Telangana High Court
Puppalagudem Satyanarayana Died vs Barla Mallareddy on 25 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
I.A.No.4 of 2025
In/and
SECOND APPEAL No.534 of 2007 and
SECOND APPEAL No.955 of 2007
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Second Appeal No.534 of 2007 is filed by appellants
challenging the judgment and decree, dated 28.02.2007, in
A.S.No.18 of 1997 on the file of II Additional District and
Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak, at Sangareddy, wherein the
judgment and decree passed by Additional District Munsif, at
Sangareddy, in O.S.No.104 of 1989, dated 27.12.1996, was
dismissed.
2. Second Appeal No.955 of 2007 is filed by appellants
challenging the judgment and decree, dated 28.02.2007, in
A.S.No.17 of 1997 on the file of II Additional District and
Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak, at Sangareddy, confirming the
judgment and decree passed by Additional District Munsif, at
Sangareddy, in O.S.No.171 of 1988, dated 27.12.1996.
3. Heard learned counsel for appellants in S.A.Nos.534
and 955 of 2007 and learned counsel for respondents in
S.A.Nos.534 and 955 of 2007.
JAK, J
SA_534 & 955_2007
4. As the issue involved in both the second appeals is one
same, both the matters are heard together.
5. For convenience, facts in S.A.No.534 of 2007 are being
referred.
6. Appellants herein are respondents in A.S.No.18 of 1997
and plaintiffs in O.S.No.104 of 1989. Respondents herein are
legal representatives of appellant in A.S.No.18 of 1997 and
defendant No.3 in O.S.No.104 of 1989.
7. O.S.No.104 of 1989 was filed by plaintiffs (appellants
herein) before the Additional District Munsif, at Sangareddy,
seeking specific performance of the contract against
defendant No.3 (respondent No.1 herein). Trial Court by
judgment and decree dated 27.12.1996 allowed the suit.
8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.12.1996
in O.S.No.104 of 1989, respondent No.1 herein filed A.S.No.18
of 1997 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge
(FTC), Medak, at Sangareddy. First Appellate Court, vide
judgment and decree dated 28.02.2007, allowed A.S.No.18 of
1997 by setting aside the judgment and decree dated
JAK, J
SA_534 & 955_2007
27.12.1996 in O.S.No.104 of 1989. Aggrieved by the same,
the present second appeal is filed by plaintiffs/appellants
herein.
9. I.A.No.4 of 2025 is filed seeking permission to allow the
second appeal in terms of compromise deed dated 28.02.2025
entered into between the parties.
10. On 17.07.2025, this Court directed the parties to appear
before the High Court Legal Services Committee for
identification of the parties, along with their counsels, in
terms of the compromise deed dated 28.02.2025 annexed
with I.A.No.4 of 2025. A report was submitted by High Court
Legal Services Committee stating that five plaintiffs could not
be identified. A Memo dated 20.11.2025 is filed on behalf of
appellants, wherein a copy of the family members certificate
and the family tree along with aadhar cards are annexed.
11. On 24.11.2025, learned counsel for appellants
submitted that as changes in the names after marriage were
carried out, identification of the individuals (parties to the
cases) was negated by High Court Legal Services Committee
on the earlier occasion.
JAK, J
SA_534 & 955_2007
12. It is submitted that I.A.No.5 of 2025 is filed seeking
amendment to the cause title and requested the Court to refer
the matter to High Court Legal Services Committee for
identification of parties, along with their aadhar cards, as
their names were changed after marriage. This Court, after
perusing the contents of I.A.No.5 of 2025 and order dated
17.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2025, requested the High
Court Legal Services Committee to verify the documents and
identify the five individuals (parties to the cases).
13. Administrative Officer, Telangana State Legal Services
Authority, submitted the report on 24.11.2025, the contents
of the report are as follows:
"It is respectfully submitted that Sri Kiran Reddy
Mallarapu, Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants and Sri
Md. Haneef Farhan, Counsel for the Respondents, have
appeared before me today 1.e., on 24-11-2025, in
obedience to the orders dated 24-11-2025 of the Hon'ble
High Court for the State of Telangana, along with their
respective parties who are being identified by them, in
continuation of the earlier report dated 17-07-2025.
It is further submitted that I have gone through the
Order dated 24-11-2025 of the Hon'ble High Court
wherein, the Hon'ble High Court permitted to amend the
cause title and directed the Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Committee to submit a report after identifying the
parties along with their identity cards, of the five persons.
It is respectfully submitted that previously on 17-07-
2025, the Petitioner/Appellant No.2 - Kumari Shashikala,
JAK, J
SA_534 & 955_2007
Petitioner/Appellant No.3 - Kumari Sujana, Petitioner/
Appellant No.9 - Chevalla Rukkamma, Petitioner/
Appellant No.10 - Kamsamma could not be identified as
their names were not tallied with their Aadhar Cards and
accordingly this office has submitted the report upon
which petitions for amendment of Cause Title and
permission of the Hon'ble High Court were filed and as per
the orders therein the Hon'ble High Court permitted to
amend the cause title in respect of the above
Petitioners/Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 9 & 10 as well as
Petitioner/Appellant No.4 - Venkatesha, though he was
identified earlier. In the light of the said orders of the
Hon'ble High Court, the above Petitioners/Appellant Nos.
2, 3, 9 & 10 as well as Petitioner/Appellant No.4 are
present and accordingly I have verified the particulars with
their names i.e. Kumari Shashikala @ Peddapuram
Sumitra, Kumari Sujana @ Katne Sujatha, Chevella
Rukkamma @ Kammeta Rukkamma and Kamsamma @
Nagulapalli Shankaramma as well as Venkatesh @
Puppalagudem Venkatesh, respectively and their
identification is established. Copies of their Aadhar Cards,
which are endorsed by the counsel and the same are
enclosed herewith. The copy of the Identity Cards of the
counsel are also enclosed herewith."
14. In view of the affidavit filed, compromise deed dated
28.02.2025 filed along with I.A.No.4 of 2025 and the report
dated 24.11.2025 of the High Court Legal Services Committee
for the State of Telangana, that identification of the parties is
carried out, the statement made across the Bar by both the
counsels that the matter is compromised, this Court is of the
opinion that no further orders need to be passed in these
matters.
JAK, J
SA_534 & 955_2007
15. For reasons aforesaid, I.A.No.4 of 2025 is ordered and
S.A.No.534 of 2007 is closed in terms of the compromise
entered. In view of the orders in S.A.No.534 of 2007,
S.A.No.955 of 2007 also stands closed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 25.11.2025
KRR
JAK, J
SA_534 & 955_2007
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
in/and
SECOND APPEAL No.534 of 2007 and
Date: 25.11.2025
KRR
