IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ASIFABAD
Present:- K. Yuva Raja
Senior Civil Judge
Asifabad.
Monday this the 16th day of March, 2026
O.S.No.27 of 2024
(Old OS No.2/2018) Between :
Taitpelli Shone, S/o: T. Ashok, Age: 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o:Asifabad, Mandal: Asifabad, Dist: Kumuram Bheem Asifabad.
...Plaintiff
A N D
1. Vodapelli Laxmandas, S/o: Not known, Age: 80 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.6-24, Mandal: Asifabad, Dist: Kumuram Bheem Asifabad.
2. Vodapelli Venkatesham, S/o: Laxmandas, Age: 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.6-24, Mandal: Asifabad, Dist: Kumuram Bheem Asifabad. … Defendants (As per the directions of Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana,Hyderabad vide ROC No.7059/OP CELL/2024, dated 24.10.2024, this suit was transferred from the Prl Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Asifabad to this Court, at the stage of filing of chief affidavit of PW1 and renumbered vide OS No.27 of 2024)
This suit is coming on 09.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Suresh, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri D. Thirupathi, Advocate for defendants and having heard and stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following:-
:: O R D E R ::
This suit is filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 and 2, their agents, relatives and workers from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit plot measuring 40’x 300’ equallent to 12,000 Sq.feet in Sy.No.62, situated within the limits of
Gram Panchayat Asifabad, Mandal: Asifabad, Kumuram Bheem Asifabad
District.
SCJ
Page 2 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that:
The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the plot measuring 40’x300’ equallent to 12,000 Sq.feet in Sy.No.62, situated within the limits of Gram Panchayat Asifabad, Mandal: Asifabad, Kumuram Bheem
Asifabad District which will be herein after called as suit schedule plot.
That, originally one Vasudev Rao, S/o. Shyam Sunder Rao, R/o.
Hyderabad was the owner, pattedar of the land bearing Sy.No.62, situated at Asifabad and one Dandanayakula Narayan Rao, S/o. Ram
Chander Rao Paikaji, R/o. Asifabad is the General Power of Attorney holder of said pattedar Vasudev Rao. One Gade Ashok, S/o Late Gade
Manoher Rao, R/o. Wankidi has purchased the suit plot from
Dandanayakula Narayan Rao, who is G.P.A. holder of said Vasudev Rao through Registered Sale Deed on 16.09.1994 vide Document
No.834/1994 for a valid consideration and the said Gade Ashok was inducted into possession over the said plot. Subsequently the said Gade
Ashok had sold out the said plot to the plaintiff through Registered Sale
Deed on 16.07.2011 vide Document No. 3013/2011 for a valid consideration and the boundaries of the suit plot is as follows:
Towards East: House of Hameed Khan. Towards West: Open plot of Jakku Sadhana. Towards North: There is a Road leading to Kumram Bheem Chowrastha. Towards South: Open Plot.
and the plaintiff was inducted into possession over the suit plot by his vendor Gade Ashok on 16.07.2011 and since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit plot as an absolute owner and the plaintiff has also erected cement poles around his plot. The vendor of plaintiff purchased the suit plot through
Registered Sale Deed. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot
SCJ
Page 3 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
is legal and lawful. The original pattedar Vasudev Rao, S/o. Shyam
Sunder Rao, R/o. Hyderabad has sold the suit plot through his General
Power of Attorney holder to one Gade Ashok, who is vendor of Plaintiff in the year 1994 and he has transferred his rights over the suit plot to said
Gade Ashok in the year 1994 and since then the suit plot is under the possession and enjoyment of said Gade Ashok, R/o. Wankidi and after him, the plaintiff has in actual possession and enjoyment over the suit plot as an absolute owner. The plaintiff has also filed an application
before the Gram Panchayath, Asifabad to construct a RCC building over
the suit plot and applied for permission and filed the proposed construction plan. The Panchayath Secretary, G.P., Asifabad inspected the suit plot and after thorough enquiry accorded permission by approving the proposed construction and also directed the plaintiff to deposit the plan fee of Rs.7,965/-. Accordingly the plaintiff has deposited the plan fee of an amount of Rs.7,965/- on 21.11.2017 vide Receipt
No.33398.
