Telangana High Court
Bokka Lakshma Reddy vs M/S.Lahari Infrastructure Private ... on 24 March, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.197 AND 206 OF 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice N.Tukaramji)
We have heard Mr.Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for
the appellant/defendant No.2 and Mr.Katika Ravinder Reddy,
learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff.
2. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.197 of 2024 has been
preferred by the appellant/defendant No.2 assailing the order
dated 20.12.2023 in I.A.No.762 of 2022 and Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal No.206 of 2024 has been filed by the appellant/defendant
No.2 challenging the order dated 20.12.2023 in I.A.No.760 of
2022.
3. As these appeals are arising out of the orders passed in the
impugned Interlocutory Applications filed in O.S.No.850 of 2022,
on the file of learned IX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District, at L.B.Nagar, seeking similar reliefs, they are heard and
being adjudicated together by this common judgment.
2 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.197 and 206 of 2024
4. The respondent No.1 in the appeals i.e., Lahari
Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad, as plaintiff filed the suit
vide O.S.No.850 of 2022 seeking permanent injunction
restraining the appellant and respondent No.2/defendant Nos.2
and 1 respectively, to interfere with the land admeasuring
Ac.3-35 gts., in Sy.No.63/Aa, situated at Bulkapur (Bhulkapur)
Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter
'the schedule property'), and to declare the sale deed
dated 21.01.2021 executed by the 1st respondent in favour of 2nd
respondent as null and void and not binding.
5. Pending the suit, respondent No.1/plaintiff (hereinafter 'the
petitioner') filed Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.762 of 2022
seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the appellant and
respondent No.2/defendant Nos.2 and 1 respectively (hereinafter
'the respondent Nos.1 and 2') from interfering with the petitioner's
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property,
pending disposal of the suit. Likewise, in I.A.No.760 of 2022
prayed for ad-interim injunction restraining the appellant/
respondent No.2, in particular, not to alienate or create any third
party interest in respect of the schedule property.
3 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.197 and 206 of 2024
6. Briefly stated the petitioner's case is that the petitioner-firm
purchased the schedule property under registered sale deed on
27.12.2017 from his vendor one Manikonda Venkat
Reddy/respondent No.1 and his children for valuable sale
consideration and on the even date the peaceful possession of
the schedule property has been delivered. However, the
petitioner came to knowledge that his vendor/respondent No.1
without any leftover right in the schedule property executed
another registered sale deed on 20.01.2021 in respect of the
schedule property in favour of respondent No.2 by suppressing
the petitioner's sale deed and from the Mandal Revenue Office,
Shakarpally, obtained pattadar pass book and title deed.
Whereupon, the petitioner had taken legal recourse by filing
Police Report. In this backdrop, the respondent No.2 along with
henchmen made attempts on 08.09.2021 and 18.09.2021 to
interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the
schedule property, still and all, with great difficulty, the petitioner
could secure possession. However, as apprehending further
interference, preferred the suit and the interlocutory applications
for grant of interim injunctions.
4 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.197 and 206 of 2024
7. In enquiry, the petitioner got marked Exs.A-1 to A-22 and
the respondents got marked Exs.B-1 to B-5.
