Telangana High Court
R.Srujan Kumar Reddy vs R.Kala Bai on 9 September, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1442 and 1422 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1442 and 1422 of 2024 are filed
challenging the common order dated 19.03.2024 passed in
I.A.Nos.2527 of 2022 and 3884 of 2023 in ASSR.No.14339 of
2022, respectively, on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2. Since the issues involved in both the Revisions are
interconnected and their outcome is interdependent, both the
Revisions are heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
3. Heard Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, learned counsel for the
petitioners. No representation on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 13
despite service of notice, therefore, the matter is adjudicated basing
on the material available on record.
4. The revision petitioners herein are appellant Nos.1 to 5 in the
appeal before the lower appellate Court and third parties to the suit
LNA,J
CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024
in OS.No.1604 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Respondent No.1 herein is
respondent No.1 in the appeal, and plaintiff in the suit, and
Respondent Nos.2 to 13 herein are respondents in the Appeal and
defendants in the Suit.
5. The facts of the case, in brief, required for adjudication of
the present Revision Petitions, are that the appellants, who were
not parties to the original suit, filed an appeal before the First
Appellate Court, along with two applications, viz., one seeking
leave to file appeal and another to condone delay in filing the
Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2007 passed
in O.S.No.1604 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
6. The case of appellant Nos.1 to 5 is that they are absolute
owners and possessors of the suit schedule property, having
purchased the same from one Naveen Reddy Valipireddy through a
registered sale deed bearing document No.4136 of 2022 dated
11.02.2022; that their vendor purchased the suit schedule property
from respondent Nos.2 to 7 represented by their Agreement of
LNA,J
CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024
Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney holders i.e., respondent
Nos.8 and 9, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.4367
of 2003, dated 30.06.2003. While so, when respondent Nos.1 and 3
to 7 attempted to trespass into the suit schedule property and
disturb the peaceful possession of the appellants, they lodged a
complaint with police, which was duly acknowledged on
27.09.2022.
7. The further case of the appellants is that on enquiry, they
came to know that respondent No.1, in collusion with respondent
Nos.2 to 7 (defendants), instituted a suit in O.S.No.1604 of 2006
for partition and obtained fraudulent preliminary decree on
12.07.2007 and later, filed I.A.No.121 of 2009 for passing a final
decree, which was allowed on 26.07.2022. That immediately, the
appellants filed O.S.No.550 of 2022 on the file of I Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for
declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit
schedule property, which is the subject matter of suit-OS.No.1604
of 2006, and the said suit is pending. That apart, the appellants also
filed an application vide I.A.No.3884 of 2023 seeking leave to file
LNA,J
CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024
an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2007 passed
in O.S.No.1604 of 2006, along with an application vide
I.A.No.2527 of 2022 to condone the delay in filing the Appeal.
8. Opposing the aforesaid applications, respondent No.1 filed
counter, wherein it is inter alia averred that the suit schedule
property is the ancestral property of Sheethal Singh; that
respondent Nos.1 to 7 are legal heirs of Sheethal Singh and as
such, they have equal right in the suit schedule property. It was
further averred that the vendors of the appellants have no valid title
to pass on to the appellants. Respondent No.1 further denied the
averment of appellants that the decree was fraudulently obtained in
OS.No.1604 of 2006 and in fact, decree was passed in the said suit
after it was contested for more than 15 years.
9. Respondent No.1 has specifically averred that she is the
absolute owner of her respective share of the suit schedule property
and has been in peaceful possession thereof since the date of
delivery of possession. She further averred that the Appeal is filed
by the appellants only to defeat, overreach and obstruct the final
decree order passed in OS.No.1604 of 2006.
LNA,J
CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024
10. The lower appellate Court, considering the pleadings put
forth by both the parties and on hearing the learned counsel
appearing for them, passed the impugned order, dismissing the
Appeal. In the impugned order, the First Appellate Court observed
as hereunder:-
"The appellants are third parties to the suit and they are
affected by the decree in O.S.No.1604 of 2006. However,
it is to be noted that the appellants have already filed
O.S.No.550 of 2022 against respondent Nos.1 to 12
seeking declaration of the title and perpetual of
injunction. The appellants are trying to prosecute
proceedings before two forums for the same relief. This
is not permissible under law. The Appellants had the
option of either filing an appeal against decree dated
16.04.2006 before this Court or filing a suit before the
trial Court for declaration, but the Appellants have
elected to file both the suit and an appeal before this
Court for the same remedy, which is an abuse of process
of law. Therefore, even though the Appellants are
affected parties, this abuse of the process of law cannot
be permitted."
