1
OS No.627 of 2022, SCJ, Wgl.
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: WARANGAL
AT HANUMAKONDA
Present: Sri A.Pradeep,
Senior Civil Judge,
Warangal.
Monday, this the 30th day of March, 2026
O.S.No.627 of 2022
(Old OS No.585 of 2013)
Between:
K.L.Mahendra Nagar Gudisevasula Sankshema Sangham, Regd.No.558, Warangal, rep. by Mohd.Kasim Hussain, S/o.Mohd.Kasim, Age about 48 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.H.No.22-7-66/1, Warangal. …Plaintiff
And
1. Uppuluri Srinath, S/o.V.K.Subramanyam, Aged: 55 years, Occ: Bank Employee, R/o.1-1-379/233, SRT 389 & 385, Jawahar Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. Syed Saleem Quadri, S/o.Late Syed Azeezuddin, Aged: 54 years, Occu.: Business, R/o.19-2-369/218-262/2RT, Chandulal Bandari, Hyderabad.
3. Rekulapally Premalatha, W/o.K.Ajay Kumar, Aged: 46 years, Occu: Household, R/o.Plot No.27, Jagdish Nagar Colony, Secunderabad.
4. Mandala Kishan Prasad, S/o.Rajaiah, Aged: 30 years, Occu: Government Servant, R/o.Q.No.D Block-7, Godamgadda, Police Head Quarters, Karimnagar District.
5. Mandala Mounika, D/o.Ram Prasad, Aged: 13 years, Occu.: Student, being minor under guardianship of her natural father Mandala Ram Prasad, Age: 39 years, Occ.: Govt. Employee, R/o.Q.No.D Block- 7, Godamgadda, Police Quarters, Karimnagar District.
6. Mandala Shyam Prasad, S/o.Rajaiah, Aged: 35 years, Occu: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.9-1-91, Godam Gadda, Bagath Nagar, Karimnagar District.
7. Mandala Ram Prasad, S/o.Rajaiah, Aqed: 39 years, Occu.: Employee, R/o.O.No.D Block-7, Godam Gadda. Police Quarters, Karimnagar District.
8. Smt.Rekulapalli Laxmi, W/o.Late Mallaiah, Age: 80 years, Occ: Household R/o.Mattewada, Warangal City and District.
… Defendants 2
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 19.01.2026 in the presence of Sri Ch.Swamy Nathan, Counselfor the Plaintiff and Sri P.Laxminarayana, Counsel for the Defendants, upon perusing the entire material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This suit is filed praying to pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the members of plaintiff’s association restraining the defendants
No.1 to 8 and their men, servants, yesmen etc., or any other persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner and also to award costs of the suit.
2.The brief facts of the plaint are that, the plaintiff is represented by its president of association which is registered association bearing
No.558/2009. The plaintiff association has raised huts in the land in
Sy.No.352 and they have been residing in the said land since long time.
The municipal authorities have also assigned the house numbers as 22-7-66/2 to 22-7-66/50/A etc., to the persons living in the land in
Sy.No.352. That a resolution was passed on 30.06.2013 authorizing the
President, Mohd.Kasim to represent the association and also competent to file the suit. Earlier on the representation made by the plaintiff association, the Tahsildar on 03.06.2013, wherein it is specifically mentioned that, the plaintiff association consisting of 300 huts which is in
Sy.No.352 of Matwada Revenue Village, Warangal, which is near First
Doctors Colony, Gowthami Nagar, Warangal and as per the setwar 3
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
pahanie. That the land in Sy.No.352 is a government land and on the representation given by the plaintiff association, the Tahasildar has given permission to raise huts in the Sy.No.352. The District Collector and the
Tahsildar with the aid and assistance of the defendants No.1 to 8 have tried to evict the members of the plaintiff association. The defendants
No.1 to 8, who made their evil eye on the government land, which is in
Sy.No.352, wherein the members of plaintiff association are residing in it by raising huts and the ration cards and service connections were also given to the members of the association and they have also obtained the voter identity card and Aadhaar cards. The members of plaintiff association are landless poor persons and they made several representations to allot certificates in their favour and and also made the copy of the representation made to the Tahasildar and Collector for granting pattas in their favour.
3.The plaintiff submit that, since the locality is a prime locality and the defendants No.1 to 8 have been making hectic efforts in order to grab the property of the Government by creating false and fictitious documents.
