Back
APHC010270672024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1372/2024 Between:
1. G OOTY SHARFUDDIN, S/O LATE SHAIK BA AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC.
EMPLOYEE, R/O 76-97-4, SAMPATH NAGAR, KUMOOL KUMOOL DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DUBAI REP BY HIS GPA GOOTY JEELAN KHAN S/O GOOTY SHAIK BA AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O NEHA NAGAR, GOOTY, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT
2. M AQBOOL BASHA, S/O ABDUL WAHAB, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC.
REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 76-97-35-3, WEAKER SECTION COLONY, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. MD IBRAHIM, SINCE DEAD REP BY LRS R9 TO R13
2. NOOR AHMED, S/O SHAIK FARCED, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC.REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 77-386, KALLUR, KUMOOL DISTRICT
3. S K MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O SHAIK FAREED, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 18-198-2-1, KALLUR VILLAGE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
4. IQBAL BASHA, S/O ABDUL WAHAB, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 41-473-6, KOTHAPETA, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
5. MAQBOOL BASHA, S/O ABDUL WAHAB, AGE.32 YEARS, OCC.
REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 76-97-35-3, WEAKER SECTION COLONY, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
6. SHAIK HABEEB BASHA, S/O LATE SHAIKSHA VALI, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 46-86-5F, BHUDAWARPETA, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
7. CHINNA MOULALI, S/O P.PEDDA MOULALI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC.
REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 3-10, KRISHNAGIRI VILLAGE, KURNOOL DISTRICT
8. RAMA NAIDU, S/O BAZARANNA, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 76-111-4-LB, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
9. MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O IBRAHIM, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
10. S PERVEEN BANU, D/O IBRAHIM, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
11. S NASEEMA BANU, D/O IBRAHIM, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
12. S FATIMA BANU, D/O IBRAHIM, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
13. S REHANA BANU, D/O IBRAHIM, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Orders dt. 10.05.2024 passed in IA.No.97 of 2024 in OS.No.121 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of Judge, Family Court Cum IV Additional District and Sessions Judge. Kurnool IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS.No. 121 of 2014 on the file of the Hon‘ble Court of Judge, Family Court Cum IV Additional District &
Sessions Judge: Kumool pending Revision in this Court and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to extend the Interim Orders dt.02.08.2024 passed in lA.No.1 of 2024 in CRP.No.1372 of 2024 on the file of this Hon‘ble Court, pending disposal of the Civil Revision and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA
2.
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1965/2024 Between:
1. G OOTY SHARFUDDIN, S/O LATE SHAIK BA AGE-52 YEARS, OCC-
EMPLOYEE, R/O 76-97-4, SAMPATH NAGAR, KURNOOL KURNOOL DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DUBAI REP BY HIS GPA
2. G OOTY JEELAN KHAN, S/O GOOTY SHAIK BA AGE-65 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O NEHA NAGAR, GOOTY, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. MD IBRAHIM, SINCE DEAD REP BY LRS R9 TO R13
2. NOOR AHMED, S/O SHAIK FAREED, AGE-60 YEARS, OCC-REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 77-386, KALLUR, KUMOOL DISTRICT
3. S K MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O SHAIK FAREED, AGE- 48 YEARS, OCC-REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 18-198-2-1, KALLUR VILLAGE, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT
4. IQBAL BASHA, S/O ABDUL WAHAB, AGE- 32 YEARS, OCC-REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 41-473-6, KOTHAPETA, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
5. MAQBOOL BASHA, S/O ABDUL WAHAB, AGE- 32 YEARS, OCC-
REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 76-97-35-3, WEAKER SECTION COLONY, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
6. SHAIK HABEEB BASHA, S/O LATE SHAIKSHA VALI, AGE- 39 YEARS, OCC- REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 46-86-5F, BHUDAWARPETA, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
7. CHINNA MOULALI, S/O P.PEDDA MOULALI, AGE-45 YEARS, OCC-
REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 3-10, KRISHNAGIRI VILLAGE, KUMOOL DISTRICT
8. RAMA NAIDU, S/O BAZARANNA, AGE-39 YEARS, OCC- REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 76-111-4-LB, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT
9. MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O IBRAHIM, AGE- 49 YEARS, OCC- REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
10. S PERVEEN BANU, D/O IBRAHIM, AGE-48 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT
11. S NASEEMA BANU, D/O IBRAHIM, AGE-32 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
12. S FATIMA BANU, D/O IBRAHIM, AGE-28 YEARS, OCC-HOUSE WIFE, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
13. S REHANA BANU, D/O IBRAHIM, AGE-26 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tobegs to submit the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Docket Orders dt. 10.05.2024 passed in IA.No.95 of 2024 in OS.No. 121 of 2014 on the file of the Honble Court of Judge, Family Court Cum IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA
2.