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit-
OS.No.550 of 2022 was filed for declaration of title and perpetual
injunction, and that apart, as regards the decree passed in
LNA,J
CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024
O.S.No.1604 of 2006, the appellants are entitled to either seek
cancellation of the decree or prefer an appeal. The Appellants have
opted for the latter remedy being more efficacious and filed appeal
in ASSR.No.14339 of 2022. He further submitted that O.S.No.550
of 2022 and ASSR No.14339 of 2022 are filed for two distinct
reliefs, one to protect their ownership rights, and another to
challenge the decree which adversely affected their rights and
therefore, the question of availing only one remedy does not arise.
12. Learned counsel for appellants further submitted that the
vendors of the appellants have valid title; that the appellants are
bona fide purchasers of the suit schedule property and as such,
their rights are adversely affected by the judgment and decree
passed in OS.No.1604 of 2006, wherein their vendor was also not
made a party to the said suit and hence, the Appeal filed by the
appellants is maintainable.
13. Learned counsel for appellants further submitted that the sale
made by the joint owners, i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 7, represented
by their GPA holders-respondent Nos.8 and 9, in favour of the
vendor of the appellants is valid under law and hence, the
LNA,J
CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024
appellants are entitled to work out equities by seeking allotment of
the land sold to their vendor and protect their title and interest in
respect thereof. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent
Nos.2 to 7 herein remained ex-parte in the suit, which suggests that
the preliminary decree in O.S.No.1604 of 2006 is obtained
collusively and by playing fraud on the Court, without arraying the
appellants herein, much less, the vendor of the appellants as a party
to the said suit, admittedly, in whose favour respondent Nos.2 to 7
have executed registered sale deeds, through respondent Nos.8 and
9, who are their AGPA holders and as such, the said decree is
liable to be set aside and accordingly, prayed this Court to allow
the present Revisions.
14. Learned counsel for appellants, in support of his aforesaid
contentions, has relied upon the following judgements of the
Hon'ble Apex Court:-
(1) Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Others Vs Shrimant
Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsingh Maharaj Bhosle and
Others. 1
2024 SCC Online SC 3844
LNA,J
CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024
(2) State Bank of India, Settipalle branch, Tirupati rep. by its
Chief Manager Vs P. Veeranarayana.2
(3) My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Vs.
B.Mahesh and others. 3
(4) Sital Prashad vs. Kishorilal.4
15. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shri Mukund
Bhavan Trust's case (cited supra) is as regards the commencement
of period of limitation for filing a suit in respect of a registered
document.
16. The said judgment is neither relevant nor applicable to the
instant case, inasmuch the question of limitation is raised by
neither of the parties to the case.
17. In P.Veeranarayana's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court observed as hereunder:
"Generally speaking, the decree of the appellate court
supersedes the decree of the trial court even when it
confirms that decree and therefore it is well-settled that
2 2013 SCC Online AP 932
3 2022 SCC Online SC 1063
4 1967 SCC Online SC 262
LNA,J
CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024
only the appellate court can amend the decree thereafter.:
[see Muhammad Sulaiman Khan v. Muhammad Yar Khan,
(1888) ILR All 267 (FB)].
....... Further, it was observed in the last case that where
an appellate Court sets aside or varies a preliminary
decree it can, and indeed could, give direction for the
setting aside or varying of the final decree, if the existence
of the final decree is brought to its notice as in all cases it
ought to be."
18. The core issue before this Court in the present Revisions is
whether the appellants can be permitted to pursue two parallel
remedies, though for distinct reliefs, in respect of the same subject
property. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court is not relevant for deciding the said issue.
19. In My Palace Mutuallu Aided Co-operative Society's case
(cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the judiciary in
India possesses inherent power, specially, under Section 151 CPC,
to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on Court. In
the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court
may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside
the decree obtained by fraud..."
LNA,J
CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024
20. The case of the appellants is that respondent No.1 filed the
suit-OS.No.1604 of 2006 by colluding with respondent Nos.2 to 7
herein-defendants, who remained ex parte, and obtained fraudulent
preliminary decree, based on which, final decree was passed.
21. It is apt to note that in the said suit, there was neither
representation nor misrepresentation of the case on behalf of the
defendants before the trial Court, therefore, the question of playing
fraud on the trial Court for obtaining decree does not arise. Hence,
the aforesaid judgment does not come to aid of the appellants.
