Telangana High Court
Smt. G. Aruna Padma vs Smt. Singam Mangamma on 24 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
Civil Revision Petition No.3713 of 2024
Order:
1. Heard Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the
petitioners/decree holders, Mr. M.V.Raj Kumar Gabriel,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 5, 11, 12 and 13,
Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.3
and Mr. Harinder Singh, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.14 to 16. Perused the record.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by
the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda in E.P.No.379 of
2023, dated 14.10.2024, wherein, the relief sought for
delivery of physical possession of the EP schedule property
under Order XXI Rule 35 (1) to (3) of CPC, consisting of land
admeasuring Ac.3-00 Gts., in Sy.Nos.61, 62, 63/1, 64/1, 67
situated at Malkajgiri Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, now Medchal-Malkajgiri District, has been
dismissed.
::2::
3. The brief facts of the case are that the decree holders
have filed a suit for specific performance vide suit in
O.S.No.398 of 2009 and the same has been decreed vide
judgment and decree dated 03.07.2009. During pendency of
the suit, some of the respondents have compromised the
matter with the decree holders and have executed registered
sale deeds. Further, after passing of the decree, some of the
respondents have voluntarily executed registered sale deeds
in favour of the decree holders. Lastly, only respondent No.5
did not execute registered sale deed and therefore, a
registered sale deed was executed through court with respect
to share of respondent No.5. All the registered sale deeds
contain a recital about the delivery of suit schedule property
in favour of decree holders. However, according to the decree
holders, only registered sale deeds are executed but the
property is not delivered. To seek delivery of possession, a
second EP was filed and the same was dismissed on the
ground that as per the registered sale deeds executed by all
the respondents, except respondent No.5, the shares of
respective respondents have been delivered and therefore,
::3::
delivery of total extent of Ac.3-00 Gts. does not arise.
Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP is preferred.
4. In the Civil Revision Petition, the learned counsel for
the petitioners/decree holders restated his stand that the suit
schedule property was not delivered though the registered
sale deeds contain a recital about the delivery of possession.
While so, the learned counsels for the respondents/judgment
debtors submitted that the property has been delivered as per
the registered sale deeds of all the respondents except
respondent No.5 whose share is 1452 Sq.Yds. According to
the learned counsels for respondents, the petitioners though
have been delivered with possession of entire extent of suit
schedule property minus 1452 Sq.Yds. of respondent No.5,
the petitioners have filed EP seeking delivery of possession of
Ac.3-00 Gts. and in the guise of said EP, the petitioners are
intending to encroach into the remaining extent of land of the
respondents which is Ac.7-38 Gts. out of total extent of
Ac.10-38 Gts.
::4::
5. Both the parties do not have trust on one another
about honest delivery of possession of the suit schedule
property. While petitioners claim no land has been delivered,
the respondents claim that entire suit schedule property
minus 1452 Sq.Yds belonging to respondent No.5 is delivered.
In the circumstances, there is a dispute among the parties
about the possession of the suits schedule property vis-à-vis
the petitioners or the respondents.
6. After hearing both the sides with respect to factual
situation on ground, both the learned counsels have come to
a consensus that there would be no objection in case an
Advocate Commissioner is appointed to demarcate Ac.3-00
Gts. of land as per the description in EP schedule with
northern boundary consisting of a road and western
boundary consisting a railway track and neighbours land.
There is no objection in case Ac.3-00 Gts. of land is delivered
such that the petitioners decree would be implemented and
the respondents would not have any worry about the
encroachment into their remaining extent of Ac.7-38 Gts.
::5::
7. In view of the consensus arrived, the Civil Revision
Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order
passed by the I Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri
District at Kushaiguda in E.P.No.379 of 2023, dated
14.10.2024, with a direction to appoint an Advocate
Commissioner to demarcate the Ac.300 Gts. of land as per
the boundaries in the EP schedule and to deliver the same to
the petitioners herein.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed. No costs.
_____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 24.11.2025
gvl
::6::
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.3713 OF 2024
Date: 24.11.2025
gvl