The members of plaintiff association have also given representation to allot pattas. The list of the members and their house numbers shows the possession of the members of the plaintiff association. The defendants
No.1 to 8, who are no way concerned with the land in Sy.No.352 and they are trying to grab the government land alleged to have been in Sy.No.352 to an extent of Ac.6-00 guntas situated at Matwada Revenue Village, 4
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
Gowthami Nagar, First Doctors Colony, Warangal stating that which is in
Sy.Nos.377 and 378 Matwada Revenue Village. The plaintiff association further submits that, the members who are raised huts in the land in
Sy.No.352 cannot be evicted by due process of law and while the things stood so, on 22.06.2013 and 23.06.2013, the defendants No.1 to 8, who came to the suit schedule property and they tried to evict the members of the plaintiff association by using illegal force, but the members of the plaintiff association have questioned the high handedness of the defendants No.1 to 8, there upon they have shown the xerox copy of plaint in O.S.No.299/2009 on the file of the II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge,
Warangal, wherein none of the members of plaintiff association are parties to the suit and the defendants No.1 to 8 are alleging and claiming that, the suit schedule property is in Sy.Nos.377 and 378, the members of plaintiff association have informed that, the land in Sy.No.352 which is the suit schedule property is a government land which was allotted to the plaintiff association and the application for granting pattas in favour of members of plaintiff association is still pending before the District
Collector, Warangal.
4.The plaintiff association further submits that, the defendants No.1 to 8 are no way concerned with the suit schedule property and they are trying to grab the suit schedule property by creating false and fictitious documents. The plaintiff association cannot resist the onslaughts of the defendants No.1 to 8 and there is every threat and endanger to the 5
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
possession of the members of plaintiff association in the hands of the defendants No.1 to 8 and the plaintiff association cannot resist the illegal interference of the defendants No.1 to 8 by approaching the court by filing the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 8 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence the suit.
5.On the other hand, defendant No.7 filed written statement, denied all the contents of the plaint. The defendants No.1 to 6 and 8 have filed adoption memo by adopting the written statement of defendant No.7. In the written statement, defendant No.7 contended that, the plaintiff by suppressing all the material facts without any right or interest over the land in Sy.No.352, situated at Mattewada Revenue Village, Warangal
Mandal and District by creating the alleged K.L.N.Mahendranagar
Gudishavasula Sankeshema Sangam vide registered No.558/2009 and by forming an illegal Association in order to put false claim over the land in Sy.Nos.377 & 378, situated at Mattewada Village near Doctor's Colony,
Warangal owned and possessed by the defendants. The plaintiff and the alleged members of the Sangam of the plaintiff by claiming the land in
Sy.No.352 are intends to illegally occupy the land owned and possessed by the defendants No.1 to 7 out of Sy.Nos.377 and 378 of Mattewada
Village owned and possessed by the defendants No.1 to 7 having purchased under various registered sale deeds from the defendant No.8, 6
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
who is the original pattedar owner and possessor of the land in
Sy.Nos.377 and 378 of Mattewada Village, Warangal Mandal and District.
6.The defendant No.7 submit that, the defendants No.1 to 7 have already filed suit for injunction in O.S.No.299/2009 to protect their right and interest over the land in Sy.No.377 and 378 of Mattewada Village on the file of the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal and they have also filed an application for ad-interim Injunction in I.A.No.456/2009 against
Mekala Ravi and others. The II Addl. Junior Civil Judge at Warangal was pleased to grant ad-interim injunction, which was made absolute after hearing the both parties. That even the injunction order granted by the II
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in I.A.No.456/2009 is confirmed
vide orders in C.M.A.No.21/2013. The II Addl. Junior Civil Judge at
Warangal vide I.A. No.677/2010 was pleased to grant Police Aid in favour of the defendants herein against Mekala Ravi and others including
Mohd.Qasim, who is the defendants No.4 in O.S.No.299/2009 pending on the file of the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge at Warangal and who is the alleged representative of the plaintiff K.L.Mahendranagar Gudushavasula
Sankshema Sangam Reg.No.558/2009. That after filing the suit in
O.S.No.299/2009 on 02.04.2009, the plaintiff brought into existence of the
alleged Sangam of the plaintiff and filed this suit on 29.07.2013 with all false allegations and claims against the defendants. The plaintiffs illegally and highhandedly raising the temporary huts and creating the ration cards and Adhaar cards in collusion with the revenue authorities subsequent to 7
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
filing of the suit in O.S.No.299/2009 by the defendant No.1 to 7 as on 02.04.2009 filed the present suit with all false allegations and claims against the defendants. The plaintiffs claiming the land in Sy.No.352 of
Mattewada Village and illegally trying to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendant over the land in Sy.No.377 and 378 of Matwada Village owned and possessed by the defendant No.1 to 8.
7.The defendant No.7 further submit that, defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of house plot to an extent of 300 Sq.Yards out of
Sy.No.378 of Matwada Revenue Village, Near Doctors Colony, Warangal, having purchased the same under the registered sale deed vide
Doc.No.4156/1982, dt.24-08-1982 from its owner and pattedar
Smt.Rekulapally Laxmi W/o.Mallaiah for valuable sale consideration and since the date of purchase, the defendant No.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said plot. The defendant No.2 is the owner and possessor of house plot to an extent of 600 Sq.Yards out of Sy.No.377 of
Matwada Revenue Village, Near Doctors Colony, Warangal, having purchased the same under registered sale deed vide
Doc.No.12713/1981, dt.05-11-1981 from its owner and pattedar
Smt.Rekulapally Laxmi W/o.Mallaiah for valuable sale consideration of
Rs.3,000/- and since the date of purchase, the defendant No.2 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said plot. The defendant No.3 is the owner and possessor of house plot to an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas 8
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
out of Sy.No.377 of Matwada Revenue Village, Near Doctors Colony,
Warangal, having acquired the same under registered gift settlement deed vide Doc.No.5696/1982, dt.23-8-1982 executed by her mother
Smt.Rekulapally Laxmi W/o.Mallaiah, who is the owner and pattedar of the land bearing Sy.No.377 of Matwada Village and since the date execution of gift settlement deed, the plaintiff No.3 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said plot.
