Telangana High Court
Smt. Ammagari Koushalya vs The State Of Telangana on 18 August, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION Nos. 10625 AND 14319 OF 2025
COMMON ORDER
The lis involved in both the writ petitions and the parties are
one and the same. Therefore, both the writ petitions were heard
together and decided by way of this common order.
2. Heard Dr. Donthi Reddy Venkat Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for RVR Associates, learned counsel for
petitioners in both the writ petitions, Sri L.Ravinder, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri P. Shanker Rao Patil, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4 in both the writ petitions and Ms.
Muskan Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 in
W.P.No.10625 of 2025.
3. The petitioners and 4th respondent in both the writ
petitions are own sisters. They are daughters of late B.Narasimha
Reddy. Father of the petitioners and 4th respondent is the absolute
owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.2.57 guntas in
Sy.Nos.447, 374, 375, 376 and 377 situated at Gummadidala
Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Narsapur Taluk, Sanga Reddy District
(for short, 'the subject property'). He is also owner of the land to
an extent Ac.0.15guntas in Sy.No.447 situated in the very same
village. According to the petitioners, their father has executed a
registered gift deed bearing document No.7 of 1988, dated
04.01.1988 in respect of the subject property. He has bequeathed
the land admeasuring Ac.0.15 guntas in Sy.No.447 of
Gummadidala Village equally between the petitioners by way of
executing will deed dated 27.03.1989. Thus, according to the
petitioners, they are absolute owners and possessors of the
Ac.0.0750 guntas each in Sy.No.447 of Gummadidala Village on
the strength of the said will deed dated 27.03.1989. Their names
were also mutated and also reflected in the revenue records till
2022-2023.
4. It is further contended by the petitioners that 4th
respondent, their sister, started claiming right over the aforesaid
properties. Basing on the alleged unregistered partnership deed
dated 02.04.1976, the petitioners filed a suit O.S.No.27 of 1999
against 4th respondent, their sister, and Mandal Revenue Officer,
Jinnaram Mandal, seeking declaration of title and recovery of
possession. The same was decreed on 25.07.2006.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment
and decree, 4th respondent preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.12 of
2006. Vide judgment dated 14.09.2007, the appellate Court
dismissed the said appeal. 4th respondent has preferred S.A.No.24
of 2008. Vide judgment dated 30.03.2022, this Court allowed the
said Second Appeal in part, and set aside the finding of both the
Courts below of treating Ex.A.12 as will deed. Consequently, suit
is partly dismissed to the extent of schedule-B property.
6. It is also apt to note that the suit schedule - B property is
Ac.0.15guntas in Sy.No.447 situated at Gummadidala Village. It is
also apt to note that the petitioners did not file any SLP challenging
the said order dated 30.03.2022 contending that their counsel
appeared in S.A.No.24 of 2008 before this Court died without
handing over the case bundle including the lower Court record to
the petitioners. Even they have also missed their original
documents. Therefore, they have submitted representations to the
Hon'ble the Chief Justice and also Registrar (Vigilance) of this
Court with regard to missing of the said bundle. For the said
reasons, they could not prefer any SLP. Thus, judgment dated
30.03.2022 in S.A.No.24 of 2008 has attained finality.
7. On the strength of the said judgment dated 30.03.2022 in
S.A.No.24 of 2008, 4th respondent approached 2nd respondent with
a request to mutate her name in revenue record by way of
submitting online application vide ID No.2300165935 on
27.02.2023. 2nd respondent has considered the said online
application and deleted the names of the petitioners from Dharani
portal in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.15guntas in
Sy.No.447 situated at Gummadidala Village.
8. The petitioner in W.P.No.10625 of 2025 had filed
W.P.No.19848 of 2024 to declare the action of 3rd respondent
herein in deleting her name and mutating the name of 4th
respondent in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.0750 guntas in
Sy.No.447/e/1 situated at Gummadidala Village and recording the
name of 4th respondent vide transaction ID.No.2300165935 dated
27.02.2023 as illegal and without putting the petitioner on notice
and affording her an opportunity.
9. On consideration of the said aspects without going into
the merits and demerits of the case, on the said ground, vide order
dated 29.08.2024, this Court set aside the impugned transaction
dated 27.02.2023 of 2nd respondent and remanded the matter back
to the 2nd respondent with a direction to consider the online
application submitted by 4th respondent, pass orders in accordance
with law by putting the petitioners therein in both the writ petitions
and 4th respondent on notice and affording them an opportunity.