8. Upon hearing and considering the merits, the trial Court
allowed both the interim applications and granted ad-interim
injunctions as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby the respondent
No.2, who is vendee in the sale deed dated 20.01.2021, preferred
these appeals.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would contend
that the Court below had erroneously granted ad-interim
injunctions prejudicing the interests of the respondent No.2. He
pleads that the respondent No.2 is a bona fide purchaser for
valuable sale consideration and the schedule property was duly
mutated in his name. This fact is confirming his possession over
the schedule property and in contrast, no material has been
placed by the petitioner to prove any essential fact for granting
interim injunctions. Further asserted that the entries in revenue
records coupled with the statutory positive presumptions under
Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act (for short
'the R.O.R.Act'), his possession over the schedule property is
5 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.197 and 206 of 2024
being strengthened, but the Court below disregarded these
aspects in considering the petitions. Further pleaded that the
schedule property is undivided joint family property, but not
exclusive property of the respondent No.1, as such, he would not
have right to enter into a sale deed. Additionally contended that,
by the date of sale deed of the petitioner, his vendor/respondent
No.1 had no precipitated right over the schedule property,
particularly, over the extent referred in the sale deed, therefore,
the petitioner's claim cannot be sustained. Further, the petitioner
failed to explain the inaction for mutation, signifying that the
petitioner's sale transaction is nominal. Hence, pleaded that the
impugned orders are indefensible and prayed for intervention.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the pleadings of
the respondent No.2 and asserted that the petitioner had
purchased the schedule property in 2017 for consideration of
more than one crore and the covenant in the sale deed is evident
as to the transfer of title and possession. Mere inaction in getting
the entries in the revenue record cannot over ride or discredit the
title which was devolved by way of registered instrument. He
further contends that after introduction of Dharani digital platform
6 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.197 and 206 of 2024
in 2020, the Tahsildars were given the powers of Additional
Sub-Registrars to record registered sale deeds and on such
registration, the mutation would automatically be effected. The
respondent Nos.1 and 2 in collusion, by suppressing the earlier
sale deed, got registered the schedule property on 20.01.2021
and without verification, the revenue entries were made and
pattadar pass book was issued. Therefore, the claim by the
respondent No.2 in regard to title or possession remains technical
and paper work. Above all, the petitioner's sale deed is earlier in
point of time, as such, it would prevail against the respondent
No.2's sale deed.
11. In support, placed reliance on the authority between
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra and another 1 and pleaded that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, in between the prior and
subsequent sale deeds, the subsequent purchaser cannot even
claim as bona fide purchaser and the sale deed would stand
invalid. For that reason, the respondent No.2 in the stance of
subsequent purchaser cannot claim any right through his sale
deed.
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1756
7 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.197 and 206 of 2024
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as
the schedule property is open land and the respondents being
local people with influence, in all likelihood would remove the
petitioner from possession as such, the Court below was justified
in granting the interim injunctions restricting the respondents not
only to interfere but also to alienate the schedule property.
Therefore, the well reasoned orders need no interference.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the
learned counsel and perused the materials placed on record.
14. In these rival claims, the aspect arises for determination is
whether the impugned orders of interim injunctions are justified in
the case facts and law?
15. The pleadings are evidencing that the petitioner and the
respondent No.2 had purchased the schedule property from the
self-same vendor/respondent No.1 under registered sale deeds
dated 27.12.2017 and 20.01.2021 respectively. Further, both the
sale deeds are reflecting the self-same extent of Ac.3-35 gts.
8 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.197 and 206 of 2024
16. The contest of the respondent No.2 that by the date of
petitioner's sale deed, the respondent No.1 had no title over
entire schedule property would equally effect the foundation of his
case, howsoever, this aspect requires deliberation in trial. At the
present stage, the entries in the sale deed of the petitioner are
demonstrating that the respondent No.1 and his children as
absolute owners and possessors of the schedule property with
the pattadar pass book and title deed issued by the Tahsildar had
entered into the sale transaction. This fact is denoting favourable
circumstance for the petitioner. Further, the self-same extent of
the property in both the registered sale deeds is indicating that
the respondent No.2 is in agreement with the respondent No.1's
title over the property. That apart, even if the contentions of
respondent No.2 that the schedule property is undivided joint
family property, as such, the respondent No.1 would not have
right to enter into a sale deed for specific extent is considered,
Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, allows co-owner
to transfer his/her share in a property to another person without
the consent of other co-owners. However, the rights of the
transferee would be subject to the existing rights of the other
co-owners. Thus, the transferee steps into the transferring
9 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.197 and 206 of 2024
co-owner and acquires the same rights including the right to joint
possession. Therefore, subject to merits to be determined in the
trial, preliminarily, it shall be held that the respondent No.1 is
legally competent to transfer his interest and the petitioner would
acquire the same. Above all, it is pertinent to note that, in this
case, this contention has raised by the subsequent purchaser but
not the co-owner.
