Telangana High Court
D.Sathaiah , Ramalkolu Sathaiah vs R. Pentaiah on 9 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
A.S.M.P.No.613 of 2010
In
A.S.No.2327 of 2004
(Dated : 30-07-2012)
Between:
S.Subrahmanyam Reddy and others
....Petitioners/
Third parties
And
Darga Sathaiah @ Ramalkolu Sathaiah
And others
...Respondents
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
A.S.M.P.No.613 of 2010
In
A.S.No.2327 of 2004
ORDER:
This petition has been filed under Section 151 CPC to recall the
compromise decree dated 20-8-2007 in A.S.No.2327 of 2004. The
petitioners are third parties to A.S.No.2327 of 2004.
2, Facts, in brief, leading to filing of A.S.No.2327 of 2004 by the
plaintiffs in O.S.No.626 of 1996 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil
Judge, at L.B.Nagar, are:-
Ramalkolu Veeraiah had four sons and two daughters, namely,
Darga Sathaiah @ Ramalkolu Sathaiah, Darga Bikshapathi @
Ramalkolu Bikshapathi, Darga Sankiaraiah @ Ramalkolu Sankaraiah,
Ramalkolu Pentaiah, Ramalkolu Pentamma and Rajamma. Veeraiah
died on 09-08-1988. Darga Sathaiah, Darga Bikshapathi and Darga
Sankaraiah filed O.S.No.626 of 1996 for partition and separate
possession of their shares i.e., 1/4th each in the suit schedule
property. The suit schedule comprises agricultural land admeasuring
Ac.3-37 guntas and a house bearing No.3-74. According to them,
the suit schedule properties belong to their father Veeraiah and
therefore, they are entitled to 1/4th share each. It is also their case that
defendants 2 to 5, namely, Ramalkolu Rukmaiah, Ramalkolu Balaraj,
Ramalkolu Gandaiah, Ramalkolu Narayana have no claim over the
suit schedule properties. So far as two daughters of Pentaiah are
concerned, they got married during the lifetime of Veeraiah and they
have been residing with their respective husbands. Veeraiah had
given dowry and certain properties to them at the time of marriage.
They demanded defendant No.1, who is their brother, for partition and
separate possession of their shares. But, defendant No.1 did not
oblige them and therefore, they are constrained to file a suit for
partition and separate possession of their shares in the suit schedule
properties. Defendants 1 to 5 filed written statement and whereas,
defendant No.6 filed memo adopting the written statement of
defendants 1 to 5. According to the defendants, the suit schedule
properties are inam lands and the lands have been in possession and
enjoyment of Kummari community people. They are not ancestral
lands of the plaintiffs. Defendants 1 to 5 are in possession of the lands
for the last 40 years with the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Defendant
No.1 purchased "B" schedule house from the plaintiff No.3 in the year
1986 for Rs.10,000/- and he is in possession and enjoyment of the
property as a purchaser. The father of the plaintiffs and defendant
No.1 purchased one house at Balanagar and resided in that house
and whereas Defendant No.1 settled at Dargah and has been residing
in the "B" schedule house.
3. The trial Court settled the following issues for trial:-
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the properties by way of
partition as prayed for?
2) Whether the defendants are perfected the title over the property
by way of adverse possession?
3) Whether suit claim is barred by limitation?
4) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
5) To what relief?
4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined as
PWs.1 and 2 and two documents were marked as Exs.A-1 and A-2.
On behalf of the defendants, three witnesses were examined as
DWs.1 to 3 and 33 documents were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-33. The
trial Court, on considering the evidence brought on record and on
hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, held that plaint "A"
schedule property are the inam lands and that the defendants came in
to possession of the plaint "A" schedule property after abolition of
Inams and obtained occupancy certificates and thereby, proceeded to
dismiss the suit, by judgment dated 19-11-2003. The plaintiff filed
A.S.No.2327 of 2004 assailing the judgment dated 19-11-2003
passed in O.S.No.626 of 1996. Pending appeal, defendant No.4
Gandaiah died and his son Balaraju came on record as his legal
representative, as per orders in A.S.M.P.No.1609 of 2007. Defendant
No.3 Balaraj also died and his wife Shankaramma came on record as
his legal heir. The appellant No.1 Dargah Sathaiah died and his son
Narahari came on record as appellant No.4, as per orders in
A.S.M.P.No.1610 of 2007. Pending the appeal, the parties to the
appeal entered into compromise and moved A.S.M.P.SR.No.11330 of
2007 to pass a decree in terms of the compromise entered into among
the parties. The said ASMP came to be allowed on 20-08-2010 and
consequently, the appeal also came to be allowed in terms of the
compromise.
