Smt. G.bhavani Chandra

1 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, SANGAREDDY

WEDNESDAY, THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

PRESENT: Smt. G. Bhavani Chandra,

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy

A.S. No. 9 of 2022

&

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

A.S. No. 9 of 2022.

Between:-

Smt. M. Nagamani, W/o: M. Srinivasa Rao, Aged about: 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No. 8-126/2, Road No. 3, J.P. Colony, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

...Appellant

A N D

1. Uppari Ravinder, S/o: Late Mallaiah, Aged about: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture

2. Uppari Narsimulu, S/o: Late Radhamma, Aged about: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture Both are R/o: Gonamma Basthi, M.G. Road, Patancheru, Sangareddy District

3. A. Buchi Reddy, S/o: Linga Reddy, Aged about: 42 years, Occ: Pennar Employee, R/o: H.No. 8-36/1, J.P. Colony, Road No. 5, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

4. J. Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o: Late Kista Reddy, Aged about: 50 years, Occ: Visakha Employee, R/o: H.No. 14-33/15, Padmavathi Homes, Sriramnagar Colony, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District (died) Per LRs. Respondent Nos. 10 to 12

5. T. Trinath, S/o: Sri Chaitanya Sahu, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Kirby Employee, R/o: H.No. 8-34, J.P. Colony, Road No. 4, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District 2 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

6. P. Srinivas Reddy, S/o: Late P. Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about: 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.14-35, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

7. K. Upendranath, S/o: Vishwaroopa Chary, Aged about: 43 years, Occ: Private Employee

8. Smt. K. Meghana, W/o: Sri K. Upendranath, Aged about: 39 years, Occ: Private Employee Respondents No. 8 and 9 are R/o: 8-3-231/A/497, Krishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad

9. Smt. V. Kalavathi, W/o: Sathi Reddy, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: Bhanoor village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District

10. Smt. J. Nirmala, W/o: J. Sathyanarayana Reddy, Aged about: 52 years, Occ: House wife

11. Sandhya Rani, D/o: J. Sathyanarayana Reddy, Aged about: 35 years, Occ: House wife 12.J. Ramesh Reddy, S/o: J. Sathyanarayana Reddy, Aged about: 32 years, Occ: Private Employee The Respondents No. 10 to 12 are R/o: H.No. 14- 33/15, Padmavathi Homes, Sriramnagar Colony, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District (The Respondents No. 10 to 12 were brought on record as per the orders dated 02.11.2023 passed in I.A. No. 718/2019)

...Respondents

The appellants preferred the Appeal Suit aggrieved by the

Judgment and Decree dated 11.02.2022 passed by the Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Sangareddy in:

O.S. No. 291 of 2013

Between:

1. Uppari Ravinder, S/o: Late Mallaiah, Aged about: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture

2. Uppari Narsimulu, S/o: Late Radhamma, Aged about: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture Both are R/o: Gonamma Basthi, M.G. Road, Patancheru, Sangareddy District …Plaintiffs A N D 3 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

1. Smt. M. Nagamani, W/o: M. Srinivasa Rao, Aged about: 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No. 8-126/2, Road No. 3, J.P. Colony, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

2. A. Buchi Reddy, S/o: Linga Reddy, Aged about: 42 years, Occ: Pennar Employee, R/o: H.No. 8-36/1, J.P. Colony, Road No. 5, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

3. J. Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o: Late Kista Reddy, Aged about: 50 years, Occ: Visakha Employee, R/o: H.No. 14-33/15, Padmavathi Homes, Sriramnagar Colony, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

4. T. Trinath, S/o: Sri Chaitanya Sahu, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Kirby Employee, R/o: H.No. 8-34, J.P. Colony, Road No. 4, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

5. P. Srinivas Reddy, S/o: Late P. Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about: 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.14-35, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

6. K. Upendranath, S/o: Vishwaroopa Chary, Aged about: 43 years, Occ: Private Employee

7. Smt. K. Meghana, W/o: Sri K. Upendranath, Aged about: 39 years, Occ: Private Employee Respondents No. 8 and 9 are R/o: 8-3-231/A/497, Krishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad

8. Smt. V. Kalavathi, W/o: Sathi Reddy, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: Bhanoor village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District

...Defendants

This Appeal Suit came up before me for final hearing on 18.07.2025 in the presence of Sri P. Vinod Reddy, Advocate for the

Appellant, Sri J. Ram Reddy,Advocate for Respondents No. 1, 2,

Sri S. Prakash, Advocate for Respondents No. 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 to 12,

Respondent No. 4 died, Respondents No. 6 and 9 were set ex parte.

4 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

A.S. No. 72 of 2022.

Between:-

1. A. Buchi Reddy, S/o: Linga Reddy, Aged about: 52 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o: H.No. 8-36/1, J.P. Colony, Road No. 5, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

2. Smt. J. Nirmala, W/o: J. Sathyanarayana Reddy, Aged about: 52 years, Occ: House wife

3. Sandhya Rani, D/o: J. Sathyanarayana Reddy, Aged about: 35 years, Occ: House wife

4. Ramesh Reddy, S/o: J. Sathyanarayana Reddy, Aged about: 32 years, Occ: Private Employee The Respondents No. 2 to 4 are R/o: H.No. 14-33/15, Padmavathi Homes, Sriramnagar Colony, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District (J. Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o: Late Kista Reddy, Died who is the Defendant No. 3 in the O.S. No. 291/2013 and as per the Defendant No. 3, his legal heirs are made party to the present Appeal as Appellants No. 2 to 4)

5. T. Trinath, S/o: Sri Chaitanya Sahu, Aged about: 53 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o: H.No. 8-34, J.P. Colony, Road No. 4, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

6. K. Upendranath, S/o: Vishwaroopa Chary, Aged about: 53 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o: H.No. 8- 3-231/A/497, Krishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad

7. Smt. K. Meghana, W/o: Vishwaroopa Chary, Aged about: 42 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o: H.No. 8- 3-231/A/497, Krishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad

...Appellants

A N D

1. Uppari Ravinder, S/o: Late Mallaiah, Aged about: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture

2. Uppari Narsimulu, S/o: Late Radhaiah, Aged about: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o: Gonamma Basthi, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District 5 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

3. Smt. A. Nagamani, W/o: M. Srinivas Rao, Aged about: 40 years, Occ: House wife, R/o: H.No. 8-126/2, Road No. 3, J.P. Colony, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

4. P. Srinivas Reddy, S/o: Late P. Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about: 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.14-35, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

5. Smt. V. Kalavathi, W/o: Sathi Reddy, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: Bhanoor village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District (Respondents No. 3 to 5 are the formal parties herein who are the other defendants in the main suit

O.S. No. 291/2013)

...Respondents

The appellants preferred the Appeal Suit aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 11.02.2022 passed by the Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Sangareddy in:

O.S. No. 291 of 2013

Between:

1. Uppari Ravinder, S/o: Late Mallaiah, Aged about: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture

2. Uppari Narsimulu, S/o: Late Radhaiah, Aged about: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o: Gonamma Basthi, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District …Plaintiffs A N D

1. Smt. A. Nagamani, W/o: M. Srinivasa Rao, Aged about: 40 years, Occ: House wife, R/o: H.No. 8-126/2, Road No. 3, J.P. Colony, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

2. A. Buchi Reddy, S/o: Linga Reddy, Aged about: 52 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o: H.No. 8-36/1, J.P. Colony, Road No. 5, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

3. J. Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o: Late Kista Reddy, Aged about: 59 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o: H.No. 14-33/15, Padmavathi Homes, Sriramnagar Colony, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy 6 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

District (Died after passing of the judgment in

O.S. No. 291/2013, as per his legal heirs)

4. T. Trinath, S/o: Sri Chaitanya Sahu, Aged about: 53 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o: H.No. 8-34, J.P. Colony, Road No. 4, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

5. P. Srinivas Reddy, S/o: Late P. Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about: 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.14-35, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

6. K. Upendranath, S/o: Vishwaroopa Chary, Aged about: 43 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o: H.No.8-3- 231/A/497, Krishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad

7. Smt. K. Meghana, W/o: Vishwaroopa Chary, Aged about: 39 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o: 8-3- 231/A/497, Krishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad

8. Smt. V. Kalavathi, W/o: Sathi Reddy, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: Bhanoor village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District

...Defendants

This Appeal Suit came up before me for final hearing on 18.07.2025 in the presence of Sri S. Prakash,Advocate for the Appellants, Sri J. Ram Reddy,Advocate for Respondents No. 1, 2, Sri P. Vinod Reddy, Advocate for Respondents No. 3, 4 and Respondent No. 5 was set ex parte, having perused the material on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The appeal in A.S. No. 9 of 2022 filed by the defendant No. 1 and the appeal in A.S. No. 72 of 2022 filed by the defendants No. 2, 4, 6, 7 and LRs of defendant No. 3 against the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2022 in O.S. No. 291 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy passed in

favour of the plaintiffs.

7 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties in these appeals would be hereinafter referred to as per their status in the suit.

3.The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the reliefs of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into their possession over the suit schedule property.

4.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of lands in Sy. No. 22 extent Acs.0.09 guntas and Sy. No. 974 extent

Ac.0.24 guntas, situated at Patancheru Town, hereinafter referred as suit schedule I and II properties. Late Radhaiah was having two sons namely

Uppari Mallaiah and Uppari Narsimulu/plaintiff No. 2. Uppari Mallaiah died issue-less, whereas Uppari Narsimulu left behind plaintiff No. 1 who was brought up by Uppari Mallaiah. The land in Sy. No. 22 is the ancestral property of plaintiffs, whereas Uppari Mallaiah purchased land in

Sy. No. 974 under registered sale deed document No. 1726/1973.

Subsequently, he executed registered gift deeds vide document

No. 2438/2007 and 2439/2007 dated 25.01.2007 in favour of plaintiffs

No. 1 and 2 giving equal shares in suit schedule I and II properties. After that, the plaintiffs' names were mutated in respect of suit schedule lands vide Proceeding No. B/3668/2012 and B/3759/2012 and patta pass books 8 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

and title deeds were issued in favour of plaintiffs. The Mandal Revenue

Officer, Patancheru conducted survey of suit lands on 21.12.2012 and fixed the boundaries of the plaint schedule and prepared panchanama and the plaintiffs fenced around the suit lands.

5.It is submitted that defendants filed suit seeking perpetual injunction on false and fabricated documents against plaintiff No. 1 in

O.S. No. 32/2013 which was filed by defendant No. 1 herein. Defendants

No. 2 and 3 also filed a suit O.S. No. 253/2012, defendant No. 4 filed a suit O.S. No. 254/2012 and defendants No. 5 to 7 filed O.S. No.337/2012 and the same were decreed ex parte claiming them to be owners of respective plots.

6.It is further submitted that defendants threatened the plaintiffs that they would occupy the suit schedule lands and remove the fencing wire by dispossessing the plaintiffs with the help of their henchmen.

On 11.11.2013 and 16.11.2013, defendants along with their henchmen and antisocial elements came to plaintiffs' lands and threatened to vacate the suit land immediately. Having no other option, the plaintiffs approached this court by filing present suit for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants.

9 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

7.Written statement filed by defendants denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint and submitted that defendant No. 1 is owner and in actual and physical possession of plot No. 194/Part A and plot

No. 194/Part B in Sy. Nos. 4 to 9, 11 to 17, 20, 21, 23 to 27, 31 to 33, 550, 970, 971, 973, 975 to 978, 980 to 986, 990 to 993, situated at

Chaitanya Nagar Colony, Patancheru Town which he purchased vide document No. 3428/2012 and 310/2011.

8.It is submitted that one P. Venkateshwar Rao and six others in the year 1993 purchased agricultural land extent Acs.25.16 guntas in

Sy. No. 4 to 9, 11 to 17, 20, 21, 23 to 27, 31 to 33, 550, 970, 971, 973, 975 to 978, 980 to 986, 990 to 993, situated at Patancheru Town and such land was made into layout of residential plots with Grampanchayath approval. Subsequently, said P. Venkateshwar Rao and others sold plot

No. 194 extent 200 square yards to one G. Bheem Rao under registered sale deed document No. 1225/2000 and delivered possession of such plot. In turn J. Bheem Rao sold plot to Smt. P. Balamani under registered sale deed document No. 7377/2002 who divided plot No. 1947 into two plots i.e. 194/Part-A and 194/Part-B and sold the first part to one

K. Prabhu Goud vide document No. 1246/2010. K. Prabhu Goud in turn sold such plot to defendant No. 1 vide document No. 3428/2012. It is submitted that defendant No. 1 purchased remaining 100 square yards 10 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

plot No. 194/Part-B from Smt. P. Balamani vide document No. 310/2011.

After purchase of both plots, defendant erected kadis around the suit plot.

9.It is submitted that plaintiffs herein tried to interfere into peaceful possession of defendant No. 1 over plot No. 194 and the defendant No. 1 filed suit in O.S. No. 32/2013 against the plaintiffs which was decreed by this court. It is also submitted that the plot of defendant

No. 1 does not form part and parcel of Sy. No. 22 or Sy. No. 974. But the plaintiffs taking advantage of being local people having influence is trying to grab the plot of the defendant. It is submitted that even prior to execution of alleged gift deeds in favour of plaintiffs for Sy. No. 974 and

Sy. No. 22, such survey numbers were already made as plots as shown in pahanies. Hence, in view of above facts, defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

10.Defendants No. 5 to 8 were set ex parte.

11.Basing on rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiffs are found in legal possession of suit schedule properties as on the date of filing of suit?

2. Whether defendants interfered with peaceful possession of plaintiffs over suit schedule properties?

11 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for grant of perpetual injunction against defendants, as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

12.During trial, the plaintiff No. 1 examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A44. On the other hand, the defendant No. 1 examined herself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B12, further she also examined D.W.2 and 3. The defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 4 are examined as D.W.4 and D.W.5 and got marked Exs.B13 to B21. The

Advocate Commissioner appointed for local inspection of suit schedule properties by name Sri N. Dattetary is examined as C.W.1 and got marked Exs.C1 to C12.

13.The learned trial Judge on hearing the counsel for plaintiffs and defendants and on appreciation of the material on record including the documents, passed the impugned judgment and decree which is now challenged by the appellants on the following grounds:-

Grounds of Appeal in A.S. No. 9 of 2022:-

14.The court below has failed to appreciate the legal position and also the documentary evidence, given undue importance to the documents of ‘A’ series without appreciating the lacunas and failed to appreciate the documents filed in ‘B’ series 12 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

and also the admission of P.W.1 and cross-examination, failed to appreciate the importance of the documentary evidence under

Exs.A17 to 21, 24 to 26, relied upon the Commissioner Report, which came to the conclusion that defendant No. 1 encroached but the reasoning that the plaintiffs are in possession is totally incorrect, it has to recognize that on the date of the filing of the suit, plaintiff was not in actual and physical possession, thereby not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, the view is biased one, failed to consider P.W.1 also convicted by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, the Commission was

executed without following the procedure, hence to allow the appeal.

Grounds of Appeal in A.S. No. 72 of 2022:-

15.Contrary to the facts of the case and legal position, court failed to appreciate the legal position and documentary evidence, given undue importance to the documents of ‘A’ series, failed to appreciate the documents filed in ‘B’ series and also the admission of P.W.1, no jurisdiction to over look the contents of

Ex.A17 to 24, the answer to issue No. 1 shows a bias review, given undue importance to the Commissioner Report, commission was 13 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

not executed following the procedure, hence prayed to allow the appeal.

16.Heard arguments on both sides. Written arguments are also filed on behalf of both sides.

17.Now the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction?

2. Whether the impugned Judgment of lower court needs any interference as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

P O I N T N O . 1 :

18.The case of the plaintiffs/respondents is that the suit schedule-I property is ancestral property of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the suit schedule-II property is purchased by the adoptive father of the plaintiff No. 1, Mallaiah, he executed the gift settlement deeds in favour of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 equally, they are in possession and enjoyment but the defendants are interfering.

19.The case of the defendant No. 1/appellant is that defendant

No. 1 purchased the plot of 100 square yards in Sy. No. 194/A and 194/B each, clubbed both the plots, he is in possession and enjoyment, already 14 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

filed the suit against the plaintiff No. 1 and obtained the decree but the plaintiffs are trying to occupy his plots under the guise of the gift settlement deeds. The case of the defendants No. 2 to 4/respondents is that they are also purchased the plots in Sy. No. 162/part, 162/part and 171 respectively, they are in possession and enjoyment, already they also obtained the decree against the plaintiff No. 1.

20.In this case the plaintiff No. 1 himself examined as P.W.1 and his evidence is in tune with his pleadings. In his evidence, he got marked the certified copy of the sale deed, pahanies, mutation proceedings, gift settlement deeds, RORs, title deeds, village tippans and tounch map under Ex.A1 to A44. On the other hand the defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 themselves examined as D.W.1, D.W.4 and 5 and their evidence is also in the same lines of written statement and got marked the certified copy of the registered sale deeds, payment receipts, electricity bills, certified copy of the judgment and decrees, certified copies of the sale deeds under

Exs.B1 to B21. The defendants also examined D.W.2 and 3 in support of their evidence. It is the testimony of D.W.2 and 3 that defendants purchased their plots under registered sale deed and in possession.

Further deposed they are also possessing the plot No. 19, 111, but admittedly no documentary evidence is placed. D.W.3 also admitted in 15 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

cross-examination that he has not filed any documentary evidence to show the said plot 111/part belongs to him.

21.The plaintiffs have filed the suit in respect of schedule-I and schedule-II properties. According to the plaintiffs, the land to an extent of

Acs.0.09 guntas in Sy. No. 22 i.e., the schedule-I property is ancestral property, they are in possession, enjoyment whereas the land to an extent of Ac.0.24 guntas in Sy. No. 974 i.e., the suit schedule-II property purchased by the adoptive father of the plaintiff No. 1 and brother of plaintiff No. 2 by name Mallaiah and he executed the gift settlement deeds in their favour. Admittedly the defendants are claiming their properties in different survey numbers i.e., Sy. No. 194, 162 and 171, whereas the suit schedule properties are in Sy. Nos. 22 and 974.

22.As the suit is filed for permanent injunction, the plaintiffs have to prove their possession on the date of the filing of the suit. The plaintiffs herein filed the pahanies for the year 1954-55 under Ex.A2 to A12 and further the pahanies for the Fasli 1424 under Ex.A27 to A30. The pahani under Ex.A3 for the year 1968-69 shows the name of grandfather of the plaintiff No. 1 Radhaiah for Ac.0.09 guntas in Sy. No. 22 and the name of

Pentaiah, vendor of adoptive father of plaintiff No. 1, Mallaiah for Ac.0.24 guntas in Sy. No. 974 and subsequent pahanies under Ex.A3 onwards the name of Mallaiah is shown as pattedar and possessor till the year 16 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

2011-12 under Ex.A11. Ex.A12 pahani, further the Fasli 1423 shows the name of the plaintiffs as pattedar and possessors for schedule properties and Ex.A13 and A14 are the mutation proceedings to that affect. As per

Ex.A15, panchanama was conducted and fixed the boundaries, Ex.A27 to

A30, pahanies show the names of plaintiffs as pattedar and possessor for the Fasli 1424 and 1-B Namuna was also issued on their name under

Exs.A31, 32. The title deeds under Ex.A36, 37 are issued in favour of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 for the said properties. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed in respect of Ac.0.24 guntas in Sy. No. 974 i.e., the schedule-II property in favour of Mallaiah, adoptive father of plaintiff

No. 1 and Ex.A2 is the khasra pahani for the year 1954-55.

23.As stated earlier, the case of the defendants and evidence of

D.W.1, D.W.4, D.W.5 is that they purchased the plots in Sy. No. 194, 162 and 171, under registered sale deeds, they are in possession and enjoyment, further filed the suits against the plaintiff No. 1 and obtained the decree.

24.It is also further evidence of D.W.1, defendant No. 1 that she also constructed the house and residing therein. The registered sale deeds, tax receipts and the decrees obtained by them show that they purchased the plots under registered sale deeds, but it is required to mention here that as stated earlier their plots are not in the suit schedule 17 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

Sy. Nos. 22 and 974 but in other Sy. Nos. 4 to 9, 11 to 17, 20, 21, 23 to 27, 31 to 33, 550, 970, 971, 973, 975 to 978, 980 to 986, 990 to 993.

25.It is the submission of the learned counsel for the defendants that though there is a dispute to the title, the plaintiff did not file a suit for declaration of title but simply filed for permanent injunction which is not maintainable but in this case as stated earlier both the parties to the suit are not claiming the very same property but claiming their properties separately in separate survey numbers and further already the defendants herein filed the suits for permanent injunction only in respect of their plots and obtained the decrees.

26.True it is, the plaintiff No. 1 who is the defendant in the said cases didn’t contest the matter but it is his categorical evidence in cross-examination that as his survey number is not there in the said suits filed by the defendants, he has not challenged the decrees. It is categorically pleaded by the defendants in their pleadings that their plots don’t form part and parcel of Sy. No. 22 or Sy. No. 974 i.e., the suit schedule survey numbers. D.W.1 admitted that Sy. No. 22 and 974 are not included in his plot survey numbers. D.W.4 also admitted that his sale deed is not containing in Sy. No. 22 and 974. The evidence of P.W.1 and the documentary evidence as discussed above i.e., the pahanies etc., 18 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

clearly show the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties on the date of the suit but it is required to mention here that as stated earlier, the defendant No. 1 constructed the house and residing in it. In this case Advocate Commissioner is appointed to note down the physical features and he filed the Commissioner Report. As per the

Commissioner Report the major part of the defendant No.1’s house is in the suit schedule-I to an extent of 165.6 square yards. The plaintiff No. 1,

P.W.1 himself deposed in cross-examination that the defendant No. 1 made construction encroaching into the suit schedule land, she is residing with her family in the said house constructed on the suit property.

