The High Court · 2025

Order

THE IIONOUR{BLII DT.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVII, REVISION PETITIO N No.l07l OF 2022 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs aggrieved by the .iudgment and decree dated 03.01 .2022 passed in CMA No.9 of 2020 on the flle of the Principal District Judge at Karimnagar, conlirming the order and decree dated 05.10.2020 passed in I.A. No. 100 of 2020 in O.S. No.258 of 2020 by the I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar

2. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.258 of 2020 for perpetual ir.r.iunction and along with the said suit filed I.A. No.100 of 2020 seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules I and 2 of CPC. The interlocutory application was filed seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with their enjoyment and possession of the petition schedule A and B properties. Petition schedule 'A' property was an agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0- I3 gts., in Survey No.492/Dlll2, an extent of Ac'0- 13 % gts., in Sy. No.492lDll13 in total an extent of Ac.l.00 gts., as a compact block in Sy.No.492lD/l situated at Sadashivapally village of Manakondur Mandal ol' Karimnagar District. Petition schedule 'B' D.,GRR,J CRP No. t07l of)022 property was an agricultural and to an extent of Ac.0.22 gts., in Sy. No.49llB/t and an extent of Ac.0-21 % gts., in Sy. No.49llB/2 and also an extent of Ac.0.2l Yz gts., in Sy. No.491,ts/3 in total an extent of Ac.l-25 gts., as a compact btock in Sy. No.49liB situated at Sadashivapally of' Manakondur Mandal of Karimnagar District. The petitioners contended that the petitioner Nos.l and 2-ptaintiff Nos. I and 2 were the absolute owners and possessors of the 'A' schedule property and the petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 - ptaintiff Nos.3, 4 and 5 were the absolute owners and possessors of the 'B' schedule property. The respondent-defendant was the initial owner and possessor of the suit schedule A and B lands and obtained loan from Indian Bank, Asifnagar Branch by depositing title deeds vide document No.1950 of 2008, dated 27.05.2008. Subsequently,, after clearing the loan and after release of the title deeds, the defendants sold the suit schedule property to one Singireddy Karunakar Reddy and Smt. Kethi Reddy Mamatha and inducted them into possession by executing an irrevocable agreement of sale cum GPA document bearing No.l 143 of 2011 dated 11.03.2011. The said Singireddy Karunakar Reddy and Smt.Kethi Reddy Mamatha sold the suit schedule property to one Mothey Narayana Reddy, Puramandla Karunakar Reddy and Adepu DT.GRR,J CR? No-1071 o12022 Ramesh through registered sale deed document No.7304 of 2012, dated 07. I 1.2012 and they were inducted into possession of the same. Subsequently, the suit schedule lands were mutated in revenue records in the names of Mothey Narayana Reddy, puramandla Karunakar Reddy and Adepu Ramesh. As per the procedure, the pattedar Passbooks were also issued in their lavour and their names were entered in the pahanies and revenue records. The plaintiff Nos.l and 2 purchased the suit schedule 'A' property through registered sale deed document No.989 of 2020 dated 08.06.2020 and the plairitiff Nos.3 to 5 purchased petition schedule 'B' land through registered sale deed document No.990 of 2020 dated 08.06.2020 from Mothey Narayana Reddy, Puramandla Karunakar and Adepu Ramesh and were inducted into possession of the same. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed applications before the Tahsildar, Manakondur Mandal for mutation of their names and the same was under process. As such, the Tahsildar, Manakondur issued temporary proceedings for effecting mutation in their favour.

2. I The petitioners further contended that the respondent_ defendant being resident of Sadashivapally village by taking advantage of his local strength and influencing the police was illegally I I .1 D|GfrR J CRP,\o.l07l of )02] interfering into their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule lands. On 07.07.2020 while the petitioners-plaintiffs started ploughing the suit schedule lands by engaging two tractors and agricultural operations were going on, the respondent-defendant along with his father and other associates came to the suit schedule land and interfered with their peaceful possession and enjoyment and restrained the agricultural operations. As such, on 11.07.2020, the petitioners approached P.S., Manakondur and lodged a complaint against the respondent-defendant and his father. Again the respondent-defendant and his father caused interference into their agricultural operations on

12.07.2020 inspite of police complaint. When they called the police, the respondent-defendant executed an undertaking letter admitting his fault stating that he would not interfere into the possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule lands. But, however, on 18.07.2020, the defendant along with his yesman and antisocial elements came to the suit schedule A and B properties, created nuisance and damaged the pillars erected as boundary stones, removed them and tried to enter into the suit land violating the undertaking executed by him and destroyed some portion of paddy field and threatened the neighbours not to co-operate with the petitioners. The petitioners further 5 DI,GRR,J CRP Na l07l of2022 submitted that the police, Manakondur failed to take any action against the defendants due to his political influence, as such, filed the suit and the petition seeking ad-interim injunction.