10. In compliance with the said order, 2nd respondent has
passed an order dated 04.02.2025 in Case No.F3/2875/24 rejecting
the request made by Smt. Gosukonda Vijayalakshmi/petitioner in
W.P.No.10625 of 2025, for incorporating her name in the revenue
record. Challenging the said order, Smt. Gosukonda Vijayalakshmi
filed W.P.No.10625 of 2025.
11. Smt. Ammagari Kousalya, filed W.P.No.14319 of 2025 to
declare the action of 3rd respondent in deleting her name and
mutating the name of 4th respondent by considering online
application vide ID.No. 2300165935 dated 27.02.2023 in respect of
the land admeasuring Ac.0.0750 guntas in Sy.No.447/e/2 situated
at Gummadidala Village, as illegal.
12. 4th respondent in both the writ petitions filed counter
contending that the judgment dated 30.03.2022 in S.A.No.24 of
2008 has attained finality. The petitioners in both the writ petitions
did not file any SLP. Therefore, she has approached 2nd respondent
/ District Collector by way of submitting online applications with a
request to mutate her name in respect of land admeasuring
Ac.0.15guntas in Sy.No.447 of Gummadidala Village by deleting
names of the petitioners. The said applications were considered and
the petitioners names were deleted from the revenue record and
name of 4th respondent was mutated in respect of the subject
property. There is no error in it.
13. Learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Revenue, on instructions,
would submit that 2nd respondent has considered online
applications submitted by 4th respondent, considered the judgment
dated 30.03.2022 in S.A.No.24 of 2008 and order dated 29.08.2024
in W.P.No.19848 of 2024. There is no error in it.
14. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the petitioners in
both the writ petitions and 4th respondent are own sisters. The
petitioners are claiming right over the subject property i.e. the land
admeasuring Ac.0.15 guntas in Sy.No.447 situated in
Gummadidala Village basing on will deed dated 27.03.1989.
4th respondent is claiming right over the said extent of Ac.0.15
guntas on the strength of partition deed dated 04.04.1976. The
petitioners filed a suit O.S.No.27 of 1999 against respondents 3 and
4 seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession. The same
was decreed on 25.07.2006. Aggrieved by the said judgment, 4th
respondent has preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.12 of 2006. Vide
judgment dated 14.09.2007, the appellate Court dismissed the said
appeal. 4th respondent has preferred S.A.No.24 of 2008. Vide
judgment dated 30.03.2022, this Court allowed the said Second
Appeal in part, and set aside the finding of both the Courts below
of treating Ex.A.12 as will deed. Consequently, suit is partly
dismissed to the extent of schedule-B property i.e. Ac.0.15guntas
in Sy.No.447 situated at Gummadidala Village. The said facts
are not in dispute.
15. The petitioners did not file any SLP challenging the said
judgment dated 30.03.2022 in S.A.No.24 of 2008. According to
them, their counsel appearing in the Second Appeal died without
handing over case bundle and the original documents. It is also
their further case that record is not available in this Court. They
have submitted a complaint to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and
also to the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court.
16. However, the said judgment dated 30.03.2022 in
S.A.No.24 of 2008 has attained finality. Vide the said judgment,
this Court held that the said will deed dated 27.03.1989 (Ex.A.12)
did not satisfy the requirement of will deed. The recitals lack the
contents that transfer must effect after death and right to revoke the
will during the lifetime. The recitals show that the executant wants
to transfer the right in favour of the plaintiffs (petitioners in both
the writ petitions) during his lifetime. The said aspect was not
rightly considered by the Courts below. With the said findings, this
Court allowed the Second Appeal in part and dismissed the suit in
respect of the suit schedule -B property and the said judgment
attained finality. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the said
judgment, they would have filed SLP. They have not filed any SLP
so far. Thus the said judgment attained finality. Thereafter, 4th
respondent has submitted two online applications vide ID.Nos.
