IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.18 OF 2018 DATED: 6^th MARCH, 2026 BETWEEN :

1. Sunkari Basappa (died) per L.R.s

2. Smt. Shiva Leela and Others … Appellants-Defendants AND Sunkari Basamma, W/o.Late Sunkari Veerappa, aged about 89 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.17-112, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District (Presently Ranga Reddy District).

…Respondent-Plaintiff

JUDGMENT

1. This Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) assailing the judgment and decree in OS.No.660 of 2011 dated 16.11.2017 passed by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Appellants are the defendants and respondent is the plaintiff in OS.No.660 of 2011.

3.1. Respondent-plaintiff has originally filed suit against the appellant No.1-sole defendant on 05.04.2010 vide OS.No.660 of

2011, for declaration and perpetual injunction.

3.2. The prayer in the suit is as under:

a) For declaration that judgment and decree in OS.No.443 of

1983 dated 18.02.1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, R.R.District is void and not binding on the plaintiff.

b) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his heirs, agents, or any person/s claiming through or under him from alienating the suit schedule lands bearing Sy.Nos.193, 204, 205, 211, 246, 309 and 272 of Nedunoor Village Maheshwaram, now Kandukur Mandal, R.R.District, and pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3.3. The total extent of suit property is Acs.74.39 guntas.

3.4. The plaint states that the judgment and decree in OS.No.443 of 1983 is void and not binding on the respondent-plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff is the mother of Rudrappa who is missing since 18.05.1969. Appellant No.1-sole defendant and his father (S.Buchappa) in collusion brought into effect the fraudulent decree without making the respondent-plaintiff as party who is the Class I legal heir of Rudrappa. An advertisement was given in Andhra Bhoomi on 30.06.1969 informing the general public that Rudrappa is missing since 18.05.1969. The respondent-plaintiff being the legal heir of Rudrappa, his whereabouts were not known since 7 years prior to the said suit and that she was a necessary and proper party. Respondent-plaintiff came to know that appellant No.1-sole defendant and his father having indulged in the fraudulent acts brought into effect the decree in OS.No.443 of 1983 which is liable to be set aside.

4. Appellant No.1-sole defendant filed his written statement contending that he is the son of Sunkari Buchappa and Manemma. Respondent-plaintiff is the second wife of Veerappa who died in the year 1949 and thereafter she left the village along with her son Rudrappa and he came to know that she married one Konda Basavaraj in the year 1969, respondent-plaintiff’s son came and demanded his share in the property from the appellant No.1-sole defendant and his share was given. The whereabouts of Rudrappa was not known. The appellant No.1-sole defendant along with his father filed suit in OS No.443 of 1983 and the suit came to be decreed on 18.02.1984. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is sheer abuse of process of law and devoid of merits. Respondent- plaintiff has not filed any documentary evidence to show that appellant No.1-sole defendant is still in possession of the suit schedule property and the suit is barred by limitation, no prior notice is issued to him before filing the suit. Respondent-plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands.

5. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the decree in OS.No.443 of 1983 dated

18.02.1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, R.R.District to be declared as void and not binding on the plaintiff or not?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule land?

3. Whether the su