The High Court · 2025

Order

This Civil Revision petition has been filed agg ieved by the order, dated 70.06.2025, passed by the learned S Magistrate ald Special Assistant Agent to Goven-r :b-Dirrisiona.l nent, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam, (hereinafter referred to as earned Sub- Divisional Magistrate') in I.A.No. I of 2022 in O.S_l where u nde r I emporary injunction application o.1 of 2022, led by the peti tioner/ plain tiff u,as dismissed.

2. Heard Mr. T.Vasantha Rao, learned cour sel for the petitioner and Mr. Dannana Tharun Kumar, learnr.r counsel for respondent.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereir are referred to as they were arrayed by the Sub-Divisional magistr.r te.

4. The facts giving rise to frling of this civil revisior petition, in brief, are that the plaintiff frled suit in O.S.No.1 of 2C 22 for grant a of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant frcr r interfering with the suit schedule property i.e. house bearrr g No.4_I24 located in 33O square yards situated at Laxmidevipal l Village and 2 Maldal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Along with t1"e suit, the plaintilf hled I.A.No.1 of 2022 for grant of tempora4r injunction.

5. In the said suit, the plaintiff stated that she purchased the suit property from Kalasali Naramma w/o Venkateswarlu through sale deed, d,ated 27.11.2O19, by paying valuable sale consideration and since then she has been in possession and enjoyrnent of the said property. The defendant without having any manner of right tried to interfere with the suit schedule property. Initially learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate granted 'stotus qtLo' in I.A. No.1 of 2022 on 15.03.2022. Thereafter, the said I.A. was a-llowed on

25.04.2023. Aggrieved by the above said order, the defendart had approached this Court and hled C.R.P. No.957 of 2024 and this Court while setting aside the order, d.ated 25.04.2O23, remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration and further directed the tria-l Court to consider the status report if any trled by the Secretary, Gram Palchayat, Chathakonda and pass appropriate orders in accordalce with law after giving opportunity to both the parties, by its order, dated 26.O9.2024. Thereafter, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed tJle I.A. No.l of 2022 on 70.06.2025. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition. I 3

6. 1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submr t .ed that the plaintiff had purchased the propert5r through sada s r le deed dated

27.11.2019 from the rightfui owner by payin6 entire sale consideration and since then she has been in pos,r ession of the sarne and the defendant is not having aly manner of right over the suit schedule property. Even according to the aver:: ents made in the counter afhdavit in I.A.No. 1 of 2022, the defenda rt is claiming right in respect of house bearing No.4-126, whereas he plaintiff is claiming rights in respect of hous<i bearing No.4- 111, . In spite of the same, the Court below without properly co: Lsidering the contentions raised by the plaintiff and the avermentl made in the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No of 2022 and the counter aff-rdavit hled by the defendant, passed r he impugned order.

6.2 He further submitted that the Panchaj t t Secretary, Laxmidevipalli Gram Panchayat furnished the infornr Ltion through letter dated 24.O2.2O25 to the Sub-Divisional Magis,t -ate, wherein it is mentioned that house bearing No.4-124 stands ir , the name of a Kalasani Venkateswarlu and house tax was paying re ;ularly to the said house and also stated that the plaintiff h Ls made al application to mutate her name in the Gram Panchay lt records on i24ti the ground that she had purchased the property and the said application is pending.

6.3 He also submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate without giving any reasons ald without marking the documents as exhibits, dismissed the application stating that the petitioner failed to estabiish her prima facie case and balance of convenience, though the petitioner filed various documents to prove that she has been in possession of the suit schedule property and the impugned order passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate is contrar5r to law.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on beha-lf of the respondent submitted that the defendant obtained Form No.ll from Gram Panchayat, wherein it is mentioned that K.Venkateswarlu is having only arr extent of 165 square yards. Whereas the plaintiff is claiming rights to .arr extent of 33O square yards basing'upon the alleged sale deed. The plaintiff has not produced ary iota of evidence that she has been in possession of a the suit schedule property as on the date of frling of the suit. Learned Sub-Divisional M2gi strate has rightly dismissed the application by giving cogent reasons and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Sub- r I 5 Divisional Magistrate. Hence, the civil revision petitio: L is liable to be dismissed.

