Telangana High Court
Tumu Gopala Rao vs Smt. Ravella Kalavathi on 1 May, 2025
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.R.P.No.619 OF 2025
Between:
Tumu Gopala Rao & two others
... Petitioners
And
Smt. Ravella Kalavathi & another
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 01.05.2025
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_________________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
2 SN,J
CRP_619_2025
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
C.R.P.No.619 OF 2025
% 01.05.2025
Between:
# Tumu Gopala Rao & two others
... Petitioners
And
$ Smt. Ravella Kalavathi & another
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri M. Murali Krishna
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Shaik Madar
? Cases Referred:
3 SN,J
CRP_619_2025
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
C.R.P.No.619 of 2025
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred
seeking prayer as under:
"...to suspend the impugned order dated 16.11.2024 in
I.A.No.247 of 2023 in O.S.No.309 of 2023 and set aside
the same on the file of the Agent to the Government,
Bhadradri Kothagudem, in the interest of justice and
equity."
2. This Civil Revision petition is filed challenging the propriety
and legality of the order dated 06.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.247
of 2023 in O.S.No.309 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the
Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, whereby the
petition filed by the plaintiffs under Rule 42(a) and (c) of T.S.
Agency Rules, 1924 Read with Section 151 C.P.C., seeking
suspension of the fraudulent entries reflecting the name of
defendant No.1 in the occupant column of the impugned
pahanies in respect of the suit scheduled land was dismissed.
3. The plea of the petitioners/plaintiffs in I.A.No.247 of 2023
is that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land
admeasuring Ac.1-30 guntas in Sy.Nos.39, 40/1, 41, 42/1
4 SN,J
CRP_619_2025
situated at Chandrugonda Village and Mandal of the Scheduled
area of Bhadradri Kothagudem District and that the defendants
by managing the Mandal Revenue Inspector-I, Chandrugonda on
the basis of forged and fabricated unregistered gift deed
allegedly executed by Smt. Alla Kanakamma, in respect of the
suit land, got issued Memo dated 20.12.2025 in
Rc.No.B/2468/2005 and on the basis of the same got entered
the name of Defendant No.1 in occupation column of pahanies in
respect of the suit land and that the said Kanakamma died about
30 years ago but the defendants falsely got her date of death
registered in the Register of Death as 21.06.2003 and that they
are trying to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the
subject lands.
4. The respondents/defendants filed Counter denying the
allegations made by the petitioners. They asserted title and
possession over the suit land on the basis of the alleged
registered gift deed/will deed bearing document No.6 of 1977
dated 15.04.1977. They stated that after the death of
Kanakamma on 21.06.2003, Defendant No.1 came into
possession of the suit land and ever since she had been in
possession and enjoyment of the land and Defendant No.1
perfected the title over the suit land. The
5 SN,J
CRP_619_2025
respondents/defendants also stated that they had filed
O.S.No.452 of 2006 against the plaintiffs in respect of the suit
land for perpetual injunction and the suit was decreed and in
view of the decree in the suit, the present petition is not
maintainable and they alleged that the suit is barred by
limitation, since the death certificate of Kanakamma is
challenged eighteen years after the date of registration of her
death on 21.03.2003.
5. Heard Sri M. Murali Krishna, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Shaik
Madar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents. Perused the Record.
6. The question whether the alleged registered gift deed/will
deed is true or not can be decided only after a full-fledged trial in
the suit. According to the plaintiffs, the entry of name of
Defendant No.1 in the occupation column of the pahani record
was made at the instance of the defendants, the then Mandal
Revenue Inspector and Mandal Revenue Officer and that aspect
also can be gone into after holding full trial in the suit.
7. It is not in dispute that the defendants filed O.S.No.452 of
2006 for perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs herein and the
6 SN,J
CRP_619_2025
suit was decreed in favour of the defendants and the decree
became final. The decree supports the contention of the
defendants that they had been in possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property. It is no doubt true that the plaintiffs
sought for declaration that the decree in O.S.No.452 of 2006 is
null and unenforceable and that question as to the validity of the
decree can be decided after holding trial in the suit. In view of
the above this Court finds that there is no prima facie case in
favour of the petitioners and the balance of convenience is not in
their favour.
8. For the foregone reasons, this Court does not find
any material irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the
order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.247 of 2023 in
O.S.No.309 of 2023 dated 16.11.2024. Accordingly, the
Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Dated: 01.05.2025
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
(B/o)Yvkr