5. As per the terms of the compromise, the lands fell to the share of
the appellants and the respondents are as follows:-
Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 ( Ramalkolu Pentaiah)
Survey No. Extent
80 0.12
81 0.02
246/2 0.04
98 0.06
Total :Ac.0.24 guntas
Appellant No.4 and members of his family , viz.,
Darga Sathaiah @ Ramalkolu Sathaiah, Darga Bikshapathi @
Ramalkolu Bikshapathi, Darga Sankaraiah:-
Survey No. Extent
80 1.08
85/2 0.13
98 0.08
Total : Ac.1.29 guntas
Respondent No.8-Ramalkolu Shankaramma
Survey No. Extent
80 0.10
81 0.02
246/2 0.04
Total: Ac.0.16 gts
Respondent Nos.2 and 5-Ramalkolu Rukmaiah and Ramalkolu
Narayana
Survey No. Extent
80 0.08
81 0.06
246/2 0.08
98 0.10
Total: Ac.0.32 gts
6. For the sake of clarity as to the extent allotted in each of the
survey numbers to the parties, I deem it appropriate to note the
following particulars:-
Survey No.80 : Ac.2-02 gts.
Sl.No. Name Extent
1 Pentaiah 0-12
2 Narahari 1-08
3 Balaraj 0-04
4 Shankaraiah 0-10
5 Rumkaiah & Narayana 0-08
Total : Ac.2-02 gts.
Survey No.81 : Ac.0-13 gts.
Sl.No. Name Extent
1 Pentaiah 0-02
2 Balaraj 0-03
3 Shankaraiah 0-02
4 Rumkaiah & Narayana 0-06
Total : Ac.0-13 gts.
Survey No.246/2 : Ac.0-20 gts.
Sl.No. Name Extent
1 Pentaiah 0-04
2 Balaraj 0-04
3 Shankaraiah 0-04
4 Rumkaiah & Narayana 0-08
Total : Ac.0-20 gts.
Survey No.85/2 : Ac.0-13 gts.
Sl.No. Name Extent
1 Narahari 0-13
Total : Ac.0-13 gts.
Survey No.98 : Ac.0-29 gts.
Sl.No. Name Extent
1 Pentaiah 0-06
2 Narahari 0-08
3 Balaraj 0-05
4 Rumkaiah & Narayana 0-10
Total : Ac.0-29 gts.
The instant application has been filed by the third parties to the
proceeding in A.S.No.2327 of 2004 to recall the compromise decree
on the ground that the parties to the suit sold the land to the petitioners
and therefore, they have no subsisting interest over the land as on the
date of placing on record the Memo of compromise. For better
understanding, I may refer paras (2) to (4) of the affidavit filed in
support of the petition, which reads as hereunder:-
"2. It is submitted that the Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed O.S.No.626
of 1996 against the Respondents 5 to 10 herein on the file of II Addl.
Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District for partition and
separate possession of their alleged 1/4th share in the Plaint "A" and
"B" Schedule properties and the same was dismissed by judgment
and decree dt.19.11.2003. The Respondents 5 to 9 herein without
disclosing the pendency of the suit, sold the entire land in Sy.No.80
and 81, representing that they are the absolute owners and
possessors to the vendors of the petitioners herein under registered
sale deeds, from whom, the petitioners acquired title for valuable
consideration. Though, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court and
the Respondents 5 to 9 have no subsisting interest having already
sold their land, they have clandestinely entered into a compromise
with the Respondents/Appellants, behind the back of the Petitioners,
who are present owners and possessors and obtained a compromise
decree on 20.8.2007. Thereafter, they approached the Dy.collector-
cum-Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for
mutation on the basis of the compromise decree dt.20.8.2007 without
disclosing the sale deeds executed by them and the MRO issued
notice to the petitioners, dt.12.11.2008 , to which the petitioners filed
their objections. Though, the compromise decree does not bind non-
parties, the petitioners are advised to file this petition in view of the
contentions raised before the Deputy Collector-cum-Tahasildar,
Rajendranagar in the said proceedings.
3. It is submitted that the Petitioners herein are the absolute owners
and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.2-02 Gts in Survey
No.80 & Ac.0-13 Gts. in Survey No.81, totally admeasuring Ac.2-15
Gts situated at Manikonda Jagir village, Rajendranagar Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same under registered
sale deeds in the following:-
Sl.
Document No.
Vendor Purchaser & Date Sy.No. Extent
No. Ac.-Gts.
1 G.Ravinder S.Subrahmanyam 9464/04 80 0-25
Reddy
03-09-04
D.Uday Kumar
Reddy
2 G.Bhagyalaxmi M/s.Aparna 142/07 80(P) 0-10
Infrastructure Pvt. 27-12-2007
Ltd.
