Telangana High Court
CRP/4609/2025 of Belde Anil Kumar Vs M. Geetha Rani on 6 February 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 4609 0F 2025 Petition under Ariicre 22T of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dald 1644-2025
[ 31681
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAO
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4609 0F 2025
Petition under Ariicre 22T of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dald 1644-2025 passed in LA.No.19o of 2021 in o.s.No.439 ot 2021 on the fite of the court of the Principal senior civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.
Between:
1. Belde Anil Kumar, S/o B. Galalah, age 32 years, Occ. private Service, R/o
- FIat No. 303, Snigdha Residency, Lothkunta, Alwal, Secunderabad.
2. David Asheesh Kumar, S/o David Vinay Kumar, age 40 years, Occ. private Service, PJo 3-15-665/1, Tirumalagiri, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad.
3. Smt. D. Saritha, W/o David Asheesh Kumar, age 39 years, Occ. private Service, R/o 3-15-66s/1, Tirumalagiri, Lal Bazar, SicunOeialaO.
4. Mamidi Sai Nihar Reddy, S/o Mamidi Vigneshwar Reddy, age 30 years, Occ.
Sofhrare Emptoyee, R/o 13-38, Lothkunta, Tiruma-lagiri, - Bolarum, Secunderabad.
5. Bethini Hari Krishna, S/o Satyanarayana, age 3g years, occ. private service,
- Yo 7_-8, Kakarlapalty, Sathupally, Khammam.
r
6. Smt.Bhulakshmi, Wo Mailikharjuna Reddy, age 37 yehs!.JDcc. Housewife, No 3-22, Gogulapadu, Gurazala, Guntur Diskict.
7. Madddukuri Vinay Kumar, S/o Maddhukuri prakash Rao, age 42 years, Occ.
Private Service, R/o 1-20-35/T1, Ramachandraiah Cobn!, Ven'katapuram, Secunderabad.
8. Smt.Sankranti Narmada, W/o Sri.sankranti Narmada, age 32 years, Occ.
Business, Rlo 2-97 , Kotha Chilkuru, Bodrawi Bazar, Nalgonda.
9. Smt.D. Sumathi Murati, W/o DEM. Murali, age 57 years, Occ. Government Employee, R/o 1-25t36, Venkataramana Enclave, Gollaguda, Alwal, Secunderabad.
10. Rahaiah Uppula, S/o Veeramallu, age 39 years, Occ. Ex-Serviceman, iVo 3- 6, Madaka Village, Odeta Mandat, peddapaili Diskict.
...petitioners/Respondents/Defendant,12-14
and l6_19 to 23
AND
1. M. Geetha Rani, Wo Late M. V Krishnaiah, age 49 years, Occ. Teacher, Rl/o Plot No. 359, padmavati Residency, Oefen& Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad.
2 M Naga Sowmya, D/o.Late M. V. Krishnaiah, aged 27 years, Occ. Student, R/o Unit No. 6/645, Wonderland Road, South-London, Ontario, Cr;;;;:
represented by SpA holder and mother Smt. M. Geetha nani, nesponOeni No 1.
3. M. Ramya Sai, D/o Late M. V. Krishnaiah, aged 25 years, Occ. Student, R/o Ptot No. 359, padmavati Residence, "Defence Cotony, S;initpu;i Secunderabad.
...Respondents/petitioners/plainti,ffs'
4 9.! N. Anupama, Wo Sayanna Goud, aged 57 years, Occ. Household, R/o 14-22, Lothkunta, Alwal, Secunderabad.
5. N. Sayanna Goud, S/o Balraj Aiah, aged 60 years, Occ_ Business, No 14-22, - Lothkunta, Alwal, Medchat_Malkajgiri bistrict.'
6. Sri Nemuri Dayanand Go:gr-g{9-Lite Batarajaiah, aged about 58 years, Occ.
Business, Rl/o H.No. 6_3-s96t2312, Ftat No. t oz,'uanataxmi Aprrtrents, Venkata Ramana Colony, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.
7. Smt. N Vdya, W/o Ne^r1u1^!"yrnind Coro, ,S"o about 50 years, Occ.
Housewife, R/o H.No. 6_3 Sg6/23t2, Flat No. tOi, trlanataxmi Apartmenis, ^
Ventataramana Colony, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.
S Sri Nemuri Laxminarayana, Sio Late .iararajaiin, ageo about 60 years, occ.
Business, R/o H.No. 1-14-29, Lothkunta, frimufjneiry post, Secunderabad _
500015.
9. Smt. N. Sarala, Wo Sri_Nemuri Laxminarayana, aged about 50 years, Occ.
Housewife, R.io H.No. 1-14_Zg, Lothkunta, fiimutgnJrry post, Secunderabad _
500015.
