The High Court · 2025

Petition uncer Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filel in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitiorers to file documents i.e., '1) Copy of Order in lA No 808 of 2024 in MA (Sll NO 1749 of 2024) 2) Copy of Mutation proc., No 31CKP00011774446 dated 1111112022 and 3) Copy of Etectricity Bill-cum- Notices in respet{ of SC No K3003394, K3003395, K3003396, K3001371, K3001263 daled 1210912023 4) Copy of Property Tax Receipt and details in respect of H No. 151021147 to 149 dated 1010412023, as an additional material papers in the above CRP. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filerl in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of order and decree dated.23-1 1-2022 in CIVIA No. gl of 20'19 passed by the XXVI Addl., Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad, TS pending disposal of the above CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri Aadesh Varma The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PEIII'ION No.995 of 2 Q23 ORDER.. This Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated

23.11.2022 passed in C.M.A.No.9l ol 2019 on the file of the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courr at Hyderabad, whereby the order dated 18.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.942 of 2018 in O.S.No.2658 of 2018 on the file of the XX Junior Civil Judgc. City Civil Courr ar Hyderabad, was set aside and temporary injunction was granted in respect of the suit schedule property ti[1 disposal ofthe suit.

2. Heard Sri Bcthi Venkateshwarlu, leamed counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel lor respondcnt No.1

3. The petitioners herein are defendants Nos.l & 2, respondent No.l herein is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are defendant lrlos.3 to 7, t respectively, in the suit. For convenicnce, hereinafter the parties are relerred to as they are arrayed in thc suit.

4. The brief facts leading to thc filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the plairttiff filed a suit in O.S.No.2658 of 2018 for perpetual injunction restraining dcfcndants Nos.l to 4 from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is averred that Bhawari Devi Soni had purchased the suit schedule 2 LNl,J C. R.? n'o.q95 of2023 propefty through a registered sale deed dated 12.03.1957. Satyanarayan Soni and Bhawari Devi Soni had no biotogical chilctren and as per the customs of their community, they adopted the ptaintill, perfbrmcd his marriage and treated him as a member of their joint Hindu family. While so, Bhawari Devi Soni executed a Will dated 20.12.1gg4 in l-avour of the plaintifl bequeathing all her immovable propertics incrucring the suit schcdule property to him. The Wilt specifically provided that husband of Bhawari Devi Soni-satyanarayan Soni could enjoy the rcntal income during hir; lifetime and thereafter, absolute ownership rvoulti pass on to the plaintilf.

5. Delendant No.1 is accused of taking advantage of Satyanarayan Soni's poor health and mental condition to "*..rt. a Gitt deed dated 20.10.2009. Similarly. defendant No.3 is alleged to have crcated a Will dated 26.12.1994, fraudulently claiming ownership of the property. These dor:uments are claimed to be invalid having been obtained by lraud, coe -cion and misrepresentation.

6. Detbndant Nos.l and 2 in their written statement asserted that Bharvari ttevi Soni died on O2.Ol.1995,leaving behind only her husband Satyanaral,ana Soni to succeed to the property; that plaintifl is not the son ofLat: Satyanarayan Soni and Late Bhawari Devi Soni. -fhe alleged will deed datcd, 20.12.1994 is a forged and created docuntent to grab the ry/' -) !,,\,1.J L R ltNo 995 ol2A23 suit schedule propcr[,. The plainrill filed L.R. applications in R.C.Nos.45 and 47 ol 20 l0 r.vhich were disrnisse d by order dated

22.11.2017. Late Satyanaray.an Soni execured Will deed in favour ol delendant No. I on 21.10.2016 in respect ol the suit schedule property and subsequently, defendant No. I gilted the sarne to his i.vile and thus. they became owners of the suit schedule propcrty.

7. During the pendencl, ol'thc suit. rhe plainrili'fjled t.A.No.942 of 2018 under Order XXXIX Rule I & 2 ol C.p.C.. seeking ternporary injunction. Defendant No.3 filed counrer resisting rhe said application. The trial Court observed that therc is arrbiguitr rvith regard to the authcnticity of thc Will deed and also *,ith regard to the true or,,ner olthe suit schedule property and the same can be dctermined only at subsequent stage and not at the initial stagc and accordingly. clismissed the said application, vide order rjated 18. 10.2019.

8. Aggrieved by the said order. rhe plaintifT filed CMA.No.9 I ol 2019, contending that the trial Courr f-ailed to apprcciatc the lact that he was in possession ol the suit schedule propert) as ri.ell as thc fiauclulcnt nature of the documents created by delbndant Nos.l to 3; that though voluminous documentary evidence is placcd on record. the trial Court erred in holding that the plaintifl failed to sho*, pr.ima.fitcie casc and balance ol convenience in his favour. 4 !.\,.1J C R t .\o 995 of )0)3 \r'*'1 \l - \ L Befirrc the First Appellatc Court. the pla,ntifl filed lrvo applrcation i to recci\,e documents nulnbering 29 dor:ur.ncnl.s and thc salne \uerc alloued. l-he First Appellate Court held that a carclul perusal ol thc said docurnents ivould demonstrate thc ownershin of plaintilf and also printa facic proves his possession over the suit schedule propefty and on the olher hand, the respondents failed to prove their posscssion o\ cr the srrit schedule property and accordingly, allorvcd the appeal. thercby gfatting ternporary iniunction in lavour olplaintiff. Challcnging the said order. 1he prescnt Revision is fllcd_