3. It is further submitted that, the defendant No.1 is father and defendant No.2 is his son and they have no manner of right what so ever upon the suit plot and they are always trying to interfere into the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit plot and in the absence of plaintiff, they were removing the cement boundary poles with an intention to encroach the open suit plot towards Southern and Western side of the suit plot. Number of times the plaintiff warned them not to interfere into his peaceful possession and not to trespass into the suit plot illegally. But inspite of it, they did not stop their illegal acts and the plaintiff has also complained to the Panchayath Secretary, G.P.,
Asifabad, who also called the defendants and warned them not to
SCJ
Page 4 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
encroach into the suit plot and the plaintiff has also orally reported the said matter to the Police Asifabad against the defendants, but the defendants did not stop the illegal acts and trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit plot, and both the defendants were bent upon to occupy the plot towards
Southern and Western side of the suit plot by removing the boundary
RCC poles. That, on 16-02-2018 both the defendants came to the suit plot illegally and removed the boundary fencing poles towards Southern and Western side with a sole intention to occupy the suit plot illegally.
When the Plaintiff came to know about removing of the boundary fencing poles, he rushed to the suit plot and warned therm and sent them out of the suit plot with great difficulty. While leaving the suit plot, the defendants threatened the plaintiff stating that at any moment they will come to the suit plot and occupy the suit plot. The defendants are desparate and dangerous persons bent upon to encroach the suit plot illegally, as such there is an apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff that the defendants may come to the suit plot at any time and encroach into the suit plot. The possession of the Plaintiff over the suit plot is lawful and legal. In these circumstances, having no other alternative, the
Plaintiff has been filing the present suit against the Defendants. These are the facts leading to the cause of action and cause of action arose on 16-2-2018 when the Defendants came near to the suit plot and removed the boundary fencing poles with an intention to trespass and occupy the suit plot. As such the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction.
4.On the other hand the defendants No.1 and 2 filed the written statement by denying the pleadings of the plaintiff and he submitted that the defendants are unaware of the extent of the land in which the
SCJ
Page 5 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
plaintiff is having possession and enjoyment. It is denied that the dimensions of suit plot is 40’x300’, but it is 40’ (North), 55’ (South) and (both East and West). That, the plaintiff with a deliberate and malafide intention having connived with his vendor got mentioned the dimensions
as 40’x300’ in registered sale deed. It is admitted by the defendants
that, Vasudeva Rao, R/o: Hyderabad was the owner and pattedar of the land bearing No.62 of Asifabad village and mandal and that the
Dandanayakula Narayan Rao is the General Power of Attorney of
Vasudeva Rao. It is denied that Gade Ashok, R/o: Wankidi had purchased the land with the dimensions of 40’x300’ from Sri Vasudeva
Rao under the registered sale deed No.834/1994. The sale deed bearing
No.834 of 1994 neither enclosed with the plan containing the dimensions 40’x300’ nor that the dimensions were been mentioned in the schedule of the registered sale deed bearing No.834 of 1994.
However, the boundaries as mentioned in the sale deed bearing No.834 of 1994 are true and correct, but the dimensions as alleged by the plaintiff are denied. The alleged land purchased is an open land as on this date, though in the sale deed in-favour of the plaintiff, it is mentioned that the possession and enjoyment of the land has been delivered to the plaintiff by Gade Ashok. The plaintiff had not been in possession of the land as per the dimensions mentioned in the sale deed. But, the plaintiff should have been in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring 1333.33 sq. yards with the dimensions i.e.
40’(North), 55’(South) and 262’ (Both East and West). The plaintiff has deliberately and with full knowledge has misrepresented all the actual dimensions and the extent of land in his sale deed.
5.It is further submitted that, the Plaintiff has concealed the actual material facts. That, Vasudeva Rao was the Pattedar of the lands
SCJ
Page 6 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
admeasuring 4505 Sq yards (dimensions North 145’, South 165’, East 262' and West 262' respectively) (shown as white colour + blue colour in the plan 'A' of the plan's annexed to this Written Statement) in the same survey No.62 situated on the Northern side of the land purchased by the defendants from Vasudeva Rao through his GPA D. Narayan Rao, sold the land admeasuring 4505 Sq. Yards in two equal portions i.e., 2252.50
Sq yards each to the sons of Gade Manohar Rao i.e., (1) Gade Ashok, vide sale deed bearing No.834 of 1994, dated 16.09.1994 and (2) G.
Arun Kumar, vide Registered sale deed No.835 of 1994, dated 16.09.1994. That both the brothers i.e., G. Ashok and G. Arun Kumar, have jointly sold the total land of 4505 Sq. yards in four parts i.e., one part was sold to Jakku Mohan to an extent of 1408.085 Sq.yards vide sale deed dated 16.07.2011 bearing Document No.3012 of 2011, (shown as 'A' in white colour in the plan 'A' of the plan's annexed to this Written
Statement), the second part was sold to Patti Ravi Kumar admeasuring 355.55 Sq.yards vide sale deed, dated 16.07.2011 bearing Document
No. 3015 of 2011 (shown as B in white colour in the plan "A" of the plan's annexed to this written statement), the third part was sold to
Jakku Sadhana to an extent of 1408.085 Sq.yards vide sale deed dated 16.07.2011 bearing document No.3014 of 2011 (shown as C in white colour in the plan "A" of the plan's annexed to this written statement) and the fourth part was sold to the plaintiff to an extent of 1333.33 Sq yards vide sale deed dated 16.07.2011 bearing Document No. 3013 of 2011, (shown as blue colour in the plan "A" of the plan's annexed to this
Written Statement). That Vasudeva Rao through his GPA has delivered the actual physical possession of all the four parts to their respective purchasers. The dimensions of the first part, second part and the third part together are 262"X105' and that the dimensions of fourth part of
SCJ
Page 7 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
the plaintiff i.e., the land belonging to Tatipalli Shone are (North 40',
South 60', East 262 and West 262' respectively)(shown as blue colour in the plan "A" of the plan's annexed to this Written Statement). That on the Northern side of the fourth part i.e.. the plaintiff's land is bounded with Collector residence Road and on the Southern side of fourth part i.e., the plaintiff's land is bounded by part of the plot in a length of 40' on the Northeastern side of the plot of 2nd defendant.
6. It is further submitted that, while the things stood thus, the 2nd defendant has purchased the land to an extent of 888.88 Sq.yards with the dimensions of 50’ X 160’ wide sale deed, dated 18.03.2013 bearing document No.1072 of 2013 registered with SRO Vodepalli, from
Vasudeva Rao through his GPA D. Narayan Rao. The land purchased by the 2nd defendant has been shown in Brown colour in the plan 'A' of the plan's annexed to this Written Statement. Immediately having been purchased, the 2nd defendant has been put in actual physical possession of the said land thereto. The 2nd defendant proposed to construct a function hall in his plot having dimensions of 160’X50' and also obtained the sanction for construction vide permission order No.A2/67G.P.A/2017,
dated 03.03.2017 by the Grampanchayat of Asifabad. The
Grampanchayat has issued permission on ground verification and survey. The sanctioned plan is herewith enclosed containing of 160’x50’. That in pursuance of the said permission being sanctioned to the 2nd defendant, he has started the construction in strict compliance of the sanction. The 2nd defendant has completed the construction of the shed and was about to construct the kitchen portion on the Eastern side of the land of the 2nd defendant at which time the plaintiff with all his henchmen has high handendly obstructed the 2nd defendant from
SCJ
Page 8 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
carrying the construction falsely alleging that the 2nd defendant is encroaching into the land of plaintiff immediately, the 2nd defendant requested the plaintiff to get his documents and also told him that the 2
Defendant would also get his documents and also told him that the 2nd defendant would also get his document and would verify the extents and their dimensions and would correct themselves amicably. But with a malafide intention, instead of bringing his documents, the plaintiff with his man power over powered the 2nd defendant from making construction. Thus, the 2nd defendant approached the SHO, Police
Station of Asifabad, and since the Police declined to receive the complaint of the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant approached the
Superintendent of Police of Kumaram Bheem Asifabad District and at his instructions, the Police Asifabad PS called upon the plaintiff and when enquired, he gave a sale deed to the SHO, PS of Asifabad, wherein the plan Annexed to the sale deed, the dimensions of the land of the plaintiff have been wrongly depicted as 300'X40' which dimensions are absolutely unfounded on the site. Immediately, the 2nd defendant appraised the SHO as well as plaintiff that the dimensions are wrongly mentioned. The Plaintiff has malafidely ignored and the SHO of Asifabad
PS also for the reasons best known to him brushed away the issue. In the circumstances, the 2nd defendant applied for survey of his plot and fixing the boundaries. The Mandal Surveyor of office of Tasildar Asifabad vide his notice No.DER021700161544 dated 30.04.2017, called upon 2nd defendant, the plaintiff and two other persons that to be present on 01.05.2017 at 3:30 PM for conducting the survey in survey No.62 and fix the dimensions. Having received the said notice, the 2nd defendant and the Mandal Surveyor were present on the site on 1.05.2017.
