The High Court · 2025

Open PIot of Srinivasa All that open plot carved out of Sy No. 1221111 situated near scholars school, Venkanna Kunta, Janagaon town bounded by: NORTH : SOUTH :- EAST : WEST : H.No:4:8-44i31 ofV.Sridhar Open place of Ch.Laxrna Reddy , '. Road i I I Counsel for the Petitioner): SRl. C M R VELU Counsel for the Respondent: ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA CIVIL REVISI ON PETITION NO: 276 0F 202s Petition under Arlicle 221 of the constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 17r12r2o24 in cMA No. 10 of 2024 on tnJiile or ert oistrict Luoge, liEqol and confinning the order dated i9i08l2024 in rA No.971r2o22 in os rio. 144712022 passed by the principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon Between: Kolagani Srinivls, s/o Maflaiah,. Aged 5g years, occ- Business, R/o 3-B- j , station Road, Jangaon Towr and Dishict - AND .....PETITIONERYAPPELLANT/PLAINTIFF popagoni Sugunakar, S/o Murali Age- 42 years, Occ_ Business R/o. Narmetta Village and Mandat. Janqaon District .....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2O2s Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sLrpport of the- petition, the High court may be preased to grant interim injunction ir favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents Jrom interfering with the petition schedure property pending disposar of the cRp SCHEDULE OF PR OPERTY I Open plot of Srinivasa All that open plot carved out of Sy No. 1221111 situated near scholars school, Venkanna Kunta, Janagaon town bounded by: NORTH : SOUTH '. EAST : WEST : H.No.4-8-44l31 of V. Sridhar Open place of Ch.Laxma Reddy Road Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. C M R VELU Counsel for the Respondent: SRI ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER lf:t THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR.IUKANTI CIVIL REVI SION PET TION Nos.2lL and,2 76 of 2025 I COMMON ORDER: . C.R.P.No.211 of 2O2S is filed by revision petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 12.12.2024, in C.M.A.No.9 of 2024 on the lile of learned principal District Judge, Jangaon, wherein the C.M.A. was dismissed, confirming the order, dated I9.08.2024, in I.A.No.972 of 2O22 in O.S.No. 1449 of 2022 passed by learned principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon.

2. C.R.P.No.276 of 2O2S is liled by revision petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 12.L2.2O24, in C.M.A.No.10 of 2024 on the file of learned principal District Judge, Jangaon, wherein, the C.M.A. was dismissed, confirming the order, dated 19.08.2024, in I.A.No.977 of 2022 in O.S.No. l44Z of 2022 passed by 1earned principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon. 3' Heard sri c.M.R.velu-, leained counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel for respondent in both the civil revision petitions. 2 JAK, J CRPs 2ll 216 2025

4. Both the civil revision petitions arise out of the same issue/matter, they are being heard together. Facts in \ C.R.P.No.21 1 of 2025 are being considered-

5. Suit bearing O.S.No. 1449 of 2022 is Iiled in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon for perpetual injunction. Plaintiff in the suit is the revision petitioner herein. She claims that her husband acquired the property by way of a registered sale deed bearing No.50 of 2014, dated O4.O1.2O14. That she is the owner and possessor of house piot admeasuring 200 sq. yds at Venkanna Kunta. That revision petitioner acquired the property through glft settlement deed bearing No3a92/2015, dated 22-05.2015' regularized the said property in municipal records No.G- l/LRS-969 12016, dated 08.09'20 16 and raised compound wall. That a building permit order No.41111/JANG/0334/ 2021, dated 17.O5.2O21, was issued for the plot carved out of Sy.No. r22 /1/ t. 6 Respondent is defendant in the suit. Respondent claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of iand in Survey No.l22/1 admeasuring 586.66 sq. yds purchased uide r- 3 JAK, J CRPs 2l I 276 2025 registered sale deed document bearing No.2O56 of 20 l O, dated 26.03'2010 and that he constructed the compound wall around the suit schedule property and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment. That the husband of the revision petitioner/pla-rntiff malafidery, deriberately, intentionalry and illegally executed the gift settlement deed in respect of the land in Surve5, No.I22/l/1 admeasuring an extent of 2O0 sq. yds, that there was no mention of plot numbers. Respondent/ defendant further states that he has mortgaged the suit schedule property in favour of Indian overseas Bank uide registered document No.2O83/2014, dated 09.O4.2014 by depositing the said title deed. The registered mortgage deed is Iiled before the Court. For non-payment of mortgage amount, notices were issued, a paper publication was also issued in various newspapers and Bank took possession of the property on 08.O6.2015, the property is in the custody of the Bank.

