The High Court · 2025

Revision Petition is frk:' i bY the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Co rstitution of India against the order and <lecree passed in C' il'A'No'06 of 2017, on the frle of tJle learned Principal Di 'trict Judge' Khammam, which was preferred against ihe orcir rs passed in I.A.No.598 of 2015 in O'S'No'255 c'f 2015 on i re frle of the learned Frincipal Junior Civil Judge at Kham r am' r'vherein the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge' Kha'nrr rm vitie order dated 30.01.2AL7 ir-I'A'No'598 of 20i5 i:: O'S'IJ r'255 of 2015 allowed the petition and gran-Liug temporary injrr rction against respondents restraining theni lror'r ca' '-t sing artv i -rterference as to the peaceful possession ar'tl e:ljoYtr ent of the petitioner/plaintiff over the Suit Sche''iule Prope t 'v' t 1e same'

2. Being aggrieved bY respondent/defendant filed C M.A'No Or.l of 20 ' on the file of Principal District Judge, I(hamn-'am on the 61 :'i-rnd that the plaintiff was in possessloll a-l'r'l enjoyi:lent of ''lr : suit schedule property ci'Ac.0.26 guntas eii:: cet'er' 1arrt No l having land to .t dr"'' I 2 (', the west of her land and pestering her to alienate Ac.O.26 guntas as she is not inclined to hear the demand, as such tJrey were tr5ring to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment ald the learned Principle District Judge having gone into the merits of the case have allowed and set aside order passed by the learned Junior Civl Judge, Khammam in I.A.No.598 of 2015.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the learned trial Court as petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendant.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff purchased and extent of Ac.3.20 guntas ln Sy.No.207lAA situated at Pallipadu Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District, by paying land revenue to the government, wherein the government has issued title deed and pass book. The respondents are trying to grab the Iand by taking advantage of the financial backdrop of the petitioner as he could not be able to resist

5. The respondents were trying to interfere with their peaceful possession as such the present suit was frled by the n 3 plaintilf seeking injunction and the responder 1 s have frled counter pleadings and contended tJlat the plain t ff sold away Ac. 1-OO guntas of land from east to west in favo.t - of Sri Golla Bhaskar Rao and Ac'1-OO guntas to Sri Kurru Murali and Ac.O.34 guntas to Sri Makineni Naga Ramesh k:l : over land is to arr extent of Ac.0'26 guntas is in exclusive po s ;ession of the petitioner which is not correct and the land thrr was held by the petitioner as claimed within the boundarierr mentioned in the registered sale deed No'1375/1985 was ali' nated by the petitioner and there is no inch of land in the 1r rssession and enjoyment of the petitioner and by taking undtt' advantage of the entry in the pattedar pass book and title der: t coupled with the entries in the pahanies now trying to make I false claim'

6. It is further contended that the resrl rndent No'2 is the owner and possessor of the land to an ex:r nt of Ac' 6'2O guntas out of Sy. No'196/E situated at Pallipz du village and the land of the respondent No'2 is situated to he west of the land of the petitioner covered under the doc rment bearing No.1375/85 7 4 (-)

7. It is further contended by ttre respondent that as tJre petitioner already alienated the entire extent of land covered under the document No.1375/85 in three bits which are nominally named as ABC for proper appreciation as shown in the rough sketch hled by the respondents. The frst bit A, which is on the eastern side of the land of the respondent No.2 was alienated by the petitioner in favour of Sri Kurra Murali and Sri Makineni Naga Ramesh through registered sale deed No.247l /2OOB. he said Sri Kurra Murali and Sri Makineni Naga Ramesh had alienated the land in favour of Sri Chinthakuntla Madhu Kumar through registered sale deed l3l9 l21l2 marked as Ex.R.4. Further the Sri Chinthakuntla Madhu Kumar alienated the iand to an extent of Ac 1.34 gts in favour of one Sri Golla Murali Krishna and Sri Mohd Iqbal Pasha through registered sale deed bearing No.1083/2013 which is marked as Ex.R.S. In al1 the three registered documents the western side boundary was mentioned as the land of Sri Meda Narsalah who is none other than the father of the Respondent No,2.

8. It is further averred that the land marked in Ex.R. 1 as 'B' bit measuring to an extent of Ac 1.OO which is to the \....- ;1 5 East of bit 'A" land alienated by the petitioner in favour of Golla Bhaksar through registered sale deed 115'z/20O2 which is marked as Ex.P.13. Ttre rest of the extent of lz nd named is marked as 'C' bit which is to the further East r f bit 'B land alienated by the petitioner in favor:r of Sri G' ArL: aiah through registered sale deed dated 17-08-2002 which is I rarked as Ex " P.|2,|tisevidentfromtheeasternboundaryasmentionedin there is no the registered sale deed No' 1157 of 2OO2' Thrt land within the Eastern and Western boundarie r as described in petition schedule property ' It is further cor 1 :nded by the Respondents in their counter that the purchase r s of the lands from the petitioner have got erected stone pillars around three bits in between their respective lands' The stont' :illars erected on the western boundary of bit 'A' demarcates he land of bit 'A' and the land owned and possessed by the Re t pondent No'2' In the 'A' bit land the purchaser raised Jawar crop and the purchaser of the 'B' bit land got cultivate'l through one Sri Nageswar Rao and the purchhser of 'C' bit I rnd got raised cotton crop through Sri Challagondla Sri rivas Rao of Pallipahad village during the crop year of 20 1 5 I 6' 6 o.

