Telangana High Court
Smt. Chakkani Sunitha vs The State Of Telangana on 11 April, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition Nos.10864, 10875, 10937, 10990 and 11003 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
Since the grievance of the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions is
one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government
Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6 in all these Writ
Petitions, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at the
admission stage.
3. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petitions at the
admission stage and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view
that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 15 in all the Writ Petitions is
not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.
4. The case of the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions, in brief, is
that are the bona fide purchasers of the subject plots/land situated at
Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, Turkayamjalzal Municipality,
Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from their previous vendors,
have obtained permissions from the concerned GHMC, made constructions
and are living therein.
5. It is the further case of the petitioners that the unofficial
respondents herein are now claiming the subject land by virtue of the final
decree dt.09.09.2024 passed in O.S.No.361 of 1984 by the I Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, which was filed by
the unofficial respondents herein for partition of the subject property; that
though the suit was pending at the time when the petitioners purchased
the subject plots, they were not made parties to the aforesaid suit, nor
informed of the pendency of the said suit; and thus, being, bona fide
purchasers, they are to be protected from interference being caused by
the unofficial respondents herein, who are seeking to dispossess them
from their respective plots.
6. Petitioners further contend that since, the unofficial respondents
are seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, they had
approached the respondents-authorities by submitting representations
seeking for police protection to their life and liberty and also to their
property, and in spite of the petitioners approaching respondents-
authorities, the respondents-authorities are not extending the required
protection, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as
highly illegal and arbitrary.
7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6 would submit that the petitioners claim
themselves to be the purchasers of the suit schedule property, which
originally belong to Kosika Pentaiah and 10 others, represented by their
Power of Attorney Holders, who sold the subject plots to various people by
executing registered sale deeds, even though the subject property was
subject matter of suit, vide O.S.No.361 of 1984.
8. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the
petitioners had purchased the subject property during the pendency of the
proceedings before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, vide
O.S.No.361 of 1984, which is ended in favour of the unofficial respondents
herein.
9. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since the
petitioners are pendente lite purchasers from the persons claiming
themselves to be the owners of the suit schedule property, petitioners
cannot claim any better title than the one enjoyed by their vendors.
10. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since the
unofficial respondents herein have succeeded in the suit, the request of
the petitioners for being provided with police protection to their life and
liberty as well as to their property cannot be considered by the authorities.
11. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that if the
petitioners are aggrieved by the decree passed by the concerned Civil
Court, in respect of the suit schedule property, vide O.S.No.361 of 1984,
they have to avail civil remedies provided under law and cannot approach
the respondents-authorities seeking police aid, without taking further
action in assailing the said judgment and decree.
12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
13. Though the petitioners claim themselves to be bona fide purchasers
of the subject lands from their vendors and are not being parties to the
suit, it is to be noted that the original owner of the suit schedule property
was a party to the suit, vide O.S.No.361 of 1984 and the said party having
sold the subject property during the pendency of the suit, the same would
be covered by doctrine of lis pendens provided under Section 52 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
14. Further, the petitioners, who claim themselves to be bona fide
purchasers of subject plots/land, are required to assail the final decree
dt.09.09.2024, if they are aggrieved by the said decree passed against
their vendor's vendor.
15. Since, it is not shown to this Court of the petitioners taking any
steps to assail the judgment and decree dt.09.09.2024, in O.S.No.361 of
1984, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot approach the
respondents-authorities and seek for police protection to themselves or to
their property, thereby, frustrating the decree obtained by the successful
party to the civil suit, vide O.S.No.361 of 1984.
16. Further, it is also to be noted that if the petitioners claim of
themselves not being aware of pending litigation and thus being bona fide
purchasers, they are required to initiate action against their vendor and
vendor's vendor, since, the sale deeds, under which the subject property
has been purchased by them, provide for indemnity, in the event of any
defect in title.
17. For the above reason, this Court is of the view that the petitioners
should be relegated to avail the civil remedies, against the judgment and
decree dt.09.09.2024 in O.S.No.361 of 1984, instead of approaching the
respondents-authorities and seeking for police protection, as noted above.
18. Subject to above observation, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No
order as to costs.
19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall
stand closed.
__________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:11.04.2025
GJ
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition Nos.10864, 10875, 10937, 10990 and 11003 of 2025
11.04.2025
GJ