3. The respondent-defendant filed his counter submitting that he was the owner .and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac. I .25 gts., in Sy.No.49l and Acs.7.00 gts., in Sy.No.492/D, which included the suit schedule land and the same was mutated in the name of the respondent-defendant in the revenue records. The respondent- defendant was the Managing Partner of M/s.Laxmi Sri Para Boiled fuce Mill, Sadashivapally. The respondent obtained loan by mortgaging his lands including the suit schedule land with Canara Bank, Branch Karimnagar vide registered document No. 1386 of 2009 dated 03.05.2009. Subsequently, the loan was transferred to City Union Bank, Karimnagar vide document No.5 of 2012 on 26.12.2011 and still the loan was not repaid. When the respondent and his firm IWs. Laxmi Sri Para Boiled Rice Mill not complied milling of paddy provided by Govemment for Rs. 1,28,99,126/-, the Tahsildar, Manakondur attached the respondent-defendant's land including the suit land on 16.10.2013 vide letter No.A/385 l/2013 upon the instructions ol thc District Collector (Civil Supplies). Srill the suit Dt.GRR"l of 2022 ^-at071 CRP \ schedule land was under attachment of the Government' The respondent-defendant approached Bobbata Mohan Reddy' ASI' who was known as Finance Mohan Reddy' for loan' The said Mohan Reddy agreed to provide loan ol Rs'20'00'0001 and instructed the respondent to execute a GPA cum sale in the name of his benamies Singireddy Karunakar Reddy and Kethi Reddy Mamatha' wife of Jagan Mohan Reddy. Singireddy Karunakara Reddy was none other than the own brother-in-law of Bobbala Mohan Reddy while Kethireddy Mamatha's husband was near relative of Bobbala Mohan Reddy and his business partner' Accordingly' the respondent- defendant executed arGPA cum agreement of sale vide document No.l143/2011 dated l1'03'2011 in favour of Singiready Karunakar Reddy and Kethireddy Mamatha nominally as security but not delivered the possession' Mohan Reddy did not provide loan except Rs. I ,00,000/- towards expenditure for execution of GPA cum agreement of sale. As the respondent-def'endant was in dire need of funds for repayment, atlast the respondent-defendant could obtain funds from his near relatives and approached ASI' Bobbala Mohan Reddy for cancellation of registered GPA cum Agreement of sale' but he demanded the respondent to pay Rs'3'00'000/- as he arranged fund i ^ 7 D._GR&J CRP,\o-1071 of 2022 of Rs.20,00,000/- and kept it in his account to advance the loan and sustained loss of interest, since the respondent_defendant did not take the loan and demanded the respondent to pay Rs. I,00,000/_ towards stamp duty and expenditure for GpA cum agreement of sare and Rs.2,00,0001 towards interest, totaling Rs.3,00,000/_. The ASI Mohan Reddy obtained signatures of the respondent on Rs. 100/_ stamp papers, four cheques of Laxmi Sri para Boiled Rice Mill drawn on Gayathri Bank, Karimnagar. With the intervention of elders, Mohan Reddy received Rs.1,00,000/_ and instructed his brother_in_ law Kethireddy Karunakar Reddy to cancel the agreement of sale cum GPA dated I 1.03.201 l. Accordingly, Singireddy Karunakar Reddy executed cancellation of GpA cum agreement of sale on 09.01.2012 admitting that no transaction took place. Thereafter, criminal cases were registered against Mohan Reddy and he was remanded to judicial custody. The respondent-defendant came to know that Mohan Reddy and his benamies in collusion with the vendors of the petitioners-plaintiffs brought a registered sale deed No.7304/2011. The respondent-defendant lodged a report to the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar against Mohan Reddy on 2I.ll.2Ol5. Later ACB police also examined the respondent_defendant and recorded his Dr.GRR.l CRP No-1071 of202l statement regarding making of false registered sale deed No.7304 of

2011. After three and half years of judicial remand, Mohan Reddy was released on bail. Whenever the respondent-defendant demanded about false registered sale deed document No.7304 of 201 I, Mohan Reddy informed that the GPA cum sale was cancelled as Kethireddy Karunakar Reddy executed cancellation papers and asked him to do whatever.