27.It is suggested to D.W.1 by the plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 encroached in the suit Sy. No. 22 i.e., the suit schedule-I property by making construction exceeding her plot and further suggested that managing police constructed a building in the suit land under police protection etc. Further suggestion shows that as per the Advocate

Commissioner Report also the house of the defendant No. 1 was constructed by encroaching Sy. No. 22 to an extent of 165.6 Square yards. It is also suggested to D.W.2 that defendant No. 1 encroached into the land of the plaintiff by constructing her house to an extent of 165 square yards. Thus in this case the material brought on record as discussed above and further the admissions of P.W.1 himself proves that 19 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

the plaintiffs are not in possession of total extent of schedule-I property having encroached by the defendant No. 1 to an extent of 165.6 Square yards, though the documentary evidence show they were in possession of entire extent on the date of the suit, thereby the plaintiffs are not entitled for injunction to the schedule-I property.

28.In respect of schedule-II property as stated earlier, the father of plaintiff No. 1, Mallaiah purchased the said land under registered sale deed in the year 1973 under Ex.A1 and all the remaining documents clearly prove the possession of the plaintiffs by virtue of gift settlement deeds on the date of the suit and also subsequently. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the defendants that no boundaries are mentioned in Ex.A1 registered sale deed but only in the gift settlement deeds, thereby cannot considered etc. But it is required to mention here that the property purchased by the father of the plaintiff No. 1 Mallaiah in the suit Sy. No. 974 is to an extent of Ac.0.24 guntas as per the registered sale deed. On perusal of the pahani pertaining to the year 1954-55, the entire extent in the said survey number is Ac.0.22 guntas only. It is not the case that for part of the extent only the registered sale deed was obtained so as to say there is dispute of boundaries. Further more it is categorically brought on record that the boundaries are mentioned as per the tounch map. As stated earlier, it is not at all the 20 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

case of the defendants that their purchased plots are in the said

Sy. No. 974, their registered sale deeds are pertaining to the year 2007 onwards much later and not pertaining to Sy. No. 974, thereby no much credence can be attached to non-mentioning of the boundaries in the registered sale deed of 1973. Plaintiffs have proved their possession over suit schedule-II property and the defendants are interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment, thereby entitled for perpetual injunction.

Hence, point No. 1 is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiffs for schedule-II property.

P O I N T No. 2:-

29.On clear evaluating oral and documentary evidence and after going through judgment of lower court, this court is of the view that there is no irregularity committed by the trial court in respect of suit schedule-II property, whereas the trial court committed irregularity in respect of suit schedule-I property, hence the appeal is allowed in part.

Accordingly this point is answered.

P O I N T No. 3:- 21 of 21 A.S. No. 9 of 2022 &

A.S. No. 72 of 2022

30.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by setting aside the

Judgment and Decree dated 11.02.2022 passed in O.S. No. 291 of 2013 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy in respect of schedule-I property and suit is hereby dismissed without costs for schedule-I property and appeal is dismissed by confirming the said judgment for schedule-II property. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of September, 2025.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES

(Oral and Documentary)

-Nil-

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, SANGAREDDY

WEDNESDAY, THE 05th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

PRESENT: Smt. G. Bhavani Chandra,

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy

A.S. No. 46 of 2022

Between:-

Dr. P. Damodar Reddy S/o Ramakrishna Reddy, Age: 58 years, R/o Kansanpally Village, Andole Mandal, Medak District.

...Appellant/Defendant

A N D

T. Kishan S/o P. Durga Reddy, Age: 73 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kanganpally Village, Andole Mandal, Medak District.

...Respondent/Plaintiff

The appellant preferred the Appeal Suit aggrieved by the

Judgment and Decree dated 13.06.2018 passed by the Senior Civil

Judge, Medak in

O.S. No. 62 of 2008

Between:

T. Kishan S/o P. Durga Reddy, Age: 73 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kangampally Village, Andole Mandal, Medak District. …Plaintiff

A N D

Dr. P. Damodar Reddy S/o Ramakrishna Reddy, Age: 58 years, R/o Kansanpally Village, Andole Mandal, Medak District.

...Defendant

This Appeal Suit came up before me for final hearing on 23.01.2025 in the presence of Sri M. Achutha Reddy, Sri D. Mahender Reddy, Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant, Sri K. Krishna Rao, Counsel for Respondent/Plaintiff, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

FAIR

Page 2 of 18 AS 46 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2018 in O.S. No. 62 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Medak.

2.The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for declaration to declare him as the son of late P. Durga Reddy and entitle to claim share in the properties of P. Durga Reddy and alo declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property to an extent of Ac 2-02 Gt in Sy.No.38, Ac 8-14 Gt in Sy.No.40 and Ac 0-3 Gt in sy.No.115 of Kansanpally village and tractor and cancellation of gift settlement deed, dated 08.07.1993 and recovery of possession of schedule property from the defendant and award damages of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages of crop and mesne profits of

Rs.2,00,000/- per year till recovery of possession and correction of entries in revenue records.

3.The brief averments of the plaint are that:-

One Laxma Reddy was the ancestor and died leaving behind his two sons Durga Reddy and Narayan Reddy and also his properties. In the partition between two brothers an extent of Ac 37-07 Gt fallen to

FAIR

Page 3 of 18 AS 46 of 2022

the share of Durga Reddy, the Durga Reddy had two wives namely

Satyamma and Veeramma. Durga Reddy kept one Bagamma as concubine and out of their relationship the plaintiff was born and

Bagamma was died when the plaintiff was in the age of 1 ½ year old and as Satyamma and Veeramma had no issues they along with Durga

Reddy brought up the plaintiff as their son and legal heir and performed his marriage, while so Durga Reddy died about 25 years back and Satyamma died about 20 years back, whereas Veeramma died on 07.01.2006 leaving the plaintiff as their son. The defendant is son of Ramkrishna Reddy who was son of Narayan Reddy who was brother of Durga Reddy. The defendant with an intention to grab the properties of Durga Reddy created a Will Deed, dated 19.06.1968 that

Satyamma and Veeramma executed the Will bequeathing all the properties and also got mutated his name in the year 1984-85 as if

Satyamma and Veeramma died though by then Veeramma was alive.

The defendant along with Veeramma filed a suit in O.S No.57 of 1993 against his father and brother in respect of suit schedule properties and other properties on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Medak. The defendant by playing fraud on Veeramma got executed gift settlement deed, dated 08.07.1993 in respect of suit property.

That plaintiff managed the properties of Durga Reddy till 1999-2000

FAIR

Page 4 of 18 AS 46 of 2022 and in oral partition between the plaintiff and Veeramma the schedule property fell to the share of plaintiff though he is entitled for 1/3rd share out of properties of Durga Reddy. The plaintiff obtained electricity connection. The plaintiff purchased one Tractor in the year 2001 by hypothecating the suit lands to Manjeera Grameena Bank,

Branch Jogipet and got registered the Tractor in the name of the defendant as the lands are in the name of the defendant. The plaintiff who waged sugarcane crop used to supply the same to sugar factories of Fasalwadi, Bodhan. The defendant taking advantage of revenue entries he filed a suit in O.S No.25 of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge, Jogipet against the plaintiff and his family members in respect

of schedule properties and obtained injunction, basing on the injunction order he disposed the plaintiff from the suit properties.

The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to handover the possession and the defendant issued a false reply claiming ownership of the property.

4.The defendant filed written statement admitting his relationship with Durga Reddy who was brother of grandfather of defendant. Durga Reddy got two wives namely Satyamma and

Veeramma and they had no issues. Durga Reddy inherited Ac 26-07

Gt but not Ac 37-07 Gt. Durga Reddy died in the year 1967,

FAIR

Page 5 of 18 AS 46 of 2022

Satyamma died in the year 1984, Veeramma died on 07.01.2006. the plaintiff is the son of one Durga Reddy, but not the son of Durga

Reddy, though through Bagamma so the plaintiff is not legal heir of

Durga Reddy. After death of Durga Reddy his two wives succeeded his properties and it became their “Sreedhana” properties. Satyamma and Veeramma executed a Will in favour of defendant defeating their properties and after death of Satyamma, the defendant stayed with

Veeramma, as such Veeramma executed gift settlement deed on 08.07.1993 for the suit schedule land and other lands. So the defendant became the owner of the properties. The defendant along with Veeramma filed a suit in O.S No.57 of 1993 against brother and father of defendant for injunction and the same is decreed on 22.09.1998. The plaintiff never cultivated the suit properties only that the defendant dug bore well connected electricity and also purchased

Tractor in his name in the year 2001. The defendant is in exclusive possession of the suit property and his name also mutated in revenue records. The defendant filed the suit in O.S No.25 of 2006 for injunction against the plaintiff and his family members on the file of

Junior Civil Judge, Jogipet and injunction petition was dismissed and he preferred an appeal in CMA No.09 of 2006 and the same is allowed. The plaintiff preferred appeal before the Hon’ble High

FAIR

Page 6 of 18 AS 46 of 2022

Court and the same was dismissed. The plaintiff is stranger to the family of Durga Reddy and the defendant got the properties and gift settlement deed and revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook, title deed and plaintiff filed the suit to grab the properties and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed following issues:- i.Whether the plaintiff is the son of Durga Reddy?

ii.Whether the plaintiff succeeded the property after death of his father and his wives? iii.Whether the defendant was brought up by the two wives of Durga Reddy as their son after death of Durga Reddy? iv.Whether the two wives of Durga Reddy executed any in favour of defendant in respect of the property left by Durga Reddy? v.Whether Veeramma the wife of Durga Reddy executed a gift deed dated 08.07.1993 in favour of defendant? vi.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare that the plaintiff is the Legal Representative of Durga Reddy and entitled to share in the properties of Durga Reddy? vii.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of both movables and immovable properties? viii.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to One Lakh rupees towards the damaged of standing crop? ix.To what relief?

6.To substantiate their case, plaintiff himself examined as

PW1 and three more witnesses as PW2 to PW4 and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A15. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant

FAIR

Page 7 of 18 AS 46 of 2022

himself examined as DW1 and one more witness examined as

DW2 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B14.

7.The learned trial Judge on hearing the counsel for plaintiff and defendant and on appreciation of the material on record including the documents, passed the impugned judgment and decree which is now challenged by the appellant and defendant on the following grounds:-

The court below failed to appreciate the pleadings and evidence of the witnesses and documentary evidence of PW1 to PW4 and

DW1 and DW2 and committed error in decreeing the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is the son of late P. Durga Reddy which is denied by the defendant/appellant herein, none of the documents Ex.A1 to

Ex.A15 relate to the alleged relationship between his mother

Bagamma and late P. Durga Reddy and his birth out the relationship, the oral evidence of PW1 to PW4 is contrary to the documentary evidence, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW4 who belongs to the different village, much reliance was placed on election ID card, Ex.B25 but no one is

FAIR

Page 8 of 18 AS 46 of 2022 examined to prove the contents, further the appellant herein along with Veeramma filed suit in O.S No.57 of 1993 wherein respondent/plaintiff gave evidence, did not claim the property as son of Durga Reddy, he did not take any steps to file the suit claiming relief since then, the election ID card was got recorded by him, there is no oral partition at all, the name of the respondent/plaintiff was not recorded as pattadar and possessor, on the other hand the name of defendant/appellant is mutated basing on the gift settlement deed, respondent knows the said entries but did not challenge, the lower court erred in declaring the respondent/plaintiff basing on Ex.B22 and Ex.B23 which is incorrect, hence prayed to allow the appeal.

