The High Court · 2025

... RespondenUDefendant lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC pra ing that in the circumstances stated , the High Court may be pleased to g the RespondenV Defendant, his s, all any other persons claiming ossession and enjoyment over the nd measuring to an extent of Ac. 1 measuring to an extent of Ac. '1-33 an extent of Ac.3-27 gts in one ge, Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam in the affidavit filed in support of the petiti grant ad-lnterim injunction order restraini henchmen, servants, subordinates, agen through him interfering with my peaceful petition schedule property i.e., Agriculture I 34 gts, in and out of Sy.No. 185/A and lan gts, in and out of Sy. No. 185/AA, total compact bit situated at Nerada Revenue Vil District, pending the disposal of C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Madiraju P bhakar Rao Counsel for the Respondent: Sri. G Ravi C andra Sekhar The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1265 OF 20lS ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2025 in C.M.A. No.20 of 2023 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short .appellate court') affirming the order dated 01.0g.2023 in I.A. No.2 of 2023 in O.S. No.759 of 2023 passed by the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate of First class, Mobile court, Khammam (for short ,trial Court'). 2' The petirioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit in O.S. No.759 of 2023 and for the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. The plaintiff instituted suit in O.S. No.759 of 2023 on the file of the trial court for grant of perpetuar injunction restraining the defendant and his henchmen from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the tand admeasuring Ac. 1_34 guntas in and out of Survey No.l85/A and the land admeasuring Ac.l_33 guntas in and out of Survey No. I 85/AA, total admeasuring Acs.3_27 guntas, situated at 2 Nerada Revenue Village, Chinthak Mandal, Khammam District (for short 'suit property'). It was pl by the plaintiff that he had inherited the suit property along with other lands from his late father long back under family partition amo gst his brothers and since then, he had been in possession and e oyment of the suit property. The plaintiff had been raising maize d cotton crop by drawing water from the borewell situated in the suit roperty with electricity service connection bearing USC No.3833993 I The plaintiff had been issued pattadar pass book No.T26020070135 with Khata No.242 and he had been receiving money under the sch e of Rythu Bandu from the Govemment of Telangana

4. It is stated that the defen t is doing finance business. The brother of the plaintiff by name . Bijjala Janardhan atlegedly borrowed amounts from the defen t and towards security for repayment of the said amounts, Mr ijjala Janardhan executed an agreement of sale-cum-general power of attomey in favour of the de lendant bearing document Nos.641 f 2011 and 642 of 2011 dared

10.03.2011 in respect of the lands ad easuring Acs.4-00 guntas in Survey No.171, Ac.1-33 guntas in Surv y No.185/8, Ac.1-30 guntas in \ \. r--.r \ - \ I 3 Survey No. 156, Acs.2-03 guntas in Survey No.157, Ac.0_25 guntas in and out ofSurvey No.l57, Ac.0-25 guntas in Survey No. 170, situated at Nerada Revenue Village, Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District. Subsequently, being the GpA holder of Mr. Bijjala Janardhan, the defendant got registered the above said lands in his favour under registered document bearing Nos.320l of 2011 and,3202 of20l l dated 2l.ll.20ll . However, the defendant had not been in possession of the said lands. Subsequently, Mr. Bijjala Janardhan died and his sons are residing in the USA. Later, the sons of Mr. Bijjala Janardhan had been in possession and enjoyment of the lands covered under the registered sale deeds bearing documents No.320l of 2011 and,3202 of 20ll and they have leased out the said lands to a Kauldar. While so, on 12'06.2023, the praintiff received norice from the Mandal surveyor, office of rahasildar, chinthakani to fix up and measure the land of the defendant in Survey No. lg5 scheduled on 16.06.2023. Immediately, the plaintiff issued legal notice ro the Mandal Surveyor through his counsel and objected such survey. The Mandal Surveyor directed the defendant to approach the plaintiff and resolve the objection. The defendant, instead of resolving the objection with the praintife tried to fix up the boundaries in Sun2dNo. lg5 as per his whims and fancies \ t 4 and tried to grab the suit property

18.06.2023 which consists of borewell. On knowing the same, the p aintiff rushed to the suit properry and resisted the defendant with the hel of neighbouring farmers.

