IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.234 of 2024 Between:

M/s 22^nd Century Infrastructures & Projects Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad, reptd by Challagonda Ramesh Rao. … Petitioner And Mohd. Ismail Khan, S/o Late Mohd. Nazeer Khan and four others.

…Respondent JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 17.09.2025 HON’BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgment?

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

3. Whether her Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes/No _______________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.234 of 2024 % 17.09.2025 Between:

# M/s 22^nd Century Infrastructures & Projects Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad, reptd by Challagonda Ramesh Rao .... Petitioner And:

$ Mohd. Ismail Khan, S/o Late Mohd. Nazeer Khan and four others.

....Respondent < Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Y.Rama Rao, ^ Counsel for Respondent: Sri Deepak Mishra For Sri Safdar Mirza ? Cases Referred:

1. (2014) 10 SCC 459

2. (2024) SCC Online 3844

3. (2020) 7 SCC 366

4. (1998) 2 SCC 70

5. (2022)12 SCC 641 6. (2017) 13 SCC 174 7. (2020) 17 SCC 260

8. (2025) 5 SCC 198

9. (2002) 10 SCC 501

10. (2012) 1 SCC 656 11. (2011) 9 SCC 126 12. AIR 2000 SC 3146

13. 2021 SCC Online 1061

14. (2020) 7 SCC 366 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.234 of 2024

ORDER

The Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

23.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.429 of 2021 in OS.No.202 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, whereby and whereunder the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for revision petitioner, and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Sri Safdar Mirza, learned counsel-on-record for respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is endorsed in the affidavit that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are only proforma parties.

3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, respectively, in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The brief facts of the case, required for disposal of the present Revision Petition, are that plaintiffs filed the suit in OS.No.877 of 2020, which was subsequently re-numbered as OS.No.202 of 2022 against the defendants seeking to declare the registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.3806/2017, dated 10.05.2017, 2037/2013, dated 02.04.2013, 3147/2013 dated 09.07.2013 and 47/2015, dated 05.11.2014, executed in respect of suit ‘A’, ‘B’ ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties, respectively, as null and void and simultaneously, to deliver possession of the suit ‘A’ to ‘D’ schedule properties to the plaintiffs, by duly holding the plaintiffs to be owners of the said properties.

5. Pending adjudication of the suit, defendant No.1 filed an application in IA.No.429 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint. In the affidavit, filed in support of the said application, defendant No.1, represented by its authorized signatory, inter alia, averred that originally, Mohammed Gouse Ali Khan was the absolute owner and pattedar of a total extent of Acs.273-00 gts, which includes the suit ‘A’ to ‘D’ schedule properties; that he expired in the year 1959 and as such, the suit ‘A’ to ‘D’ schedule properties devolved upon on his wife-Hameed Khatoon by way of succession, vide Faisal Patti of the year 1960 and she continued as pattedar till 1971-1972; that these lands were under the possession of protected tenant by name Chand Khan; that after the death of the said Chand Khan, his son Osman Ali Khan continued to be in possession of the land in Sy.Nos.100, 149, 150 and 151, total admeasuring an extent of Acs.29.25gts; that the said Osman Ali Khan purchased the same from Hameed Khatoon vide registere