8.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant in his oral and written arguments that as the suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration he has to prove his case without depending upon the weaknesses of the defendant’s case, he himself admitted that his surname is shown as Tenugu, he has changed his version with regard to the relationship of Bagamma with P. Durga Reddy, his father name is shown as Durgaiah but not Durga Reddy, except Ex.B25 no other document is filed, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is not believable, failed to prove the

FAIR

Page 9 of 18 AS 46 of 2022

oral partition, the gift deed is executed in favour of the defendant, thereby he became the absolute owner and possessor, the same is also proved, the documents filed by the respondent/plaintiff are the created documents, he failed to prove the relationship and further he admitted in the other suit the title for the appellant/defendant by virtue of the gift settlement deed executed by Veeramma who became the absolute owner as per Section14(1), hence prayed to allow the appeal by dismissing the suit.

9.On the other hand it is submitted by the respondent/plaintiff in his oral and written arguments that the plaintiff is the son of P. Durga Reddy born through Bagamma, in order to grab the property got executed the document by the widows of P. Durga Reddy, but no exclusive rights to execute, Ex.B14 cannot be taken into consideration, the witnesses examined by the plaintiff clearly supported his version, the evidence DW1, defendant clearly proves the possession of the plaintiff and issuance of the pattadar passbooks, he was dispossessed only after obtaining injunction, no evidence is placed proving that the defendant was brought up by the two wives of P.

Durga Reddy as their son, the lower court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, hence prayed to dismiss the appeal. He relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1989 Orissa 10, AIR 1987

Bombay 270.

FAIR

Page 10 of 18 AS 46 of 2022

10.Now the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare that the plaintiff is the Legal Representative of Durga Reddy and entitled to share in the properties of Durga Reddy?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of both movables and immovable properties?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to One Lakh rupees towards the damaged of standing crop?

4. Whether the impugned Judgment of lower court needs any interference?

5. To what relief?

P O I N T NOs. 1 to 3:-

11.For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal would be hereinafter referred to as per their status in the suit.

12.The case of the plaintiff is that one P. Durga Reddy got the suit schedule property in partition with his brother, plaintiff is son to him through his concubine Bagamma, on her death he was brought up by Durga

Reddy and his two wives having no issues, he is the sole heir and entitled to inherit the properties, the defendant with an intention to usurup the prop- erties brought into existence a will deed, got transferred by making false claim that both the widows died though Veeramma was alive, subsequently got executed the gift settlement deed to overcome the said difficulty, but subsequently in oral partition the suit schedule property fell to his share on

FAIR

Page 11 of 18 AS 46 of 2022

oral advice of Veeramma who executed the gift deed, hence he is entitled to be declared as heir of P. Durga Reddy and his share in properties.

13.On the other hand the case of the defendant is that plaintiff is not the heir of Durga Reddy, thereby inheritance as a sole heir does not arise, he is not the son of Durga Reddy with Bagamma, Veeramma the wife of Durga Reddy executed gift deed in his favour and it was accepted, since then he is in possession and enjoyment.

14.To prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as

PW1 and his evidence is in tune with his pleadings. In his evidence he got marked the order and Decree passed in I.A No.43/2006 in O.S No.25/2006 filed by the defendant herein for permanent injunction under Ex.A1, Ex.A2, death certificate and letters and receipts, office copy, legal notice under

Ex.A4 to Ex.A13 and further the Judgment and Decree in O.S No.57 of 1993 filed by defendant and Veeramma under Ex.A14 and Ex.A15. Fur- ther he also placed the evidence of one N. Bhoomaiah as PW2 whose evi- dence is that plaintiff is the son of Durga Reddy through his concubine

Bagamma, in oral partition the suit schedule property fell to his share and he is in possession and enjoyment. Further he also placed the evidence of one P. Mallaiah as PW3, he deposed that plaintiff is the owner and posses-

FAIR

Page 12 of 18 AS 46 of 2022 sor of the suit schedule properties but after filing of the suit by the defen- dant in the year 2006 he dispossessed him on obtaining injunction order.

Further it is the evidence of PW4, B. Narsimha Reddy that P. Durga Reddy was having two wives Sathyamma and Veeramma and one concubine by name Bagamma, plaintiff is the son to Durga Reddy through Bagamma, he was brought up by Durga Reddy and his two wives on the death of his mother.

15.On the other hand the defendant himself examined as DW1 and his evidence is also in the same lines of written statement. In his evi- dence he got marked the pahanies under Ex.B1 to Ex.B13 from the year 1993 to 2006 and the registered gift settlement deed under Ex.B14.

16.In this case it is not in dispute that originally Laxma Reddy was the absolute owner, he had two sons Narayan Reddy and Durga Reddy, they got partitioned the ancestral properties and the suit schedule properties fell to the share of Durga Reddy. It is also not in dispute that the defendant herein is the grandson of Narayan Reddy and the plaintiff is claiming as son of Durga Reddy through one Bagamma. As stated earlier it is the testi- mony of PW1 that when his mother Bagamma died he was 1 ½ years old, he was brought up by Durga Reddy, his father and his two wives. Admit-

FAIR

Page 13 of 18 AS 46 of 2022

tedly in this case no documentary evidence is placed by the plaintiff to show that he is the son of P. Durga Reddy, he was brought up from his childhood as Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 marked in this case are not pertaining to that.

17.It is elicited in the cross examination of PW1 that his surname is Tenugu and the said surname is shown in all the records like voter card, aadhar card, ration card and in others, whereas the surname of the defen- dant is Pullannagari so also Durga Reddy whom he is claiming as his fa- ther. Further he admitted that after the death of Durga Reddy all the prop- erties were mutated on the name of two wives. If really he is the son of

Durga Reddy his name also would have been mutated along with his two wives. Further he admitted that all the properties belonging to Durga

Reddy mutated on the name of the defendant in the revenue records.

18.When the suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration, the burden lies on him to prove the same. As stated earlier no documentary ev- idence at all placed in this case as Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 are not relating to de- clare his status. Furthermore even if considered that he filed voter card in the other suit filed by the defendant herein in O.S No.25 of 2006, no other documentary evidence is placed by him to show that he was shown as the

FAIR

Page 14 of 18 AS 46 of 2022 son of Durga Reddy since the age of 1 ½ year as claimed. It is also the evi- dence of PW2 in cross examination that after the death of Durga Reddy, his wives Satyamma and Veeramma inherited the properties but not the plain- tiff.

19.On the other hand in this case, a gift settlement deed was exe- cuted in favour of the defendant by Veeramma who is the second wife of P.

Durga Reddy under Ex.A14 in the year 1993 itself and further all the paha- nies filed by the defendant Ex.B1 to Ex.B13 from the year 1993-94 clearly show the name of the defendant as pattadar and possessor. It is the defen- dant who filed the suit at first seeking injunction and thereafter plaintiff herein came up with this suit.

20.The plaintiff himself made a pleading in the plaint that Veer- amma executed the gift settlement deed in favour of the defendant herein in respect of the suit schedule properties and they both filed the suit in O.S

No.57 of 1993, the Judgment in the said suit under Ex.A14 clearly shows that the plaintiff herein deposed as PW2 in their favour that it is the defen- dant who is alone cultivating the suit land as owner and pattadar, he has been cultivating the said land for the last 30 years. Thus he is aware of the execution of the gift deed in the year 1993 itself when the suit is filed, but

FAIR

Page 15 of 18 AS 46 of 2022

he did not take any steps, on the other hand he supported the case of the de- fendant herein. Though it is his contention that subsequent to that oral par- tition took place and the suit schedule properties were allotted to him, no material is placed in this regard. As stated earlier if really partition took place and he was allotted the suit schedule properties towards his share there would have been entries in the revenue records, but it is not so, thereby in absence of such evidence his contention is not believable.

21.In this case plaintiff is also seeking declaration that he is the heir to P. Durga Reddy being the sole legal heir. It is required to mention here that in the plaint averments itself and also in his evidence he deposed that his mother is the concubine of Durga Reddy but not the wife, so also

PW2 and PW4 deposed in the cross examination that Bagamma the mother of the plaintiff is the concubine. In such circumstances it cannot be said that plaintiff herein is the legal heir who can succeed the suit schedule properties of P. Durga Reddy which he got from his ancestors. It is also the contention of plaintiff that he was in possession and enjoyment but the de- fendant herein dispossessed him after obtaining injunction in the suit filed by him but absolutely no material is filed to show his possession prior to the suit filed by the defendant in the year 2006. But on the other hand the name of the defendant has been shown as pattadar and possessor since the

FAIR

Page 16 of 18 AS 46 of 2022 year 1993 from the date of execution of the gift settlement deed under

Ex.B14.

22.It is elicited in the cross examination of PW1 that the suit schedule properties fallen to the share of P. Durga Reddy in partition with his brother Narayan Reddy. Though he deposed that he is in possession he admitted that he did not file pahani to show he was in possession along with Durga Reddy over the suit schedule lands during his lifetime. He fur- ther admitted that after death of Durga Reddy all his properties were mu- tated on the name of his two wives, he knows the said facts at the time of the mutation itself and further he admitted that he did not raise any objec- tion, he did not file any case before the revenue authorities or civil court challenging the entries. PW4 deposed that he was present at the time of oral partition, but his name was not at all pleaded in the plaint or deposed by PW1, plaintiff himself, thereby no reliance can be placed on such evi- dence. Furthermore it is not believable in view of non filing of any entries subsequent to that on the name of plaintiff.

23.Hence for the reasons discussed above this court is of the view that plaintiff failed to prove that he is the son of Durga Reddy by placing sufficient evidence, thereby he is not entitled for declaration of his status

FAIR

Page 17 of 18 AS 46 of 2022

and further he is also not entitled to declare he is the heir of Durga Reddy in respect of ancestral properties that he got in partition.

24.As it is held that plaintiff cannot be declared as heir of

P. Durga Reddy and owner of the suit schedule lands etc., the cancellation of the gift settlement deed executed by the second wife of Durga Reddy having absolute title cannot be cancelled so also he is not entitled for any other relief i.e., possession of the suit schedule properties, damages etc.

Thus all these points No.1 to 3 are decided against the plaintiff.

POINT No. 4:

25.In view of findings on points no.1 to 3 and for reasons stated above, this court is of the view that the Judgment passed by the trial court is not correct in finding and not based on correct appreciation of law, hence the Judgment and decree passed by trial court needs interference and thereby it is set aside and appeal is allowed.

Thus this point is answered in favour of defendant/appellant.

POINT No.5:

FAIR

Page 18 of 18 AS 46 of 2022

26.IN THE RESULT, the Appeal is allowed by setting aside the

Judgment and Decree dated 13.06.2018 passed in OS No.62 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak and further the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05 th day of February, 2025.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, SANGAREDDY

WEDNESDAY, THE 05th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

PRESENT: Smt. G. Bhavani Chandra,

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy

A.S. No. 59 of 2022

Between:-

Dr. P. Damodar Reddy S/o Ramakrishna Reddy, Age: 58 years, R/o Kansanpally Village, Andole Mandal, Medak District.

