The High Court · 2025

Sri Penuballi Ramesh Babu Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1: Sri Mohan Sai baba representing Sri Ch. Venkat Raman The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENI I'{S RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.275 0(\r 2025 ORDEIT This civil revision petition has been filed aggrie'red by thc order passed by the leamed Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Slrecial Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalarn (.trial Court, for brevity) wherein I.A.No.1l of 2025 filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff' for grant of ad interim injunction rias allorvcd on

30.04.2025 restraining the petitioner and respon 1i.nt No.2 lrom interfering with the petition schedule property titl thc disposal ol'the O.S.No.l5 of 2025. 2 Heard Sn Samhita Devara, learned counsel, r:presenting Sri Penuballi Ramesh Babu, leamed counsel lor the p:titioner ancl Sri Mohan Sai baba, learned counsel, representing Sri Clr. y'enkat Rarnan, learned counsel for respondent No. I .

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are het-einafter referred to as per their nomenclature in the trial Court 4 Facts giving rise to filing of this revision petitiorl briefly stated as under: 2 JSR, J C.R.P.No.2750 OP 2025

4.1 'theplaintiff filedsuitinO.S.No. l5 of 2025 onthefileof trial Court for grant of perpetual inj unction restraining the defendants from interfering with the house property in an extent of 180 Square yards bearing Gram Panchayat No.l-68/.4, situated at Ankampalem Village, Dammapeta Mandal ('petition schedule property' tbr brevity), along with the said suit the plaintilf filed an application viz., I.A.No.11 of 2025 for grant of ad-interim injunction claiming that her father executed unregistered gift settlemcnt deed datcd 01.06.2000 bequeathing the petition schedule property in her favour and since then she has been in possession and enjoymcnt of the property and further stated that her name was incorporated in l-lie Gram Panchyat records and she has been paying house property tax to respectivc Gram Panchayat. Defendant No. I without having any manner of right trying to interlere with the petition schedule propefty

4.2 In the said application defendant No.l fited counter denying the averments made by the plaintiff contending that plaintiff is not entitled to claim any rights basing on the unregistered gift settlement deed dated 01.06.2000 and the plaintiff is not in possession of suit schedule property and she is not entitled for grant of ad interim injunction :l1:1 .+q 4_ia:--i'/ '.-i .,/ r' 3 JS& J tl R.P.No 2750 OF 2025 Learned trial Couft after considering the contentions of the respective partics dispo:ied ot' I.A.No. 11 of 2025 on 30.04.211.1: re:;training the defendants fiom interfering with the petition schedrlc property until disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said ordcr, th: Dresent revision is preferred

5. Leamed counsei tbr the petitioner/defendant \o.l vehernently contcnded thzrt the respondent No. l /plaintiff is clair ing nghts basing on the unregisterecl document and under Section l, of thc Indian Registration ,,\ct, 1908, a gift deed for immovable l)roperty must be registered, to be legally valid, as required by the Transf'er of Property Act, 1882, and also as per the provisions of Section I l.i of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, for the purpose of making a gili of immoveablc property, the transl-cr must be effected by a regrsicred lnstrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two wrtnesses

5.1. He further submitted that the documents relierl by the leamed counsel for respondent No.l are not properly stampe(l rrnd Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, states that any in;tument that is chargeable with stamp duty but is not duly stamped is inadmissibie as 4 JSR, J C.R.P.No.2750 OF 2025 evidence in any Court or by any public ofhcer and unless the said document is impounded, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any right over the petition schedule property. He further submits that though the plaintiff is claiming rights through unregistered gift settlement deed dated 01.06.2000, even according to the possession certifrcate issued by the gram panchayat the plaintilfs name was recorded in the gram panchayat record only from 2016 to 2017 and the plaintiff has not taken any steps for mutation of her name in the gram panchyat record from 01.06.2000 which shows that the ptaintilf is not in possession of the petition schedule propefty. 'Ihe trial Court without considering the contentions raised by petitioneri defendant No. I and without properly verifying the documents, passed the impugned order granting temporary injunction and the same is not sustainable under law. He also contended that plaintiff and defendant No.l are non- other than own brother and sister. The plaintiff filed suit against the co-owner which is not maintainable under law, all the grounds which are raised by the plaintiffhave to be adjudicated