5. It is claimed that there is no ewell or well in Survey No.l85 allegedly belonging to the defendant Further, as per the registered agreement of sale-cum-general pow of attomey bearing document No.64 I of 201 I , the westem boun of the land in Survey No.185 is shown as the land of the plainti The neighbouring farmers admonished the defendant and wam him not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It is submitted again on

01.01 .2023, the defendant came wi JCB and tried to disturb the boundaries ofthe suit property. Aggri ed thereby, the plaintifflodged a complaint with the Station House O lcer, Chinthakani Police Station but no action has been taken. That me persons claiming to be the agents of the defendant and along wi the defendant tried to enter into the suit property on 18.06.2023 an

01.07.2023 and with malafide intention and with ulterior motives, ed to grab the suit property but the plaintiff resisted their attempts. In such circumstances, the suit was fited. 5

6. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXX Rule I and 2 read with Section t51 of the C.P.C- vide I.A. No.2 of 2023 in O.S. No.759 of 2023 before the trial Courl seeking grant of ad-interim injunction order restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the suit property ' 7 In the counter affidavit filed by the defendant to I.A. No.2 of 2023 in O.S. No.759 of 2023, the averments made by the plaintiff that his brother by name Mr. Bijjala Janardhan has borrowed amounts from the defendant and executed an agreement of sale-cum-general power of attomey as security in his favour; that the defendant is not in possession of the property covered under the registered documents bearing Nos.3201 of2011 and3202 of20l1 dated 21.11.201i; andthatthe said property is in possession of the children of Mr. Bijjata Janardhan who are residents of the USA are denied. [t is further contended that the name of the defendant is duty recorded as owner and possessor in the revenue records and he was issued pattadar pass book No.T26020070486 with Khata No.698 in respect of the above said lands which demonstrates that he had been in possession of the above said lands and had been receiving money under the scheme of 'Rythu 1 '! 6 Bandu' from the Government of Tel gana. Further, it is contended that the plaintiffhas no authority to qu stion the transfer of the properfy by Mr. Bijjala Janardhan in favour of e defendant that too more than a decade of such transfer. The borew I is within the property of the defendant and the electricitv meter refe to by the plaintiffis situated in the suit property. The plaintiff, in o to gain wrongfully, clubbed both the aspects only to create confirsio It is stated that the defendant was clearing his land to start agricult operations but the plaintiff, in order to lay claim over the title of e defendant, created cause of action without any basis. There is no se of action to file the suit and the plaintiffhas approached this Court ith unclean hands.

8. The trial Court dismissed the ap lication in I.A. No.2 by noting that the plaintiff claims to be the owner f the suit property which is not disputed by the defendant. The tri Court, by referring to the documents (Ex.P-l to P-9) relied on b the plaintiff, held that as per Ex.P-S to P-8, it is clear that the defen t purchased the land in Survey No.l56, 157, 170, 171 and 185/E m Mr. Bijjala Janardhan. The defendant is not disputing the poss ssion of the plaintiff over the surt property. As per Ex.P-3, the Tahasi intended to conduct survey 7 of the land in Survey No.185 which is part of his official duties and there is no clear and specific averment that there is interference by the defendant with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and the plaintiff himself admitted rhat the delendant purchased the land in Survey No.185/E from Mr. Bijjala Janardhan through westem boundary which belongs to the plaintiff. The rrial court further recorded that the documents (Ex.p-l to p-9) do not reflect that the suit property contains borewell anC the plaintiff has the absolute right over the said borewell. The photographs hled at E,x.p-9 are not sufficient to establish that the defendant has interfered with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. Further, the trial Court, by placing reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in M/s Shanta Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its MD v. State of Telangana (C.M.A. No.535 of 20211, hetd that the Memorandum of deposit of title deed (Ex.R-l) relied upon by the delendanr would be considered during the trial by noting that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and failed to prove his possession over the suit property. As such, the trial Court by order dated 01.09.2023 dismissed the application in I.A. No.2 of 2023 in O.S. No.759 of 2023. 8

9. The plaintiff filed C.M.A. No. 0 of 2023 before the aPPellate Court challenging the dismissal order ted 01.08.2023 Passed bY the trial Court in t.A. No.2 of 2023 in O.S No.759 of2023 and order dated

10.02.2025 was passed by the appella Court wherein it was held that mere apprehension of the plaintiff i that the borewell in the suit property may be affected while cond cting the survey. The Plaintiff failed to show how the surveY w uld interfere with his rights. The defendant has legal right to nduct survey to ascertain his c boundaries provided it is done through competent authorities. There is no material to show that the defendant s interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The claim of the plaintiff that there is interference by the defendant th the borewell in his land is speculative and he has not established y imminent harm. The balance of convenience does not lie in favou of the plaintiff as granting of injunction would prevent the defendan from exercising his legal rights to ascertain his boundaries.