8.The defendant No.7 further submit that, the defendant No.4 is the owner and possessor of house plot No.30 to an extent of 300 Sq.Yds out of Sy.No.378 of Matwada Revenue Village, Near Doctors Colony,
Warangal, having purchased the same under registered sale deed vide
Doc.No.4100/2006, dt.29-4-2006 from its erstwhile owner Sri
Madabhushanam Karuna Devi, W/o.M.S.Ranga Chary for a sale consideration of Rs.1,65,000/- and since the date of purchase, the defendant No.4 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said plot.
The vendor of the defendant No.4 namely, Smt.Madabhushanam
Karunadevi purchased the said plot from its original owner and pattedar
Smt.Rekulapally Laxmi W/o.Mallaiah under registered sale deed vide
Doc.No.4055/1982, dt.16-8-1982. The defendant No.5 is the owner and possessor of house plot No.31 (part) to an extent of 200 Sq.Yds out of
Sy.No.378 of Matwada Revenue Village, Near Doctors Colony, Warangal, having purchased the same under registered sale deed vide Doc.No.
4099/2006, dt.29-4-2006 from its erstwhile owner Smt.Amaravadi Ranga 9
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
Charya S/o.Narayana Charya for a sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- and since the date of purchase, defendant No.5 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said plot. The plot purchased by the defendant No.5 is the part and parcel of the plot to an extent of 600 Sq.Yds purchased by the defendant No.5's vendor Amaravadi Ranga Charya from the owner and pattedar of the land in Sy.No.378 Smt.Rekulapally Laxmi under the registered sale deed vide Doc.No.4052/1982.
9.The defendant No.7 also submit that, defendant No.6 is the owner and possessor of house plot No.31 & 32 (part) to an extent of 200 Sq.Yds out of Sy.No.378 of Matwada Revenue Village, Near Doctors Colony,
Warangal, having purchased the same under the registered sale deed vide Doc.No.4097/2006, dt.29-4-2006 from Smt.Amaravadi Ranga
Charya for a sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- and since the date of purchase, defendant No.6 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said plot. The plot purchased by the defendant No.6 is the part and parcel of the plot to an extent of 600 Sq.Yds purchased by the defendant No.6's vendor Amaravadi Ranga Charya from the owner and pattedar of the land in Sy.No.378 Smt.Rekulapally Laxmi under registered sale deed vide
Doc.No.4052/1982. The defendant No.7 is the owner and possessor of house plot No.32 (part) to an extent of 200 Sq.Yds out of Sy.No.378 of
Matwada Revenue Village, Near Doctors Colony, Warangal, having purchased the same under the registered sale deed vide
Doc.No.4098/2006, dt.29-4-2006 from Smt.Amaravadi Ranga Charya for 10
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
a sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- and since the date of purchase, the defendant No.7 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said plot.
The plot purchased by the defendant No.7 is the part and parcel of the plot to an extent of 600 Sq.Yds purchased by the defendant No.7's vendor Amaravadi Ranga Charya from the owner and pattedar of the land in Sy.No.378 Smt. Rekulapally Laxmi under registered sale deed vide
Doc. No.4052/1982. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit against the defendants. The cause of action shown by the plaintiff in the plaint is created for the purpose of filing the suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
10.Having considered the rival contentions of both sides, the following issues are framed for trial.
1. Whether the plaintiff is the possessor of the suit
schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction
against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule
property as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
11.At trial, on behalf of the plaintiff Mohd. Khasim Hussain was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A56, Ex.60 and A61.Third parties to the suit is examined as PWs 2 to 4 and got marked Ex.A57,
Ex.A58, Ex.A59 respectively. Defendant No.7 was examined as DW1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B12, B16, B17, B18. Defendant No.2 was examined as DW2 and got marked Exs.B13 to B15.
11
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
12.Heard the arguments of plaintiff and defendants. Perused the record and written arguments submitted by plaintiff and defendants and the written arguments submitted by both sides is simply repetition of pleadings and evidence already available on the record.
ISSUES NO.1 AND 2:
1. Whether the plaintiff is the possessor of the suit
schedule property as on the date of filing of the
suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual
injunction against the defendants in respect of the
suit schedule property as prayed for?
13.The plaintiff stated that, it is registered society called K.L.