17. In this context, the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kaushik Premkumar Mishra's case (cited supra) is found
relevant. For better appreciation, the relevant Para No.35 is
extracted hereunder:
35. The doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value applies in
situations where the seller appears to have some semblance of legitimate
ownership rights. However, this principle does not protect a subsequent
purchaser if the vendor had already transferred those rights through a
prior sale deed. In a case where the vendor deceitfully executes a
second sale deed 26 years after the initial transfer, without disclosing the
earlier transaction and without any ongoing litigation regarding the
property, the subsequent purchaser cannot claim the benefits of a bona
fide purchaser. Essentially, if the vendor's rights were already severed
by the first sale, any later sale deed made without transparency and in
bad faith is invalid. The subsequent purchaser, even if unaware of the
prior sale, cannot be considered bona fide because the vendor no longer
had the legal right to sell the property. Thus, the protection afforded by
the bona fide purchaser doctrine is nullified by the vendor's deceitful
conduct and the pre-existing transfer of rights. This ensures that the
10 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.197 and 206 of 2024
original purchaser's rights are upheld and prevents unjust enrichment
through fraudulent transactions.
18. In the light of the above ratio and the facts that the
respondent No.1 had executed the registered sale deed in favour
of the petitioner in 2017, prima facie, would amount to divesting
his title over the schedule property. In such position, again
transmitting the title over the self-same property would be
fallacious. Furthermore, no legal position prescribes that upon
purchase of landed property, mutation with the revenue authority
is mandatory and failure in getting entries in revenue record,
would imperfect the sale. That being the factual and legal
position, the respondent No.2's claim is falling short to establish
any fact or circumstance in his favour.
19. The other material contest is about the possession of the
property. The parties are in consensus as to the fact that the
schedule property is vacant land. It is also well settled
proposition that, in regard to vacant land, in the absence of clear
evidence as to possession, the title holder shall be considered as
in possession. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court
11 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.197 and 206 of 2024
in the authority of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy
(dead) by LRs and others 2, held in Para No.16 as hereunder:
16. But what if the property is a vacant site, which is not
physically possessed, used or enjoyed? In such cases the principle
is that possession follows title. If two persons claim to be in
possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title
thereto will be considered to be in possession, as against the
person who is not able to establish title. This means that even
though a suit relating to a vacant site is for a mere injunction and
the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to examine and
determine the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession.
In such a situation, where the title is clear and simple, the court
may venture a decision on the issue of title, so as to decide the
question of de jure possession even though the suit is for a mere
injunction. But where the issue of title involves complicated or
complex questions of fact and law, or where court feels that parties
had not proceeded on the basis that title was at issue, the court
should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction. The
proper course is to relegate the plaintiff to the remedy of a full-
fledged suit for declaration and consequential reliefs.
20. In the matter on hand, the respondent No.2 is claiming
possession over the schedule land basing on the entries in
revenue record, i.e., mutation proceedings. Nonetheless, the
aspects in the sale deeds executed by the respondent No.1 are
making out the validity of sale deed of the petitioner, thus, the
consequential revenue entries in favour of the respondent No.2
basing on the subsequent sale deed pales into insignificance.
(2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 594
12 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.197 and 206 of 2024
21. Above all, as the prayer in the petitions is for an
arrangement pending the suit, keeping other aspects open for
consideration in the trial, passing an ad-interim injunction not to
interfere with the possession of the petitioner-firm is found
justified as the comparative mischief faced by the petitioner would
be greater than that of respondent No.2 and refusal of injunction
and disturbance in the possession may certainly cause
irreparable loss to the interests of the petitioner. We are,
therefore, of the considered view that the trial Court had rightly
appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and granted
ad-interim injunction against the respondents.
22. Further, by the aforesaid reasoning as the sale deed
claimed by the respondent No.2 is under cloud and though the
doctrine of lis pendens would operate against the transactions
made by the parties to the proceedings, considering the apparent
position of title of the respondent No.2, restraining him to create
third party interest, which may result into creation of unwarranted
third party interests and multiplicity of litigation, is found proper
and justified. Hence, granting ad-interim injunction not to alienate
the schedule property by the trial Court is found equally justified.
13 PSK,J & NTR,J
Cma Nos.197 and 206 of 2024
23. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeals
against the impugned orders. Accordingly, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals are liable to be dismissed.
24. In the result, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.197 and 206
of 2024 are dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
stands closed.
_______________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_______________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Date : 24.03.2025
svl