Notwithstanding the high handed and malafide intention, the plaintiff
SCJ
Page 9 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
alone has deliberately abstained and at the late hours both the plaintiff and his father T.Ashok came to the site and abused the 2nd defendant and the Surveyor and could successfully avoid the survey.
7.It is submitted that, the plaintiff has neither allowed the 2nd defendant to continue the construction nor has cooperated for the survey to be conducted and settled the issue. On the contra after about 10 months, the plaintiff get filed the above suit alleging that the defendants are encroaching into the land of plaintiff and thereby sought perpetual injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff also got filed an interlocutory application and could obtain an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 20.02.2018 restraining the defendants from alleged interference into his lands. That as on the date of even filing of the suit there was no fencing around his land. However, the land of the 2nd defendant was bounded with fencing all through on all four sides.
Further, it is submitted that after obtaining the ad-interim injunction in
LA.No.10 of 2018 on 20.02.2018, the 2nd defendant received the notices in I.A. as well as suit summons, the plaintiff filed yet another petition on 05.03.2018 in I.A.No.22 of 2018 in I.A.No.10 of 2018 in the above suit. In the later petition, except making an allegation that the defendants are violating the ad-interim orders, no proof has been placed. Further it can also be seen from the docket of the petition that the injunction petition in I.A.No.10 of 2018 being posted on 14.03.2018, without being advanced, suo-moto the direction to the Police was granted to implement the ad-interim exparte temporary injunction passed in
I.A.No.10 of 2018. As against the said order, the defendants have preferred a revision before the Hon'ble High Court.
SCJ
Page 10 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
8. It is submitted that the 2nd defendant got filed the counter in
I.A.No. 10 of 2018 so also the 2nd defendant filed two interlocutory applications vide I.A.No.75 and 74 of 2018 respectively for grant of injunction against the plaintiff seeking restraint order from making any construction or erecting any fencing poles in the land of the 2nd defendant thereto and for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct the survey of the lands belongs to the plaintiff as well as the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant in his counter in I.A No. 10 of 2018, so also in his affidavits to I.A No 75 of 2018 specifically stated that under the guise of ex-parte interim orders in the above I.A.No.10 of 2018, highhandedly and malafidely, the plaintiff started erecting the fencing poles around his alleged land (as shown in blue color in the Plan 'B' of the plans annexed to this Written Statement). Further, by the time of filing I.A No.75 of 2018, the plaintiff, started digging pits for erecting the fencing poles around the plot marked in "Blue" in the plan above removing the existing fencing poles of the land of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant has also taken the photographs while the henchmen of the plaintiff were removing the existing fencing poles. Unfortunately, since there has been no restraint order against the plaintiff in I.A. No.75 of 2018, taking undue advantage of the orders in IA.No. 10 of 2014 and
I.A.No.22 of 2018, The plaintiff has highhandedly constructed a wall as per the alleged dimensions (as shown in his sale deed and as shown in blue colour in the plan B of the plans annexed to this written statement) encroaching upon the land of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant herein has once again taken the photographs while constructing the wall as well after completing the wall and has filed the same before this
Court. The land around which now the plaintiff raised compound wall actually belongs to the 2nd defendant as shown in the plan annexed to
SCJ
Page 11 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
this written statement. Immediately, the 2nd defendant once again approached the SHO of Asifabad Police Station and tendered a complaint regarding the illegal encroachment of the plaintiff. The Police once again refused to receive the complaint and take appropriate action, the 2nd defendant has sent the complaint through registered post. The postal receipts as well as the track reports drawn from the India Post portal endorsing the delivery of the complaints to the police are herewith filed.
