The High Court · 2025

..Petitioners/Appellants/Defendants Smt Attalurr Nagamani, Wo Venkata Basava Rao, Aged about 61 years, Occ. Agrrculture, R/o. H.No.4-81, Kodali Road, Kanakayya Naga, Movva Village and Post, Knshna Dist, Andhra Pradesh ...RespondenURespondenUPlaintiff l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petrtion 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 7 ;ffi:t:T.|:fi:,.ff ,?:.."J:g, District. d_ated 30- 1 2-2024 rn r A No 52 of 2 )24 in o s No 03 of _ _r rt of the Senior Civil Judge, at ttrr"y ,np.i, *rlrY"n.rP", Counsel for the Appellants : Sri G Vasantha Rayudu Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Karnam Ramesh The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TIYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CML REVISION PETITION No.3983 of 2o25 DATE OF ORDER : L9.12.2O25 Between: R. Venkatesh, S/o. Venkappa, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.4-58, Gudeballur Village, Krishna Mandal, Narayanpet District And five others And Smt. Attaluri Nagamani, W/o. Venkata Basava Rao, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Agriculture, RH.No.4-8 I , Kodali Road, Kanakayya Naga, Movva Village and Post, Krishna District, Andhra Pradcsh ORDER: ,. Petitioners Respondent Aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2025 passed in C.M.A.No.4 of 2025 by the Principal District Judge at Narayanpet, this Civil Revision Petition is filed

2. Heard Mr. G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for petitioners, and Mr. Karnam Ramesh, Iearned counsel for re spondent. 2 JAK, J I' I,lo 3983 of 2A25

3. Petitioners herein are the appellants/ dr:ti ndants and respondent herein is the respondent/ plaintiff i - C.M.A.No.4 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Dir; rict Judge, Narayanpet

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 3O.12.2O) I passed I.A.No.52 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2024 on the i1e of Senior Civil Judge at Narayanpet filed under Order X) XIX Ruies 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for sl ort 'c.P.c.) C.M.A.No.4 of 2025 is filed under Order XL tt Rule 1 of C.P.C., by the defendants against the plaintifl

5. O.S.No.3 of 2024 is filed by plainti{i (respondent herein) seeking permanent injunction re s _r-aining the defendants, their men and agents from t rsperssirrg or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful p(,: session arrd enjoyment over the suit schedule propert\. I.A.No.S2 of 2024 is seeking ad interim temporary injunct., n restraining the revision petitioners. Learned Senior CivLr Judge, after considering the documents marked on behatl rl respondent herein i.e., Exs.P1 to p11, an$ -documen_ marked on behalf of revision petitioners i.e., Exs.Rl tc Rl1, granted I I E !: I I : ! I , J JAK, J C.R.P No39a3 of2O25 temporary injunction in favour of respondent (plaintiff) ulde order dated 30.12.2024. The said order was under challenge in C.M.A.No.4 of 2025

6. The entire controversy revolves around a parcel of land claimed by both the parties in Survey No.169/2 to an extent of Acs.3.36 guntas situated at Murahar Doddi Village, Krishna Mandal, Narayanpet District. Plaintiff frled suit in O.S.No.3 of 2024 seeking permanent injunction stating that she is the pattadar, owner and possessor of suit land in Survey No.l69 12 for land to an extent of Acs.3.36 guntas (the same is being resorted to as a dominus lllis, who sets her case on the basis of the averments and documents in the suit)

