High Court · 2025

'12. I\4adiraju Sri Le kha Dio. lale Sudhakar, aged about 30 years occ. Homema<er E/c. H. No. 10-6-16t2, RamSlayam Centre, IVlamirtigudem, Khammarn C ;tr'. Khammam District.

13.The Tahsildar, l.hammam Urban Mandal, Khammam Distrct '14. The Revenue [) visional Officer, Khammam, Khammam Distric . 15.The Distnct (l: Iector, Khammam. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDET{TS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 It\l 3.M.A.No.167 of 2025 Petition rndr--r rlection 151 cpc praying that in the crrr;umr;tances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High court rnay be pleased to dispense with rht: filrnq of Ce(ified Copies as well as photosrtat Copies of Exs.P.1 to PW-2t9 ar; vrell as Exs.R-.1 to R.25 in the interest of iustrr;e. IA NO: 2 OF 2025lN{: .M.A.No.167 of 2025 Petition uncrerr order 39 Rule 1 & 2 R/w section 151 crc lrrayrng that in the crrcumstanc,-rs 'itirred in the affidavit filed in support of the pet,tion, the High court may be prease d to grant temporary injunction in our favou r and against Respondents 1 .o ' :2 restraining them from interfering with our possession over the Petition schedrrie, ,suit schedule properties, pending disposat or the b.M.A., PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY Item.No..1 . The agricrrlt t.;r land consisting Mango Garden measuring t<.r an extent of 4c.3.12 gts. ln -qiy N,r l)75. situated at Verugumafla Revenue vilage. Khammam 3 Urban Mandal, presently within the limits of Khammam. Municipal Corporation, Khammam District, which is within the following boundaries:- East: internal road (way) proceeding towards Bhumata Venture in this SurveY numbet; West: Agricultural lands of Vaddepudi Muthaiah & his sons' North: Agricultural land of Manyam Krishna and Chowdavarapu Srinivasas Rao. South: Agricultural land of Podila Bikshamaiah (Plaintiff No.2)' Item No.2: The agricultural land consisting Mango Garden measuring to an extent of Ac.O.2O gts., in Sy.No.375, situated .at Velugumatla Revenue village, Khammam Urban Mandal, presently within the limits of Khammam Municipal Corporation, Khammam District which is within the following boundaries: East: Agricultural land of Podila Upender. West: lnternal road (way) proceeding towards Bhumata Venture in this SurveY number. North: Agricultural land of Manyam Krishna and chowdavarapu Srinivasa Rao. South: Agricultural land of Podila Adinarayana. IANO:1 oF 202s lN C.M.A.No.176 ot 2O25 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 to dispense with the filing Ex-P5 and P7 document for the present' IANO:2OF 2025rNC .M.A.No.176 ot 2025 I Petition under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 R/w Section 151 CPC praying that in 'stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High the circumstances Court may be pleased to grant temporary injunction in our favour and against Respondents 1 lo 12 restraining them from interfering with our possession over the Petition schedule / suit schedule properties, pending disposal of the c.M.A., . PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERW Item.No.1: The agricultural land consisting Mango Garden measuring to an extent of Ac.3.l2gts.lnSy.No.3T5,situatedatVelugumatlaRevenuevillage,Khammam Urban Mandal, presently within the limits of Khammam. Municipal Corporation, Khammam District, which is within the following boundaries:- + East: interrnal oad (way) proceeding towards Bhumata Verrture in this Survey'rumber; West: Agrir;u't.rral lands of Vaddepudi Muthaiah & his sons North: Aglri:ullr-rral land of Manyam Krishna and Chowclava'apu S rin iva s as Rao. South: Agrir;ultural land of Podila Bikshamaiah (Plaintifl No 2). Item No.2: The agriculturrrl land consisting Mango Garden measuring to an extent of Ac.0.20 gts., in Sv.l'Jrt 375, situated .at Velugumatla Revenue'village, Khammam Urban [t/andal, pres;ently within the limits of Khammam Municip'al Corporation, Khammam Distric: \,,/ll ch is within the following boundaries: East: Agricullttral land of Podila Upender. West: lnternal road (way) proceeding towards Bhumata Verrture in this Su'vr:y rr rmber. North: Agrir;ult tral land of Manyam Krishna and Chowdavarapu Srinivasa Rac. South: Aqri:ullr,rral land of Podila Adinarayana. Counsel for the Appr:llants : SRl. NADIPALLY ANANDA RAC) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 5, R9 to 12: SRI TARUN Rl\M AITHAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 8 : SRI KONDADI AJAY KtIMAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER w a I I I 'l ! I i I I i i ; 'I , i I I I l l l I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR And TI{E HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA C.M.A. Nos.167 and 176 of 2025 COMMO N JUDGMENT: (Per llon'ble Sri.Iustice T.Vinod Kumar) These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the order dated I l-02-2025 passed in I'A'No'37/2024 and l.A.No.36/2024 in O.S.No.2 of 2024 on the hle of the I Additional District Judge at Khammam.