2300165935 and RC 2200007997 with 2nd respondent/District
Collector with a request to mutate her name in respect of the land
admeasuring Ac.15 guntas in Sy.No.447 situated at Gummadidala
Village and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District on strength of the said
judgment dated 30.03.2022 in S.A.No.24 of 2008. Initially, 2nd
respondent considered the said online application submitted by 4th
respondent vide RC No.2300164935 on 27.02.2023 and deleted the
name of the petitioner in W.P.No.10625 of 2025 and entered the
name of 4th respondent in respect of the land
admeauringAc.0.0750guntas in Sy.No.447/e/1 situated at
Gumamdidala Village. Aggrieved by the said proceedings of the 2nd
respondent, she has filed W.P.No.19848 of 2024, contending that
2nd respondent has considered the said online application without
putting her on notice and affording an opportunity. On
consideration of the said aspects, without going into merits and
demerits of the case, vide order dated 29.08.2024, this Court set
aside the said proceedings and remanded the matter back to 2nd
respondent with a direction to consider the online application
submitted by 4th respondent by putting the petitioners in both the
writ petitions on notice and affording them an opportunity.
Thereafter, feeling aggrieved by the said order, 4th respondent has
preferred intra-court appeal vide W.A.No.1101 of 2024 under
clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Vide order dated 13.09.2024 a
Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ appeal.
Thereafter, vide order dated 04.02.2025 in Case No.F3/2875 of
2024, 2nd respondent rejected the request made by the petitioner in
W.P.No.10625 of 2025 to mutate her name in respect of the land
admeasuring Ac.0.0750 guntas in Sy.No.447/e/1 situated at
Gummadidala Village by deleting the name of 4th respondent.
17. In the said order, 2nd respondent has placed reliance on
the judgment dated 25.07.2006 in O.S.No.27 of 1999 confirmed by
appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.09.2007 in A.S.No.12 of
2006 and also judgment dated 30.03.2022 in S.A.No.24 of 2008.
2nd respondent has also considered the order dated 29.08.2024 in
W.P.No.19848 of 2024. There is no error in it.
18. The petitioners are contending that even if the said will
deed dated 27.03.1989 is not believed, still the petitioners have
right over the subject land. Without considering the said facts, 2nd
respondent has passed the aforesaid order. They were prevented
from challenging the said judgment dated 30.03.2022 in S.A.No.24
of 2008.
19. As discussed supra, the petitioners failed to challenge the
judgment dated 30.03.2022 in S.A.No.24 of 2008, which has
attained finality on the strength of the said judgment, 4th respondent
approached 2nd respondent by way of submitting aforesaid two
online applications with a request to mutate her name by deleting
the names of the petitioners in respect of the land admeasuring
Ac.0.15guntas in Sy.No.447 situated at Gummadidala Village. 2nd
respondent has considered the said online application. There is no
error in it.
20. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioners
filed the said suit vide O.S.No.2007 of 1999 against respondents 3
and 4 to declare them as owners of the aforesaid property and for
recovery of possession. The said suit was dismissed. The
petitioners in both the writ petitions preferred appeal vide A.S.No.5
of 2003. Vide judgment dated 02.02.2006, in A.S.No.5 of 2003,
learned Appellate Court while setting aside the said judgment dated
25.07.2006 in O.S.No.27 of 1999 remanded the matter back to the
trial Court with a direction to frame additional issue with regard to
execution of will deed dated 20.03.1989. Thereafter, vide judgment
dated 25.07.2006 in O.S.No.27 of 1999, learned trial Court decreed
the said suit.
21. As discussed supra, the role of 2nd respondent is very
limited. 2nd respondent cannot go beyond the judgment dated
30.03.2022 in S.A.No.24 of 2008. Therefore, 2nd respondent has
rightly passed the order dated 04.02.2025 in Case
No.F3/2875/2024, deleting the name of the petitioner in
W.P.No.10625 of 2025 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0750
guntas in Sy.No.447/e/1 of Gummadidala Village. He has
implemented the said judgment dated 30.03.2022 in S.A.No.24 of
2008. He has also rightly deleted the name of the petitioner in
W.P.No.14319 of 2025 and mutated the name of 4th respondent in
respect of Ac.0.07 Guntas in Sy.No.447/e/2 of Gummadidala
Village. There is no error in it.
22. Therefore, both the petitioners failed to make out a case
to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 in Case
No.F3/2875 of 2024 of 2nd respondent. Therefore, both the writ
petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Date:18.08.2025
vvr