9. It is firrrther contended by the Respondents that out of the land to an extent of Ac 6.20 gts and possessed by the Respondent No.2, an extent of Ac 1.08 gts was alienated to Chilakala Venkata Narayana and his two brothers through a registered sale deed 147812006 and also another extent of Ac O.22 gls of land in favour of Respondent No.3 herein through registered sale deed No. 1479/2006. It is further averred ttrat ttre Respondent No.2 have taken the above tu,o extents of land on lease and sown cotton seeds in the land taken from the Respondent No.3. The Eastern boundar_v shown in the registered sale deeds 1479 /2006 coupled with the documents 247112OO8, L39O/2012, 1O83/2013 and 1157/2OO2 wlll dispel the claim and contention of the petitioner.

10. It is also further contended by the respondent No.2 that he raised cotton crop in the eastern part of his land and green gram in the western part. The petitioner is well aware of the facts as contended by the respondents and the petitioner has approached the Court with un-clean hands suppressing the true facts which are well with in the knowledge of the petitioner, while seeking the equitable relief of injunction. As, such the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as sought by i ! 1, i I i i I i I I t J I I I I I i i I I i 7 her either on facts or in law' It is further conten(I :d that there is no cause of action for tl-e petitioner and the ca rse of action is invented one and when there is no land t t all to the petitioner within the boundaries as described ir tre schedule property, the question of trespass and disposr;r ssion of the petitioner does not arise. The respondents who e re contesting the petirion are respondent Nos'1 to 5' 1 1. Having heard both the counsels, c'r rsidering the documentar-vevidencewhichisplaced,the'tarnedJudge came to a conclusion that tJle petitioners made rl rt prima facie case and balance of convenience in her fav'l tr and if no injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner ' there is every likelihood of causing an irreparable loss whi' h cannot be compensated in terms of money of that the los r ' and allo['ed ihe petition gralting temporary injunctior' against the respondents. L2. Being aggrieved by the same the p esent CMA is filed on the tollowing ground contending thz t the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam having ;one into the entire groun<is have allowed the CMA '1 smissing the I l i I l l i :' i i I I i I t I I I I i I i I s I I t I i I i i t e I I I I t I a 6 I.A.No.598 of 2O15 in O.S.No.255 of 2013 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civit Judge, Kharnrnam and set aside the order passed by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam. Being aggrieved by ttre same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed on tJle ground that the learned Judge did not consider the fact that the petitioner/plaintiff has sold the part of her land in the eastern side of the western portion as detailed in the plan annexed in the suit documents and there is no justification whatsoever to ignore the same and evolve a new case craved out basing on some mistake of the western boundar5r in one of the documents and in view of the said reasoning on the entire order while reversing the well- considered trail Court order. Further, the learned Judge failed to see that when the defendants/respondents have not denied Ex.P1 the balance land of Ac.0-26 guntas is still available with the ptaintiff, as it is her lald and ignoring the assertion of the petitioner/plaintiff that a mistake has crept in Ex.P8 on the western boundary and tJrereby set aside the injunction granted by the learned trial Court.

13. It is ftrrther contended that the appellant Court did not consider the rest of proceedings in the suit and ought to \ a, 9 have protected the interests of the helpless lady 1o protect her peaceful possession and enjo]'rnent of continuati.n of her suit property and further contended that tl"e learne < Judge erred materially in opining that the question of locatin5 the suit land in between Ex. P8 and the defendants land at thi ' stage '

14. Having heard the co-unsel for the 1 learned counsel for the respondents' Peruttl material placed on record, though the point: before this Court is whether the error corru learned triai Court in allowing appeal anc injunction order granted by the learned Jun't whether there was any grounds made out for i the said lindings. Whether the order passed by r ,etitioner and d the entire which raised oitted bY the setting aside r Civil Judge, rterfering rvith he Junior Civil Judge deserves to be confirmed'

15. Admittedty, the present suit is fileri by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking permanent njunction over their peaceful possession in respect of land of ' rcs'O'36 guntas whichrr,asremainedasbalancelarrdaftercisposingofthe Ac.l-0OtoSriGollaBhaskerRaovideitsregirteredsaledeed bearing tr*o. 1 157l2O02, dated 17'O8'2OO2 n Ex.Pl3 and 10 n re Acs.1.34 guntas was sold to Sri Kurra Murali and Sri Makineni Naga Ramesh by way of G.P.A. cum sale by way of docurnents bearing No.247l of 20O8, in and out of total land situated in an extent of Acs.3.2O guntas in and out of Survey No.2O7/A covered under the registered sale deed vide its document bearing No. 1375 of 1985, dated 3O.04.1985.

