The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENT/Plaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings or actions related to the dispute, relevant proceedings, if any, e.9., construction, demolition, transfer of property, etc., until final adjudication, and grant any other relief deemed fit in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. MD FASIUDDIN CounselfortheRespondent : MWRJAYAKAR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition challenging the propriety of the order dated 19.11 .2024 in C.M.A.No.19 of 2019 on the file of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, the respondents/defendants, preferred this revision. 2- I have heard Mr. Md. Fasiuddin, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants and Mr. M.W.R. Ajayakar, learned counsel for the respondenUplaintiff. 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the respondent herein instituted O.S. No. 271 of 2019 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile)-cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, seeking a decree of perpetual injunction against the present revisicn petitioners in respect of the suit schedule property, namely Plot No. 1 18, admeasuring 359 square yards, situated in Sy. No. 33 of Bommakal Mllage, Karimnagar. During the pendency of the suit, the respondenUplaintiff filed l.A. No. 56 of 2019 seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court, in the first instance, granted -a 2 NTR,J cRP_1s56 2025 an ad-interim injunction on 08.08.2019, and after conducting an enquiry, directed both parties to maintain status quo over the subject property till conclusion of the suit, by order dated

26.09.2019. Agg rieved thereby, the respondenUplaintiff preferred C.M.A. No. 19 of 2019. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the material on record, allowed the appeal, set aside the docket order dated 26.09.2019, and held that the appellant had made out a case for grant of temporary injunction. The present revision petition has thus been filed by the respondents/defendants challenging the said appellate order. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contends that the trial Court had properly appreciated the pleadings and material evidence. while an interim injunction was initially granted, the subsequent order directing sfafus guo until disposal of the suit was both appropriate and balane,ed. However, the appellate court, without adequately considering the pleadings and, in particular, the flow of title and possession evidenced through the release/redemption deed of 2o16 and the agreement of sale, erroneously granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent. This, it is argued, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. lt is further submitted that the appellate Court failed to -/t? -- d) 3 NTR.J cRP_1556 2025 appreciate that the petitioners themselves had instituted O.S. No 964 of 2021 against the respondent seeking a declaration of title, which is still pending adjudication. ln such circumstances, the trial Court was corect in holding that the essential issues concerning title and possession require determination at trial, and that granting temporary injunction to one party alone would be improper. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for interference by this Court and restoration of the trial Court's order by setting aside the impugned appellate order. 5. ln reply, learned counsel for the respondenUplaintiff vehemently opposed the revision. He submits that the petitioners, while disputing title, have themselves admitted that title had passed to the vendor's vendor of the respondent, and thus their present contentions are unsustainable. Moreover, the petitioners have not produced any document establishing their title or interest over the subject property. The earlier proceedings relied upon by the petitioners were not instituted against the respondent or his vendor, and hence the findings therein cannot bind him. lt is further asserted that after the trial Court granted the status quo order, the petitioners trespassed into the subject property, demolished existing structures, and thereby created :.:i: rL .. :..1:" - _. _r-, . 4 NTRJ cRP_1556_2025 circumstances necessitating the filing of the appeal. The appellate Court, after considering these facts and applying the settled principles governing temporary injunction, rightly granted relief in favour of the respondent. Therefore, no valid ground exists to warrant interference in revision. 6. 7. I have perused the materials on record. lt is a settled principle of law that, while considering an application for temporary injunction pending trial, the Court must apply established legal principles to the facts of the case. The objective is to secure fairness and justice without prematurely adjudicating the substantive rights in dispute. ln the present case, it is not disputed that the respondenuplaintiff asserts his right over the suit schedule property on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 22.06.2010. conversely, the revision petitioners claim that the subject property forms part of their land and that they acquired title thereto under a release/relinquishment deed. Both parties thus assert possession over the property, thereby raising a substantial triable issue warranting judicial examination. 8. With regard to possession, the Respondents relied on several documents, namely, the sale deed (Ex.P:1), link -alocuments (Exs. P-2 to P-4), mutation proceedings (Ex.p-6), 5 NTR,J cRP_l 556_2025 permissaon for construction and its renewal (Exs. p-7 and p-g), and the electricity connection (Ex.p-9). on the other hand the revision petitioners placed particular reliance on recitals in the release/relinquishment deed, which they contend evidence delivery of possession in their favour. 9. However, when the documents of both sides are examined in juxtaposition, certain factors emerge. The petitioners claim to be in possession since 2006. ordinarily, long-standing possession of this nature would be expected to generate interactions with public authorities, resulting in supporting documents fiom the revenue or municipal administration. The conspicuous absence of such records weakens their claim. By contrast, the documents produced by the respondent, which include records issued by the revenue and municipal authorities specifically referring to the subject property, lend stronger support to his assertion of possession.

10. lt is clarified that such observations are relevant only at the interlocutory stage. The competing claims of tifle and possession can be conclusively determined only upon a full-fledged trial. N-evertheless, based on the prima facie material presenfly .."-: .:\. '*i-ii:t 1' f.:rii. :':ti :;t. 6 NTRJ cRP_1556 2025 available, it appears that the respondent has established possession of the subject property. Any dispossession or interference by the revision petitioners at this stage would cause ineparable harm, not compensable in monetary terms. The balance of convenience, therefore, tilts in favour of the respondent. The inconvenience likely to be suffered by the respondent if injunction is refused would be far greater than any hardship that the petitioners might endure if the injunction is maintained.

11. Accordingly, this Court holds that the respondent has made out a prima facie case warranting the grant of temporary injunction. lt is, however, reiterated that the grant of temporary injunction does not amount to a determination of title or lawful possession, but is merely an interim arrangement to protect the parties' interests until the final adjudication of the suit. Both parties shall be at liberty to adduce evidence and present their celse before the trial Court, which shall independently consider the matter at the appropriate stage. 12. ln this view of the matter, the conclusion reached by the appellate Court in the impugned order calls for no interference. e" 7 NT&J cRP 1556 2025 The revision petition is accordingry dismissed. It is further: reiterated that the respondent shall not be disturbed in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property during the pendency of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, misceflaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. I SD/-T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,,TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, LRAT-cum-ll Addl. District & Session Judge, Karimnagar. 2. One CC to SRl. MD FASIUDDIN Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRl. M W R JAYAKAR Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies PSL tA,, :ri .{. a.i!.- ..,.::.r:1 ..{-t:i-' HIGH COURT DATED: 1 4/Ogl20:25 'iti[. - '',.( ( j, ...s ' ' 'r' t'f. (, 0t Jftil ffiffi i i t * ORDER CRP.No.1556 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP 4 (,