2. Lleald lealned counsel for the appellants, Sri 'larun Ram Aitham and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kurnar, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, and pelused the record'

3. Since, the partics are one and the same and both the orders arisc out of thc same suit, thesc Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The appeltants helein are plaintiffs in the suit filed by them against the respondents/defendants lor the relief of declaration thar appellant/plaintiff No. I as the absolute owner of the suit schedulc properlies. 2

5. In lh: r;rt.rject suit filcd by thc appellants herein. tlrcy have filed an Irrt.rl,)cutoly Application vide I.A.No.37 ol l0 Lrnder Order 39 l\rl: 1 and 2 CPC to restrain the responrlcnt; il'om interfelinr rr i [-r t[-re peaccful possession and en-loynicr]t of the suit scl Lc,l rli: ploperty by the appellant No. arrcl i.nothcr Interlocrrtor'. ,\Pplication vide I.A.No.36 of 2024 to esLrtin the lespond,:nl:. I O11I alienating ltem Nos.1 and 2 c,f the schedulc propertl,rs

6. Thr: rirl (-ourt while ordering notice to tl-e ri sl-.,o rdents. had grant:, I ud-interim ex parte injunction in lar,,rur of the appcllants Lt:r'cin

7. Rc:,1.r,rrrc e nts on being scrved witli notic(.. r ntercd rlppeararrc: ir the suit and filed petition to vacate lht ut.,-tnter.in cr parte ir. j .u-r tiorr granted in favoul of the appelllrnts

8. Thi: L-irl r--ouft, after hearing counsel appearing orr l.e tallof the parti :s thc irnpugned orders had vacated th: utl trirt rint er parte in urr.: tc,n in the application filed undel Ot der l(-) {ule 1 and 2 (ll'}( and disrnissed the said application fil:cl 1r1' tl.re appellan-s l.e reirL I t i i I I i I I I -{ 3

9. On behalf of the appellants, it is contended that the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that the name of the appellants herein have been mutated in the Revenue records and were issued with Pattadar Pass Books with Khata No'591 in the year 1999 itsetf, ancl are in receipt of input benefits under 'Rythu Bandhu' Scheme, and thus, their possession cannot be held not established for vacating the order u'hereby the respondents were restrained from interfering with the possession and restraining the respondents tiom alienating the suit schedule properties'

10. Appellants further contend that the subject land was in possession of the appellants since 1999 having purchased the same under Sada Bainama, on the basis of which, their names have been mutated in Revenue records, and thus, the trial Coutl had failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact while dismissing the underlying Interlocutory Applications. ll. Per contro, learned counsels appcaring on bchalf of the lespondents would submit that tl-re appellants herein are not in possession of the subjcct land, and this Courl in W'P'No'30102 of 2015, while holding that the appellants herein are not entitled for any relief in the Writ Petition, left the issue open to pursue i I 4 the ftr[ cilj e s open to the appellants to approach the L olnpetent Civil Ccirli or by submitting appropriate appli,:atic,ns t,efore the Compc,enl ,\utliority for mutation of their nanres it il,) re\cnue recotrls '1hcr. have in fact acquired any righr or,_,r rl-e sub.iect Propert''

12. Lcrln:d counsels for the respondents strbnti_ that the appeilant.; lercin subsequently havc filed thc sub.tccr ;uit ancl since. tlrt, l ppellants are not in possession, they ar.: r.oL er-rtitled lbr -qrlrt o'an] ir-r.junction or rcstrainitrg the rc.spo,rd(jt ts hcrein lrorn irli: titling the suit schedule propefty. I 3. f ei u rri,r I cou,sels for the responde,ts fur.thr:r. sl bu ri L th at tl_re trial Corl t tacl recorded a categorical findir-rg as to th!- claim of the aJrp:llarts of they purchasing thc suit schedulc property stated tc rc .ronsisting of mango garden and the said (rr,lp bcing l sold tr, t,trt: i"lallikarjuna Rao having been not :,ubs antj,rled. are not enrit r(l t) grant any injunction. 1'1. I-:alrec counsels for the respor-rdents fu rthc-r su,.lnri that the appel lzul s l- crcin are laying their clairn to the sub.jcc . -n.opert), under Sz,du Ilainarna, which is not regtrlarized everr tht.,ugh the GoverruLr.Lrl bad given oppoftunity earlier on lu,l o.:casions a-l 5 including in the year 201 1 , for getting the Sada Binama regularized and as such, the appellants being not in possession' are not entitled to grant of injunction, and thus, trial Court has rightly rejected/vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction granted. 1 5. We have taken note of respective contcntions urged'

16. Firstly, it is to be noted that both the pleas taken by the appellants herein in the underlying Interlocutory Applications are sc lf-contradictory. On one hand, appellants in I'A'No'37 of 2024 while claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule propedy are seeking for injunction restraining tl're respondents from interfering with their possession, on the other hand, in I A'No'36 of 2024 have sought for the relief to restrain lhe respondents flom alienating the suit schedule property. If or.rly the appellants arc iu possession of the suit schedule property, respondents cannot alienate the same without putting thc purchascrs in possession on such alienation.

17. Furlher, the trial Cour1, while vacating the ad-interim ex parte injunctioh granted earlier and dismissing the underlying lnterlocutory Applications had noted that the appellants except 5 clainrin-r ti.le to the subject propefty under Saclir BainrLrra, r.r,hich is not e,, :n Lnrpounded by paying stamp dlrty and tlocs r_rot have any r:r''rllrrr iary value, did not place on r(tcor.l a tv other eviderrc,:.

18. Iht, lr.ial Court also noted that the appellants hercrn clairn of existerLc,: o lrango garden in their land and mans,r crop bei6g purchasec l-r one Mallikarjuna Rao, did not fik: an.,.(tolumcnts Io shorr iirr: r or.vnership nor any rnutation having takcn place ir_r their rt rnr,.. rr td also as to under which proceedin_c tlr,:i . ualres have b,:e r : tLercd in the Revenue records since, no pr.<l:eecling number I_-as reen rnentioned in the Revenue records agilirrst their rlat-nes

19. The rit Cour.t further held that since, ordcr of.i tiLrr,:tion is an equilal,l .: ..:lic1, the appellants must approaclt thc (.ol rt u,.ith clean hitn.l., t'he trial Court taking note of th,,. fhct rlrar the appcllants lr:-:in having not produced any docu,lenrs L( shoq,' their pos;scs. i:n over the prcpefty, held that thc appellarrts ar.e not enlit crl ii r any injunction, and accordingly, racated tl.te crcl_ interim (r I'e)'te injunction order granted earlier b1, ,1isLr- issing the underl,r i;r q lnter.locutor.y Applications. ,w ,l 7

20. 'lhough, it was sought to be argued on behalf of the appellants that pursuant to thc order of this Court in W.P.No.30102 of 2015 dated 20-l 1'2023, the appellants herein having approached the competent Courl of Civil Jurisdiction by filing a comprehensive suit to declare the appell-ant No l herein as absolute owner and pendirg adjudication of the said suit, if the respondents are allowed to deal with the subject property, the same would defeat the claim of the appellants, it is to be noted that the appellants herein having f,rled the suit only in January, 2025 and admittedly the respondents herein having not created any encr-tmbrance on the said propedy as of date, any I encumbrance created pending adjudication of the suit filed by the appellants herein, would be governed by the doctrine of /rs pentlens.

21. For the said reason also, though, the appellants have sought for grant of order of status quo' we are of the considered vicw that since, the trial Court having fbund the appellants not in possession of the suit schedule propefty, are not entitled for grant of all-in.terim ex parte injunction or the ordcr of status qzo' 1-hus, the order of the irial Courl in vacating lhe ad-interim ex parte 8 a\ lnJunction !,l anted earlier does not suffer fro. r.r anr .)rror or perversit'r 1cr. being interfered with by this Corrrt rl1 Appeals

22. [n v t,',, r1'tlte above, thcse Civit Miscellane ous Ap; eals are disposecl crI rr tenrs of the above obser.vations. No cc sts , 1-: . A:. n sL.rluel, miscellaneous petitions pendtng il rr 1. shall stand clo:;t.il //TRUE COPY// To, SD/-.K. SRINIVASA RAO ,\'Jor{riiiGi6^riiiH / -- > \ \ \_..SECTION ,, --*-- OFFICER -l,oJ',i'i?l,J^udse at Khammam i 6i:'#l:' 3: i fl ffi ;; i: ;,; in{r*iznlffi cD ooc er sl{ij,atBi:{.y"' rt"J,Y" ft- HIGH COI.JRT DATED:01 rcil2025 COMMON C)F.DER CMA.No.167' ,AND 176 of 2O2S : 1..- ' \l a) DISPOSING OF THE C.M.As WITHOUT COSTS. a.'flte (k (i6s