10. Leamed counsel for the plaintiff ubmitted that the trial Court and the appellate Court grossly held that dismissing the application rn I.A. No.2 of 2023 despite holding there is no dispute that the 9 plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendant admitted the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit propert)'. The injunction sought by the plaintiff was not to prevent the officials from conducting survey of the land, it was only to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit propemy. The plaintiff did not seek for a restraint order against survey officials. The plaintiff was issued pattadar pass book and had been receiving money under the scheme of 'Rythu Bandu' and the existence of the borewelt with electricity connection is not disputed by the defendant. It was pleaded that there is interference by the defendant with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. Thus, the cause of action arose from the filing of the suit and hence, the application in I.A. No.2 of 2023 ottght not to have been dismissed.

11. Per contra, Iearned counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant is not disputing the title of the petitioner over the suit property. The plaintiff admitted in the suit pleadings that he does not have any interest over the land purchased by the defendant from Mr. Bijjala Janardhan and for creating cause of action, the suit was -. . r.: r,_:a' 1.an ., .1. ,.. ;di#a;*; .-i..gi**rr&&xa';.:.,,,. :: ...,r' r', *lBt}dgt&t&*xwin*&t *ri,il5'i-r ',' ir.. i:-s ;,.ir: t0 filed, and the trial Court has rightl dismissed the aPPlication in I.A. No.2 of 2023.

12. Heard learned counsel for the pl intiff and learned counsel for the defendant, and perused the material on ecord.

13. The plaintiff clearly asserted in the suit pleadings at paragraph No.6, that he received notice dated

12.06.2023 from the Mandal Surveyor for conducting survey of the land of the defendant in Survey No. I 85 scheduled on 16.06.2021. The taintiff objected for conducting of survey by issuing legal notice to Mandal Surveyor through his counsel; pursuant thereto, the Mandal urveyor directed the defendant to approach the plaintiff and resol the objection; the defendant, instead of resolving the objection with the plaintiff, tried to fix up the boundaries in Survey No.185 as per hi whims and fancies and tried to grab the suit property on 18.06.2023 w ich consists of borewell; it was further pleaded that on 01.07.2023, th defendant came with JCB and tried to disturb the boundaries of e suit property and aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff lodged a complain with the Station House Officer, Chinthakani Police Station but no ac n has been taken. That some persons claiming to be the agents of e deQndant and along with the ( Y 1l defendant tried to enter into the suit property on 18.06.2023 and 0l .07 .2023 and with ulterior motives and malafide intention, tried to grab the suit property but the plaintiff resisted their attempts. In view of the same, the findings recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court that there is no cause of action for filing suit by the plaintiff is erroneous and unsustainable.

14. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court recorded that rhe title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property is not denied by the defendant. Further, at paragraph No.8 of the written statement and paragraph No.9 of the counter to I.A. No.2 of 2023, the defendant asserted that the borewell is very much within his property and the electricity meter referred to by the plaintiff is at his well but the plaintiff, in order to gain wrongfully, clubbed both the aspecrs only ro create confusion.

15. On perusal of the pleadings of the defendant, there is no denial that the plaintiff is using the borewell with service connection bearing USC No.3833993 1. Thus, when the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and the usage of borewell by the plaintiff is not disputed and more so, the defendant has not commenced any .**t&, 2 I.i agricultural operarions in the la d allegedly purchased by him, the findings recorded by the trial C urt and the appellate Court that the plaintiff has not made out a prima cie case of interference and did not prove the existence of the bore ell in his property is erroneous. The trial Court and the appellate Court failed to consider that the plaintiffdid not ask for any relief nst the survey officials. Even if lnJunctlon is granted, the trial Coun the appellate Court could have reserved the right of the defendant to get his land surveyed. There is no document filed by the defendant o show that the land has been surveyed and the boundaries have b fixed. In such circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for grant of te porary tnJ unctlon.

16. [n view of the above, this c vil revision petition is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 10.02 2025 in C.M.A. No.20 of 2023 passed by the appellate court affi the order dated 01.08.2023 in LA. No.2 of 2023 in O.S. No.759 of 2 23 passed by the trial Court is set aside. Consequently, there shall be te porary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the po session of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property pending disposal f the suit. This order, however, shall not preclude the defendant fro getting his land surveyed and AW l3 thereafter seek for appropriate orders before the trial Court in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the civil revision petition stand closed. n SD/- V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER I

2. J 4 The llnd Additional District Judge, Khammam. One CC to Sri. Madiraju prabhakar Rao Advocate IOPUCI One CC to Sri, G Ravi Chandra Sekhar Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies MKN/PSI QT HIGH COURT DATED:1110412025 ..t I i ) c /. i1 1t..-:rr, \.- ' f-i "r ,.-.,.,' 11 AUE 2025 ,': Oy--s; '^ ic.J,; ORDER CRP.No.1265 of 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED (+ A- 2_\ LI /, U