DONTHIREDDY VENKATESHWAR REDDY Vs. MURIKI SAPPALAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - J.Dr. aggrieved by the order dtd. 6/9/2019 passed in E.P.No.110 of 2018 in L.S.A.No.35 of 2000 by the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar.

(2.) Heard Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri B.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner - J.Dr. on record and Smt.Chinthalaphani Avani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent - D.Hr.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar committed an error in directing the petitioner - J.Dr. to execute the registered sale deed in favor of the respondent - D.Hr. to an extent of 1371.28 square yards. The same was contrary to the evidence on record. As per the compromise agreed between the parties before the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Peddapalli, the J.Dr. has to execute the land to an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas, which was a compact block. But the respondent - D.Hr. requested the petitioner - J.Dr. to register individual plots. While making house plots in Ac.1-20 guntas of land, 20 feet and 30 feet internal roads were left in between the plots. The land measuring 2342.62 square yards was covered under the roads. Another house plot measuring 748.48 square yards was sold by the D.Hr. through registered sale deed and the same was later ratified by the J.Dr. by executing registered sale deed. Thus, the land covered under the road and the plot sold by J.Dr. totally would come to 3091.00 square yards [2342.62 square yards covered under 20' and 30' road + 748.38 square yards ratified plot area]. Hence, the total area of 3091.00 square yards was not available to register in favor of D.Hr. The owners of the plots have got the right over the internal roads. As such, the J.Dr. was unable to execute any type of registered sale deeds to the D.Hr. The petitioner - J.Dr. executed the registered sale deeds in favor of individuals to whom the plots were sold by the respondent - D.Hr. As the nature of land was changed and part of the land was converted into roads, the decree was already satisfied and the same was not executable. In the cross-examination, the respondent - D.Hr. admitted that 1800 square yards of land was covered with roads and houses were also constructed in the land claimed by the respondent - D.Hr. As such, the direction given by the court below to execute the sale deed to an extent of 1371.28 square yards was illegal and contrary to the evidence on record and prayed to set aside the order dtd. 6/9/2019 passed in E.P.No.110 of 2018 by the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar.