The High Court · 2025

... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF /fI AND

1. Moulali, S/o Maddanna 2. Madamma, D/o Moulali 3. Kumar @ Philip, s/o late Kyasaram 4. Muranna, S/o late Karrenna Aged 54 years 5. K.Venugopal Reddy, Sio late Venkatram Reddy 6. Smt Subadramma, Wo late Maheshwar Reddy All are Agriculturists and R/o Pacherla Village, Rajoli Mandal Jogulamba Gadwal District ...RESpoNDENTS/RES'.NDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ctrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land bearing Sy No.96/A4 extent Ac.3-15 gts and Sy No.96/B3 extent Ac.1-25 gts total admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts (Sy No.96/A4 extent Ac.O-21 gts and Sy No.94/AA2 extent Ac.2-34 gts total Ac.3-15 gts) situated at Pacherla Village, Rajoli Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District, pending disposal of the above C.R.P and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY All that land bearing Sy No.96/A4 extent Ac.3-15 gts and Sy No.96/83 extent Ac.1-25 gts total admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts (Sy No.96/A4 extent Ac.0-21 gts and Sy No.94/AA2 extent Ac.2-34 gts total Ac.3-'15 gts) situated at Pacherla Village, Rajoli Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District and bounded by. I : rrT8ffi6:., .3&:I1, .-ir.--a-- _- -'. - -.4 EAST : Land of Thuruka Mohammed Sab WEST : Thummilla Road NORTH Land of Venugopal Reddy' Moulali and Kyasaram (Defendants lands) SOUTH : Land of BalRaj and MaddiletY Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. P.VENKAT REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI K'VENKATESH GUPTA The Court made the following: ORDER t i,!: in' HON'BLE SRI WSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CT\rIL REVISION PETITION No.629 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is frled assailing the order dated 22.O1.2024 passed in C.M.A.No.7 of 2OL9 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Civil Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal. 2. Heard Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.5. Despite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

3. Petitioner herein is plaintiff and respondents herein are defendants in O.S.No. I of 2Ol9 . 4. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner herein filed suit in O.S.No. 1 of 2Ol9 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal for injunction against the respondents-defendants in respect of land admeasuring A.3.15 guntas in survey No.96/A4 and Ac. 1.25 guntas in survey No.96/B3 situated at Pacharla Village in the Rajoli Maldal of Jogulamba Gadwal District. Petitioner has also filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2Ol9 for ad-interim injunction on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal.

5. It is contended that petitioner herein is owner of the suit schedule property which she got from her husband late G.Tirumala Reddy who died on 07.O4.2O17 and subsequent to his death, she succeded to the suit schedule property and got mutated her name in revenue records vide orders passed by the 2 Tahsildar, Waddepally mandal No.ROR/743l2008 clated 31.12.2OO8 and also obtained proceedings pattedar pass book and title deed. It is further contended that husband of the petitioner has purchased Ac.ll. I 5 guntas in survey No.96 /A/3 vide registererd sa-le deed dated 08.08.20O8 and he has been in the possession and enjoyment of the property from the date of purchase. It is further contended that husband of the petitioner was also gifted lancl admeasuring Ac.1.25 guntas in survey No.96/B/E by his mother vide registered document dated 08.08.20O8. It is contended that defendants without any manner of right and interest tried to interfere rvith the possession of the petitioner and therefore, suit has been llled for injunction along with interlocutory application. tt is also contended that plaintiff go1 surveyed the suit schedule property try the concerned revenue authorities on

04.05.2016 and that in the said panchanama it is found that husband of the petitioner was in the possession of the suit schedule propcrty. 6. Defendants entered into appearalce and filed a written statement denying the claim of the petitioner and it is specifically contended that in fact defendants are owners of land admeasuring Ac.3.l5 guntas in survey No.96/A4 and are in peaceful possession and enjoyment till date. lt is further contended that registered document dated 0g.0g.200g under which husband of the petitioner Sri G.Tirumala Reddy purchased land is a created one and relied upon palchnama -tat:i & .x, 3 conducted by the revenue authorities dated 04.05.2O16 as per which it is recorded that defendants are in possession since 15 years in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 1.25 guntas in survey No.96/B/E and also contended that entries in revenue record are manipulated and will not confirm aly title to the petitioner- plaintiff.

7. The trial Court vide its order dated 01.10.2O19 dismissed the said application by making following observation: l- I 'The leamed counsel for petitioner tLa,s argued- that recent pattedar pass book and title deed- issued in fauour of petitioner and petitioner is in possession and enjogment - of the same. The learned counsel for respondents has argued tlaat the petitioner k not in possession and enjogment of the same and the petltioner opplication was rejected and subsequentlg petitioner got her name mutated in the reuenue record without phAsical possession and petition is filed to grab the propertV or respondent by obtaining the temporary injunction. On perusal of Exs.R.l ond R.2, the petitioner is not in possesslon of entire petition schedule propertA. R.Ws.] and 2 also deposed that petitioner rs not in possessron and enjogment of the same. Therefore, the petitioner failed to prouer her physical possession ouer the suit schedule propertg os on the date of filing of the suit. The petitioner luzs no balance of conuentence. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled- for grant of temporary 4 injttnction. Accordingly, the point is ansuered."