3 Javvaji D.Uday Kumar 8497/04 80(P) 0-20
Madhunamma Reddy 10-8-04
4 C.Anil Kumar M/s. Aparna 4981/07 80(P) 0-17
Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. 12-03-07 81 0-03
5 T.V.K.Kishore S.Subrahmanyam 9539/04 80 (Part) 0-10
Reddy
08-09-04
D.Uday Kumar
Reddy
6 G.Ravinder D.Uday 8499/04 81(P) 0-10
Kumar Reddy
10-8-04
Total : 2-15
4. The above vendors have purchased the land from its previous
pattadars in the following manner:
Sl.No. Vendor Purchaser Document Sy.No. Extent
No. & Date Ac.-Gts.
Kummari Pentaiah 2548/2000 80 (Part) 0-16
Pothani 3907/2000 80 0-10
Chandrasekhar
G.Ravinder 3283/2000 80 0-06
R.Narayana @
1 0-03
Kummari
Narayana and 7130/1999 80
others
Kummari
Rukmaiah and
others
Kummari G.Bhagyalaxmi 9510/1996 80 0-10
Gandaiah
2 (Part)
Succession Javvaji 9513/96 80 Part 0-20
proceedings from Madhunamma
3 J.Bhooma Rajam W/o late J.Booma D/103/99
Rajam
K.Gandaiah and G.Ravinder 7129/99 80 0-10
others
80 0-07
1762/2006 81 0-03
G.Ravinder
Kummari
Rukmaiah and
others
K.Pentaiah and Pothani Chandra 9514/96 80 Part 0-10
others Sekhar
Pothani T.V.K.Kishore 266/2001
Chandrasekhar
R.Narayana and 3283/2000 81 Part 0-03
others
81 Part 0-02
6 K.Pentaiah G.Ravinder 2458/2000 81 Part 0-05
R.Rukmaiah and
others
Total: 2-15
5. Heard Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel
representing Sri G.Dharma Rao, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 2 and 4. Despite granting many adjournments, there is no
representation on behalf of the respondents 1, 3 and 5 to 12.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners/third parties that the parties to the appeal colluded together
and entered into compromise with the sole object of getting the sale
deeds executed by the parties to the appeal are nullified. It is also
contended by him that there was deception on the part of the parties to
the appeal right from its inception and therefore, the decree passed in
the appeal, pursuant to the compromise petition
(A.S.M.P.SR.No.11330 of 2007) is liable to be recalled. In support of
his contentions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of
Karnataka High Court in Ramanagouda Siddanagaouda v.
Basavantraya Madivalappa, Mullimani .
7. Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 2 and 4 submits that the sale deeds placed on record are
relatable to Survey Nos.80, 81 and 246/2 and whereas the
compromise decree passed in the appeal relates to various other
survey numbers and therefore, the compromise decree need not be
disturbed in respect of survey numbers, which are not the subject
matter of the sale deeds. It is also contended by him that if any
document is executed by the appellants, they can work out their
remedies by proceeding against the property that has been allotted to
their shares in the compromise decree.
8. The issue that calls for adjudication is:
Whether the petitioners made out a valid ground for
recall of the compromise decree passed in A.S.No.2327
of 2004 ?
9. It is a matter of record that the suit of the plaintiffs seeking for
partition and separate possession of their shares ended in dismissal.
The petitioners in this application purchased the property pending
disposal of the suit. The appellants suppressing the fact of their
executing the sale deeds in respect of suit schedule properties filed an
appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit for partition. Pending
appeal, the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into compromise and
moved A.S.M.P.SR.No.11330 of 2007 to dispose of the appeal in
terms of the compromise. By the date the appellants/plaintiffs
moved application before this Court in A.S.M.P.SR.No.11330 of
2007, they knew very well that they executed sale deeds in respect
of major portion of the suit schedule lands. Suppressing the sale
deeds, the appellants entered into compromise with the defendants
and moved A.S.M.P.SR.No.11330 of 2007 to record compromise and
dispose of the appeal in terms of the compromise.
10. No doubt, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is
applicable to the transactions covered under the sale deeds pressed
into service by the petitioners herein. In order for application of
Section 52, it is clear that a suit must be pending and it should be non-
collusive character and involves any right to immovable property and
there must be a transfer by a party to the suit who has some right under
the decree in the suit. Thus, one of the important ingredients is that
the suit should be non-collusive character. The very distribution of the
property among the parties to the appeal under compromise decree
indicates that the same has been made with the sole object to defeat
the claims of the present petitioners. Therefore, I am of the view that
there has been deception since inception of moving the application to
record compromise. Hence, order passed in A.S.M.P.SR.No.11330 of
2007 and the compromise decree passed in Appeal Suit No.2327 of
2004 are recalled and the appeal is restored to file.
_____________________
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J
Dt.30-07-2012
RAR
AIR 2002 KARNATAKA 96
