Telangana High Court
CRP/4480/2025 of Smt Kavitha Krishna Raj Vs Smt Vunnava Vasundhara on 12 February 2026
tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4480 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the docket order
t
[ 3378 I
tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4480 OF 2025
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the docket order dated 01-07-2025 and 11-11-2025 in S.R.No.Z of 2025 in O.S.(S.R.)No.5111
of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad.
Between:
Smt Kavitha Krishna Raj, Wo Sri A R Krishna Raj, Agpd about 56 years, Occ:
Counsellor, H No.52-8, Sebastian Road, Secunderabad - 500003
...Petitioner/Plai ntiff
AND
1. Smt Vunnava Vasundhara, Wo Sri Vunnava Venkata Ramana, D/o Late K.Narayana Rao, Aged about. 59 years, occ. House wife, H No. 7-2- 20112021201, Flat No 201, Rajeswari Towers, Padmasree Hills, Sun City, Bandlaguda Jagir, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy Dist-500086.
2. Smt Vunnava Vijaya Lakshmi, Wo Sri Vunnava Vasudeva Prasad D/o Late K.Narayana Rao, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Home Maker, H.No.12-2- 505/506, Ftat No 508 Vijaya Sree Apts, Gudi Malkapur Behind Food World, t\Iehdipatnam Hyderabad-500 028.
3. Smt Vunnava Anuradha, Wo Sri.V.Vijaya Saradhi D/o Late K.Narayana Rao Aged about 54 years, Occ. Not Known H.No.16-1 1477, Flat No 202 Block B, Yadagiri Apa rtments Dilsukh naga r, Hyderabad-500060
4. Sri XoOati Sasyasham, S/o Sri K Kutumba Rao, Aged about 60 years, Occ:
Director Kodali Constructions Plot No.1, Balaji Enclave, Manovikas Nagar, Near Diamond Point, Transport Road, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad-S00 009.
5. Sri Guha Rakesh Reddy, S/o Sri Gudimetla Surya Narayana Reddy, Aged about. 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.14-14, Madhusudhan Nagar, Near Vijay Mary School, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad - 500047
... Respo ndents/Defen da nts
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in ttre circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may b'e pleased to direct the Principal Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, Telangana to register the suit OS.SR No.5111 of 2024, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G. Purushotham Rao Gounsel for tltre Respondent No.2: Mr. Peri Prabhakar Counsel forthe Respondent No 1 & 3: Mr. Vadeendra Joshi The Court made the following: ORDER
{:
IIT THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAITGANA
AT I{YDERABAD
THE HoNoURABLE sRI JUSTIcE P. sAM IIosHY
Qivil Revision Petition No.448O of 2o.25, Date of order : 12.O2.2O?6
BETWEEN
Smt. Kavitha Krishna Raj, W/o.Sri A.R.Krishna Raj Petitioner
and
Smt. Vunnava Vasundhara,
W/o.Sri Vunnava Venkata Ramana
and others
.. Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated o1.o7.2o25 and 1 1.1 1 .2o2s in s.R.No.2 of 2o2s in o.s.(s.R.) No.5111 of 2024 passed by the principal senior civil Judge, city civil court, at Secunderabad (for short, the *impugned order"f .
2. Heard Mr. G. Purushotham Rao, rearned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for respondent a
No.2; and Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.3
3. Fronr a perusal of the pleadings, it is evidently clear that petitioner on an earlier occasion had filed suit, viz., O.S.No-301 of 2OO2 seel<ing for perpetuat injunction in respect of the suit schedule propert5r . Vide common order dated 1 1.05.2006, the Trial Court all,owed the said suit in favour of petitioner herein and rejected the other suit, viz., o.S.No.333 of 2OO4. The said common order was subjected to challenge before this High Court, vide CCCI\.Nos.146 and L47 of 2006. Both the said appeals carne up for heering before a learned Single Judge of this Court and vide order dated 08.06.2016, the said appeals stood allowed reversing the common order passed by the Trial Court. The said order was further c,hallenged before the Honble Supreme Court vide sLP.No.2:i108 0f 2016 and sLP.No.22632 0f 2016. Both the said SLPs w€r,e finally stood rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide orde:r dated 08.1L.2O23. Against the said rejection of the SLPs by r-he Hon'lcle Supreme Court, a review petition was also preferred by the petitioner herein before the Honble Supreme Court; and vide ord.er dated 01.0L.2O24, the said review petition was also <lisrnissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. . Now, the petitioner has approached the Triat court by filing i,... ';....1......-. a separate suit seeking for decraration of title on the basis of an adverse possession.
5. At t.l.e outset, tl..is court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial court does not warrant interference by this Court for the simple reason that the petitioner herein cannot be now permitted to take an entirely contrar5r stand of seeking declaration of tifle by virtue of adverse possession that is claimed by the petitioner of a property of which till recently the petitioner was claiming her nght over the said property by virtue of a registered sale Deed which said to be in her favour. once the petitioner claims title over the property by virtue of being a purchaser of the said property, she would be estopped from raising claim over the sarne subject property on the basis of adverse possession.
6. Therefore, in the said circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Trial court in passing the impugned order cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the civil Revision petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. \ \
As a consequence, miscellaleous petitions pending, if a1y, shall stancl closed.
7. /,TRUE COPY'/ SD/. M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TION OFFICER To,
1. The Prirrcipal Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at nderabad
2. One CC to Mr. G. Purushotham Rao Advocate 3 One C() to Mr. Peri Prabhakar Advocate [OPUCJ
4. One CC) to Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two C[l Copies Kanti'l)S[, {.Dro ) <v'
{ ,i I HIGH COURT DATED i1210212026
ORDER
CRP.Na.4480 of 2025 DISMISISING THE CRP DA a{s %l*l Ti{E S rI g t1li8 2il?6 () * *