The High Court · 2025

...RespondenUAppel lanUPetitoner/Plaintiff lA NO: 2 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 to suspend the operation of Decree and Order dated 0710212025 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2020 on the file of the court of the lll Additional District Judge at Karimnagar which was reversed by the Decree and Orderdated 2111112019 passed in l.A.No. 18 of 2019 in O.S.No. 178 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile)-cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, pending disposal of the above Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VADLAKONDA RAVI KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B.SHESHU KUMAR GIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2561 of 2025 Petition under Article 227 o'f the Constitution of lndia, against the Order Dated 07.02.2025 (wrongly typed dt. 07.02.2024) passed in CMA.No 3 of 2O2O on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District Judge at Karimngar in Decree and Order dated 21.11.2019 Passed in l.A.No.19 of 2019 in O.S.No.179 of 2019 on the file of Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special tVlobile)-cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimngar. Between: Akula Mallesham, S/o.Kanakaiah, R/o.H.No.6-4-70, Gandhi Chowk, Karimnagar District. aged about 70 years, Occ. Agriculture, Karkhanagadda Locality, Karimnagar, ... Petitioner/Res pondenURespondenUDefendant AND Varala Srinivas, S/o.Papaiah, aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.2 -1814, Shivaji Nagar, Bmmakal Village, Karimnagar Mandal, Karimnagar District. ... RespondenUAppellanUPetitioner/Plaintiff lA NO: 2 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 to suspend the operation of Decree and Order dated 07-02-2025 in C.M.A.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the court of the lll Additional District Judge at Karimnagar which was reversed by the Decree and Order dated 21-11-2019 passed in l.A.No.1g of 2019 in O.S.No.179 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile)-cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, pending disposal of the above Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VADLAKONDA RAV| KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B.SHESHU KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2551. and 2561 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the common orders dated

07.02.2025 passed in C.M.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2020 on the file of the learned lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.

2. Since the issues involved in both the revisions are intertwined, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.

3. Heard Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, and Sri B.Seshu Kumar, learned counsel for the respondenUplaintiff.

4.1. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that C.M.A. No.2 of 2020 was filed against the order dated 21.11.2019 in l.A. No.18 of 2019 in O.S. No.178 of 2019, and C.M.A. No.3 of 2020 was filed against the order dated 21.11.2019 in l.A. No.19 of 2019 in O.S. No.179 of

2019. 2

4.2. The revision petitioner is the defendant in both suits filed by the respondenUplaintiff seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties, and the interlocutory applications were filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respective properties.

4.3. The schedule properties are described as land in Survey No.78, measuring 603.55 square yards (506.98 sq. meters) and

902.22 square yards (757.5G sq. meters) situated.at Bommakal Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District.

4.4. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, held that the issue of title claimed by either party could not be conclusively determined at the interlocutory stage and directed both parties to maintain status quo pending disposal of the suits.

4.5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondenUplaintiffs preferred C.M.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2020 before the first appellate Court. The learned Ilt Additional District Judge, upon consideration of the record and observing that the Revenue Divisional Officer's proceedings \ \\ 3 confirmed the title and possession of the plaintiffs' vendors, Gali Yakub and Gali John, modified the trial Court's order and granted temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession. The petitioner/defendant, being aggrieved, preferred the present Civil Revision Petitions.

5.1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the first appellate Court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs' vendors were in possession of the property. Such findings, according to him, amount to a prejudgment of the issues that ought to be determined at trial and constitute an excess of jurisdiction.

5.2. He further contends that the appellate Court failed to appreciate the ambiguity concerning the extent of land in the documents relied upon by the respondenUplaintiff, namely Exs.P1, P4, and P5, and ignored the absence of any categorical assertion that the plaintiffs' vendors were in possession of the disputed property. lt is urged that the appellate Court did not properly consider the documents fited by the petitioner/defendant and, by drawing conclusions on possession and title, transgressed the I 4 limited scope of enquiry under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC He, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be set aside

6.1 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondenUplaintiff submits that the revision petitioner has disputed the extent of the land, and the issue was already adjudicated by the Revenue Divisional officer (RDo), who confirmed the title and possession of the plaintiffs'vendor over an extent of Ac.2.11 guntas in survey No.78. The contention that the vendors sold non-existent land has, therefore, been duly rejected in those proceedings.

6.2. He contends that the respondents/plaintiffs are lawfur successors in possession of the said land and that the first appellate Court, while relying on documentary evidence and administrative findings, rightly concluded that the plaintiffs were in possession and entitled to protection. As the property in question is open land, and as title and possession stand prima facie established, the appellate Court's order granting temporary injunction is legally sustainable. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petitions. \ \ 5

7. I have perused the material available on record and considered the rival submissions of both learned counsel. B. lt is well settled that for the grant of temporary injunction, the applicant must establish (i) a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience in his favour, and (iii) irreparable injury likely to be caused if the injunction is not granted. (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719; Wander Ltd. v. Antox lndia Pvt. Ltd-, 1990 Supp SCC 727).

9. ln the present case, the respondenUplaintiff has claimed title over Ac.2.11 guntas in Survey No.7B, while the schedule property in both suits is shown in square yards, leading to discrepancies in identification and extent. Though the revenue authorities appear to have confirmed title in general terms, no conclusive material has been produced to correlate the specific portions claimed in the suits to the land covered under those proceedings.

10. At this interlocutory stage, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish prima facie possession and correlation of the schedule property with his title documents. ln the absence of such clarity, \ 6 and considering the conflicting claims of both parties, it would be inappropriate to draw definitive conclusions regarding possession or ownership.

11. ln similar circumstances, the Hon'ble supreme court in zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. sfafe of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 scc 3gg, cautioned that courts must refrain from recording findings on tifle or possessir:n at the interim stage, as such findings may prejudice the trial.

12. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that the proper course would be to direct both parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit schedule properties, so as to preserve the subject matter of the suits pending adjudication. such an arrangement would balance the equities and protect the rights of both sides without preempting the trial Court's determination on merits.

13. ln view of the foregoing discussion, these civil Revision Petitions are allowed in part, modifuing the orders of the courts below. Both the revision petitioner/defendant and the I ( 7 respondenUplaintiff are directed to maintain status quo with respect to possession and alienation of the suit schedule properties until disposal of the suits in O.S. Nos.178 and 179 of 2A19 on the file of the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REQISTRAR ./(9 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Additional District Judge at Karimnagar' 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile)-cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar

3. One CC to SRI VADLAKONDA RAVI KUMAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI B. SHESHU KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies 'lv NVB/PSI, -t HIGH COURT DATED i1411112025 COMMON ORDER rI HE $ ( CRP.Nos.2551 and 2561 of 2025 s ot JAN?t?E .I1 11,..::. ALLOWING THE BOTH GIVIL REVISION PEITTIONS 4 1 .V : t I I