Mahendra Nagar Gudisevasula Sankshema Sangam having its registration No.558. That plaintiff association raised huts in the land in
Sy.No.352 and they have been residing in the said land since long time and the association members were assigned house numbers. The plaintiff association is consisting of 300 huts in Sy.No.352 of Mattewada revenue village, which is near to first Doctors Colony, Gouthami Nagar, Warangal.
That the Sy.No.352 is a government land and on the representation given by the plaintiff association the Tahsildar gave permission to raise huts in the land in Sy.No.352. The defendants No.1 to 8 made their evil eye on the government land in Sy.No.352 and tried to evict the members of the plaintiff’s association. That the members of plaintiff’s association or landless poor persons, they obtained voter identity cards and Aadhaar 12
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
cards and they have made several representations to the Tahsildar and to the District Collector for granting pattas in their favour. That the defendants No.1 to 8 are no way concern with the suit schedule property, who are trying to grab the suit schedule property by creating false and fictitious documents and that the plaintiff association cannot be evicted from the huts raised in the Sy.No.352 without due process of law, hence their possession may be protected by granting perpetual injunction against the defendants.
14.The defendant No.7 filed the written statement and the same was adopted by defendants No.1 to 6 and 8, in which they denied the contentions of the plaintiff and stated that, the plaintiff’s association illegally and highhandedly raised temporary huts and created ration cards and Aadhaar cards in collusion with the revenue authorities subsequent to filing of the suit in OS No.299/2009 by the defendants No.1 to 7 and that the plaintiff’s association is illegally trying to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendants over the land in Sy.No.377 and 378 of Mattewada village, which is owned and possessed by defendants No.1 to 8. The defendants submitted that, defendants No.1 to 8 purchased their respective extents of land in Sy.Nos.377 and 378 under registered documents and that there is no cause of action for the present suit and the same may be dismissed.
15.The rival contentions of the parties to the suit reveals that, the plaintiff’s association is claiming possessory rights over the land in 13
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
Sy.No.352 and the defendants claim their title and possession over the land in Sy.No.377 and 378 of Mattewada revenue village, Warangal. The simple question involved in the present suit is that, whether the suit schedule property is located in Sy.No.352 or in Sy.Nos.377 and 378. The defendants No.1 to 8 claimed their ownership and title by virtue of registered sale deeds and they assert that, their land is located in
Sy.Nos.377 and 378. On the other hand, the plaintiff’s association is claiming that, they were permitted by the Tahsildar to raise huts in the
Sy.No.352, but they were not issued any pattas. The plaintiff’s association further stated that, they have been residing in the Sy.No.352 for a considerable period and they have been issued ration cards, aadhaar cards and that they were paying electricity charges for their respective huts.
16.On behalf of the plaintiff’s association as many as 61 documents were marked, out of which Ex.A1 is authorization given to the PW1 to represent the plaintiff’s association. Ex.A2 is photographs 19 in number showing the residential place covered by houses. Exs.A3 to A8 and A53 are the voter identify cards of Manchoju Nirmala, Pinnoju Laxmi,
Thummanapelli Suguna, Latheefa, Manchoju Swaroopa, Yakub Bee and
Afzal Bee Shaik. Exs.A9 to 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 35, 47, 49, 51, 55 are the electricity demand notices issued to different persons namely Manchoju Nirmala Pinnoju Laxmi,
Thummanapelli Suguna, Sk.Latheefa, Manchoju Swaroopa, Sk.Sardhar 14
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
Bee, Moola Jayamma, Sd.Karima, Sarjena Mallikamba, Sk.Dawood Bee,
Srikala, Shailu, Rabiya Sulthana, Sk.Reshma, Swaroopa, Kodimela
Mallaiayh, Bandloju Swaroopa, Md.Razia, Nasima, Gangidi Venkatamma,
Perumandla Sambalaxmi, Danaboina Shanthamma, Nagunoori Sunitha,
Shaik Afzal Bee, Md.Abeda. Exs.A14, A17, A19, A21, A23, A26, A27,
A29, A31, A33, A35, A37, A40, A42, A44, A46, A48, A50, A52, A54, A56 are the residential certificates of the above names persons obtained by them from mee-seva. Ex.A57 is the house tax demand notice issued for the house number 22-7-66/1A/H, located at K.L.M. Nagar Colony.
Ex.A58 is the house tax demand notice issued for the house number 22- 7-66/46A/H, located at K.L.M. Nagar Colony. Ex.A59 is the property tax assessment notice for the door No.22-7-66/14C/A/1. Ex.A60 is the nill statement of encumbrance on property in respect of land in Sy.No.352, 377, 378 for a period of 32 years from 01.01.1983 to 08.03.2015 obtained from mee-seva. Ex.A61 is the computerized pahani for the Fasli 1424, which is equivalent to the year 2014 showing the land in Sy.No.352 as the government land.