8. Aggrier.ed by the order passed by the trial Court dated

01.10.2019, pelitioner herein filed appeal vide C.M.A.No.7 of 2019 beforr-' the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal arrd the said C.M.A was also dismissed by the District Court on 22.01 .2024 with an observation that petitioner has failed to make out any pima facie case and therefore, not entitled for relief of perpetual injunction and District Court has made following observation: ''The said document goes to shotu that the httsband of the petitioner P.Thirumo.l . Reddy uas pottador and possessor cf lond in surueg No.96/ 83 extent Ac. 1.2.i guntas and suruey No.96/A4/2 ertent Ac.2.34 guntas. But, one of the surueq No.96/A4/2 erted Ac.3.15 guntas shotutt irL the petition schedule propertA uthich i:; not matchtng u-tith the oboue sakt documents uith regard to possession of tle said suruey number. This doqtmenl shotus that Thirumal Reddg tuas irL po-sses.sion of land in surueg No.96/ 44/ 2' extent Ac.2.34 guntas. But, Ex.P.3 pattadar passbook shous that Thirumal Reddg is in possession of Ac.3.1 5 guntas. Ex.P.l is the sale deed shon-ts that Tltirumal Reddg tns purchnsed Ac.3.15 guntas from G.Gangi Reddg. But, on the spot Thirumal Reddy uas in possession of' Ar:.2.34 Wntas in surueg No.96/A4/2.'

9. The District Court further observed that there are disputed qr.restion of facts, the same will be decirled only after (5 trial and therefore held that District Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court and it is relevalt to note the observation of the District Court which reads as under: ,\- , )| "Whether the husband of the petitioner has purchased_ Ac.3.15 gantas from G.Gangi Reddg or not, and uhether the mother of the Thirumal Reddg lns got ight to gtft the propertA in suruey No.96/83 ertentAc.1.2S guntas cannot be decided in this appeal except po.ues for triable issues uhich has to be d.ecided onlg after conclusion of trial. In a suit for injunction, uthat becomes mateial is the ' state of affairs pertaining to the possession as on the significance onlg after possession. Ex.R-l u.thich is in not dispute clearlg establishes the possession of the respondents ouer the petttion schedule propertA. Therefore, Ex.p.3 to P.lO cannot be consid_ered in concluding that the husband aras in possession of the petition schedule propertA and. thereafter the petitioner is in possession of the propettg. " f 0. Leamed counsel for the petitioner contended that actually the pancharrama report dated 26.06.2019 relied upon by the respondents is unsustainable, since sarne rvas issued by the Additional Revenue Inspector who does not have any authorit5r under law to make such observation in the panchnama proceedings. It is further contended that Additional Revenue Inspector by conducting panchnzuna cannot confirm possession { 6 '- _of respondents for past 15 years and if the said document being relied by the respondent strongly is not considered, then the application filed by the petitioner ought to be allowed and injunction should have been granted by the trial Court. It is further contended that pursuant to the registered sale deed and glft deed, the name of the husband of the petitioner has been mutated on l-y after due process and thereafter, the name of petitioner is reflected in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor in respect of 5.OO acres and therefore, the orders dated 0 I . 1 O.20 19 and 22.01 .2024 are unsustainable and prayed this Court to allow the present revision. 11. Learnecl counsel for the respondents contended that in panchanama which was conducted pursuant to request of the petitioner, it is clearly observed that the respondents are in possession of land admeasuring Ac.3.15 guntas in survey No.96/Aa rvhich is being claimed by the petitioner and that this single document is enough to show the possession of the respondents_ It is further contended that on an earlier occasion, the a pplication for mutation fited by the petrtioner was infact rejected by the revenue authorities and therefore, there are no merits in the revision filed by the petitioner as such revision is liable to be dismissed. 13. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that application fired by the petitioner for mutation was initiarly kept pending and subsequently same rvas granted and further patteclar passbook and title deed are also issued 7 and therefore, contention of the respondents is incorrect ald ttrerefore, prayed to allow the revision. 14. Perusal of the record discloses that both the parties are claiming possession over the suit schedule property and even during the course of hearing, Iearned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the said stald. 15. Considering the fact that both the parties are claiming possession, this court cannot examine disputed question of fact and it is appropriate that the claim of possession of both the parties over the suit schedule property is to be decided by the trial Courl after full fledged trial and until such time both the fiarties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. As suit is of the year 2019, the trial Court shall make al endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 16. With the above sajd direction, civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stard closed. I To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Senior Civil Judge, at Gadwal z. Ihe p^flncipal District & Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal fe^ddy , noGcin5iopucl - - 9. 9nu 99lo 9,! 1. 9n" QQ !o Sf K.Venkatesh oui,tb , Ao-vocitb-to-plicl 5. Two CD Copies p.Venkata .&.---,,' HIGH COURT DATED:1 910212025 I ORDER CRP.No.629 of 2024 DISPSOING OF THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS. ( 6E STa 14: l!^ ( ? d zz l,,An zflti (( t t) F.s o^, c,"-l [12