...Appellant/Plaintiff

A N D

1. Tenugu Kishan S/o P. Durga Reddy, Age: 73 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kanganpally Village, Andole Mandal, Medak District.

2. Tenugu Shamamma W/o Kishan, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Tenugu Mahipal S/o Kishan, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4. Tenugu Durgaiah S/o Kishan, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o Kansanpally Village, Andole Mandal, Medak District.

...Respondents/Defendants

The appellant preferred the Appeal Suit aggrieved by the

Judgment and Decree dated 13.06.2018 passed by the Senior

Civil Judge, Medak in

O.S. No. 78 of 2012

Between:

Dr. P. Damodar Reddy S/o Ramakrishna Reddy, Age: 58 years, R/o Kansanpally Village, Andole Mandal, Medak District. …Plaintiff

A N D

FAIR

Page 2 of 15 A.S No. 59 of 2022

1. Tenugu Kishan S/o P. Durga Reddy, Age: 73 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kanganpally Village, Andole Mandal, Medak District.

2. Tenugu Shamamma W/o Kishan, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Tenugu Mahipal S/o Kishan, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4. Tenugu Durgaiah S/o Kishan, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o Kansanpally Village, Andole Mandal, Medak District.

...Defendants

This Appeal Suit came up before me for final hearing on 23.01.2025 in the presence of Sri M. Achutha Reddy, Sri D. Mahender Reddy, Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff, Sri K. Krishna Rao, Counsel

for Respondents/Defendants.

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2018 in O.S. No. 78 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Medak.

2.The plaintiff filed the suit against defendants seeking perpetual injunction.

3.The brief averments of the plaint are that:-

He is the owner, pattadar of suit schedule property being ancestral property and he raise sugar cane crop in the lands. The defendants have no right over the suit land, the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of plaintiff. Even

FAIR

Page 3 of 15 A.S No. 59 of 2022

then the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff on the suit land on 10.04.2006 and without any alternative filed the suit.

4.The defendant No.1 filed written statement and other defendants adopted the same statement entity and the case of the defendant is that one Laxma Reddy common ancestor got two sons namely Narayana Reddy and Durga Reddy and they partitioned their joint family properties. Durga Reddy married Bagamma the mother of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 was born. The Bagamma died when defendant No.1 was child. Durga Reddy brought up the defendant No.1 and his two wives not having children. The plaintiff wrongly mentioned the father name of defendant No.1, Durga Reddy his two wives namely Satyamma and Veeramma brought the plaintiff into their house as their adopted son and since then the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are living as brothers and enjoying the properties of

Durga Reddy. The plaintiff being the Doctor started his practice at

Hyderabad, only defendant No.1 is looking after the suit lands and other properties of Durga Reddy till 1999-2000. Due to disputes in oral partition between the partition and defendant the defendant No.1 got the suit property towards his share, the plaintiff got land in

Sy.Nos.7, 8, 86/AA, 302, 313, 314, 443, 444, 445, 446 and they are in

FAIR

Page 4 of 15 A.S No. 59 of 2022

exclusive possession of their respective shares. The defendant No.1 dug bore wells and took electricity connections in the name of his wife and son with the knowledge of plaintiff. The defendant No.1 raised sugarcane crop in the suit land. The plaintiff mutated his name in the revenue records by managing the revenue officials. The defendant No.1 also sold sugarcane to Bodhan sugar factory and bills were issued for the same. Due to increase of land value and to get the suit property the plaintiff filed the suit and the suit is not maintainable against the defendant No.1 and the suit may be dismissed.

5.Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed following issues:- i.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? ii.To what relief?

6.To substantiate their case, plaintiff himself examined as

PW1 and other witness as PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A14.

On behalf of the defendant, the defendant No.1 himself examined as DW1 and other witnesses examined as DW2 and DW3 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B25.

FAIR

Page 5 of 15 A.S No. 59 of 2022

7.The learned trial Judge on hearing the counsel for plaintiff and defendant and on appreciation of the material on record including the documents, passed the impugned judgment and decree which is now challenged by the appellant and defendant on the following grounds:-

The court below gravely erred in dismissing the suit without considering the possession of the appellant basing on the docu- mentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 from the year 1993- 94 onwards which is crucial in a suit for injunction, further erred in opining that the election ID card Ex.B25 is the conclu- sive evidence and gave much importance to evidence of DW2 & DW3 on the ground they are the villagers, Ex.B25 cannot be considered without examining the authority, that itself is not sufficient to prove the relationship, must be corroborated by an- other documentary evidence which is failed to show by respon- dent No.1 and further failed to consider the acceptance of the

Injunction in CMA No.9/2006 by the Hon’ble High Court, failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the doc- umentary evidence, hence prayed to allow the appeal.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in his oral and written arguments submitted that the documentary evidence placed by the appellant/plaintiff clearly shows his name as pattadar and possessor, no document is filed to show the name of respondent/defendant No.1 is mutated

FAIR

Page 6 of 15 A.S No. 59 of 2022

as owner and possessor, nothing could be elicited in the cross examination of

PW2, further the chief affidavit filed by the respondent/defendant No.1 itself shows his father name as Durgaiah, same is submitted by him in cross examination, the document filed by the respondent/defendants did not show the possession. Further DW1 himself admitted in the cross examination at the time of dispossession he was not present, the evidence of DW2 & DW3 is only hearsay, the respondent/defendant No.1 did not claim the property as son of Durga Reddy in the suit O.S No.57 of 1993, moreover he gave evidence as a witness in favour of the appellant/plaintiff herein.

9.On the other hand it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant that Durga Reddy married mother of the defendant

No.1, on her death he grown up with his father having no other children through two other wives, it is proved by the voter list, identity card but suppressing the same wrongly mentioned his father name as Durgaiah instead of Durga Reddy by the plaintiff, he looked after the entire family properties jointly, when dispute arose oral partition took place, he got the suit schedule properties towards his share, his name is also recorded in revenue records to show his possession and enjoyment, further the said facts are also proved by the witnesses examined by him DW2 and DW3, trial court rightly

FAIR

Page 7 of 15 A.S No. 59 of 2022

held that defendant No.1 cannot seek injunction against the share holder, hence prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10.Now the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. Whether the impugned Judgment of lower court needs any interference?

3. To what relief?

P O I N T NO. 1:-

11.For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal would be hereinafter referred to as per their status in the suit.

12.The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule properties are his ancestral properties, he succeeded, revenue authorities issued pattadar and title deeds in his favour, he is in possession and enjoyment but the de- fendants are interfering, hence entitled for Permanent Injunction.

13.On the other hand the case of the defendant is that the suit schedule property is absolute property of Durga Reddy who got in parti- tion, he is son to him though his mother Bhagamma, on her death he was grown up with his father, except him no other issues to him, on his death plaintiff and he used to live jointly as brothers, all are the joint family prop-

FAIR

Page 8 of 15 A.S No. 59 of 2022

erties of plaintiff and defendant No.1, jointly cultivated up to the year 2000, as disputes arose oral partition took place, wherein the suit schedule prop- erties fell to his share, since then he is in exclusive possession, thereby not entitled for injunction.

14.To prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as

PW1 and his evidence is in tune with his pleadings, he further deposed that he got the suit schedule property under gift settlement deed from the sec- ond wife of Durga Reddy, by name Veeramma. In his evidence he got marked pahanies under Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 and further the gift settlement deed under Ex.A14. He also placed the evidence of one Kistaiah as PW2 who deposed that plaintiff got the suit schedule lands and other lands under gift settlement deed executed by Veeramma, since then he is in possession and enjoyment as absolute owner and possessor.

15.On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 himself examined as DW1 and his evidence is also in the same lines of the written statement.

In his evidence he got marked the pahanies under Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 and fur- ther the receipts and gate passes under Ex.B7 to Ex.B22 and further the title deed and pattadar passbook of plaintiff under Ex.B23, Ex.B24 and the elec- tion ID card under Ex.B25. Further he also placed the evidence of one Ta-

FAIR

Page 9 of 15 A.S No. 59 of 2022

lari Ramaiah as DW2 whose evidence is that his land is located towards western side of the suit property, it was the defendant No.1 who was in possession of the suit schedule property but he was dispossessed by the plaintiffs after obtaining the injunction order. Further also placed the evi- dence of one M. Nara Goud as DW3, he deposed that he worked as agricul- ture labour with one Ramakrishna Reddy, father of the plaintiff, the defen- dant No.1 was dispossessed by the plaintiff when he was in possession.

16.As the suit is filed for permanent injunction the main criteria to be looked into is the possession on the date of the filing of the suit. In this case as stated earlier it is the testimony of PW1 that he got the suit schedule properties under gift settlement deed and since then he is in pos- session and enjoyment. In his evidence he got marked the gift settlement deed as discussed earlier under Ex.A14. The said document was executed in the year 1993 in favour of the plaintiff by one Veeramma. It is not in dispute that Veeramma is no other than the second wife of Durga Reddy who originally got the suit schedule properties in partition with his brother who is no other than the father of the plaintiff. All the pahanies under

Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 filed from the year 1993-94 onwards till the date of the filing of the suit 2005-06 the name of plaintiff is shown as pattadar and possessor. Though DW2 and DW3 deposed that it was the defendant No.1

FAIR

Page 10 of 15 A.S No. 59 of 2022

who is in possession and enjoyment earlier but after obtaining injunction he was dispossessed by the plaintiff etc., absolutely no documentary evidence is filed to prove the same and further the documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff under Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 from the year 1993-94 onwards disproves the same.

17.The pahanies filed by the defendant under Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 are also from the year 2001 onwards till 2005-06 wherein the name of the plaintiff is shown as pattadar and possessor. The other documents placed by the defendant under Ex.B7 to Ex.B22, the receipts and gate pass do not prove his possession though those are on his name. It is required to men- tion here that the title deed and pattadar passbooks were also issued on the name of plaintiff only under Ex.B23 and Ex.B24 which are in possession of the defendant No.1. As per the contents of the written statement filed by the defendants itself plaintiff and he were jointly cultivating the lands up to the year 2000, thereby possessing the said documents in his possession cannot be ruled out.

18.In this case it is the evidence of defendant No.1 that one

Laxma Reddy was the common ancestor, he had two sons Narayan Reddy and Durga Reddy, they partitioned the suit schedule properties and plaintiff

FAIR

Page 11 of 15 A.S No. 59 of 2022

is the son of Narayanreddy and the defendant No.1 is the son of Durga

Reddy through one Baagamma. Further he categorically mentioned that

Durga Reddy was having two wives Satyamma and Veeramma, the plain- tiff belongs to the branch of Narayan Reddy and the suit schedule proper- ties fell to the share of Durga Reddy. Thus, the question of all these lands are the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 does not arise as contended by him in his pleadings.