7. Meanwhile, IA.No.972 of 2022 came to be filed by revision petitioner i.e., plaintiff in the suit. I.A.No.9Z2 of 2022 is filed with a prayer to grant tempora_ry injunction and the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, having considered the exhibits marked for petitioner i.e., Exs.pl to p20 and exhibits I marked for respondent Exs.R1 to R8, by order dated

19.O8.2O24, held as follows: L \ JAK, J CRPS 2l i 216 2025 "19. The contentions of both sides disclose that there are complicated questions of title invoived and admittedly both are ciaiming property through the children of late Sri Naragoni Balaiah. As this is a suit for simple iniunction that too as this is an application for temporary injunction, it is not permissible to go into the complicated questions of title of parties and record arry finding. As this is an application for grant of tempora4i injunction the only thing to be seen is, as to who among the pa-rties is in possession of the property in dispute as on the date of Iiling the suit and the title of the property will assume signihcance only after possession' As the petitioner is seeking temporary injunction claiming that she rarsed compound wall a-fter the proceedings were issued by Municipality vide proceeding No' GI/LRS- 969/2016 dated: 8.9.2O16, the petitioner should prima facie estabiish the same. On perusal of Ex.P4 which is proceeding of Municipality Jangaon vide proceeding No' G1/LRS- 969 12016 datcd:08-09-2016 it is seen that the location of the property in the name of petitioner is at Venkannakunta a:rd the total extent of the layout/piot area regulated is 160.25 sq.mts or 1724.97664 sq'feet' As it is thc contention of petitioner that she raised compound wall after said proceedings were issued, then the compound wa-ll cannot be for any area exceeding tlle regulated plot which is for 160 25 sq. mts lt is admitted by petitioner in her reply alfrdavit that her property is located between two existing houses. Even if we consider that the total property acquired by petitioner under Ex.P3 from her husband is between two existing houses there should be compound wall around 16O'25 sq'mts plot land :remaining land whigh petitiolrerls husband owned should be either open plot without compound wall or with sepalate compound wall. But the photographs relied by petitioner i.e., P18 only shows a close,up view of compound wall on one side with wri*jng' "This plot belongs to IOB Bank HNK Branch, 7a93812314" ' Petitioner failed to show the picture of entire property' On the othcr hand respondent Iiied photographs of the I r. JAK, J CRPs 2l I 276 2025 same compound wall and these photographs Ex.R4 they disclose that between two existing houses there is one open plot u,hich is surrounded by a compound wall with sarne writing. "This plot belongs to IOB Bank Hanamkonda Branch, 7893812318". It do not disciose any separation of property that pet"itioner acquired from her husband after husband gifted 200 sq.ya-rds to the peiitioner. Added to this there is no ongoing construction work rrisible in the photographs filed by petitioner. Further when t}-re alleged regulated land is for 160.25 sq.mts or 1724.9166 sq. feet, the petitioner is claiming relief only 1'or 579.29 sq.feet by showing same boundaries in petition schedule property which are shown for entire 2O0 sq. 1,ards or 18OO sq. feet. The point whether the open land shown in Ex.P18 ald Ex.R4 photographs belongs to petitioner or respondent cannot be decided at this stage and it is a mattcr of trial. There is no approved layout filed by either parties and both parties are claiming through same family i.e., Naragoni Balaiah's family rr,embers. As admitted by petitioner there are Iitigations between the children of lirst wife of late Naragoni tlalaiah and the children of second wife of late N.Balaiah and rwong entries made in revenue record and several sale deeds executed in respect of property acquired liom late Sri Naragoni Balaiah in Sy.No. 122 though u'ith sub-divisions. Hence in presence of discrepancies in the extent of land to which the petitioner allegedly constructed compound waII, it is not proper to grant tempora-ry injunction as it would lead to irreparable loss to respondent who is also claiming right, title and possession. Hence the point is answered in negative. "