17.The documents as exhibited by the plaintiff which are detailed as above shows that, the plaintiff’s association is consisting of group of persons and they are living in the schedule property by raising huts and they have been paying the electricity charges and taxes, residing in their respective houses. More particularly, the Ex.A61 reveals that, the land in
Sy.No.352 is a government land and the total land available in the said 15
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
survey number is 159.0800 of dry land. By virtue of the documents placed before the Court by the plaintiff’s association, it can be inferred that, the plaintiff’s association members are living in the respective residences raised by them in Sy.No.352 of Mattewada revenue village,
Warangal as on the date of filing of the suit, hence it can be said that, the plaintiff’s association established a prima facie case in their favour.
18.The documents under Exs.B1 to B9 are the registered documents, by going through the Exs.B1, B2, B4, B5, B6, B7 and B3 one can understand that, defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of house plot to an extent of 300 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.378 of Mattewada revenue village, having purchased it under registered vide Doc.No.4156/1982, similarly the defendant No.4 purchased plot No.30 to an extent of 300
Sq.Yds in Sy.No.378 under registered sale deed No.4100/2006 dated 29.04.2006, the defendant No.5 purchased plot No.31 measuring 200
Sq.Yds in Sy.No.378 under sale deed No.4099/2006 dated 29.04.2006, the defendant No.6 purchased house plots 31 and 32 part to an extent of 200 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.378 under registered sale deed No.4097/2006 dated 29.04.2006, the defendant No.7 purchased house plot No.32 part to an extent of 200 Sq.Yds, in Sy.No.378 under sale deed No.4098/2006 dated 24.09.2006. That the defendant No.2 is the owner of house plot to an extent of 600 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.377 having purchased it under sale deed
No.12713/1981 dated 05.11.1981 and the defendant No.2 is also owner of the house plot to an extent of 20 guntas out of Sy.No.377 having 16
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
acquired the same under registered gift deed bearing document
No.5696/1982 dated 23.08.1982 executed by her mother Smt.Rekulapally
Laxmi.
19.The defendants also filed pahani for the year 1981-82 as Ex.B10 and mutation proceedings in favour of Ramprasad pertaining to land in
Sy.No.378 as Ex.B11. The order copy of CMA 21/2013 on the file of III
Addl. District Judge, Warangal dated 27.12.2016 is marked as Ex.B12 and the order copy in IA No.456/2009 in OS No.299/2009 on the file of II
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal dated 07.05.2010 was marked as
Ex.B13 and another I.A.No.677 of 2010 in the same suit for grant of police aid is marked as Ex.B14. Further, the land acquisition petition vide
OP No.151/1983 and its order are marked as Exs.B15 and B16
respectively. The above referred Exs.B10 to B16 relate to the land in
Sy.No.378 and 377 and they have no nexus with the suit schedule property in Sy.No.352.
20.The significant contention of the defendants is that, in the name of raising huts in Sy.No.352, the plaintiff’s association trying to encroach into the adjoining land in survey numbers 377 and 378. This contention of the defendants is necessarily be proved by defendants, but none of the documents relied upon by the defendants is going to show that, the plaintiff’s association members are the trespassers or they have illegally encroached in the land in Sy.Nos.377 and 378. It is an admitted fact that, the land in Sy.No.352 is a government land and the land in Sy.No.377 17
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
and 378 is a patta land. The burden of proof rests on the defendants to show that, the land in which the plaintiff’s association members raised their huts is in Sy.No.377 and 378, but as per the material on record, there is no supporting evidence in favour of the defendants.
21.The defendants contended that, the plaintiffs got created illegal ration card and aadhaar cards in collusion with the revenue authorities and trying to grab the land in Sy.No.377 and 378. However, as per the available material on record, there is no document in support of the above contention raised by the defendants. They could not rebut the documentary evidence of the plaintiff, but orally asserted that, the documents of the plaintiff are created in collusion with the revenue authorities. When there is no supporting evidence for the allegations in the written statement, the general principle is to ignore the allegation.
However, the defendants have made their possible effort to establish their contention slightly with the help of cross examination of plaintiff’s witnesses.
22.On careful perusal of the oral evidence on record, it shows that, the representative of the plaintiff’s association was examined as PW1 and his chief examination affidavit is true replica of the plaint. The cross examination of the PW1 shows that, the learned counsel for the defendants posed several questions to elicit the facts favourable to the defendants, some of the questions posed to PW1 elicited that, PW1 is a
CPI party worker and he is the president of AITUC (Beedi Karmika 18
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
Sangham, Warangal) and one K.L. Mahendra is also belong to CPI Party and one Mekala Ravi is the seceretary of CPI party, Warangal District,
T.Venkatramulu and Thakkallapally Srinivasa Rao are the CPI Party state committee members. Though, the defendants elicited the above stated facts relating to the membership and designation of some of the CPI party workers, it is no way concerned to the present case, moreover, it is never pleaded in the written statement of the defendants and it is not the case of the defendants that, the above named persons aided the plaintiff’s association in any manner in raising the huts in the land in Sy.No.352.