6. Per contra, Sri Mohan Sai baba, leamed counsel for respondent No.l/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff established the ingredients for ;?': 5 .ISR ,J :l lt.I'.No.2750 OI. 2025 grant of temporary injunction i.e., prima facie <:ase, balancc of convenience and ineparable injury. He further subrrits that plaintiff filccl simple suit lor injunction and is not claimrr.e title over the property in the suit. Whether the unregistered gift sr:t,lement deed is valid or not, whether the document is admissible or rLot, these aspects have to be gone into during the course of trial, espr:cially that stage has not been reached. Learned counsel further submi,tr:d that plaintiff filcd tax receil)ts lrom 20i3-14 to 2024-2025, on the ca c olinstitution of suit, to establish that plaintiff is in possession of th: suit schedule property. I-earned trial Court after going through thr: rjocuments and aftcr hearing the parties rightly granted temporary in jr- nction and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed blz the leamed trial Court.

1. In support ol his contention leamed counsel rr:lied upon the principte laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalpat Kumar l/s. Pruhlad Singht.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective partiep and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals \ ' lteezy r scc r re 6 JSR, J C.R.P.No.275o OF 2025 that ptaintiff and defendant No.1 are non-other than the brother and sister. Plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.l5 of 2025 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property on 05.02.2025, along with said suit, the plaintiff has filed an application viz., I.A.No.tl of 2025 for grant ol ad-interim lnJ unctron.

9. In Dalpat Kumar supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for the ground of a temporary injunction, the plaintiff must establish by evidence or affidavit that there exists a prima facie case warranting trial. However, a prima facie case does not mean proof of title but only the existence of a substantial and bona fide question requiring adjudication. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that mere existence of prima facie case is not sufficient; it must also be shown that refusal of injunction would cause irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by damages, and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting the injunction. The Court emphasized that the discretion to grant or refuse temporary injunctions must be exercised judicially, weighing the comparative mischief or ,<i 1 JSit, .I C.R.P.No.2750 OF 2025 injury likely to result to either party, and where necesrary, maintaining the status qu,r pe ncling disposal of the suit.

10. In the prescnt case thc leamed trial Courl irfter taking into consideration tlre house rax receipts tiom 2013- l,I to 2024-25 and, possession certilicate issued by the Gram panchayarh, Ankampalem Village, Dammapeta Mandal came to conclusion that plaintiff is in possession o[ thc suit schedule property. In so far a: the contentions raised by the learned counser for def-endant No. that praintiff is claiming rights over the property basing on thc rLnregistered gift settlement deed dated 01 .06.2000 and also the hous,c tax receipts are concemed, these aspects can be adjudicated at the sti,re of trial.

11. For the fbregoing reasons, this Court do:: not find any inegularity or illegality or jurisdictional error in thr: impugned order passed by thc leamed trial Court to exercisc rhe supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of Indi:. However, the parties before the trial court are brother and sister arcl as the nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff is a simple suit for iniunction, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No 15 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible, prelerably within a periocl oIsix (6) months / t I 8 JSR, J C.R.P.No.2750 OF 2025 '; from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by taking rnto considcration all the evidence which are going to be adduced by both the parties and uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order or in the impugned order dated 30.04.2025'passed by the trial Cou(, in accordance with law

12. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed sd/- T. SRINIVASA REDDY ,/ Asstsrnxr REGISTRAR / @ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Special Assistant Agent to Government' Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam' z o"" c"c t" StiplnuUatti Ramesh Babu' Advocate [OPUC] ; ;;; 66 io sri cn. Venkat Raman' Advocate [oPUCl 4. Two CD CoPies DL ? \ To, 1 HIGH COURT DAfED:1711012025 ORDER CRP.No.2750 of 2025 C ! O() I \\ -L- \)- CRP IS DISPOSED OF flA I{rrl"-Y _:_-:-_:- -- ' - i'- -'rl):-\-- ._ ..,.iiii.:.\ ir'i\ i 't> .. r't[ 2{85 i.,; .-i, . i :.,y' :.-/ .-,-'. '::, ..-./