IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA APPEAL SUIT No.166 of 2019 THE 10^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 Between:

A. Anjaiah and another …Appellants/plaintiffs AND Smt. Padmavathamma and 12 others …Respondents/defendants

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri K. Ramachandra, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, Sri Chaitanya K, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, 7 to 12 and learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

Perused the record.

2. The Appeal Suit is preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Mahabubnagar (for short ‘the Trial Court’), in O.S.No.76 of 2014 dated 29.10.2018, wherein, said suit filed for declaration of suit land as belonging to Mahadeva Swamy temple, declaration of registered sale deed dated 19.03.2013 executed by respondent Nos.1 to 3/defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of respondent No.4/defendant No.4 as null and void and for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants from interfering with the suit land and for correction of entries in the revenue records, has been dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal are referred as they are referred before the Trial Court i.e. the appellants are referred as plaintiffs and respondent Nos.1 to 13 are referred as defendant Nos.1 to 13.

Facts of the case:

4. The plaintiffs filed suit under Section 92 of CPC claiming to be social workers and devotees of Mahadeva Swamy temple situated in land admeasuring Ac.0.22 Gts., in Sy.No.186 of Farooqnagar Village and Mandal and the suit land consists of Ac.0.04½ Gts. out of said land.

5. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Govinda Chary Guruvu has donated an extent of Ac.0.22 Gts., for construction of a temple and for usage of the land for religious purposes. In said property a temple was constructed. Further, there are some tombs, graves and Mutt belonging to the temple also existing in the said land. The plaintiffs are regular visitors to the temple and are religiously and sentimentally attached to said temple. The plaintiffs have learned that defendant Nos.1 to 3 on the strength of false mutation in their names in revenue records have sold the property in favor of defendant No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 19.03.2013 though they do not have any right or title over the property. The plaintiffs made enquiries about the issue and have learned that one Ramanna had initially made a representation to Maharaja Kishan Prashad Bahaddur alleging that one Raja Madan Gopal has made attempts to enter into property and consequently said Maharaja Kishan Prashad Bahaddur addressed a letter to Tahsildar, Farooqnagar to protect the temple land whereas the District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar failed to take steps for protection of the property. Instead, issued directions to Tahsildar to mutate the lands in the names of the sons of Ramanna i.e. Veerabhadram Chary, Manibushana Chary and Umapathi. Said individuals have taken advantage of the false mutation and further got the land admeasuring Ac.0.06 Gts.

mutated in the names of their wives i.e. defendant Nos.1 to 3 to an extent of Ac.0.02 Gts. each. As per revenue record, the said land belongs to the Government and therefore, cannot be mutated in the name of private individuals that too without any proceeding on behalf of the Government. As there is no vacant land of Ac.0.06 Gts., the defendant Nos.1 to 3 created revenue record purporting to have given Ac.0.0½ Gt. each to the temple and tombs and got their names mutated for remaining Ac.0.1½ Gts. each totaling to Ac.0.04½ Gts. (for short ‘suit land’). On the basis of said entries, the suit land was alienated in favour of defendant No.4. There is variation in the survey number as per sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.4 showing the location of suit land in Sy.Nos.186/1, 186/AA, 186/E and 186/EE but as per revenue records said land