There is absolute inaction by the Police.
9.It is further submitted that, the plaintiff has deliberately concealed regarding the 2nd defendant’s, objection for the plaintiff did not mention in his affidavit, regarding the application of the 2nd defendant to the
Tahsidlar of Asifabad Mandal for conducting the survey of the lands of both the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff and regarding his abstaining on the date of survey. On the other hand, the plaintiff has made a blatant lin/misrepresentation that, on 16.02.2018, the defendant went into his land and tried to remove his boundary fencing poles. The suit merits no consideration as the same is devoid of material facts as the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. It is denied that the plaintiff has filed an application with Grampanchayat for construction of RCC building and that the Panchayat Secretary of Asifabad, upon inspecting the alleged suit land and after thorough enquiry accorded permission.
For want of knowledge, these defendants denied the deposit of the plan fee of Rs.7,965/- on 21.11.2017 vide receipt No.33398. It is further denied that the defendants have no manner of right whatsoever upon the alleged suit land with dimensions as mentioned in the plaint particularly the land encroached by the plaintiff into the 2nd defendant's land, the defendants always tried to interfere into the plaintiff’s peaceful
SCJ
Page 12 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
possession, removing the cement boundary poles. It is also denied that number of times the plaintiff warned these defendants not to interfere into the plaintiff's peaceful possession and also not to trespass into the suit plot illegally, but inspite of it, these defendants did not stop with their illegal acts and the plaintiff has complained to the Panchayat
Secretary of G.P. Asifabad, who called these defendants and warned them not to encroach into the suit plot. It is submitted that, these defendants are not objecting for construction of RCC building in the land of the plaintiff, but the 2nd defendant is concerned about the land to on extent of 168 Sq yards with dimensions of 38’X40’ as shown in blue colour within the land of 2nd defendant shown in Red colour in the plan 'B' of the Plans annexed to this written statement. It could be seen in plan "B' annexed to the written statement that the 2nd defendant's land is surrounded on all the three sides that is East, West and South. Further these defendants may also appraise this Court that the boundaries as stated in 2nd defendant's sale deed as well as the sale deed of the plaintiff would suffice to establish the dimensions of both the parties hereto. It is denied that, on 16.02.2018 both the defendants went to the suit plot and removed the boundary fencing poles towards Southern and
Western side of the suit plot, while leaving the suit plot, these defendants threatened the plaintiff stating that at any movement these defendants would come to the suit plot and occupy it. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
10.To prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and
Ex.A1 to A6 were got marked. Nobody was examined and nothing were marked on behalf of the defendants and even not cross examined the
PW1 to prove the pleadings of their written statement.
SCJ
Page 13 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
11.Heard the Learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.
12.The following issues are framed for trial:
1.Whether the plaintiff is in legal possession of the suit
schedule plot?
2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual
injunction claimed by him?