19.It is also the plea of the defendants and evidence of DW1 that the oral partition took place after disputes arose in the year 1999-2000 and the defendant No.1 got the suit schedule property towards his share. If that is so his name would have been shown as pattadar and possessor subse- quent to the year 2000, but it is not so as stated earlier as per the documen- tary evidence. Furthermore already the gift settlement deed is executed in favour of the plaintiff by Veeramma, the second wife of original owner,

Durga Reddy in the year 1993 itself, since then the name of the plaintiff is coming as pattadar and possessor. Further he himself deposed in the cross examination that there is no document executed by Veeramma allotting a share to him, he came to know about the execution of the gift settlement deed by Veeramma in favour of the PW1. Thus he is aware of execution of the gift settlement deed in the year 1994 itself. If that is so the question of

FAIR

Page 12 of 15 A.S No. 59 of 2022

again oral partition does not arise and even if it is so, atleast he would have taken the steps for mutation on his name in view of the said oral partition etc. Further he himself admitted in cross examination that he did not file any pahanies in respect of the suit lands to show that he was cultivating the lands from the year 1999-2006 which are the basic documents to prove the possession.

20.Mere plea and evidence by DW1 to DW3 that the defendant

No.1 was dispossessed by the plaintiff after obtaining injunction itself is not sufficient unless and until they prove that the defendant No.1 was in possession prior to the injunction, but as stated earlier no single document is in his favour to prove the same.

21.With regard to the title of the donor Veeramma, it is the cate- gorical evidence of PW1 in the cross examination that the land of Durga

Reddy was mutated on the names of wives on his death in the year 1969, lateron on the name of Veeramma. Furthermore it is required to mention here that it is suggested to PW1 that the plaintiff and Veeramma filed O.S

No.57 of 1993 against the father and brother of the plaintiff. It is required to mention here that in the other suit filed by the defendant No.1 herein seeking declaration, he admitted that he gave evidence as PW2 in the said

FAIR

Page 13 of 15 A.S No. 59 of 2022

suit as a witness in favour of the plaintiff that he got the suit schedule prop- erty under gift settlement deed. Further, as stated earlier all the documen- tary evidence placed by the plaintiff under Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 pahanies clearly show his possession from the year 1993 onwards and also on the date of filing of this suit.

22.Coming to the other plea of the learned counsel for the defen- dants that no injunction can be granted against the coparcener, it is required to mention here that already the gift settlement deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A14 in the year 1993 by Veeramma who is the second wife of Durga Reddy, the original owner and further there is no dis- pute with regard to the title of Veeramma on his death by the defendants also. Further the plaintiff belongs to other branch of Laxma Reddy i.e.,

Narayan Reddy and whereas the defendant No.1 is claiming as the son of

Durga Reddy who is the second son of laxma Reddy and already the suit schedule properties fell to the share of Durga Reddy, thereby those are his exclusive properties but not the properties of grandfather of plaintiff, thereby it cannot be said that both are the coparceners. Further it is re- quired to mention here that the pleadings of defendants in the written state- ment that already Durga Reddy was having two wives and the mother of the plaintiff by name Bagamma was married by Durga Reddy, but in his

FAIR

Page 14 of 15 A.S No. 59 of 2022

chief examination itself he stated that she is the concubine of Durga Reddy.

If that is so when the suit schedule properties originally fell to the share of

Durga Reddy in partition with his brother, it cannot be said that he is enti- tled in such property a share along with two wives of Durga Reddy but only two wives, hence the execution of the gift settlement deed by Veer- amma, the second wife of Durga Reddy is absolutely valid.

23.Thus in this case the evidence brought on record by the plaintiff clearly prove that he is in possession and enjoyment on the date of the filing of the suit but not the defendants, thereby he is entitled for permanent injunction as it is proved that the defendants are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment.

Thus this point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

POINT No.2:

24.In view of findings on point no.1 and for reasons stated above, this court is of the view that the Judgment passed by the trial court is not correct in finding and not based on correct appreciation of law, hence the

Judgment and decree passed by trial court needs interference and thereby it is set aside and appeal is allowed.

FAIR

Page 15 of 15 A.S No. 59 of 2022

Thus this point is answered in favour of plaintiff/appellant.

POINT No. 3:

25.IN THE RESULT, the Appeal is allowed by setting aside the

Judgment and Decree dated 13.06.2018 passed in O.S. No. 78 of 2012 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak and further the suit is decreed with costs, granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05 th day of February, 2025.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

1 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, SANGAREDDY

FRIDAY, THE 4th DAY OF APRIL, 2025

PRESENT: Smt. G. Bhavani Chandra,

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy

A.S. No. 20 of 20 22

Between:-

1. Atluri Latha Reddy, W/o: A. Girish Reddy, Aged about: 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Plot No. 530, Road No. 26, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

2. Atluri Radhika Reddy, W/o: A. Mahesh Reddy, Aged about: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Plot No. 530, Road No. 26, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

3. D. Subba Reddy, S/o: D. Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about: 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Plot No. 30 and 31, Flat No. 201, Sri Sairam Prestige, Sidhdharth Nagar, (North), Near A.G. Colony, Hyderabad

4. D. Sarvani, W/o: D. Subba Reddy, Aged about: 48 years, Occ: Service, R/o: Plot No. 30 and 31, Flat No. 201, Sri Sairam Prestige, Sidhdharth Nagar, (North), Near A.G. Colony, Hyderabad

5. D. Nagabhushanamma, W/o: late D. Damodhar Reddy, Aged about: 55 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No. 6/7/56, Agraharpet, Naidupet, Nellore District

6. Kapuluru Padmanabha Reddy (Died as per LR Appellant Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8)

7. Konda Haripriya, W/o: K. Srikar Reddy, D/o: Late K. Padmanabha Reddy, Aged about: 49 years, Occ: House wife

8. Kapuluru Sujatha, W/o: late K. Padmanabha Reddy, Aged about: 70 years, Occ: House wife 2 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022

Both R/o: Flat No. 505, Venkata Pushpa Towers, Vivek Nagar, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District (Appellant Nos. 7 and 8 added as per Order in I.A. No. 11/2021 dated 03.03.2021)

...Appellants/Plaintiffs

A N D

1. Dorabla Satya Babu, S/o: Venkateswar Rao, Aged: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o: D.No. 3/488, Laxmipuram, Stone House Pet, Nellore and H.No.12-6-2/232, TVR Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad

2. Pebbi Setty Krishna Mohan, S/o: Satyanarayana, Aged about: 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o: LIG- 187, APIIC Colony, IDA, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad

3. Bandi Venu Gopal Reddy, S/o: B. Krishna Reddy, Aged about: 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o: G-9, Pavani Enclave, Magunta Layout, Nellore

4. M/s. Rishi Jaideep Estates Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. G. Rishi Kumar Reddy, S/o: G. Sundar Rami Reddy, Aged about: 42 years, having its registered office at Plot No. 8, SCHB Colony, Opposite to open Asco Mobiles,Diamond Point,Sikhvillage, Secunderabad

...Respondents

The appellants preferred the Appeal Suit aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 18.04.2016 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur in:

O.S. No. 63 of 2010

Between:

1. Smt. Atluri Latha Reddy, W/o: A. Girish Reddy, Aged about: 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Plot No. 530, Road No. 26, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

2. Smt. Atluri Radhika Reddy, W/o: A. Mahesh Reddy, Aged about: 37 years, Occ: Business, 3 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022

R/o: Plot No. 530, Road No. 26, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

3. D. Subba Reddy, S/o: D. Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about: 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Plot No. 30 and 31, Flat No. 201, Sri Sairam Prestige, Sidhdharth Nagar (North), Near A.G. Colony, Hyderabad

4. Smt. D. Sarvani, W/o: D. Subba Reddy, Aged about: 43 years, Occ: Service, R/o: Plot No. 30 and 31, Flat No. 201, Sri Sairam Prestige, Siddharth Nagar (North), Near A.G. Colony, Hyderabad

5. Smt. D. Nagabhushanamma, W/o: late D. Damodhar Reddy, Aged about: 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: H.No. 6/7/56, Agraharpet, Naidupet, Nellore District

6. Kapuluru Padmanabha Reddy, S/o: Late K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged about: 72 years, Occ: Ex-Service men, R/o: Flat No. 405, Raju- Luthra Towers, 12-6-2/232, TVR Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, A.P …Plaintiffs A N D

1. Dorabla Satya Babu, S/o: Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o: D.No.3/488, Laxmipuram, Stone House Pet, Nellore. 12-6-2/232, TVR Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, A.P

2. Pebbi Setty Krishna Mohan, S/o: Satyanarayana, Aged about: 39 years, Occ: Business, LIG-187, APIIC Colony, IDA, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad

3. Bandi Venu Gopal Reddy, S/o: B. Krishna Reddy, Aged about: 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o: G-9, Pavani Enclave, Magunta Layout, Nellore

4. M/s. Rishi Jaideep Estates Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. G. Rishi Kumar Reddy, S/o: G. Sundar Rami Reddy, Aged 4 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022 about: 37 years, having its registered office at Plot No. 8, SCHB Colony, Opposite to Opel Asco Mobiles, Diamond Point, Sikh village, Secunderabad-9

...Defendants

This Appeal Suit came up before me for final hearing on 24.03.2025 in the presence of Sri M. Vittal, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri G. Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents, having perused the material on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree

dated 18.04.2016 in O.S. No. 63 of 2010 on the file of the learned

Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur.

2.The plaintiffs filed the suit against defendant Nos. 1 to 4 seeking for perpetual injunction in respect of item Nos. 1 to 6 of the suit schedule properties.

3.The brief averments of the plaint are that:-

Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 6 are friends and relatives, plaintiff

No. 6 is the father-in-law of plaintiff No. 3, plaintiff No. 4 is the wife of plaintiff No. 3 and plaintiff No. 5 is the sister of plaintiff

No. 3. They are the absolute owners and possessors of their respective plots described in the suit schedule property.

Defendant No. 4 who is running Real Estate Business under the name and style of M/s. Rishi Jaideep Estates Private Limited, 5 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022 represented by its Managing Director, Mr. G. Rishi Kumar Reddy approached the plaintiffs with a broker of Brindavan Gardens stating that he developed Gated Community/Plotting System named as Brindavan Gardens in an area of Acs.51.00 guntas in

Sy. Nos. 319 to 336, situated at Kanukunta village, Jinnaram

Mandal, having purchased by him with clear title to sell the same to prospective purchasers as per marketable price. The plaintiffs got impressed and purchased the plots of their choice in the above said site and they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment by raising the fencing and frequently visiting their plots to safeguard their rights.

4.On 28.08.2010, plaintiff Nos. 3 and 6 noticed that defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 entered their plots and started measuring the area and also trying to lay boundary stones, when the plaintiffs objected for the same, the defendants stated that the maximum number of plots belongs to them, their friends and relatives, they purchased Acs.15.00 guntas in Sy.Nos. 319 to

336. When the plaintiffs resisted the them from interfering into the suit schedule property, they handed over the xerox copy of sale deed, dated 30.08.2006 and left the suit schedule property by threatening with dire consequences that they will come again.

6 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022

5.Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 6 informed the above incidents to the other plaintiffs, thereafter plaintiff Nos. 1 and 6 visited the suit schedule property, verified the xerox copy of sale deed dated 30.08.2006 and to their utter surprise found that defendant No. 4 in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 sold Acs.5.00 guntas in

Sy. No. 326 of Kanukunta village, vide sale deed document

No. 6563 of 2006, dated 30.08.2006 covering the lands in

Sy. No. 326 which is also part of Brindavan Garden.