8. The trial Court dismissed the application, ad-interim inj unction (ex parte order) granted earlier was vacated.

9. Aggrieved by order, dated 19.08.2024, in I.A.No.972 of 2022 in O.S.No.1449 of 2022, revl ston petitioner/plaintiff 6 JAK, J CRPs 2l I 276 2025 preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.9 of 2024, but the I i Principal District Judge at Jangaon, considering the entire factual matrix of the case, by order dated 17.12.2024, held as follows: "17. lt is evident that since both the parties are claiming the suit schedule property, hence, the title and possession of the property is in dispute. On perusal of Ex.P4/proceedings of Municipa,l Jangaon dated 08.09.20 16 along with Map, the location of the property at Venkannakunta is 160-25 square meters or 1724.91664 sq. feet. The contention of the petitioner for raising compound wall cannot be for any area exceeding thc regulated plot which is for 160.25 sq. mts. But, according to the reply afhdavit of the petitioner, she submitted that his property is located between two existing houses, which means that there should be compound wa.ll around 160.25 square meters plot and remaining land which petitioner alienated from her husband should be as either open plot without compound wall or with separate compound wall. But as per Ex.P18 and Ex.R4, the photographs relied by the petitioners and Respondents, displays that a close up view of compound wa-ll on one side with writing that "this plot belongs to IOB Barrk HNK Branch, with mobile number mentioned as 7893812318".The point q'hether the plot/open land shown in Ex.P18 and Ex.R4 belongs to the petitioner or respondent remains disputed and it cannot be decided in this petition. There is no approved layout frled by both the parties or through Naragoni family members, which is subject matter of the suit and it can be decided a-fter the full trial in the suit but not in this petition. f8. It is an admitted fact that there were disputes between ma.le members of late Naragoni Balaiah i.e., between the children of first viife of late Naragoni Balaiah and the children of second wife of late N. Balaiah and wrong entries made in revenue record ald several sale deeds were executed in respect of property by late Sri 7 r_ 7 JAK, J CRPj 2l I 2't6 2025 Naragoni Balaiah in Sy.No. 122 with sub_rlivision numbers. There are many discrepancies in the extenr of land to which the petitioner claiming and she zrlleged to have constructed compound wall. The ".-" prop.rt1, i" claimed by the respondent. Therefore, for thc rcasons mentioned and discussed above, it is not just and proper to grant telnporarJr injunction, since it would lead to further controversy and disputes between both the parties \lith regard to their right, titie and possession. The petitioner failed to prove her prima facie title of the petition schedule property and also failed to prove that balance of convenience is in her favour. There is no irreparable loss going to be occurred to the petitioner, if injunction is not grantecl. ?herefore, the petitioner is not entitled for temporary injunction. 79. The trial Court, after considering the case ald contention of the both side has come to a just arld proper conclusion. There are no infrrmities or irregularities commited by trial Court. The order under question does not suffer from any illegalities and irregularities, ttrus the same needs no interference by this Court. The point Nos.l to 3 are decided against the appellants by holding that the order and decreetal order in question is sustainable in law and not liable to set-aside. Therefore, the appellalt is not entitled for the relief sought.,'

