Telangana High Court
Sri. Karra Ganapathi Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.409, 410 & 414 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul):
Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel represents
Sri G. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant;
Sri E. Venkata Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Municipal
Administration and Urban Development, for respondent No.1
and Sri K. Siddarth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
respondent No.2.
2. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions
involved, these matters were analogously heard on admission.
3. The singular point raised by learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has erred in
passing the impugned common order dated 27.02.2025 ignoring
the fact that the writ petitioner (respondent No.3 herein) has not
disclosed the fact of pendency of O.S.Nos.52, 53 and 280 of 2022
on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that this
amounts to "suppression of fact" and in view of suppression, no
relief was due to the writ petitioner.
4. The other point raised by the learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant is that as per the provisions under Section 52 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, 'the Act'), it is
deemed that the writ petitioner had the knowledge of pendency
of the suits.
5. On a repeated query from the Bench as to whether there
existed any material to show that the writ petitioner was aware
of the pendency of aforesaid civil suits and yet he has not
disclosed the same, no cogent material could be placed before us
by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant to highlight the
same. The only document on which reliance is placed is at page
No.173 in W.A.No.409 of 2025 i.e., a plaint copy under Order
XXVI r/w Order VII Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure.
This plaint was filed before the Principal Junior Civil Judge at
Karimnagar after filing of the writ petition. No material could be
pointed out to highlight and establish that by the time the writ
petition was filed, the writ petitioner was aware of pendency of
aforesaid civil suits. Thus, the contentions raised by learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant that the writ petition was filed
suppressing the material fact could not be substantiated.
6. So far as the contention of learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant that as per the provisions under Section 52 of the
Act, it is deemed that the writ petitioner had the knowledge of
pendency of the aforesaid suits, in our opinion, Section 52 of the
Act operates in a different field for a different purpose and no
deemed knowledge can be assumed on the basis of this
provision.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to entertain
these appeals. The admission is declined and accordingly, the
appeals are dismissed. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 16.04.2025
Myk/Tsr