3. To what relief?
13.Issues No.1 &2:
The present suit is one for perpetual injunction, wherein the primary requirement for the plaintiff is to establish his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. It is a settled principle of law that in a suit for bare injunction, title is not the main issue, but possession is the crucial aspect to be decided. The case of the plaintiff, as seen from the plaint averments and evidence of PW1, is that he purchased the suit schedule property admeasuring 40’ x 300’ (12,000 sq. ft.) under a registered sale deed dated 16.07.2011 (Ex.A1) from his vendor Gade Ashok, who in turn derived title through a registered sale deed dated 16.09.1994. The plaintiff has categorically deposed that he was put in possession of the property and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment since the date of purchase. So, in order to prove the same he relied on the Ex.A1 to A6 and out of which the Ex.A1 is certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 16.09.1994 shows the vendor of the plaintiff purchased the suit land from one
Dandanayakula Narayan Rao and Ex.A2 is certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 16.07.2011 shows that the plaintiff has purchased the
SCJ
Page 14 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
suit plot from one Gade Ashok. Ex.A3 is plan fee paid under receipt
No.33398, dated 21.11.2017, Ex.A4 is permission for construction proceedings No.A2/38/GPA/2017, dated 21.11.2017 with approved plan,
Ex.A5 (4) photographs along with CD and Ex.A6 is certified copy of registered sale deed document No.3013/2011, dated 16.07.2011. So plaintiff by producing documentary evidence such as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, which include the registered sale deed and documents relating to construction permission granted by the Gram Panchayat. The permission granted by the Panchayat and payment of plan fee prima facie indicate that the plaintiff was in possession and was recognized by local authorities as such. So, the documents filed by the plaintiff herein are clearly consistent with the extent of the lands mentioned in the plaintiff schedule property and also survey numbers and with the documents i.e.
Ex.A1 to A6.
14.On the other hand, though the defendants have filed a detailed written statement disputing the extent, boundaries, and alleging encroachment by the plaintiff, they have not chosen to enter the witness box, nor have they produced any documentary evidence to substantiate their pleadings. Further, PW1 was not cross-examined by the defendants. This court is of the view that It is a well-established rule of evidence that when a party fails to cross-examine a witness on material aspects, the testimony of that witness remains unchallenged and is deemed to be admitted. In the present case, the evidence of PW1 regarding possession, interference, and title has gone unchallenged and unrebutted, Though the defendants have raised a contention regarding discrepancy in measurements (40’ x 300’ vs. other dimensions), such disputes pertain more to title and exact extent, which are matters
SCJ
Page 15 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
requiring detailed evidence and possibly a declaratory relief. In a suit for injunction, the Court is concerned only with who is in actual possession.
Further this court opined that the defendants have also alleged in the written statement that the plaintiff encroached upon their land and that a survey was avoided by the plaintiff. However, these are mere allegations in the written statement and in the absence of any oral or documentary evidence, the same cannot be relied upon.
15.This court further opined that the conduct of the defendants in not stepping into the witness box leads to an adverse inference under
Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, that had they deposed, their evidence would not have supported their case. Moreover the plaintiff has also specifically pleaded and deposed about the acts of interference by the defendants, including removal of boundary poles on 16.02.2018 and threats of encroachment. In the absence of rebuttal, these allegations stand proved.
16.So, agreeing with the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and also the documents filed by the plaintiff, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.
Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction. The issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff.
17. Issue No.3:
In the result, this suit is decreed in-favour of the plaintiff. The defendants No.1 and 2, their agents, relatives and workers are perpetually restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of
SCJ
Page 16 of 16
O.S.27/2024(Old OS No.2/2018)
the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer and after corrections pronounced by me on this the 16th day of March, 2026. Digitally signed YUVARAJAby YUVARAJA
KARINGULA
KARINGULA
Date: 2026.03.16
16:54:01 +0530
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ASIFABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For P laintiff : For defendants :
PW1: Tatipelli Shone. -None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For P laintiff :
Ex.A1: Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, Dated 16.09.1994. Ex.A2: Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, Dated 16.07.2011. Ex.A3: Plan fee paid under receipt No.33398, Dated 21.11.2017. Ex.A4: Permission for construction proceedings No.A2/38/GPA/2017,
dated 21.11.2017 with approved plan.
Ex.A5: (4) photographs along with CD. Ex.A6: Certified copy of registered sale deed document No.3013/2011,
Dated 16.07.2011
For defendants: Digitally signed -Nil-by YUVARAJA
YUVARAJAKARINGULA
KARINGULADate: 2026.03.16 16:54:08 +0530
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ASIFABAD
SCJ