Mr.Deshpande Achyut Rao vs Sri.Ravinder Reddy
2026 Latest Caselaw 694 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mr.Deshpande Achyut Rao vs Sri.Ravinder Reddy on 13 April, 2026

Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy

Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                    AT HYDERABAD
        HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
                  CONTEMPT CASE No.673 OF 2024
                       DATE OF ORDER: 13.04.2026
Between:
Deshpande Achyut Rao
                                                                    ...Petitioner
                                     AND
Sri Ravinder Reddy
                                                                 ...Respondent
ORDER :

(ORAL)

This contempt case is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the wilful and

deliberate disobedience of the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by this Court in

W.P. No.32825 of 2023.

2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Anwar Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Mr. K.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.3 (in W.P. No.32825 of

2023) and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 placed on record the original

demand drafts drawn by respondent No.3 bearing Nos.001610 for an amount of

Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs only); 001651 for an amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only); and 001612 for an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only), payable to the petitioner, in compliance

of the interim order dated 31.12.2025 passed by this Court.

4. The petitioner-party-in-person, who was present in the Court, stated that

he is willing to receive Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty five lakhs only) and his

rights, whatsoever, over the property admeasuring 240 square yards in Survey

No.122, Thatti Annaram, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

will be relinquished by executing necessary document before the concerned Sub-

Registrar Office.

5. However, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that in the suit

vide O.S. No.430 of 2024 instituted by the sisters of the petitioner before the

learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short 'trial

Court'), the petitioner filed written statement claiming that he has half share

(½ share) i.e. 120 square yards out of the square yards admeasuring 240 square

yards. Thus, the petitioner has to execute relinquishment deed for his entire

½ share (120 square yards). Learned counsel has also furnished copy of the draft

relinquishment deed. It is submitted that the demand drafts may be handed over

to the petitioner only upon execution of the relinquishment deed and registration

thereof. Learned counsel further submitted that it would be difficult to get the

relinquishment deed executed if the money under the said demand drafts is

encashed by the petitioner.

6. In response, the petitioner submitted that the dispute regarding the

partition is pending before the trial Court. It is not certain whether the petitioner

will be allotted ½ share or 1/4th share. The property admittedly was purchased in

the name of mother of the petitioner and after her demise, the petitioner and

respondent No.3 and their two sisters are entitled for 1/4th share each being

class-1 legal heirs. Thus, the petitioner is ready to execute the relinquishment

deed only to an extent of 60 square yards or whatsoever share is allotted to him

by the trial Court.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that execution of

relinquishment deed will not prejudice the petitioner or respondent No.3 in as

much as the petitioner is giving up all his rights over the property admeasuring

240 square yards; thus, the petitioner without any objection has to execute the

relinquishment deed for ½ share as per the assertions in his written statement.

8. Draft copy of the relinquishment deed is handed over to the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

9. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that it would be

appropriate if the demand drafts are kept in the custody of the Registrar

Judicial-I, High Court for the State of Telangana. It may be noted that the

relinquishment deed can be executed by making slight modifications.

Alternatively, part compromise can be recorded under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) or the parties may also approach the Lok

Adalat to record settlement/compromise.

10. It appears that the petitioner apprehends that in the relinquishment deed, if

the extent of the land is mentioned as 120 square yards, it would amount to

admitting that he is receiving Rs.35,00,000/- in lieu of 120 square yards

i.e. ½ share. However, it is the opinion of respondent No.3 that relinquishment

deed has to be necessarily executed by the petitioner, as otherwise, he would

have tough time in contesting the suit before the trial Court.

11. It is made clear that the dispute herein will not have any bearing on the

suit proceedings as this Court is neither hearing the partition suit nor deciding

any property rights.

12. In view of the settlement between the parties, this contempt case is closed.

The petitioner is given liberty to approach this Court seeking for release of the

demand drafts subject to execution of the relinquishment deed/compromise/

settlement before the Lok Adalat; the demand drafts will be released upon

recording full satisfaction of respondent No.3. There shall be no order as to

costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the

contempt case, stand closed.

_______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J April 13, 2026 RRK