Mr U Prabhakar Reddy v. Smt.Gonela Anthamma

I / [ 3317 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA C.M.A. NO: 415 OF 2022 Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 1410712022 passed in lA No.582 ol 2O21 in OS No.82 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Sangareddy. Between:

Mr. U.Prabhakar Reddy, S/o.Sri.U.Domodar Reddy aged about 55 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. Nallagandla Village, Sarilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Rep.by its GPA Holder lr/r.Y.Chinnappa Reddy, S/o.C.Rayapa Reddy, aged 67 years,Occ Business, R o.Plot No.'125, Vivekanda Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District.

...APPELLANT/PETITIONERU PLAINTIFF AND

1. Smt.Gonela Anthamma, Wo.Late.G.Papaiah, aged aboui 68 years, Occ House wife, R/o.H.No.4-3, Budhera village, Munipally Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

2. Mr-Gonela Narasimha, S/o.Late.G.Papaiah, aged about 46 years, Occ Agricultural, R/o.H.No.4-3, Budhera Village, Munipally Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

3. Mr.Gonela Srinivas, S/o.late.G.Papaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ Agricultural, RJo.H.No.4-3, Budhera Village, Munipally Mandal, Sanga Reddy District ...RES,.NDENTS/RES'.NDENTS/ DEFENDANTS fA NO: 3 OF 2022 Petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1& 2 Rl/.w. Section 15'1 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to grant ad-interim injunction against the Respondents restraining them from alienating the Petition schedule property pending disposal of the CMA , , i

SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that the agriculture land, admeasuring Ac.1.11 Guntas bearing survey No.721311, of Bhudera Village, Munipally Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, bounded by:- NORTH: Agricultural Land of Manne Somaiah Yadav SOUTH: National Highway.

EAST: Neighbour's Land WEST: Road For the Appellant : SRI GH.RAMESH BABU, Advocate For the Respondents : SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH, Advocate The Court delivered the following: JUDGIUENT

t THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CIVIL M ISCE LLANEOUS APPEAL No.415 ot 2022 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr.SA,l) This appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "C.P.C"), is filed by the appellant/ petitioner/plaintifF, against the respondents/respondents/ defendants, aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 14,07.2022, passed in LA.No.5B2 of 2O2l in O.S.No.82 of 2021 , by the learned IV Additional District Judge, at Sangareddy, wherein the subject application filed by the appellant/petitioner/ plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, seeking adinterim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants and their agents, attorneys, or any person or persons claiming through them from alienating and in any way, dealing with the petition schedule property, till the disposal of the suit, was dismissed.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

e learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner/plaintiff wculd contend that at first instance, the agreement of sale dated

Dr.SA,l & {BK,j cMA No.415 0f 2022 I 03.05.2019 was marked as Ex.P.1 in the subject I.A.No.582 of 2021. Thereafter, the learned ludge who marked the said document was transferred. The present Presiding Officer while considering the subject I.A, rejected the Ex. P.1-agreement of sale dated'03.05.2019 on the ground that it was not duly stamped. The Court below instead of following the procedure contemplated under Section 33(1) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and impounding the subject document or directing the appellant herein to take back the subject document and present it before the authority concerned to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty thereon, erroneously rejected the subject document and dismissed the subject I.A. Thus the learned counsel prays to set aside the impugned order and decree dated 14.07.2022 passed by the Court below and allow the appeal, as prayed for.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respo ndents/defe nd a n ts supported the impugned order and decree dated 14.O7.2022 passed by the Court below and . submitted that since the agreement of sale dated 03.05.2019 was not duly stamped, the Court below is justified in rejecting the same and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the appeal. //

D..SA,l & Na(,1 cMA No.4r5 0f 2022

5. In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for determination in this appeal is:

"Whether the impugned order and decree dated 14.07.2022, passed in 1.A.No.582 of 2021 in O.S.No.82 of 2021, by the learned IV Additional District Judge, at Sangareddy, is liable to be set aside?"

POINT:

6.

As seen from the material placed on record, the Court below while dealing with the subject Interlocutory Application, rejected the agreement of sale dated 03.05.2019, on the ground that it was not duly stamped and ultimately, dismissed the subject I.A, vide impugned order and decree, dated 74.07.2022. The Court below without following the procedure contemplated under Section 33(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, straightaway I \ rejected the subject agreement of sale, dated 03.05.2019, which is a material document. Instead of rejecting the subject I I I document, the Court below ought to have impounded the subject agreement of sale, dated 03.05.2019 or directed the appellant herein to present it before the authority concerned to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty thereon. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order and decree dated L4.07.2022, passed b), the Cour-t below, is liable to be set aside.

cMA No 415 0I 2022 7.

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned order and decree dated 14.07.2022, passed in I.A.No.SB2 of 2027 in O.S.No.B2 of 2O2l by the Court below is set aside. Consequently, the subject LA.No.582 of 2021 is restored to its file for fresh disposal and to enable the appellant/ petitioner/plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on the subject agreement of sale dated 03.05.2019. The Court below shall not get influenced by any of the observations made in this judgment and dispose of the subject I.A. afresh, in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing both s ides.

lYiscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. No costs.

LSd/-B.S.CHIRANJE JOINT REGIST R ,TRUE COPY// SECTIO OFFICER To

1. The lV Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Sangareddy.

2. One CC to Sri Ch Ramesh Babu, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri Palle Sriharinath, Advocate IOPUC]

4. Two CD Copies ^'A^-.-

HIGH COURT DATED:0311112022 ,4 ( 1-'='

;\, srA, c J ),) t 1 ttB 2t?3 () s * * OESpATC

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.415 ot 2022 ALLOWING CMA WITHOUT COSTS ('b) \/2