8. Having considered the rival submissions nr Lde by the respective parties and after perusal of the material rvailable on record, it reveals that the plaintiff has frled suit ir 2022 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining tl O.S.No.1 of : defendant from interfering with the suit schedule propert5r. Accrr plaintiff, she had purchased tl.e property from Kalas l rding to the ri Naramma w/o late Venkateswarlu on 27.11.2019 and since ll en she has been in possession of the same. Along with the stl id suit, the plaintiff lrled I.A. No. 1 of 2022 ir:lvokirtg the provi:;: rns of Rule 42(C\ of the Telangana Agency Rules. In the said ap1 defendant filed counter stating that she is l lication, the aving land admeasuring Ac.1.O2 guntas in Sy.No.17 and one tLr use bearing No.4- 126. g. The record further reveals ttrat Palchaya SecretaSr, Laxmidevipatli furnished the information to the [r arned Sub- Divisional Magistrate through letter dated 24.O2.2Ott. ', wherein it is stated that House bearing No.4-124 stands in he name of Kalasani Venkateswarlu and the Gram Panchay rt regularly receiving house tax, and also stated that the ,laintiff has submitted application in the year 2023 for mutatiorL cf her name a 6 in the panchayat records on tJre ground that she had purchased the above said house property. Even according to the pleadings, plaintiff is claiming rights in respect of house bearing No.4-124 and the defendalt is claiming rights over the house bearing No.4- 126. The documents which are filed along with the suit reveals that Kalasali Venkateswarlu is owner of the house bearing No.4-124 and aJter his death, his successor namely Kalasani Naramma, who is none other thal his wife, executed sale deed, dated 27.1 1.2O19, ir favour of the ilaintiff.

10. From perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate while dismissing t1.e injunction application has not given any reasons much less valid reasons ald that only he has stated that the tax receipts liled by the plaintiff stands in the name of Kalasani Venkateswarlu and the plaintiff has not placed any other document to show that she is having right in respect of 33O square yards. 1 1. It is relevalt to mention that the plaintiffs vendor has not disputing about the execution of sale deed dated 27.II.2O19 rn favour of the plaintiff and it is not in dispute that the ptaintiff had submitted application in the year 2023 before Gram Panchayat for mutation of her name basing upon the above sa.le deed and the said application is pending. Unless the name of the plaintiff is 7 mutated in the Gram Panchayat records, t-Ile Gram I) mchayat will not issue tax receipts in the name of the plaintiff anrl it is a,lso not in dispute that Gram Panchayat is receiving tax to tt e above said house.

72. The nature of relief sought by tIe plaintiff is r. simple suit for perpetua-l injunction. This Court is of the consider :d view that, whether the plaintiff is having right to claim lald r dmeasuring 330 square yards basing upon the sale deed datec 27.),1.2019, ald whether the said sale deed is admissible or not, t re same has to be adjudicated during the course of trial only and r.l e defendant is not disputing that the plaintiff vendor is owner of tLr use bearing No.4-124. The only dispute between the parties is i r respect of extent of the land abetting to the said house and the rame has to be adjudicated during the course of trial only.

13. For the foregoing reasons, while exercising thr: jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Cor supervisory stitution of India, the impugned order passed by the learned Srr r-Divisiona-l a Magistrate, dated i0.06.2025, is liable to be se_ accordingly set aside and the parties are directed r 'status quo' in respect of the suit schedule propert5r as aside ald : maintain ,n today tiil the disposal of the suit. The learned Sub-Divisional lv directed to dispose of the suit i.e. O.S.No.1 ol agistrate is 2022 as L. :I ::8 expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the da[e of receipt of a copy of this order ald both the parties are direc[ed to cooperate for disposal of the suit without taking any undue adjoumments. It is needless to mention that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is directed to dispose of the suit on its own merits, basing upon the evidence, which is going to be adduced by either of the parLies, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.

14. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stald closed. Sd/. K. MADHAVT AS ISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Special Assistant Age Court at Bhadrachalam.

2. One CC to Mr. T. Vasantha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. On" CC to Mr. Dannana Tharun Kumar' Advocate [O 4. Two CD CoPies kam w CTION OFFICER to Governme nt Mobile t PUC] 4 I HIGH COURT DATED:2411012025 ORDER CRP.No.2588 of 2025 t,\ r4 li_ O 2 2 itr 2t?E t t)Fr-r , -,-,t (') ., it): -i' -l DISPOSING OF THE CRP G .da-lb \ck -- d[\ab