16. On perusal of Judgment passed by the learned trial Court Judge that as there is no dispute that the western side of the land purchased under Ex.Pl which is an undisputed fact and it is the contention of the petitioner that after alienation of larrd under Exs.P8 and P2, the remainin g Ac.O.26 guntas land which was purchased r:nder Ex.Pl, since the learned counsel for the respondent raised the contention that the western side boundar5r was wrongly mentioned as land of Sri M.Narsaiah, as the contentions of the respondent counsel is not supported by ary material document whereas the documents Exs.P8 to P13 would show that there remains AC.O-26 guntas of land to tl.e petitioner and it is supported by the Ex. P2 pattedar passbook, Ex.P3-lEl form and Ex.P4 pahani for the year 2074.In Exs Y2 to P4. 6i 11 L7. Further, It clearly mentioned that fr: petitioner is the owner and possessor of Ac.O.26 guntas o' land' Though there is no dispute regarding the remaining, land of O'26 guntas for western side boundary is stated as tl : father of the respondents No. 1 and 2, but physically the lzu td is available on the ground which is in the possession of the 1 etitioner' But, it is denied by the resPondent.

18. It is contended that the respondent {o.2 alienated the land of Ac. 1 .O8 guntas through registt:: ed sale deed No.l478l2OO6 in favour of Sri Chilakala VenL ata Narayana, but the respondents have not filed tJle said deed before this Court to prove bona-6des' F\t 'egistered sale ther, it is the case of the respondents that the respondent \o.2 alienated Ac.O.22 guntas of land in favour of Chilakall out of Ac.6.2O guntas through a register Parvathamma :d sale deed No.I479 l2O06, to ascertain whether the easterr side land was sold to Sri Chilaka Venkata Narayana and his t wo brothers in said document and the land is mentioned a ; eastern side boundary' to the Ac. 1.O8 guntas, but the resp rndent did not choose to file any document. Further, the r-t spondent filed Exhibit: R4 and R5 which shows that the welrt ern side of the 12 land was sold under Exs.R4 and R5, the land of Sri M.Narsaiah is mentioned.

19. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent No'2 raised the cotton crop ald green grarn crop in the land taken on l'ease from Sri Ch' Venkata Narayana and his two brothers and the petitioner is not averredinthea-ffidavitastothenatureofthecropi'e''raised in the petition schedule property. 2C.. On perusal of the entire contentions of the respondents, though it is denied as to the extent of Ac'O '26 guntas as contended by the petitioner/plaintiff, but on perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, who have gone into entire documentar5r evidence placed by the petitioner and as there \.f,Ias no documentar5r evidence placed by the respondents, as the respondents did not choose to hle anv registered sale deed before the Court to prove that the actual boundaries which are existing. But, the learned trial Judge considering the entire material placed and also the documentary evidence which are placed by the plaintiff in the absence of the documentar5r evidence on behalf of the 13 defendant have rightly granted the temp rrary interim injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. I ut the learned appellant Court without considering the said c r cuments, held that the aspect of the boundary dispute cannol )e gone into at tl.is juncture and further held that having consi lered, that tl.e Ex.P8 prima facie establishes that plaintiff sold ttre land commencing from the land she held with the s arting point of the land of the defendant as the eastern side o: the defendant land and thus the question of alienating th, , suit land in between the land of Ex.P8 and defendant land loes not arise. Thus the aspect of eistence of boundary 'r as not rightly considered by the learned trial Court and ther :fore ftre same was set aside. It is also held that the Court :annot at this stage decide whether the boundar5r of lrt stern side is incorrecfly mentioned or not. 2L. Hence, prima facie there is no dispr .te with regard to the plaintiffs possession over the land of A<:. ).26 guntas in view of the same the learned lower Appellate )ourt ought to have seen ttrat the unless and until the said pc ssession is not secured pending the suit of the very purpos€ of filing of the suit would get defeated and the plaintiff wo : .d suffer great \ \ s 14 irreparable loss. Hence, for ttre said reasons, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff against tJle defendant.

22. On perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court Judge, it appears that learned trial Judge have rightly granted temporary injunction in favour of petiLioner/ plaintiff in respect of Ac.O.26 guntas. And the lower appellate Court without considering the same has set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court Judge.

23. Hence, for the said reason this Court is of the opinion that it is a ht case, where the said order passed by the lower appellate court deserves to be set aside. Hence, in the result the CRP is allowed setting aside the order and decree passed in CMA No.06 of 2017, revivtng the interim injunction granted by the learned Junior Civil Judge in LA.No.598 of 2O15 in O.S.No.255 of 2015 in favour of petitioner/plaintiff. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A SREENIVASA REDDY SISTANTR EG{ST SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge Khammam, Khammam District 2- The Prinicipal Juniorcivil Jusge,Khammarn'

3. One CC to SRl. T S ANAND Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to M/s. K.V. RAJASREEA,dvocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies pk/psl I / I \ I t il 1 HE S]h ( I ,o 1O,\a '\i n 5 !ll\fl ?fl7l .l \; ht.r4t 6*rr I t HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 cRP NO.2061 0F 2019 ALLOWING THE CRP \ \ q .>