3. I The respondent further submitted that the Pahani Pa-trikas were reflecting his name as owner and possessor of the suit land in the year 2018 also and that he filed applications befbre the Tahsildar, Manakondur and the District Collector requesting them not to mutate his lands in favour of the vendors of the petitioners-plaintiffs, namely, Mothe Narayana Reddy, Pururnandla Karunakar Reddy and Adepu Ramesh, on 30.12.2019. The Tahsildar also instructed his VRO and MRI to conduct spot enquiry of the suit schedule tand. The MRI and VRO visited the suit land at Sadashivapally on 06.01.2020 and conducted enjoyment survey and found that the respondent-defendant was only enjoying the suit schedule land by cultivating the same and no others were in possession of the suit schedule land including the petitioners. The MRI and VRO gave a report to the Tahsildar, 9 D..CRR,l CA? Fot07t of 2022 Manakondur on 06.01 .2020. T\e Tahsildar also sent a report to the RDO, Karimnagar in the month of March, 2020 stating that the suit land was under possession and cultivation of the respondent- defendant. The respondent-defendant further contended that the petitioners-plaintiffs and their vendors colluded with each other and brought two registered sale deeds in existence to occupy the suit schedule tand. They were no way concemed with the suit schedule lands and were not even aware where the land was located. The respondent-defendant was cultivating the suit schedule land continuously and paying loans to the banks and also to the government. 'l'he Tahsildar, Manakondur sent a report that the respondent-defendant was in possession in the month of March,2020 to R[)O, Karirnnagar, basing on the report dated 06.01.2020 given by the MRI and VRO of Tahsildar Office, Manakondur. The suit schedule land was under attachment of government. The agreement of sale cum GPA bearing document No.ll43 of 20ll dated I 1.03.20 I I rvas only norninal and executed towards security for repayment of loan, but not fbr sale. No loan was advanced under the said document. Singireddy Karunakar Reddy cancelled the agreement of sale cum GPA on 09.01.2012 admitting that no transaction was l0 D,.;RR,J CRP No- )71o12022 I held and that he had no right over the suit land. The alleged registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners-plainti ffs were brought in to usurp the suit schedule land of the respondent. The petitioners filed the suit within a month of the alleged creation of registered sale deed on 08.06.2020 and were trying to get an interim injunction order from the Court by misguiding the Court to occupy the suit schedule land. The names of the petitioners-plaintiff s vendors were not entered in the revenue records and they were never in possession of the suit schedule land. There was no prima facie case, balance ofconvenience to grant injunction and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. Exs.P.l to P.54 were marked on behalf of the petitioners and Exs.R. I to R.18 were marked on behalf ol the respondent. The leamed I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, on considering the contentions of the counsel representing both the parlies and the documentary evidence adduced by them dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners seeking temporary injunction holding that the petitioners failed to establish their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land as on the date of fiting of the suit. DT,GRR,J ( RP No.I0rl of 2D)

5. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the petition filed by them, the petitioners-plaintiffs preferred CMA No.9 of 2020. The said appeal was heard by the leamed Principal District Judge, Karimnagar and vide judgment and decree dated 03.01.2022 dismissed the appeal confirming the order and decree passed by the l-Additional Junior Civit Judge, Karimnagar. Aggrieved further, the petitioners preferred this revision petition.