22. In Sital Prashad's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court observed as hereunder:
"There can, in our opinion, be no doubt that if in appeal,
the preliminary decree is reversed, the final decree must
fall to the ground for there is no preliminary decree
thereafter in support of it. It is not necessary in such a case
for the defendant to go to the court passing the final decree
and ask it to set aside the final decree. Even if the
defendant does not file an application to the court for
setting aside the final decree within three years because
the preliminary decree has been reversed, the decree-
holder cannot get the right to execute the final decree
which has no preliminary decree in support of it. If an
LNA,J
CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024
execution petition is made on such a final decree even
though more than three years after the decree in appeal
has been reversed, the defendant has simply to ask the
court, where the execution petition is made, to refuse to
execute the decree on the ground that the preliminary
decree in support of it has been set aside."
23. There is no quarrel with regard to the above proposition of
the Hon'ble Apex Court.
24. In the case on hand, the appellants sought leave to file
Appeal against the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court,
though final decree has been passed.
25. Respondent No.1 herein filed a suit vide O.S.No.1604 of
2006 against respondent Nos.2 to 9 herein for partition of the suit
schedule property and as the said respondents remained ex parte,
preliminary decree was passed on 12.07.2007. Respondent No.1
filed an application vide I.A.No.121 of 2009 to pass a final decree;
that an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court in
I.A.No.122 of 2009 to conduct survey and divide the schedule
property by metes and bounds as per the preliminary decree; that
the Advocate-Commissioner, accordingly, surveyed the suit
LNA,J
CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024
schedule property and divided the same into six (6) equal shares
and submitted a report to the trial Court on 22.07.2022.
26. The case of the appellants is that they came to know about
passing of the final decree in O.S.No.1604 of 2006 only on
03.11.2022 and immediately, they filed a suit vide O.S.No.550 of
2022 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy
District for declaration of title and consequential, relief of
perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and the
same is pending adjudication.
27. The Appellants also filed an appeal vide ASSR.No.14339
of 2022 seeking to set aside the preliminary decree passed in
OS.No.1604 of 2006 along with an application vide I.A.No.3884 of
2023 seeking leave to file such an Appeal and an application vide
I.A.No.2527 of 2022 to condone the delay in filing the Appeal.
28. Thus, from the above, it is evident that though
the suit-OS.No.550 of 2022 and the Appeal filed by the appellants
are in respect of the same schedule property, the reliefs sought for
in both the above proceedings are entirely distinct.
LNA,J
CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024
29. The First Appellate Court lost sight of the fact that even if
appellants succeed in the suit-OS.No.550 of 2022 filed by them,
thereby, declaring them as owners of the suit schedule property,
inasmuch as the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.1604 of 2006
would be staring at them, the decree passed in the suit-OS.No.550
of 2022 cannot be enforced and vice versa, and further, it would
lead to multiplicity of litigation.
30. The appellants are claiming to be in possession of Plot
Nos.11 and 12, which are part of suit schedule property in
O.S.No.1604 of 2006, as of now.
31. From the above analysis of the facts of the case, it is
discernible that the rights of the appellants in respect of the suit
schedule property are adversely affected by the decree passed in
OS.No.1604 of 2006 and further, in view of the fact that
respondent Nos.2 to 7 filed the said suit without making Naveen
Valipireddy, in whose favour they executed as many as seven sale
deeds, through their AGPA holders, as a party to the said suit and
also the fact of the defendants therein remaining ex parte, it
appears that the decree obtained in the said suit, as alleged by the
LNA,J
CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024
appellants, is a collusive one. Therefore, the appellants are entitled
to challenge the same by way of filing an Appeal.
32. The aforesaid view of this Court is fortified by a recent
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.Anjanappa and
others Vs. A.Prabhakar and others 5, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has summarized the principles governing the grant of leave
to appeal, which inter alia, includes that it is only where a
judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not a
party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of
the Court and a person aggrieved, to file an appeal, must be one
whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree
sought to be impugned.
33. The case of the appellants squarely falls under the aforesaid
principles and as such, they are entitled to file an Appeal against
the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.1604 of 2006
34. In view of the above discussion, in considered opinion of
this Court, the impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity,
2025 SCC Online SC 183
LNA,J
CRPNos.1442 & 1422 of 2024
which warrants interference by this Court and accordingly, the
same is liable to be set aside.
35. In the result, CRP.Nos.1442 of 2024 and 1422 of 2024 are
allowed and the common order dated 19.03.2024 passed in
I.A.Nos.2527 of 2022 and 3884 of 2023 in ASSR.No.14339 of
2022, respectively, on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, is set aside and consequently,
the applications-I.A.Nos.2527 of 2022 and 3884 of 2023 in
ASSR.No.14339 of 2022 stand allowed. However, it is made clear
that the First Appellate Court shall adjudicate and dispose of the
Appeal basing on merits of the case, uninfluenced by any of the
observations made by this Court in the present Order.
36. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. No costs.
_________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:09.09.2025
dr