6.The plaintiffs further submits that they purchased their respective plots prior to the defendants, as such the said sale deed vide document No.6563 of 2006 dated 30.08.2006 is null and void and it is purely illegal and collusive sale document.

When the plaintiffs asked defendant No. 4 regarding the same, he admitted saying that due to financial difficulties he sold the property and asked the plaintiffs to do what ever they like.

7.The plaintiffs further submits that they have initiated criminal proceedings against defendant No. 4, they apprehend that the defendants along with their henchmen and anti-social elements at any moment may come and dispossess the plaintiffs from their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the above suit.

7 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022

8.Defendant No. 4 was set ex parte and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed their written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that the said averments are created and concocted for the purpose of this suit, hence the suit is liable for dismissal. It is an admitted fact that the defendants not only denied the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property but also denied the title as such the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction but the plaintiffs only sought the relief of injunction.

9.It is submitted that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 purchased the suit schedule property from the original owners through registered sale deed, the documents filed by the plaintiffs are fabricated and sham documents. It is totally denied that there is any cause of action to file the suit and the cause of action is imaginary and the same is false and fabricated and created for the purpose of filing this case, the plaintiffs are not having prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and they are put to strict proof of the same.

10.Originally one P.V. Rama Krishna Reddy,

S/o. Narayana Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.No.326, extent Acs.5.00 guntas, situated at

Kanukunta village from whom defendant No. 4, represented by 8 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022 its M.D. M/s. Rishi Kumar Reddy purchased the same through registered sale deed document No.6563/2006 dated 30.08.2006 and was put in possession. To prove their possession over the said property, the defendants filed the original registered sale deeds document No. 1228/2006 dated 03.02.2006 and 6563/2006 dated 30.08.2006. It is pertinent to note that the vendor's vendor P.V. Ramakrishna Reddy purchased the land in

Sy.No.326 from different owners through registered sale deeds vide document No.3902/2002 dated 07.11.2002, document

No.2998/2002 dated 11.11.2002, document No.3294/2002 dated 16.12.2002, document No.24/2003 dated 06.14.2003 and document No. 1687/2003 dated 17.06.2003.

11.The defendants further submits that defendant No. 2

Krishna Mohan purchased the land in Sy.No.321/AA extent

Ac.0.34 guntas, Sy.No.591/AA1 extent Ac.0.16 guntas,

Sy.No.597/AA extent Ac.1.05 guntas, Sy.No.322/A4 extent

Ac.0.17 guntas from defendant No. 4 through registered sale deed document No.6564/2006 dated 30.08.2006 and the vendor of defendant No. 2 purchased land in Sy.No.321/AA extent

Ac.0.34 guntas from L. Mallaiah through registered sale deed document No.2951/2005 dated 11.07.2005 and defendant No. 2 further purchased land in Sy.No.591/AA1 extent Ac.0.16 guntas, 9 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022

Sy.No.597/AA extent Ac.1.05 guntas respectively from its original owners through registered sale deed document No.4540/2006,

dated 15.05.2006 and further defendant No.2 vendor purchased

land in Sy.No.322/A4 extent Ac.0.17 guntas from its original owner and Ravula Shivaiah and defendant No. 2 also purchased land in Sy.No.321/A, 591/AA1, 597/AA and Sy.No.322/A/4 and the vendor of defendant No. 2 purchased through registered sale deed No.2951/2005 document No.4540/2006, 2975/2005 and 6464/2006. Thus they became absolute owners and possessors of Sy.No.326 extent Acs.5.00 guntas, Sy.No.321/AA extent

Ac.0.34 guntas, Sy.No.591/AA1, extent Ac.0.16 guntas,

Sy.No.597/AA extent Ac.1.05 guntas, Sy.No.322/A4 extent

Ac.0.17 guntas and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands without any interruption having pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued in their favour.

12.In fact the plaintiffs never made any plots as shown in the plaint schedule property and the suit schedule property shown in the plaint is imaginary, there are no plots divided as shown in the sale deeds. The plaintiffs have created all the documents to grab the lands. The plaintiffs are not having any 10 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022 prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

13.Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed following issues:- i. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

ii. To what relief?

14.To substantiate their case, on behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 3 examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to

A19. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No. 1 examined as

D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B22.

15.The learned trial Judge on hearing the counsel for plaintiffs and defendants and on appreciation of the material on record including the documents, passed the impugned judgment and decree which is now challenged by the appellants on the following grounds:-

16.That the lower court failed to follow the basic principles of law, the appellants herein have acquired ownership, possessory rights from respondent No. 4 and are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties on the date of filing of the suit, the lower court ought to have seen that respondent No. 4 have no 11 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022 saleable rights on the date of alleged sale deed in favour of the respondents herein, once the rights of property transferred the transferor has no right to execute sale deed and rights over the properties already sold, the lower court failed to consider the documents filed by the appellants, the lower court committed error in considering the revenue records filed by the respondents, the lower court without observing the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the petition for appointment of commissioner, if the commissioner was appointed for noting physical features of the land, the real facts would come to the light of the court, hence prayed to allow the appeal.

17.Now the point for consideration is:-

1. Whether the appellants are entitled to set

aside the judgment passed by the lower court,

as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

P O I N T N O . 1 :

18.For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal would be hereinafter referred to as per their status in the suit.

12 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022

19.It is the case of the plaintiffs/appellants that they are the absolute owners and peaceful possessors of the suit schedule properties having purchased the same through registered sale deeds from defendant No. 4, further defendant No. 4 in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had sold the said properties to them behind their back, when the plaintiffs questioned defendant No. 4 regarding the said sale deeds, he admitted the same by saying that due to financial difficulties he sold the property and asked the plaintiffs to do what ever they like, thereby they are apprehending danger of dispossession of their properties having been alienated to defendant Nos. 1 to 3 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction.

20.On the other hand it is the contention of the defendants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that they purchased the suit schedule properties from its original owners and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued in their favour, entries were also made in revenue records, the documents filed by the plaintiffs are created to grab their lands, the plaintiffs are not having any prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour.

13 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022

21.In this case the defendants/respondents filed a petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C., in I.A. No. 1410/2023 for

additional evidence for receiving the order passed in writ petition

with regard to the entries in favour of the respondents contending that the appellants/plaintiffs during the pendency of the Appeal filed an appeal before the Special Tribunal behind their back, the said

Tribunal set aside the entries which were made in favour of the respondents, upon that he preferred writ petition before the Hon’ble

High Court which ordered to maintain the status quo with regard to the entries as on today.

22.It is true that the general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal, however an exception under

Order XLI Rule 27 enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. As observed and held in the case of Andisamy Chettiar Vs. A. Subburaj Chettiar reported in 2015 (17) SC 713 that the admissibility of the additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy upon the issue on the hand or on the fact whether the appellant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at earlier stage or not but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to adduce to 14 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022 enable it to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In the case on hand the additional evidence sought to be adduced is required for pronouncing the judgment and this appellate court is not able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced.

23.The other side is not denying with regard to preferring the appeal with regard to the entries made in favour of the respondents/defendants and attend the order and also now the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court to maintain the status quo with regard to the entries. Further the appellants herein though filed the counter to the said petition, at the time of the hearing stated that no objection to consider the representation of the defendants/respondents with regard to the said matter and the matter may be remanded back to the trial court.

24.As the document now sought to be received is pertaining to the entries in favour of the respondents which are the basic documents in order to prove the possession, hence the matter is remanded to the trial court to receive the said document and further 15 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022 to decide the matter afresh by giving opportunity for further evidence, if any as early as possible.

Thus this issue is decided accordingly.

P O I N T N O . 2 :

25.In the result, the matter is remanded to the trial court and the trial court shall receive and mark the document by giving opportunity to the plaintiffs/appellants to adduce any additional evidence and then decide the suit afresh on merits on basis of the evidence in accordance of law without being influenced by any of the observation made by this court and further the trial court is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4 th day of April, 2025.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES

(Oral and Documentary)

-Nil-

Principal District and Sessions Judge

16 of 16 A.S. No. 20 of 2022

Sangareddy

1 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, SANGAREDDY

FRIDAY, THE 4th DAY OF APRIL, 2025

PRESENT: Smt. G. Bhavani Chandra,

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy

A.S. No. 19 of 20 22

Between:-

1. Atluri Mahesh Reddy, S/o: A. Adhinarayana Reddy, Aged about: 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Plot No. 530, Road No. 26, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

2. Atluri Girish Reddy, S/o: A. Adhinarayana Reddy, Aged about: 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Plot No. 530, Road No. 26, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

3. Atluri Adi Narayana Reddy (Died) per LRs already on record i.e., Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 4

4. Atluri Sulochanamma, W/o: A. Adhinarayana Reddy, Aged about: 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Plot No. 530, Road No. 26, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

Represented by their GPA Holder by name D. Subba Reddy, S/o: D. Ramchandra Reddy, Aged about: 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Plot No. 30, 31, Flat No. 201, Sriram Prestige, Siddharth Nagar (North), Near A.G. Colony, Hyderabad

...Appellants/Plaintiffs

A N D

1. Dorabla Satya Babu, S/o: Venkateswar Rao, Aged: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o: D.No. 3/488, Laxmipuram, Stone House Pet, Nellore and 2 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022

H.No.12-6-2/232, TVR Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad

2. Pebbi Setty Krishna Mohan, S/o: Satyanarayana, Aged about: 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o: LIG- 187, APIIC Colony, IDA, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad

3. Bandi Venu Gopal Reddy, S/o: B. Krishna Reddy, Aged about: 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o: G-9, Pavani Enclave, Magunta Layout, Nellore

4. M/s. Rishi Jaideep Estates Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. G. Rishi Kumar Reddy, S/o: G. Sundar Rami Reddy, Aged about: 42 years, having its registered office at Plot No. 8, SCHB Colony, Opposite to open Asco Mobiles,DiamondPoint,Sikhvillage, Secunderabad

...Respondents

The appellants preferred the Appeal Suit aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 18.04.2016 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur in:

O.S. No. 62 of 2010

Between:

1. Atluri Mahesh Reddy, S/o: A. Adhinarayana Reddy, Aged: 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Plot No. 530, Road No. 26, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

2. Atluri Girish Reddy, S/o: A. Adhinarayana Reddy, Aged about: 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Plot No. 530, Road No. 26, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

3. Atluri Adi Narayana Reddy, S/o: A. Venkatrami Reddy, Aged about: 66 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Plot No.530, Road No.26, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 3 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022

4. Smt. Atluri Sulochanamma, W/o: A. Adinarayana Reddy, Aged about: 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Plot No. 530, Road No. 26, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad

Represented by their GPA Holder by name D. Subba Reddy, S/o: D. Ramchandra Reddy, Aged about: 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Plot No. 30, 31, Flat No. 201, Sriram Prestige, Siddharth Nagar (North), Near A.G. Colony, Hyderabad …Plaintiffs A N D

1. Dorabla Satya Babu, S/o: Venkateswar Rao, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o: D.No.3/488, Laxmipuram, Stone House Pet, Nellore. 12-6-2/232, TVR Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad

2. Pebbi Setty Krishna Mohan, S/o: Satyanarayana, Aged about: 39 years, Occ: Business, LIG-187, APIIC Colony, IDA, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad

3. Bandi Venu Gopal Reddy, S/o: B. Krishna Reddy, Aged about: 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o: G-9, Pavani Enclave, Magunta Layout, Nellore

4. M/s. Rishi Jaideep Estates Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. G. Rishi Kumar Reddy, S/o: G. Sundar Rami Reddy, Aged about: 37 years, having its registered office at Plot No. 8, SCHB Colony, Opposite to Opel Asco Mobiles, Diamond Point, Sikh village, Secunderabad-9

...Defendants

This Appeal Suit came up before me for final hearing on 24.03.2025 in the presence of Sri M. Vittal, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri G. Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents, having perused the material on record, having heard 4 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022 both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is an appeal filed against the judgment and decree

dated 18.04.2016 in O.S. No. 62 of 2010 on the file of the learned

Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur.