6. Heard Sri Alladi Ravinder, leamed Senior Counsel representing Sri Bandar Srikanth, leamed counsel for the appEllants on record and Sri MRS Srinivas, learded counsel representing Sri P.Laxma Reddy, leamed counsel for the respondent on record.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the respondent had already lost his right over the suit schedule property since he transf-erred his title. The petitioners-appellants were purchasers of the suit land through registered sale deeds under Exs.P.3 and P.4 dated 08.06.2020 and were having link documents under Exs.P. I and P.2 and they were inducted into possession by their vendors. The triat court erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners failed to file any documents to establish their possession 12 O.-(;AB,J CRP No.t07l o12022 inspite of producing Exs.P. I to P.4 and the revenue records marked under Exs.Pl2, P.13, P.l5 to P.l9 which would prove that the petitioners were in possession of the suit schedule land' As such, the finding arrived by the trial court as confirmed by the appetlate coun was perverse and tiable to be reversed. The judgment in Suraj Lamp Industries v. Staie of Haryana l2ll2 (l) 6561 retied by the trial court was not applicable to the facts of the case on hand' At the interlocutory stage, the trial court came to a wrong conclusion that title was not transferred without trial being conducted. '[he trial court failed to understand and differentiate between prima facie title and prima facie case. The lower appellate court erred in coming to conclusion that the trial court rightly verified the documents' The appellate court failed to re-appreciate the evidence on record being a final court on facts and law and failed to discharge its duties' The findings recorded by both the courts were perverse and were not in accordance with the evidence on record. The evidence on record would clearly estabtish the title of the petitioners-plaintilfs. Title would follow possession and relied upon the judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan v. Nawab Zulfiquar Jah Bahadur and othersr and of the ' AtR t975 AP t87 J. - - -, -_,fr| I3 Dr.GRR,t CRP No.l07l of 2022 Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi and others2.

8. Leamed counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that since the date of filing the suit in the year 2020, there was no ad-interim iniunction order in favour of the petitioners. Both the courts below on appreciating the documents filed by both the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioners were prima facie not in possession of the property. The said observations were made based on evidencc, but not on assumptions and presumptions. A revision could not be entertained unless perversity or irregularity was shown and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalpat Kumar and another v. Prahlad Singh and othersl, Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocatea, Union of India and others v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and otherss and Amar Nath v. Gian Chand and Another6.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalpat Kumar and another v. Prahlad Singh and others (3 supra) held that: 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC -1538 ' leez 1r ; scc z re ' lg95 (:) scc azo t izo t+y z scc 269 1zozz1 r r scc loo u t4 Dr.GR R.J CRP !\;o- 1071 o12022 "4. Order 39, Rule l(c) provides that temporary injunction may be granted where, in any suit, it is proved by the alfidavit or otherwise, that the delendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or orhcrwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the court may by order grant a tcmporary injunction to rcstrain such act or make such other order ior the purpose of staying and preventing... or dispossession of the plaintiff or orherqiise causing inj ury" to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in;he:uit as rhe court thinks fit until the disposal of thJ suit or until further orders. Pursuant to the recommendation ol the Law C^ommission clause(c) was brought on statute by Section 88(i)(c) of the Amending Act 104 of 1966 with effect fiom F'ebruary l, 1977. Earlier thereto there wzrs no express power except the infierent power under Section 151, C.p.C. to grant ad interim injunction against dispossession. Rule I pimarily :on:"Tl with the preservation of the property in diipute rill legal_ rights are adjudicated. Injunction i. uluA"lut prJcess by which a pany is required to do or to refrain from ioing any particular act. It is in the nature of preventive relief to a liiigant to prevent future possible injury. In other words, the court in exercise ol the power of granting ad interim injunction is to preserve the subject matter of the suit in the status quo for the time being. It is settled law that the grant of injunclion is a discretionary relief The exercise thereol is subjeci to the court satisfying that (l) there is a serious disputed question to be trietl in the suit and that an act, on the facts beforo the court, there is proUa!1lilV of his being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintifTdefendant; (2) the court,s interferen"e i, n"""srulry to protect the pa(y from the species ol injury. In other words. ineparable injury or damage would b"-fo.. the legal right would be established at trial; and (3) that the com-paratiue hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likety ro occur from withholding the injunction will be grdater than that would be likely to arise from granting it. "nru" "^",i

5. Thereforc, the burden is on the plaintiff by evidence adduced by affidavit or otherwise that there is ',u prima fu"i" i., t,i. favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of. the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be co-nfirsed with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisly that non_intcrfer"encc 15 D..CRR,J CR] No-1071of2012 by the Court would result in "irreparable injury" to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the partr- except on(r to grant injunction and he needs protection liom the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparablc injury. however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adcquately compensated by way of damages. The third condition also is that "the balance of convenience" must be in lavour of grantir.rg injunction. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is relused and compare it with that it is likely to be caused to the other side il the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject-mafter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. -fhus the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the reliel of ad interim injunction pendlng the suit."

