High Court · 2025

1. Smt. Annam Sujatha Devi, Wo Rajeshwar Rao Aged 60 years occ. house hold Both r/o flat no.505, plot no.1 01 , Sai Constructions, Gafoor nagar, Opp- Uma Residency, tvladhapur, Shaikpet, Hyderabad.

2. Annam Rajeshwar Rao, S/o late Venkata Mallaiah Aged 70 years occ. Rtd., Employee Both r/o flat no.505, plot no.101, Sai Constructions, Gafoor nagar, Opp. Uma Residency, Madhapur, Shaikpet, Hyderabad. ..PETITIONERS AND Kola Govardhan, S/o late Narayana Aged 66 years occ. Agriculture r/o H.no.2-7 -123814- l, Excise Colony Hanamakonda, Hanamakonda Dist. ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 stay the operation of the order passed in lA.No. 24012023 (old no.345/2022) in O5.no.12512022 dt.101712023 on the file of learned Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mulugu as confirmed in CMA no.512023 dt.2411012024 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Mulugu, pending disposal of revision. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MADIRAJU PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA The Court made the following: ORDER I I IItL, i '-,--T :./ 1 .tp _31 62-2024 NBK, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CML REVISION PETITION No.3762 of 2024 ORDER: The defendants in O.S.No.l25 of 2022 before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mulugir, are the revision petitioners herein. The plaintilf filed the Suit O.S.No.12 5 of 2022 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, and against the defendants, in respect of the Suit Schedule Propefty i.e., Ac.l -00 guntas in Survey No.1080 of Mulugu Village and Mandal, Mulugu District. The plaintiff filed an interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.240 of 11023 seeking temporary injunction against the defendants. The leamed Additic,nal Junior Civil Judge, by Order dated 10.07.2023 granted interim injunction in favour ofthe plaintiff, thereby restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjol,ment of the suit schedule property. Challenging the interirn iniunction dated 10.07.2023, the defendants filed an appeal i.e., CMA No.5 of 2023 before the Principal District Judge, at Mulugu. The leamed District Judge, by the impugned Order dated 24.10.2024 dismissed the apperrl, thereby confirming the interim injunction Order dated

10.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.240 of 2023 in the Suit O.S.No.l25 of 2022. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed this civil revision petition.

2. Heard Mr. Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants; and learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the record.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners/defendants have filed a writ petition WP.No.1606 of 2022 seeking rectification of entries in revenue records and issuance of pattadar passbooks 2 crp_3762 2024 NBK, J to the petitioners, and consequent to the disposal of the writ petition, the petitioners filed O.S.No. I 22 of 2022 for declaration of title and rectification of revenue records and the said Suit O.S.No.122 of 2022 is a comprehensive suit, and therefore injunction could not have been granted to the plaintiff. It is also contended that the entire property under O.S.No.l22 of 2022 is Ac.l- 35 guntas in Survey No.1080 of Mulugu Village and Mandal; whereas the plaintiff filed O.S.No. 125 of 2022 for Ac.1-00 guntas in same Survey No.1080 of Mulugu Village and Mandal, and therefore the Courts below ought to have appreciated about the bonafides of the plaintiff. It is also contended that even as per revenue records (i.e., pahanis), the plaintiffis not in possession of the suit schedule property; and in view ofthe comprehensive suit O.S.No.122 of 2022 and also the request for correction of records being pending, the Courts below ought not to have relied on Exs.P-16 dated

17.03.2023 which is a post-Suit document, and ought not to have granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff; and hence the interim injunction is liable to be set aside. Leamed counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contends that the plaintiff

4. has proved her prima facie possession and enjoyment ofthe suit, and therefore there is no illegality in the impugned order.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that the leamed District Judge, while appreciating the documentary evidence Ex.P-1, Ex.P-14, and Ex.P-16, made the following observations in the impugned order. '74. ..... So even though prima facie, the name of said Sanjeeva Rao was reflecting as possessor in Ex.P2 to P{4 by virtue of subsequent document under Ex.Pl and also under Ex.P15 as petitioner prima facie sought for deletion of name of Sanjeeva rao, hence, to show bonafides that his name was considered as alleged pattedar and I I \ \ 3 co 3762_2024 NBK, J possessor prima facie he relied upon Ex.P16 Nala conversion. The validity of the Ex.P16 and other documents can be looked into or will be appreciated by the trial court at appropriate stage.

76. Even though, the own documents of petitioner of 2018 under Ex.Pl and P14 are inconsistent with one another, but the petitioner by virtue of Ex.Pl and also by relying upon Ex.P'|6, prima facie is able to satisfy his prima facie possession in respect of alleged suit or petition schedule property and even as per Ex.R3 memo said to have issued by the Tahsildar, Mulugu it was mentioned prima facie regarding issuing of Ex.Pl pattedar pass book and title vide Khata No.146, T24120050064 in respect of the suiupetition schedule property, which prima facie strengthens, the petitioner as the prima facie possessor of the petition schedule property, by virtue of Ex.P1 coupled with Ex.P16 the petitioner is able to satisfy prima facie possession in respect of the petition schedule property."

6. A perusal c,f the impugned Order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the leamed District Judge would show that the plaintiff, by placing Ex.P1 and Ex.P I 6, had provt:d prima facie possession in respect of the suit schedule property, and thert:fore able to satisfu the Court with regard to the relief of temporary injunction, and the Couft below further recorded that the validity of Ex.P16 and othcr documents would be looked into at appropriate stage. 7 . Accordingll', with the consent of both the parties, the civil revision petition is disposed of, directing both the parties to maintain status quo, pending disposal of the Suit O.S.No.125 of 2022. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA PUTY REGISTRAR ( SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge, [t/lulugu, [Vlulugu District 2. The Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mulugu, [Vlulugu District

3. One CC to SRI MADIRAJU PRABHAKAR RAO Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to SRI' JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA Advocate IOPUCI 5 Two CD CoPies wTPK/gh HlGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 t I ORDER CRP.No.3762 ot 2024 '-:- \' t /'':, ,: il ''..-\ v.j' '\ 20 sEP 21ffi ,.i CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISPOSED OF I I , I IDK 2