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1964/2024 Between:
1. G OOTY SHARFUDDIN, S/O LATE SHAIK BA AGE- 52 YEARS, OCC-
EMPLOYEE, R/O 76-97-4, SAMPATH NAGAR, KURNOOL KURNOOL DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DUBAI REP BY HIS GPA GOOTY JEELAN KHAN S/O GOOTY SHAIK AGE 65 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O NEHA NAGAR, GOOTY, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND
1. MD IBRAHIM, SINCE DEAD REP BY LRS R9 TO R13
2. NOOR AHMED, S/O SHAIK FAREED, AGE-60 YEARS, OCC- REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 77-386, KALLUR, KUMOOL DISTRICT
3. S K MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O SHAIK FAREED, AGE-48 YEARS, OCC-REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 18-198-2-1, KALLUR VILLAGE, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT
4. IQBAL BASHA, S/O ABDUL WAHAB, AGE-32 YEARS, OCC-REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 41-473-6, KOTHAPETA, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
5. MAQBOOL BASHA, S/O ABDUL WAHAB, AGE-32 YEARS, OCC-
REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 76-97-35-3, WEAKER SECTION COLONY, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT
6. SHAIK HABEEB BASHA, S/O LATE SHAIKSHA VALI, AGE 39 YEARS, OCC REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 46-86-5F, BHUDAWARPETA, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT
7. CHINNA MOULALI, S/O P.PEDDA MOULALI, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 3-10, KRISHNAGIRI VILLAGE, KUMOOL DISTRICT
8. RAMA NAIDU, S/O BAZARANNA, AGE 39 YEARS, OCC REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 76-111-4-LB, BELLARY CHOWRASTHA, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT
9. MAHABOOB BASHA, S/O IBRAHIM, AGE 49 YEARS, OCC REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT
10. S PERVEEN BANU, D/O IBRAHIM, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT
11. S NASEEMA BANU, D/O IBRAHIM, AGE 32 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT
12. S FATIMA BANU, D/O IBRAHIM, AGE 28 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT
13. S REHANA BANU, D/O IBRAHIM, AGE 26 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O 11-74, OSMANIA COLLEGE ROAD, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tobegs to submit the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Docket Orders dt. 10.05.2024 passed in IA.No.96 of 2024 in OS.No. 121 of 2014 on the file of the Honble Court of Judge, IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,Kumool Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA
2.
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
All these civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/plaintiff who is represented by his GPA holder, aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Judge, Family Court – cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool in three applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.121 of 2014. As such, I feel it appropriate to decide these revision petitions by way of a common order.
2. C.R.P.No.1372 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the order dated 10.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.97 of 2024 in O.S.No.121 of 2014 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, whereby the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‗CPC‘), to receive certain documents as evidence. Along with the said application, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.95 of 2024 (under Section 151 of CPC) and I.A.No.96 of 2024 (under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC) in O.S.No.121 of 2014, to reopen the evidence and to recall the petitioner/plaintiff which were also dismissed vide two separate docket orders dated 10.05.2024. Challenging the docket orders passed by the Court below in I.A.No.95 of 2024 and I.A.No.96 of 2024, the petitioner/plaintiff filed C.R.P.No.1965 of 2024 and C.R.P.No.1964 of 2024, respectively.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the revision will hereinafter be referred as plaintiff and defendants, as arrayed before the Trial Court in the suit.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
(a) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule BCDE house site in Sy.No.91 part, 92/2 and 109/3 of Kallur village having purchased from one N. Gururaja Rao on 23.02.2006 vide document No.2494/2006 and has been in possession of the same ever since. The plaintiff is an engineer at Dubai and thus, he is being represented by his General Power of Attorney, who is the brother of the plaintiff.
(b) Originally, the land to an extent of Acs.1.15 cents in Sy.No.91 of Kallur village belongs to one Nukala Subbarayudu who, in the year 1952, sold the same to Sampati Sanjeeva Reddy vide document No.182/1952, having enjoyed the same till 12.07.1966, Sampati Sanjeeva Reddy sold the same to one Smt. Hemalatha vide document No.1981/1966. The said Hemalatha, purchased another land in Sy.No.92/2 and 109/3 of Kallur village and collectively, she laid plots in the aforesaid lands and got it approved vide L.P.No.247/1981. Thereafter, the said Hemalatha sold plots of various extents in Sy.Nos.91, 92/2 and 109/3. Accordingly, the land admeasuring Acs.1.00 cents out of Acs.1.15 cents in Sy.No.91 was sold to one Smt. Lavanya on 22.01.1997 and having enjoyed the possession of the same, Smt. Lavanya, on 11.06.1999 sold the house site to an extent of Acs.0.35 cents in Sy.No.91 part, Sy.No.92/2 and Sy.No.109/3 to one N. Gururaja Rao vide document No.3437/1999. Subsequently, the said property belonging to N. Gururaja Rao, shown as BCDE, was purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 23.02.2006 under document No.2494/2006.
(c) While so, in the month of September, 2014, the agent of the plaintiff, on receipt of information that the defendants are trying to sell the subject BCDE house site as if it is their property, approached the defendants and submitted all the relevant documents to satisfy them. In spite of the same, as the defendants tried to trespass into the plaint schedule house site, the agent of the plaintiff questioned their right over the said property, upon which, the defendants stated that they purchased the land in Sy.No.91 of Kallur village from their vendor. Subsequently, when the agent of the plaintiff enquired in the regional Sub-Registrar‘s office, he came to know that the defendant Nos.1 to 5, having colluded with defendant Nos.6 and 7, fabricated the sale deed dated 01.08.2014 averrin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
