* THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO % 21—08—2025 # Sri Lakkineni Ramesh … Appellant vs.

$ Sri Lakkineni Suryanarayana … Respondent !Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar ^ Counsel for Respondent: Sri Vivek Jain

>Head Note :

? Cases referred:

1. (2020) 19 SCC 57 = 2020 SCC Online SC 676

2. (2024) SCC Online SC 4589

3. AIR 1995 Bom 113

4. 2024 SCC Online SC 3849

5. (1998) 1 SCC 614 6. ILR 2009 Kar 4523

7. 1991 1 Gauhati Law Reports 244

8. (2019) 7 SCC 76 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

A.S.No.146 OF 2020 Between:

Sri Lakkineni Ramesh … Appellant And Sri Lakkineni Suryanarayana … Respondent JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 21.08.2025 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

1. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No _____________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.28 of 2010, dated 17.12.2019 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Khammam.

2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant.

3. Plaintiff has filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession under Section 5 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. The prayers in the plaint are a) the plaintiff be declared as owner of the suit schedule property b) the defendant be directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff c) if the defendant fails to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to evict the defendant and put the plaintiff in vacant possession of the suit schedule property d) costs of the suit may be awarded e) any other relief or reliefs for which the plaintiff is entitle to and the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances.

4. The suit schedule property is dry land admeasuring Acs.06-32 gts in Sy.No.144/AA of Laxmipuram Revenue Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District with the boundaries as East: land of Lakkineni Satish Kumar, West: land of Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao and brothers, North: Nagarjun Sagar Main Canal, South: land of Lakkineni Rambhadraiah.

5.1. The plaintiff, Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao and Late Lakkineni Satyanarayana Das are the three sons of Late Lakkineni Pullaiah and Late Lakkineni Ademma. Lakkineni Pullaiah died in the year 1968 and Lakkineni Ademma predeceased Pullaiah in the year 1967. Lakkineni Satyanarayana Das died in the year 1985. The defendant is the elder son and one Lakkineni Srikaran Pavan Kumar is the younger son of Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao.

5.2. The family of the plaintiff was owning lands and other properties at Kalluru and Laxmipuram Village of Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District. After the death of Lakkineni Pullaiah and Lakkineni Ademma, the lands at Kalluru Village were partitioned on 07.02.1971 and the lands at Laxmipuram Village were partitioned on 20.07.1989. Dry lands admeasuring Ac.06-32 gts in Sy.No.144/AA and Ac.3-37 gts in Sy.No.145/AA of Laxmipuram Revenue Village fell to the share of the plaintiff, necessary mutation has taken place in the Revenue Records with regard to the above said lands and ROR Title Deed and ROR Pattadar Passbooks were issued. The suit land is of Laxmipuram Revenue Village. The plaintiff by virtue of his employment was residing away from Laxmipuram and Kalluru Village, his elder brother by name Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao was managing the suit schedule property on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant being the elder son of Lakkineni Venkateswar Rao was assisting his father and managing the property on behalf of the plaintiff and they never had rights over the same. Due to the advancing age