rejecting the review application is concerned, it is

evident that by so doing learned Single Judge did not

decide or determine inter se rights of the parties. Therefore,

such an order of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to

be a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the

Letters Patent. Therefore, writ appeal No.821 of 2022 is not

maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.