*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND *THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY + City Civil Court Appeal No.49 of 2022 Between:

The State of Telangana and others … Appellants AND M/s.Shantha Sriram Constructions Pvt.Ltd … Respondent JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 07.10.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may : Yes/No be allowed to see the Judgment ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No to Law Reports/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship wish to see : Yes/No the fair copy of judgment _____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J _______________________________ VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY City Civil Court Appeal No.49 of 2022 % 07.10.2025 Between :

# The State of Telangana and others … Appellants AND M/s.Shantha Sriram Constructions Pvt.Ltd … Respondent ! Counsel for the Appellants : Advocate General for the State of Telangana ^ Counsel for Respondent : Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood < GIST :

> HEAD NOTE : ? Cases referred :

1. 2006 (5) SCC 353 2. 1995 (1) SCC 198

3. 2019 SCC Online SC 1313

4. 2015 SCC Online C 751

5. (2005) 6 SCC 614 6. (2006) 5 SCC 638

7. (2019) 10 SCC 226. 8. (2020) 16 SCC 601

9. 2025 (4) ALT 35 (SC)

10. (2020) SCC OnLine SC 563

11. (2017) 13 SCC 174

12. (1986) Supp SCC 315

13. (2004) 3 SCC 137 14. (2003) 8 SCC 745

15. (2017) 13 SCC 174

16. (1977) 4 SCC 467

17. 2021 SCC Online SC 764 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.49 of 2022 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant/respondent/plaintiffs against the Order and Decree dated 19.04.2022 passed in I.A.No.306 of 2022 in O.S.No.55 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant was rejected on the application filed by the defendant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The plaintiffs filed suit vide O.S.No.55 of 2021 seeking declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Ac.40.00 guntas in GLR Sy.No.243 situated in Cantonment Area, Secunderabad against the sole defendant in pursuance of the liberty granted in W.A. No.150/2021 and directions issued by this Court, as well as earlier proceedings including W.P. No.5049/2016. The dispute pertains to property held for over 75 years, with both sides submitting substantial documentary records and referencing specific Court orders and dates for previous proceedings. The parties have approached the Court seeking adjudication of title, possession, and compliance with legal and procedural directions.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed a petition vide I.A.No.306 of 2022 in O.S.No.55 of 2021 for rejection of the plaint by invoking Order VII Rule 11 read with Sections 35-A and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The brief averments of the affidavit filed in support of the said petition are as under:

a) The defendant asserts that their family acquired and possessed the disputed property peacefully for over 75 years, as reflected in the documents dated as far back as 1955 and subsequent years, with government registration and mutation records supporting their continuous title. The suit is filed based on an entry in the GLR only which was allegedly prepared in the year 1945 and the land claimed by the plaintiffs is shown as B2 land and as per the plaintiffs’ own contentions, B2 land covers private land also. The name of the predecessors-in-title was recorded in the revenue record prior to independence and after independence, the State itself prepared Sethwar in the year 1950 and Khasra Pahani in the year

1954-55 after survey, proper inquiry, which carries a presumption