10. In Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan v. Nawab Zulfiquar Jah Bahadur and others (l supra), the erstwhile High Court of A.P. held that: "[t is well-settled that the grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is covered by three well estatrlished principles viz., (l) whether the petitioners have made out a prima facie case (2) whether the balancc of convenience is in their favour i.e., whether it would cause greater inconvenience to them if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the opposite party or persons claiming through the opposite party would be put to il the temporary injunction is granted and (3) whether the petitioners would suffer irreparable injury. With the first condition as sine qua non, at least two conditions should be satisfied hy the petitioners conjunctively and a mere proof of one of the three conditions does not entitle the petitioners to obtain a temporary' iniunction in their favour. l6 D..GRA,l cRP No.I07l of 2022 /.-\ I l. [n its recent case in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v' Harish Ambalal Choksi and others (2 supra)' the Hon'ble Apex court while considering the principles governing grant of temporary injunction held that: "33. ln the case of Anand Prasad Agarwal v' -Tarkeshwar Prasad, [(2001) 5 SCC 568]' ir was held by. this.Court that it be appropriate tbr any court ro hold a rnini-trial at the ;;il;i stage of grant of temporary injunction'

12. Keeping these principles in mind when the order of the trial court and the lower appellate court are seen' both the courts on considering the documentary evidence' observed that Ex'P'5 to P'54 documents filed by the petitioners would not disElose that the petitioners were in possession of the property as on the date of filing the suit. Though the petitioners contended that Exs'P'1 and P'2 and Exs.P.3 and P.4 and Exs'P'12, P'13' P'15 to P'19 would show that the petitioners-plaintiffs were in possession of the suit schedule land' a perusal of the said documents would disclose that Ex'P'l was the original irrevocable agreement of sale cum GPA executed by the defendant in favour of Singireddy Karunakar Reddy and Kethi Reddy Mamatha, Ex.P.2 was the registered sale deed executed by Singireddy Karunakar Reddy and Kethi Reddy Mamatha in favour of the vendors of the petitioners-plaintifK Ehd Exs'P'3 and P'4 are the original I -,| 11 Dr.GrR,l cR.P No.I07I o12022 registered sale deeds executed by the vendors of the petitioners in favour of the petitioners in respect of 'A' and'B' schedute properties' Ex.P.12 are the mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioners and Ex.P. I 3 is the copy of the complaint fited by the petitioners before the PS,Manakondur'E,x.P.l5toP.lgarethepattadarPassbooksinthe name of the respondent-defendant and in the names of the vendors of the petitioners-plaintiffs' As rightly observed by the courts below' these documents are title documents' but doa not establish the possession of the petitioners-plaintiffs' The lower appellate court also observed that Exs.R'll to R'13 would show that the MRI/VRO conducted enquiry and submitted a report to the Tahsildar' Manakondur stating that though the names of the appellants were recorded as pattadars of the suit lands in Dharani Portal' they were not in actual possession of the suit lands' As both the courts below on consideration ofthe respective cases ofthe parties and the documents filed before them, were of the view that the petitioners were not in possession of the suit schedule property and this Court in the revision filed against the orders of the trial court and the lower appellate court is only required to adjudicate the validity of such orders applying the well senled principles governing the scope of revision' does not find I I l8 D.GRR,J CR? No- l07t oJ2022 any jurisdictional error in the orders of the courts below to set aside the same. As the petitioners faited to prove the prima facie case itself in their favour to show that they were in possession of the suit schedule properties, there is no balance of convenience to grant injunction in their favour. No irreparable injury would be caused to the petitioners in declining to grant injunction. This court does not find any jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the courts below or any need to enter into the merits of the evidence to set aside the

13. In the result. thc Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2022 passed in CMA No.9 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Karimnagar, confirming the order and dccree dated 05.10.2020 passed in I.A. No.100 of 2020 in O.S. No.258 o12020. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSIS A T REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To a AAL.

1. The Principal District Judge at Karimnagar 2. Theafunior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. 3. One CC to SRl. BANDAR SRIKANTH, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. P. LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies kuligh w HIGH COURT DATED:1O1O212025 ORDER CRP.No.1071 of 2022 DISMISSTNC I'HI] ('IIP WITHOTIT COSTS l rlf SI4 , 1' ? 1t FEB ?w )., I .t a' 4T C.\ -i:::]:=_ -;r'