IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN .1 of 017 ASMP.No.4 7 of 2017 l.A.No.z ol 2017 (ASMP.No. 2262 oi 2O171 & A.No.3 of 2017 ASMP.No.4013 of 2 17 IN A.S.NO.368 0F 1997 l.A.No.1 of 2017 in A.S.No.368 of 1997 Between: 1. Bussu Narsi ReddY (Died Per LRs) i. B;;;; riim neaoi 57o. t-it" Mr. Bussu Narsi Reddv, aged about 60 vears, occ: Aoriculture. PJo. lmamquda, Maheshwaram, R.R District' s. Biss, iapi neoov, sld. Laie Mr. Bussu Narsi Red-dy, aged about 5'l years occ: Agriculturd, PJo. lhamguda, Maheshwaram, R R- District' 4. Biaau.Amaravathi, Wo. Late Krishna Reddy, aged about 38 years, Occ: Aoriculture. R/o. lmamquda, Maheshwaram. R.R. District. 5 ij;;;; i;,p;r neoov Sl"o. r-ate Mr. Bussu Narsi Reddv, aged about 47 vears, occ: Agricultu16, R/o. lniamguda, Maheshwaram, R R District' 6. Bi;au K;iunakar Redr]y, s/o. Late Mr. Bussu Narsi Reddy, aged about 45 years, - bic, Agriculture, R/o. lriamguda' lvlaheshwaram, R R Dislricl'- ,..PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS AND 1 Bussu Kishan Reddy, S/o. Mr' Ramchandrq [9d{Y' aged 35 years, Occ: Agiiculture, Fi,/o. lmamguda, Maheshwaram, R'R. District' Bussu Anian Reddv, S/o. Late Mr' Bussu Narsi Reddy' aged 51 years, Occ: Agiicultur6 R/o. lma'mguda, Maheshwaram, R.R. District' ...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT NO.3/RESPONDENTS 2 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to recall the order dated 06.01.2006 recording the compromise in A.S.No.36B of 1997 aforesaid on the file of this Hon'ble Court and direct the proceedings to be restored to file to be continued as per law, and such other and further orders be passed as may be just and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice' LA. NO: 2 OF 2017 in A.S'No.368 of 1997 Between: 1, Bussu Narsi ReddY (Died Per LRs) z. gusiu Ram Reddv blo. Late [t/r' Bussu Narsi Reddy' aged about 60 years' - bcc: Agriculture, Fi/o. lmamguda, [\'4aheshwaram, R'R District' . - . s. BuisuFapi necioy, slo. Lale tvlr' Bussu Narsi Re-d{y,^flgp!,about 51 years' Occ: Agriiulture, R/o. lmamguda, lt/aheshwaram, R'R' District - - 4. Bussu Amaravathi W/o. Lite Krishna Reddy, aged about 38 years' Occ: Aoriculture. Rl/o. lmamquda' Maheshwaram' R.R District' s. eisiJ iiipal Reddy S/"o. Late Mr. Bussu Narsi Rqddy, aged about 47 years' Occ: Agriiulture, R/b. lmamguda, Maheshwaram, R'R District' O. Auisukarunat<ir neOOv, S7o. Late Mr. Bussu Narsi Re-d{y'-qOe!.about 45 - t;rs, OCc: Agricutture, ido. lmamguda, Maheshwaram, R R District' ... PETITIONERS/APPE LLANTS AND 1 Bussu. Kishan Reddy, S/o. Mr. Ramchandra Reddy, aged 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, F/o lmamguda, Maheshwaram, R.R. Distriet. Bussu. Anjan. R :ddy, S/o. Late Mr. Bussu Narsi Reddy, aged 51 years, Occ: Agriculture F/o. mamguda, Maheshwaram, R.R. District.- ...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT NO.3/RESPONDENTS Petition under iection 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased condone the delay of 3985 days. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2017 in \.S.No.368 of 1997 2 Between: Bussu Amaravathi, W/ ). Late Kr-ishna Reddy, aged about 3g years, ,3cc: Agriculture, Fl/o. lmamguda, Mahe! hwaram, R.R. District.' AND ...PETIT|ONERS/APPELLANTS 1. Bussu Narsi leddy (Died per LRs) 2. Bussu Ram leddy S/o. Late IVr..Bussu Narsi Reddy, aged about 60 years, Occ: Agricult rre, R/o. lmamguda, Maheshwaram, R H Oiitrict. 3. Bussu Papi lleddy, S/o. Laie Mr. Bussu Narsi Reddy, aged about 5.1 years, Occ: Agricult rre, R/o. lmamguda, Maheshwaram, R.R.'Oiitrict. 4. Bussu Krishr a Reddy (Died per LRs) 5. Bussu Jaipal ReglV S/o. Late Mr.. Bussu Narsi Reddy, aged about 47 years, - Occ: Agricult rre, RJo. lmamguda, N/aheshwaram, R,R. OiStrict. 6. Bussu Karur akar Reddy, S7o. Late lvlr. Bussu Narsi Reddy, aged about 45 years, Occ: I griculture, Fl/o. lmamguda, lVlaheshwaram, R.fi. Oiltrict. 7. Bussu Kisha r Reddy, S/o. Mr. R.r.h.il'rTE8Jd?U"#It'fi"t"ii.^31: Agriculture, F /o. lmamguda, Maheshwaram, R.R. Disirict.- 8. Bussu Anjan Reddy, S7o. Late Mr. Bussu Narsi Reddy, aqed 51 vears. Occ: Agriculture R o. lmamguda, Maheshwaram, R.R. Districi. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under,)rder't Rule 10 R/w Section 151 CpC piaying that in the circumstances stated irr the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to permit the petitioner ht rein to be impleaded to come on record as Appellant No. in the above First Appeal A.S.No.368 of .1997. These petitions )oming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and affidavit filed in support there rf and upon hearing the arguments of sri S. R. Mahajir, Advocale for the Petiti( ners. This Court made the I rllowing: ORDER This order dispossess c ' these applications. IA.No.2 ol 2of is fired to condone the deray of 39g5 days in firing the application to recall the compromise. l.A.No.'l of 2oj7 ls filed to recall the order dated 06.01 .2006 recording th : compromise in A.S.No.36g of 1997. The present app cations are filed by appellant Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 7. Respondent No.2 in the present a1 plications was the 4th appellant and respondent No.1 in the present applications is I re sole respondent in the appeal. For brevity, the arrangement of the parties as referrer in the suit is maintained. \------ The plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition in respect of the agricultural land bearing Sy.Nos.243l2, 24412 and 242lAA admeasuring Acs.2.37 guntas, Ac.5.23 guntas and Ac.4.37 guntas respectively situated at Srinagar Village, Mahesharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the said suit was decreed by a common judgment daled 27.12.1996 in O.S.Nos.4O and 15 of 1993. The original defendant filed the present appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.40 of 1993 and pending the appeal, the defendant died and his legal heirs were brought on record, who are the petitioners and 2nd respondent in the present applications. While pending the appeal, it appears compromise terms were filed on 02.01 .2OOO, which was signed on 30.12.2005, and basing on the said memorandum of compromise, this Court has recorded the compromise on 06.01.2006 and disposed of the appeal in terms of the said compromise. The present applications are filed by the legal heirs of the original defendant, except one legal heir, i.e., 2nd respondent in the present application, to recall the compromise on the ground that the compromise was recorded in pursuance of coerCion made on the appellants at the instance of the parties to the appeal with the assistance of gangster, more particularly, Nayeem and gang and out of such coercion, which was preceded by kidnapping and wrongful confinement and threatening by the gangster, sale deeds were executed on 27.12.2005 in favour of third parties in respect of the entire extent covering the subject matter of the appeal. Basing on the said sale deeds and On account of continuance of coercion, the compromise was recorded by this Court. It is also their case that no further steps were taken to immediately report the kidnapping and threatening from the gangster in execution of the sale deed as well as recording of compromise on account of persistent threat from the gangster, till he was encountered by the police. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a criminal case against the incident after encounter of the said gangster. According to them, the police, Padisharif Police Station issued FIR No.594 of 2016 and after thorough investigation a charge sheet was filed on 22.09.2017 charging the persons against whom allegations were made in the said complaint. Pursuant to the said complaint, the present applications are filed to condone the delay as well as to recall the compromise. Notices were given to the 1't respondent as well as the 2nd respondent in the present applications, who is one of the legal heirs of the defendant. The second respondent herein was represented by the counsel and there is no representation from the first respondent side. The learned counsel for the second respondent/one of the legal heirs of the defendant, has submitted that prior to the memorandum of compromise, there were sale deeds executed by all the parties to the appeal proceedings conveying the property in favour of third parties and she also submitted that in pursuance of the compromise recorded in the present appeal, the other appeals, which were filed by other parties aggrieved by the common judgment, were withdrawn. She also submitted that apart from the withdrawal of some cross objections and appeals in pursuance of the compromise, they were independent compromise recorded in connected appeals, which were filed aggrieved by either common judgment or