23.The contention of the defendants is that, they are the owners and possessors of the land in Sy.No.377 and 378 by virtue of registered documents and that the plaintiff’s association falsely claiming the land in
Sy.No.352 and intending to illegally occupy the land owned and possessed by the defendants No.1 to 7 in Sy.Nos.377 and 378.
Regarding this contention, the learned counsel for the defendants asked several questions to the PWs 1 to 4 in their respective cross examinations, but no affirmative answer was elicited from the PWs 1 to 4.
The PWs 1 to 4 admitted about the previous suit vide OS No.299/2009 filed by the defendants against the PW1, Mekala Ravi, T.Venkatramulu and Thakkellapally Srinivas in respect of land in Sy.No.377 and 378 of
Mattewada revenue village and also admitted that, the learned II Addl.
Junior Civil Judge, Warangal has granted interim injunction order in IA
No.456/2009 and aggrieved by the said orders, the PW1 and above 19
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
named defendants therein preferred CMA 21/2019 and the said CMA wa dismissed by confirming the order of the lower Court by Hon’ble VII
Additional District Judge, Warangal. It was also admitted that, the learned
II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal granted police aid to the plaintiffs in
OS No.299/2009. However, it must be borne in mind that, the suit filed by
the defendants herein vide OS No.299/2009 on the file of II Addl. Junior
Civil Judde, Warangal is in respect of land in Sy.No.377 and 378, but not in respect of Sy.No.352. Whatever the orders passed in the said suit only relates to the subject matter covered under the said suit, but the present suit schedule property is different, hence orders passed by the learned II
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal has no bearing on the subject
matter in the present suit. In addition to that, the defendants got marked the judgment and decree passed by learned II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,
Warangal in OS No.299/2009 as Exs.B17 and B18. After perusal of
Exs.B17 and B18, it is crystal clear that, the defendants therein did not contest the suit nor adduced any evidence in respect of their contention and the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal passed the judgment only on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff therein.
24.From the above said scrutiny of the evidence and material on record, it can be said that, the defendants are only concerned with the lands in Sy.Nos.377 and 378, the registered sale deeds on which their claim is based also shows that, they purchased the lands in Sy.No.377 20
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
and 378 of Mattewada revenue village only, but not in respect of land in
Sy.No.352.
25.The entire dispute between the parties is regarding the identification of location of the land respectively claimed by them. The plaintiff’s association firmly assert that, the members of the association raised their huts in Sy.No.352 only and they had no intention to encroach into the other survey numbers. On the other hand, the defendants contend that, by claiming land in Sy.No.352, the plaintiff’s association illegally intending to occupy the land in Sy.No.377 and 378. This is the plaintiff’s association claimed that, its members are landless poor persons and with the permission of the Tahsilar they raised huts in the land in
Sy.No.352 and also admitted that, they are not granted any patta certificates. Unlike the defendants, the plaintiff’s association members do not have any registered sale deeds and it is the defendants who asserted that, plaintiff’s association members are illegally encroaching in
Sy.No.377 and 378. In the said circumstances, it is the duty of the defendant to substantiate their contention and prove their version by cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence. The real dispute is with the identification of survey numbers and location of the suit schedule property as well as the land claimed by the defendants. There is no documentary evidence on the record to ascertain the location of the Sy.Nos.352, 377 and 378. The admitted fact is that, the land in Sy.No.352 is a government land and it is supported by Ex.A61 and the defendants did not adduce 21
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
any contradictory evidence as against the entries in Ex.A61, hence it is believed that, the land in Sy.No.352 is a government land and plaintiff’s association members are residing in the said land by raising temporary shelter i.e., huts. The other documentary evidence of the plaintiff’s association such as, voter identify cards, electricity demand notice, house tax receipts, photos denotes that, they are residing in the suit schedule property and suit schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s association as on the date of filing of the suit.
26.The PWs 1 to 4 admitted that, they were not issued with patta certificate by the government as on the date of filing of the suit. But, in the light of the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff’s association, no one can deny that, they are not residing in the schedule property by raising temporary shelters. There is no document for the defendants to show that their physical possession over the land claimed by them, but the defendants by virtue of their registered documents are under the impression that, the plaintiffs encroached into the land in Sy.No.377 and 378, in such circumstance, it is the defendants to prove that the plaintiff’s association illegally encroached or trying to grab the land in Sy.No.377 and 378. The learned counsel for the defendants posed several questions to PWs 1 to 4 in the cross examination that, do they have any objection for the survey of the land to ascertain the exact location of the temporary shelters of the plaintiff’s association and PWs 1 to 4 in one voice answered that, they do not have any objection for the survey. However, 22
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
except posing such questions to the plaintiffs witnesses, the defendants did not take any steps for getting the land surveyed to ascertain the exact location of land in Sy.No.352 or that the plaintiff’s association encroached into the land in Sy.No.377 and 378. Such failure on the part of the defendants, cannot cause any harm or injustice to the plaintiff’s association and result in evacuation of the plaintiff’s association members from the temporary shelters got raised by them with the permission of the
Tahsildar and for which they are necessary taxes and bills to the government bodies. The defendants are not claiming any piece of land in
Sy.No.352 and they too admit that, it is a government land.