10. Principal District Judge, Jangaon, confirmed the order of the trial Court. The present revision petition is filed by appelant/plaintiff challenging the order in C.M.A.No.9 of 2024 on the .qround that the property(ies) claimed by the plaintiff and defendant are different and located in different survey numbers and as such, the plaintiff ought to have been protected with the interim injunction a,'d that the courts 8 JAK, J CRPs 2ll 276 2025 below failed to appreciate that the plaintiff proved her possession, whereas the defendant did not. \ 1 1. It is observed that revision petitioner/ ptaintiff in the suit for perpetua-l injunction relied upon Ex.P2. It is noticed that the land purchased by the revision petitioner is in Survey No.l22/l/1. Ex.R2 is the sale deed relied upon by the respondent/defendant, the land purchased by respondent/ defendant is in Survey No. 12 1 / I . From the record, it is observed that the land which is mortgaged by the respondent/defendant with the Overseas Bank is in Survey No.121/1 and for non-payment of the amount, Bank has taken custody of the propertY.

12. It is not in dispute that the Naragoni's family are the owners of the said property and there are disputes between the main members of the family and a suit for partition i.e., O.S.No.45 of 2O1O, a suit for perpetual injunction i.e., O.S.No.32 of 1981, are filed arnong the male members of the family and registered sale deeds were executed in respect of property in Survey No.l22 /1 in favour of certain third parties. It is further observed from the record that the revision \ - 9 JAK, J CRPs 2ll 2'16 2025 petitioner/plaintiff arld respondent/defendant are claiming title of the same property through registered sale deeds from the Naragoni's family.

13. Both parties a-re claiming the suit schedule property i.e., property which is stated to be between two houses with a compound wall. Revision petitioner/plaintiff claims that she was gifted property admeasuring a parcel of land of 200 sq. yds by her husband, purchased by way of a registered gift deed in the year 2014. It is the case of the respondent/ defendant that he purchased the property of 586.66 sq. yds by way of registered sale deed in the yeat 2OlO. From the record, it is observed and is also logical that revision petitioner/plarntiff can rajse a compound wall to the extent what she has been gifted by her hus-band ald not anything beyond that. The discrepancies in the extent of rand to which the revision petitioner/plaintiff is claiming to have allegedly constructed a compound wall, the very same property is claimed by the respondent/ defendant. The principal District Judge at Jalgaon was of the opinion that the grant of temporar5z injunction to the revision petitioner/plaintiff would lead to further controversy and disputes with regard to right, ,/ -l 10 JAK, J CRPs 2ll 276 2025 title and possession, as revision petitioner failed to establish prima facie title of the petition schedule property cannot be held to be bad in the facts artd circumstarces of the case, as narrated by the Principal District Judge, Jangaon-

14. Be that as it may, there are disputes between family members of Naragoni's family (owners of the lald) and they filed a suit for partition and also a suit for injunction with respect to properties in Survey Nos. 121/ 1 and 122 with sub- division(s). In vier4 of these disputes existing as per record, this Court deems it"appropriate that suit bearing O.S.No.1449 of 2022 be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, since it is submitted that respondent/defendant paid entire mortgage arnount to the Bank.

15. On the other hand, it is the case of revision petitioner/plaintiff that she has obtained the municipaiity permission for constructing a compound wall and has constructed. Both the parties are at liberty to file appropriate applications at relevant point of time expressing their grievalce or apprehension with regard to any steps being initiated by ,ny of the parties to the suit. I - 11 JAK, J CitPs 2ll 276 2025 16. In the facts and circumstances cf the case and also the fact that there are disputes between Naragoni,s family members, this Court deems it appropriate that O.S.No.1449 of 2022 on the file of principa-l Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, as sought for by both the counsels on record. Any observations made in this order shall not have any influence or bearing on the outcome of the proceedings before the trial Court.

17. With the above observations, both the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, Sd/. P. PADMANABHA RED DEPUTY REGIS //TRUE COPYii I SECTION OFFICER 1 - The Prl. District Judge, Jangaon District 2. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon District 3. One CC to SRI C M R VELU Advocate [OPUCI 4. One CC to SR, ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ti- HIGH COURT DATED:291041202. 1trE s rAIdi ) o 0g JUN ?',$ ;, , /i;.1pn. -i '') ;: !:./ COMMON ORDER CRP.No.21'l AND 276 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION'S WITHOUT COSTS {lel.r