from the connected suit arising out of the same cause of action. she arso represented that the counser, who is now representing the sec lnd respondent, was arso the counser for the petitioners as we as the present second respondent, who are the appeilants in the appear. The present applications are filed by a new counsel. Learned cour ser for the petitioners/appeilants stated that even though sare deeds were anterior o the compromise terms, the terms of compromise wourd come in the way in challengi rg the sare deeds and the same may have the bearing on the adjudication of the pr titioners'craim with reference to the suil, which they are gorng to file on the basis of tht claim set up by them. Learned coun;er for the second respondenuappelanr has submitted that in pursuance of compro nise, without hearng them, recaling the compromise wourd have the adverse effect or the interest of the third party purchaser and it is arso submitted that it is not known l'hether those purchasers subsequenUy hal,e firrther arienated or not. Without hearing lem the compromise cannol be recalled. The fact rem, rins that the sale deeds were anterior to the compromise. According to the co rnser for the petitioners/appeilants when the sare deeds are challenged, the terms of compromise have impact on the adjudication. His submission is well founded and t e contention of the second respondent can arso be wefl founded for the reason that wit rout hearing the parties, who had interest on account of creation of sale deeds and furfl er sare deeds, if any, compromise cannot be recafied. To barance th( interest of both the parties by protecting the interest of the petitioners/appellants, this court feels that it is sufficient that the petitioners/appelrants are given liberty to nove the present apprication after they succeed in the suit proceedings, which tht y intend to take up for cancelation of the sare deeds, which are anterior to the present compromise and the sare deeds, if any, created subsequent to them. His grievance s arso wer founded for the reason that when the compromise terms prohibited them l chalenge any sare deed, these terms wil come in the way and influence the adiudicat tn of the suit, which is going to be filed. To balance the interest of the petitioners/appr flants as wel as the respondents and the third parties, it is observed that the cor rt, which has to adjudicate varidity of the sale deeds, if any challenged, shourd not nfruence by the terms of compromise and decicie the said issue de-horse the comprom;e. This observation wourd protect the rnterest of a[ the parties to the proceedings. with the above r aid observation and riberty, these apprications can be disposed of. ln the result, t cth the applications are disposed of giving petitioners/appeflants tc move the present apprication for recaring of com on their success in the suit to be instituted by them for canceration of which is anterior to the rresent compromise and any other sale deeds, if is also made clear that the terms of memorandum of compromise or th made by this Court she tl not come in the way of adjudication of the su liberty to the promise based the sale deed, any, made. lt e compromise it proceedings challenging the sale deeds to be instituted by the petitioners/appellants. lt is also made clear that the rlghts of the parties either in the cross-objections or in the other appeats, if any, made in pursuance of this compromise, shalr not come in the way of moving appropriate petitions, if the petitioners/a ppella nts had recourse to the right of fiting fresh application basing on the adjudication done in the suit. l.A.No.3 ol 2017, filed for impleadment of third party purchasers, is dismissed as not pressed. //TRUE COPY' SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR t\-.-- SECT]ON OFFICER To, 1. The Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy 2. One CC to Sri S. R. lVahajir, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies 4. One Spare Copy gbr .\+-- HIGH COURT 1HE S i.q 7.t' J; .) '!'.'i7 \i. $ 11Fits2M2 'q:; ORDER !.A.No.1 of 201/ (ASMP.No,477 of 2017\, l.A.No.2 ot 2017 (ASMP.No.2262 of 2017) & t.A.No.3 ot 2017 (ASMP.No.4013 of 2017) IN A.S.NO.368 0F 1997 DISPOSING Ol: THE APPLICAION l.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2017 AND D|SMISSING THE l.A.No.3 of 2017 AS NOT PRESSED E I, >{< - <\2' 11- DATED: 21l01li 022