27.The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 0 Supreme (SC) 526, wherein it
was held that, in suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that, as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere or discharge such lawful possession.
He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh reported in 2011 (5) ALD 35, wherein it was held that, even the encroaches are entitled to protection of their possession by way of injunction from unlawful dispossession except against true owners of the property and, 23
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
The judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2011 (5) ALD 35 between Podili Kotamma & Others v. M.Deshapathi &
Others, it was held that, even encroachers are entitled to protection of their possession by way of an injunction from unlawful dispossession except against true owners of the property. In the case on hand, the defendants claimed their ownership and possession in respect of land in
Sy.No.377 and 378 and they do admit that, the land in Sy.No.352 is a government land and the plaintiff’s association is seeking an inunction against the defendants but not against the government, hence the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court squarely applies to the present case.
He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh reported in 2008 (1) ALD 748 between Alla Seshukumar and Another v.
Alla Radha Krishna, wherein it was held that, in a suit for injunction simpliciter complicated questions of title cannot be gone into and when a person who has not title over the property, he is in settled possession, he is entitled for injunction even against true owner. The Hon’ble Justice
G.Yathirajulu, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu 2004 (2) ALD 31 (SC), wherein their lordships held that, the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser.
28.The plaintiff also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble High
Court of A.P reported in 2012 (2) ALT 665, it was held that, the well 24
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
recognized legal proposition that a person who is in settled possession of the property is entitled for the relief of injunction irrespective of the fact whether he succeeded in proving his title to the property or not. The present suit is a suit for injunction simpliciter and the above said authority squarely applies to the present suit and plaintiff’s association by virtue of documentary evidence proved their settled possession over the schedule property, hence the question regarding the title need not be adverted to.
He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 (2) ALD 671 between Nandyala Koti
Reddy v. Bheemavarapu Rama Krishna and Another, wherein it was held that, under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, the Court may presume existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of their particular case.
Illustration be to the section 114 of Indian Evidence Act direct that, the court may presume that a thing or state of thins which have been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that, within which such things or state of things usually cease to exit, is still in existence.
29.The learned counsel for the defendants in his written arguments laid more emphasis on the admissions extracted from the plaintiff witnesses regarding the Exs.B12, B13, B14, B17 and B18. However, it was already made clear that, the existence of those documents does not make any difference as the subject matter in the present suit is entirely 25
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
different from the subject matter in the suit in OS No.299/2009. Further, the learned counsel for the defendants also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court regarding the established principles of law in receiving of documents at a subsequent point of time or after the commencement of trial, but without disputing the principles of law laid down in those judgments, this Court holds that, the present set of facts are not attracting the said legal principles, hence they are not suitable to the present case.
30.In the present case on hand, the plaintiff’s association proved with all the probability that they are living in the huts raised by them in
Sy.No.352 which is a government land and they were having voter identify cards, the door numbers were allotted to their respective huts and they have been using electricity and paying electricity consumption charges for their houses. On the other side, the defendants did not adduce any contradicting evidence against the plaintiff and they have utterly failed to substantiate their contention that the plaintiff illegally encroached into the patta land in Sy.Nos.377 and 378, therefore, this court presumes that, the plaintiffs association is in possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.
31.In the light of the above mentioned legal principles and evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it can be safely concluded that, the plaintiff’s association members are in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the 26
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
suit and their possession was interfered with by the defendants without any right or interest over the schedule property and if the illegal interference of the defendants is not restrained, the plaintiff’s association members will be put to irreparable injury, hence they are entitled for grant of perpetual injunction. Accordingly, the issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUES NO.3: To what relief?
32.In view of findings of issues No.1 and 2, the suit is liable to be decreed.
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting perpetual injunction against the defendants No.1 to 8, their men, servants, yesmen etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of March, 2026.
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
WARANGAL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:
PW1: Mohammed Khasim Hussain DW1: Mandala Ram PW2: Sandra Kumaraswamy DW2: Syed Saleem Quadri PW3: Jannu Sharadha PW4: Manda Ilaiah
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex-A1: Authorized letter dated 13.06.2013 (marked subject to objection by the learned counsel for the defendants on the ground that, it is not accompanied by resolution).