7. Respondent herein contended that she was assigned patta in the year 1997 (original assignment patta 1S not placed on record). Respondent herein relied on the documents, Exs.Pl to P6, adangal pahanies for the years 2OO9-1O, 2014, 2Ol5, 2OI7-lB, 2Ol9-2O and 2019. Exs.P7 and P8 are 18 Namuna Forms for the vear 2019 and 2023-24 4 JAK, J .1?.P. t.t!.,)983 ut 2025 8 belongs Survey No.169/2. Survey No.169/ 1 On the other hand, revision petitioners Ii ed trxs.R 1 to Rl 1, Ex.R1 IS 1-B Form, wherein rt is refle < Led that the mother of defendant No.l, by name, Timmakl< r got land to an extent of Acs.3.00 in lt is further reflected thar land in Government, but the extent is not legiblc lue to over wrrting and the land in Survey No. 169/3 to rr_r cxtent of Acs.3.OO belongs to one Mr. Basappa. Ex.R2 is an adangal palrani for the yeax 1996_9Z. It is reflcctec. rn the said adangal pahani that the mother of defendant trr r.1 got land in Survey No. 169/3 to an extent of Acs.!i. t Cr imd one Mr. Mahadevappa, S/o.Devappa got land to .r extent of Acs.2.50 guntas in Survey No.169/2. Ex.R.. pahani for the year i990_9 l. On a perusal rl the said adangal pahani, it is evident that land to z r extent of Acs.3.OO in Surve.y No.169 belongs to Smt. .l_ rimmakka, which Iand belongs to Mr. Basappa and land to i n extent of Acs.4.12 guntas belongs to Government. As p,r Ex.R4 _ adangal pahani, Survey No. 169 is not sub divic1e r . rs adangal I I I I i 1 I ! I I I l i j , 5 JAK, J C.R.P.No.39B3 oJ2025 9 . On a perusal of these documents, it is evident that Exs.R1 and R2 are inconsistent. Revision petitioners further filed trxs.R8 to R10 which are old record of rights. On a perusal of these documents, it is evident that Survey No.169 covers land to an extent of Acs.10.12 guntas and the said iand belongs to Government. The word "Government" is rounded off and added as Kharizkhata land. trx.Rl1 is Khasra pahani, r'r,hich reflects land to an extent of Acs.1O.12 guntas ln Survey No. 169, the word "Government" u,as corrected as 'Ufatha Land'. Exs.R3, R5 and R7 are adangal pahanies and in these pahanies, it is reflected that land to an extent of Acs.10.12 guntas 1n Survey No. 169 belongs to Government

10. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent stating that pursuant to assignmen t, pattadar passbook and title deed s were issued uide Khata No. 1 07 to her That revision petitioners have not disclosed any details about the assignment in their favour and were not able to demonstrate about they being in possession. Hence, C.M.A. was dismissed by order dated 16.1O.2025 l I i I l I I l I 6 J'\K,,] C t l .No .1983 of )t)25 confirming the order of learned Senior Cir.i Judge at Narayanpet granting temporary injunction r lavour oI respondent herein 1 1. Taking into consideration the exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiff i.e., Exs.Pl to Pl1, specific: ly Ex.p11 Dharani record which reflects the name ol respondent herein (plarntifi) that land to an extent of A<::; 3.36 guntas in Survey No.169 /2 is recorded in her rr I ne, learned Principal District Judge, Narayanpet, held the t pdma .face case is not made out against the revision peti,r tners herein and balance of convenience is in favour c I respondent herein and accordingly dismissed the Civil \ isccllaneous Appeal confirming the order passed by the l,: rrnr:d Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet. It is on this basis, tl t: trial Court granted temporary injunction.

12. This Court, having perused the ord,: passecl b-r. learned Principal District Judge, Narayanpe t and hzn ing observed the findings of the trial Court in i,: order dated

16.1O.2025, is of the opinion that Exs.pt ro p11 i.e., documents, u,hich include adangal pahanies, -B Form and 7 JAK, J C R.P.No.3983 of2025 the title deeds and copy of pattadar passbook, pima facie establish the case in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff. This Court does not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Principal District Judge, Narayanpet.

13. Though learned counsel for revision petitioners contended that revision petitioners have been able to demonstrate that they hlave pima facie ownership and possession, the Court fell in error

14. Be that as it may, having perused the entire record and the order of learned Principal District Judge, Narayanpet, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is necessitated, as this Court does not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned Principal District I Judge, Narayanpet.

15. As a request is made by both the counsels that the suit be disposed of at an early date, this Court requests the learned tria-l Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as pos sible. 8 JAh" I C 1r r !\o 3.,83 of 2(,2.i

16. Needless to state that anv observation m: le bv this Court shall not influence the trial Court at , re lime of deciding the suit

17. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is ci sposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellar.reous applications pending, il any, shail stand closcd Sd/- N. SRIHARI t EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// e- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, at Narayanpet. 2. The Prrncrpal Drstlct Judge at Narayanpet. 3 One CC to Sri G Vasantha Rayudu, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to Sri Karnam Ramesh, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies (iS/Sa \y HIGH COURT JAK, J DATED: 1911212025 : ( iHES Y 5'o.J * t'r.\. I '', I,q 7r]7E Yv ): ORDER CRP.No.3983 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRP. I la v