2.The plaintiffs filed the suit against defendant Nos. 1 to 4 seeking for perpetual injunction in respect of item Nos. 1 to 4 of the suit schedule properties.

3.The brief averments of the plaint are that:-

Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of plaintiff No. 3 and plaintiff No. 4 is the wife of plaintiff No. 3, they are the absolute owners and possessors of their respective plots described in the suit schedule property. Defendant No. 4 who is running Real Estate Business under the name and style of

M/s. Rishi Jaideep Estates Private Limited, represented by its

Managing Director, Mr. G. Rishi Kumar Reddy approached the plaintiffs with a broker of Brindavan Gardens stating that he 5 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022 developed Gated Community/Plotting System named as

Brindavan Gardens in an area of Acs.51.00 guntas in

Sy. Nos. 319 to 336, situated at Kanukunta village, Jinnaram

Mandal, having purchased by him with clear title to sell the same to prospective purchasers as per marketable price. The plaintiffs got impressed and purchased the plots of their choice in the above said site and they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment by raising the fencing and frequently visiting their plots to safeguard their rights.

4.On 28.08.2010, plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 noticed that defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 entered their plots and started measuring the area and also trying to lay boundary stones, when the plaintiffs objected for the same, the defendants stated that the maximum number of plots belongs to them, their friends and relatives, they purchased Acs.15.00 guntas in Sy.Nos. 319 to

336. When the plaintiffs resisted the them from interfering into the suit schedule property, they handed over the xerox copy of sale deed, dated 30.08.2006 and left the suit schedule property by threatening with dire consequences that they will come again.

6 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022

5.Having come to know about the same through plaintiff

Nos. 1 and 2, plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 visited the suit schedule property, verified the xerox copy of sale deed dated 30.08.2006 and to their utter surprise found that defendant No. 4 in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 sold Acs.5.00 guntas in Sy. No. 326 of

Kanukunta village, vide sale deed document No. 6563 of 2006,

dated 30.08.2006 covering the lands in Sy. No. 326 which is also

part of Brindavan Garden.

6.The plaintiffs further submits that they purchased their respective plots prior to the defendants, as such the said sale deed vide document No.6563 of 2006 dated 30.08.2006 is null and void and it is purely illegal and collusive sale document.

When the plaintiffs asked defendant No. 4 regarding the same, he admitted saying that due to financial difficulties he sold the property and asked the plaintiffs to do what ever they like.

7.The plaintiffs further submits that Sri K. Padmanabha

Reddy has lodged police complaint against defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and also initiated criminal proceedings against defendant

No. 4. The plaintiffs apprehend that the defendants along with their henchmen and anti-social elements at any moment may 7 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022 come and dispossess the plaintiffs from their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the above suit.

8.Defendant No. 4 was set ex parte and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed their written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that the said averments are created and concocted for the purpose of this suit, hence the suit is liable for dismissal. It is an admitted fact that the defendants not only denied the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property but also denied the title as such the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction but the plaintiffs only sought the relief of injunction.

9.It is submitted that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 purchased the suit schedule property from the original owners through registered sale deed, the documents filed by the plaintiffs are fabricated and sham documents. It is totally denied that there is any cause of action to file the suit and the cause of action is imaginary and the same is false and fabricated and created for the purpose of filing this case, the plaintiffs are not having 8 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022 prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and they are put to strict proof of the same.

10.Originally one P.V. Rama Krishna Reddy,

S/o. Narayana Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.No.326, extent Acs.5.00 guntas, situated at

Kanukunta village from whom defendant No. 4, represented by its M.D. M/s. Rishi Kumar Reddy purchased the same through registered sale deed document No.6563/2006 dated 30.08.2006 and was put in possession. To prove their possession over the said property, the defendants filed the original registered sale deeds document No. 1228/2006 dated 03.02.2006 and 6563/2006 dated 30.08.2006. It is pertinent to note that the vendor's vendor P.V. Ramakrishna Reddy purchased the land in

Sy.No.326 from different owners through registered sale deeds vide document No.3902/2002 dated 07.11.2002, document

No.2998/2002 dated 11.11.2002, document No.3294/2002 dated 16.12.2002, document No.24/2003 dated 06.14.2003 and document No. 1687/2003 dated 17.06.2003.

11.The defendants further submits that defendant No. 2

Krishna Mohan purchased the land in Sy.No.321/AA extent 9 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022

Ac.0.34 guntas, Sy.No.591/AA1 extent Ac.0.16 guntas,

Sy.No.597/AA extent Ac.1.05 guntas, Sy.No.322/A4 extent

Ac.0.17 guntas from defendant No. 4 through registered sale deed document No.6564/2006 dated 30.08.2006 and the vendor of defendant No. 2 purchased land in Sy.No.321/AA extent

Ac.0.34 guntas from L. Mallaiah through registered sale deed document No.2951/2005 dated 11.07.2005 and defendant No. 2 further purchased land in Sy.No.591/AA1 extent Ac.0.16 guntas,

Sy.No.597/AA extent Ac.1.05 guntas respectively from its original owners through registered sale deed document No.4540/2006,

dated 15.05.2006 and further defendant No.2 vendor purchased

land in Sy.No.322/A4 extent Ac.0.17 guntas from its original owner and Ravula Shivaiah and defendant No. 2 also purchased land in Sy.No.321/A, 591/AA1, 597/AA and Sy.No.322/A/4 and the vendor of defendant No. 2 purchased through registered sale deed No.2951/2005 document No.4540/2006, 2975/2005 and 6464/2006. Thus they became absolute owners and possessors of Sy.No.326 extent Acs.5.00 guntas, Sy.No.321/AA extent

Ac.0.34 guntas, Sy.No.591/AA1, extent Ac.0.16 guntas,

Sy.No.597/AA extent Ac.1.05 guntas, Sy.No.322/A4 extent

Ac.0.17 guntas and they are in peaceful possession and 10 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022 enjoyment of the said lands without any interruption having pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued in their favour.

12.In fact the plaintiffs never made any plots as shown in the plaint schedule property and the suit schedule property shown in the plaint is imaginary, there are no plots divided as shown in the sale deeds. The plaintiffs have created all the documents to grab the lands. The plaintiffs are not having any prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

13.Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed following issues:- i. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

ii. To what relief?

14.To substantiate their case, on behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1 examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to

A17. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No. 1 examined as

D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B22.

11 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022

15.The learned trial Judge on hearing the counsel for plaintiffs and defendants and on appreciation of the material on record including the documents, passed the impugned judgment and decree which is now challenged by the appellants on the following grounds:-

16.That the lower court failed to follow the basic principles of law, the appellants herein have acquired ownership, possessory rights from respondent No. 4 and are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties on the date of filing of the suit, the lower court ought to have seen that respondent No. 4 have no saleable rights on the date of alleged sale deed in favour of the respondents herein, once the rights of property transferred the transferor has no right to execute sale deed and rights over the properties already sold, the lower court failed to consider the documents filed by the appellants, the lower court committed error in considering the revenue records filed by the respondents, the lower court without observing the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the petition for appointment of commissioner, if the commissioner was appointed for noting physical features of the land, the real facts would come to the light of the court, hence prayed to allow the appeal.

12 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022

17.Now the point for consideration is:-

1. Whether the appellants are entitled to set

aside the judgment passed by the lower court,

as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

P O I N T N O . 1 :

18.For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal would be hereinafter referred to as per their status in the suit.

19.It is the case of the plaintiffs/appellants that they are the absolute owners and peaceful possessors of the suit schedule properties having purchased the same through registered sale deeds from defendant No. 4, further defendant No. 4 in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had sold the said properties to them behind their back, when the plaintiffs questioned defendant No. 4 regarding the said sale deeds, he admitted the same by saying that due to financial difficulties he sold the property and asked the plaintiffs to do what ever they like, thereby they are apprehending danger of dispossession of their properties having 13 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022 been alienated to defendant Nos. 1 to 3 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction.

20.On the other hand it is the contention of the defendants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that they purchased the suit schedule properties from its original owners and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued in their favour, entries were also made in revenue records, the documents filed by the plaintiffs are created to grab their lands, the plaintiffs are not having any prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour.

21.In this case the defendants/respondents filed a petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C., in I.A. No. 1409/2023 for

additional evidence for receiving the order passed in writ petition

with regard to the entries in favour of the respondents contending that the appellants/plaintiffs during the pendency of the Appeal filed an appeal before the Special Tribunal behind their back, the said

Tribunal set aside the entries which were made in favour of the respondents, upon that he preferred writ petition before the Hon’ble 14 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022

High Court which ordered to maintain the status quo with regard to the entries as on today.

22.It is true that the general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal, however an exception under

Order XLI Rule 27 enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. As observed and held in the case of Andisamy Chettiar Vs. A. Subburaj Chettiar reported in 2015 (17) SC 713 that the admissibility of the additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy upon the issue on the hand or on the fact whether the appellant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at earlier stage or not but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to adduce to enable it to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In the case on hand the additional evidence sought to be adduced is required for pronouncing the judgment and this appellate court is not able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced.

15 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022

23.The other side is not denying with regard to preferring the appeal with regard to the entries made in favour of the respondents/defendants and attend the order and also now the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court to maintain the status quo with regard to the entries. Further the appellants herein though filed the counter to the said petition, at the time of the hearing stated that no objection to consider the representation of the defendants/respondents with regard to the said matter and the matter may be remanded back to the trial court.

24.As the document now sought to be received is pertaining to the entries in favour of the respondents which are the basic documents in order to prove the possession, hence the matter is remanded to the trial court to receive the said document and further to decide the matter afresh by giving opportunity for further evidence, if any as early as possible.

Thus this issue is decided accordingly.

16 of 16 A.S. No. 19 of 2022

P O I N T N O . 2 :

25.In the result, the matter is remanded to the trial court and the trial court shall receive and mark the document by giving opportunity to the plaintiffs/appellants to adduce any additional evidence and then decide the suit afresh on merits on basis of the evidence in accordance of law without being influenced by any of the observation made by this court and further the trial court is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4 th day of April, 2025.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES

(Oral and Documentary)

-Nil-

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Sangareddy