27
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
Ex-A2: 19 photographs along with CD. Ex-A3: Voter identify card of Nirmala Manchoju. Ex-A4: Voter identify card of Laxmi Pinnoju. Ex-A5: Voter identify card of Suguna Thummanapelly. Ex-A6: Voter identify card of Lathifa. Ex-A7: Voter identify card of Swarupa Manchoju. Ex-A8: Voter identify card of Yakubbi Mohammad. Ex-A9: Electricity bill, dated 15.03.2013. Ex-A10: Electricity bill, dated 27.01.2012. Ex-A11: Electricity bill, dated 15.03.2013. Ex-A12: Electricity bill, dated 19.06.2013. Ex-A13: Electricity bill, dated 15.03.2013. Ex-A14: Certified copy of residence, dated 02.01.2013 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A15: Electricity bill, dated 29.09.2012. Ex-A16: Electricity charges payment receipt. Ex-A17: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 01.11.2012 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A18: Electricity bill, dated 30.07.2012. Ex-A19: Certificate of residence, dated 23.07.2012, issued by Tahsildar, Warangal. Ex-A20: Electricity bill. Ex-A21: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 02.01.2013 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A22: Electricity bill, dated 16.03.2013. Ex-A23: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 02.01.2013 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A24: Electricity bill, dated 30.10.2012. Ex-A25: Electricity charges payment receipt. Ex-A26: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 01.11.2012 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A27: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 02.01.2013 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A28: Electricity bill, dated 29.04.2012. Ex-A29: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 02.01.2012 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A30: Electricity bill, dated 19.05.2013. Ex-A31: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 02.01.2013 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A32: Electricity bill, dated 19.05.2013. Ex-A33: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 02.01.2012 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A34: Electricity bill, dated 30.05.2012. Ex-A35: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 02.01.2013 obtained through mee-seva.
28
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
Ex-A36: Electricity bill. Ex-A37: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 01.05.2010 issued by Tahsildar, Warangal. Ex-A38: Electricity bill, dated 29.03.2012. Ex-A39: Electricity bill, dated 19.05.2013. Ex-A40: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 21.01.2011 issued by Tahsildar, Warangal. Ex-A41: Electricity bill, dated 25.11.2011. Ex-A42: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 01.11.2012 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A43: Electricity bill, dated 29.08.2012. Ex-A44: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 01.11.2012 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A45: Electricity bill, dated 16.03.2013. Ex-A46: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 01.11.2012 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A47: Electricity bill, dated 16.03.2013. Ex-A48: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 20.05.2013 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A49: Electricity bill, dated 18.04.2013. Ex-A50: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 01.11.2012 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A51: Electricity bill, dated 27.01.2012. Ex-A52: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 02.01.2013 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A53: Voter Identity card of Abzal Bee Shaik. Ex-A54: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 02.01.2013 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A55: Electricity bill, dated 19.05.2013. Ex-A56: Certified copy of residence certificate, dated 01.01.2012 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A57: Original GWMC property tax demand bill bearing No.0622070202, dated 28.06.2022. Ex-A58: Original GWMC property tax demand bill bearing No.0622070208, dated 28.06.2022. Ex-A59: Property tax assessment notice, dated 22.04.2023 (this document is marked subject to objection that it is suit document) Ex-A60: Encumbrance certificate, dated 10.03.2015 obtained through mee-seva. Ex-A61: Certified copy of pahani for the Fasli, 1424 obtained through mee-seva.
FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex-B1: Certified copy of registered sale deed No.4156/1982,
dated 24.08.1982.
29
O.S.No.627 of 2022 SCJ, Wgl.
Ex-B2: Certified copy of registered sale deed No.12713/1981,
dated 05.11.1981.
Ex-B3: Certified copy of registered gift settlement deed No.5696/1982,
dated 23.08.1982.
Ex-B4: Certified copy of registered sale deed No.4100/2006,
dated 29.04.2006.
Ex-B5: Certified copy of registered sale deed No.4099/2006,
dated 29.04.2006.
Ex-B6: Certified copy of registered sale deed No.4097/2006,
dated 29.04.2006.
Ex-B7: Certified copy of registered sale deed No.4098/2006,
dated 29.04.2006.
Ex-B8: Certified copy of registered sale deed No.4052/1982,
dated 16.08.1982.
Ex-B9: Certified copy of registered sale deed No.4055/1982,
dated 16.08.1982.
Ex-B10: Certified copy of pahani for the years 1981-1982. Ex-B11: Certified copy of panchanama dated 20.09.2008. Ex-B12: Certified copy of order in CMA No.21/2013, dt.27.12.2016. Ex-B13: Certified copy of order in IA No.456/2009 in OS No.299/2009,
dated 07.05.2010 along with decree.
Ex-B14: Certified copy of order in IA No.677/2010 in IA No.456/2009 in
OS No.299/2009 dated 07.05.2010 along with police aid letter.
Ex-B15: Certified copy of land acquired in OP No.151/1983. Ex-B16: Certified copy of order in OP No.151/1983 dt.30.01.1985 on the file of Addl. Subordinate Judge, Warangal along with decree. Ex-B17: Certified copy of judgment in OS No.2114/2022 (Old OS No.299 of 2009) dated 30.08.2024 on the file of II Addl. JCJ, Warangal. Ex-B18: Certified copy of decree in OS No.2114/2002 (Old OS No.299 of 2009) dated 30.08.2024 on the file of II-Addl. JCJ, Warangal.
Sd/-
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
WARANGAL.