10. Leartccl counsel fbr the pctitioners/delendan Nos.I and 2 submitted that [rxs.P-47 to 5l-property tax rcceipts. clectr-icit1, trills and *ater bills rt,crc all issued in the name ol Bhawari Devi Soni and Satavanaral ana Soni and except Ex.P3-Will deed daterl,on 20.l2.lgg4 rrhich tvas said to be executed by Bhawari Devi Soni in lavour ol plaintil'f. no other clocument rres filed b1r the plaintil't' to shou, his possession ,rt'the suit schedule property. He lurther sutrrnitted that the [.ate Satvanarar an Soni executed will deed in favour ol dct-endant No. I on 2.1. 10.2() t 6 in rcspect of the suit schedule prol)efty and thus. delcndant No.l becamc the absolute owner, who, in tun., gifted the said propcrl-v to his u,ife. llowever. the First Appellate Cotrrt has lailed to propcrl) apprcciatc thc said facts and erred in grar ring temporary ) t\1J ( R l' \i 09i al)A:) injunction in lavour ol thc plaintifl'and prayed to allow the revision petrtron. Il. On thc other hand. the lcarncd counscl lirr rcspondent No. I herein/plaintilf submittcd that the [_ate Satyanarayan Soni was lully arvare of thc Witl dated 20. 12.lg94 crecutcd b,r, his ir it-e and never disputed its contenls during his lit'ctinrc; that dcf-endant No. l. nephew of plaintif f. took advantagc of ill hcalth ol Satvanaravan Soni. misled hirn and sot executed a lraudulent gilt dccd in his favour, to deprive l_he plainLifl'ol'his rightful inheritancc: that alier thq dcarh ol'satranaralan Soni. thc dcf'endants along with sorne unsocial clcrrents. atternpted to lbrcibll,takc possession olthe suit property on 02.0i.2017 and again on

25.11.2018, but they were resisted bv rhc plainrill'rnd Lhe rcnanrsi thar dct'endant No. I was never in possession of'the suit schcdule propcrtl. and *as only trying to grab the suit schedulc proper.t) b1, crdating lalse documcnts. []y oontending thus. learned counsel submits that thc [rirst Appcllatc Court has rightly considercd all thcsc aspects and granted terxporary injunclion in lavour of plaintilf and as such, no error, not to speak of any error of law. could be said to have been committcr.l b1, the Irirst Appcllate Court in passing thc irnpugncd ordcr and hcnce, the lle r ision is liable to bc disrnissed.. 11 \i 6 t.\ | .J t R t \,) t)9) al )t:1

12. Apropos thc rival contentions advanced by leamcd counsel lor both thc partics. it is to hc noted that the plaintill delelriant Nos.l and 2, and dcli:ndant No..l arc claiming ownership ovcr the suit schedulc properl\. on thc basis of'the Will deeds executed in t reir favour. i.e.. plaintill- c anIS through Will deed dated 20.12.l9t'4 cxecutccl by Bharrari l):r i Sorri in lris favour. while delcndant No. I claims through Will dccd datcd l-1. 10.10 l6 executcd by Satyanaral'ar Sonr in lavour and lurtltcr. cle lendant No.3 clairns through Will deed clatcd l(r. 12.1994 cxccutccl b, []hauari [)cvi Soni in his {avour.'l-hus. thcre is cloud over the gcurrin--ncss o1' tlrc Will dccds basing on which tltc panies arc claimin-e titlc or er tlrc suit schedulc property, hou,er cr. thc sanre is sub.icct nrir ter o['rdiLrdication in thc sui1. which will bt: clecided alter a full-fledgctl trial ol thc suit I3. As lcsards sranting of injunction, the party seeking injunction has to satislr thc thrcc cardinal principles viz.. prima fa,:it ctrsc. balance ol cortvcn ir:ncc and incparable loss

14. Adicrting to thc said principles. in thc instant ca;e. tt is llertrnent to notc thirt the plaintit'f flled Ex.l']3 8-Deposition of' Satyanarayan Soni in ('r--.511 ol'l0ll on the llle olthe III Special. Nlagistrate. Hyderabarl, has stated that the plaintiff and plaintiil's sons were collecting rerlts fiolr tenants fbr the suit schedule propefly. Further, the plaintiff has placed on record Exs.p-42 to 45_Lease dccds cntered between himsell and the Iessees. -fhus, docume,ts show prima facie possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, this court finds rhat the plaintiff has proved his prirna facie case and irreparable loss for grant of i^junction in his favour. on the other hand, the defendants have not placed any documentary material on record showing their posscssion ovcr the suit schedule property.

15. For the fbregoing reasons and as the revision petitioner has {ailed to poinr our any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orclcr. this Court is of considered opinion that the First Appellate cou.t has rightly granted injunction in favour of the plaintirf and as such, the impugned order warrants no interfercnce by this Court. t6. Accordingly, this Rer ision is dismissed. No cosrs. 17. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, il any, shall stand closed SD/- M.JAWAHARREDDI' ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad 2. The XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu, Advocate [OPUC] 4- One CC to Sri Aadesh Varma, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VH/PSL ::.1*t: - . :.t::r ,],{.l.i;!' - HIGH COURT DATED: 05108t2025 ORDER CRP.No.995 of 2023 DISMISSING THE CRP { )'€ -4, 'J' ' -'. 1O SEP ro5 ., 'j \'.'+ \\{ \ \-:''-: 6 !a/' I