10 M/s chinagoni conskuctions, represented by its partner sri ch. Kishtaiah, S/o Late Mallaiah, aged about 70 years, Occ 'euiiness, R/o 33/3, Saraswathi Nagar Colony, Lothkunta, Secunderabad _ 500015
1 1 M/s sri Dharani constructions Rep by its Managing Director Maram Reddy Ravindra Reddy, Sio Sri ^T-hirupathaiih, aged ioJrt ac years, Occ. pvt.
Employee, R/o H.No. 24-360/1/53, Akash R-esrderrcy, Sn Sai Nrgai Cofony, Lothkunta, Secunderabad
12. The Greater Hyderabad ,Municipal Corporation, represented by its Deputy commissioner, Arwar circre, Markajgiri, Medchar-Marlajgiri Districi, i"r""g!"; State.
13 Sub-Registrar office, Valabhnagar, Medchar-Markajgiri District, Terangana State
14. Sri Viv-endra Dabilipuram, S/o Sri D Madhava Rao, aged about 29 years, !c9 Sgftrvare Emptoyee, R/o H.No. 1_25-25, ilenrat Rama Enclave, Gollaguda, Subashnagar, Secunderabad
15. M/s. Tanishqlmplex pvt Ltd, having its office at ptot No 7, Soujanya Clony, New owenpally Secunderabad-sO0O11, RepresenieO By its authorized representative Sr.pranav Aggarwal S/o. Rajnish Agarwal.
16. Sr l\i{atlikharjuna Reddy urlllo namarriJ;; fi;ft ased about 36 years occupation government employee R/o H. No 3_22, GogllapaOu , CuiJa, Guntur District, Andhra pradesh 522415.
_
...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants .l-11 and 1S & ig Respondent No.4 to 16 not necessary party i;ihe petition lA NO: I OF 2025
Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the .affidavit fired in support of the peiition, tne Hign court may ue pteaieoio :!L lllyfh,"r.proceedings in O.S.No 439 ot 2021 on the fite of tne principal senror Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K. Mohan Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER
tl
Between
Belde Anil Kumar and others
M. Geetha Rani and others
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRTJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4609 OF 202s
Date:06.02.2026
........Petitioners
and
.......respondents
This Court passed the following
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
Heard Sri K.Mohan, leamed counsel for the petitioners In compliance with the order dated 19.12.2025,leamed counsel for the petitioners filed proof of service vide memo USR No.6207 of 2026 dated 21.01.2026 along with postal covers retumed unserved with an endorsement 'unclaimed'. However, in respect ol the [eamed counsel appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 belole the trial Court, he has filed proof. Unclaimed amounts to service. Despite service of notice on the leamed counsel appearing for respondent Nos. I to 3 before the trial Court, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
2. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia challenging the order dated 16.04.2025 passed in I.A.No. 190 of
2021 in O.S.No.439 of 2O2l by the leamed principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.
3. The respondent Nos.r to 3/ptaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioners herein/defendanrs Nos. 12-14,16,17,r9 to 23 and respondents herein/Defendant Nosl_l I and l5 and lg, seeking:
i. Declaration of title ii' To declare the registered gift settlement deeds as null and void and to cancel the same,
iii. To declare the permit order dated O2.O2.2Olg as void and to cancel the same, and
iv. To grant mandatory injunction.
4. During pendency of the said suit, the plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.l90 of 2021 to impread the petitioners herein contending that they are the subsequent purchasers ofthe suit schedule property.
5. The petitioners herein fired counrer contending that the suit schedule property is nothing to do with rhe property purchased by them and both the properties are not the same. Even the boundaries and dimensions of the suit schedule property and the property purchased by them are not tallying, as such they are not the proper and necessary parties to the suit. They have specifically mentioned the boundaries, dimensions, extent etc., in the counter. They have also }tlEIEF'-- I J mentioned details of the sale deeds and filed certified copies of the same along with the counter. Without considering the said aspects, vide impugned order dated 16.04.2025, learned trial court allowed the said application. There is no consideration of the aforesaid aspects stated by the petitioners in the counter filed by them in I.A.No. 190 of 2021. Therefore, the impugned order is not on consideration of aforesaid aspects, the documents filed by the petitioners atong with the counter. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. In the light of .he aforesaid discussion, the present revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed in I.A.No. 190 ol 2021 in o.S.No.439 of 2o2r by the leamed principal Senior civir Judge, Medchat - Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court witrr a direction to dispose of I.A.No.r90 of 202r in o.S.No.439 of 2021 afresh considering the pleadings of the parties and also documents filed bv both ol them strictly in accordance with law. . As a sequel therelo, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these revisions shalI stand closed. sd/. M.OSMAN ALI BAIG AS STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, ECTION OFFICER
?.
Kam/B The Principal Senior Civit ,r1g::*gnl,-M€tkajgiri District ar Kushaiguda cL^,i+ri _nec.rl5) 9"u99ro Sri K Mohan, Advocate[Oeg6i- -,""'"'"'" Two CD Copies & A
\ HIGH COURT DATED:0610212026
ORDER
CRP.No.4609 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRP fr.dto F" ES 24 r[8 p^.7 t t- ftr..