1
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE’S (SENIOR
DIVISION) (FTC), GUNTUR
Present: Smt. Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,
II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) (FTC), Guntur.
Wednesday, this the 8 th day of April, 2026.
Appeal Suit No.224 of 2024
BETWEEN
Annavarapu Venkata Ramana, S/o. Late Nagaiah, Retired Employee, aged about 60 years, R/o. Door No.3-19-37/B, Old Pattabhipuram, Guntur Town, Guntur District. … Appellant/Defendant.
AND
Shaik Mastan Vali, S/o. Saida Saheb, Business, aged about 48 years, R/o.Door No.3-19-38/A, Old Pattabhipuram, Guntur Town, Guntur District. … Respondent/Plaintiff.
Appeal preferred against the decree and judgment, dated 03.10.2018 Appeal preferred against the decree and judgment, dated 03.10.2018 in O.S.No.9/2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur. in O.S.No.9/2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur.
BETWEEN BETWEEN
Shaik Mastan Vali.Shaik Mastan Vali....Plaintiff. ...Plaintiff.
AND AND
Annavarapu Venkata Ramana. . Annavarapu Venkata Ramana...Defendant. ...Defendant.
This appeal suit came up before me on 17.02.2026 for final hearing inThis appeal suit came up before me on 17.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Appellant/defendant,the presence of Sri D. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Appellant/defendant, and Sri Y. Rama Seshaiah, Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff and uponand Sri Y. Rama Seshaiah, Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff and upon perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over forperusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 2
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. 1. Initially, the Appeal Suit was numbered by the Hon’ble Principal District
Judge, Guntur as A.S.No.291/2018 and made over the same to the Hon’ble
II Additional District Judge’s Court, Guntur. Subsequently, as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Guntur in Dis.No.149,
dated 08.01.2024, the said A.S.No.291/2018 was transferred to this Court and
re-numbered as A.S.No.224/2024.
2. 2. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed by the Principal Junior
Civil Judge, Guntur in O.S.No.9/2013, dated 03.10.2018, the defendant has
come up with this Appeal Suit.
3. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this Appeal have been referred, as per the nomenclature assigned to them in the trial Court.
4. 4. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, associates, laborer, confederates, followers etc., from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.
5. 5. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
i) The plaintiff submitted that he is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property which is fully described in the schedule filed along with the plaint. The father of the plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property about 30 years back.
3
The plaintiff got the suit schedule property from his father and the plaintiff got the suit schedule property from his father in the year 2000 (amended as per IA
No.1216/2016, dt.28.12.2016). Since then the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with absolute rights and title. The Municipal corporation authorities mutated the name of the plaintiff in their records and imposed house tax for the house situated in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has been paying house tax in respect of the suit schedule property to the Municipal Corporation authorities. The plaintiff also obtained electricity service connection bearing No.1122300081201 to the suit schedule property in his name and has been paying the electricity consumption charges to the department. The said fact is known to one and all in the vicinity in the locality including the defendant. The defendant is having house property on the western side of the suit schedule property and his brother’s son’s property. The defendant is having influence in police,
Municipal, Revenue, Judicial Department and also political. The defendant taking undue advantage of the same, he has been making hectic efforts to grab the suit schedule property. The defendant influencing the Guntur
Municipal Corporation Authorities by made misrepresentation them and trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. As per the instigation of the defendant, the Municipal Corporation Authorities has been making efforts to demolish the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been 4 requesting the defendant not to interfere with his peaceful and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. But the defendant did not hear and consider the requests of the plaintiff and continue his illegal acts and activities to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property and thereby grab the same. The Municipal Corporation authorities are also cooperating to the defendant to do his illegal acts. The defendant has no manner of right, title and possession over the suit schedule property to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
ii) The plaintiff further submitted that while things stood thus, the defendant with a view to cheat, defraud and deprive the rights of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and proclaimed in the vicinity that he is going to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property by using force through the Municipal Authorities and thereby to grab the same. The defendant has no manner of right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. Since the plaintiff is absolute owner of the same and the property is stands in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant also threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences and continuing his illegal acts. While so, the plaintiff approached the police and reported the illegal acts of the defendant, but the police did not take any action as the matter is in civil nature and advised the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. The plaintiff also got issued a telegram notice dt.02.01.2013 to the Municipal Authorities not to interfere with the 5 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. The defendant is having men and money power and having influence in the police and political and also having brutal force in the vicinity, whereas the plaintiff is unable to resist the illegal acts of the defendant. The defendant is taking undue advantage of the weakness of the plaintiff, he is making hectic efforts to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff either personally or through the Municipal Corporation
Authorities and thereby to grab the same. The defendant has no manner of right and title over the suit schedule property to dispossess the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no capacity and not in a position to resist the illegal acts of the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, associates, laborer, confederates, followers etc., from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff.
6.6.The defendant filed written statement, resisting the averments of theThe defendant filed written statement, resisting the averments of the plaint. The brief averments of the written statement are as under:-plaint. The brief averments of the written statement are as under:-
i) The defendant respectfully submitted that his father A Nagaiah, who died in 1997, had purchased one property on 02.04.1977 from one
M.Yedukondalu in an extent of square yards of 157 in D.Nos.55B 3/B, 88 A1C of Guntur Municipal limits and the same was registered vide document
No.1713/1977 of SRO, Guntur and since then, his father and after his death, 6 the defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of his house property with Door No.3-19-37. The said defendant’s schedule property is bounded by East: Shaik Saida Saheb, 90 links, West: Raju, 89 links, North:
Subramanyam 35 links, South: Bazar 35 links. The copy of said registered document is filed herewith. The plaintiff’s father by name Shaik Saida Saheb also purchased a site from the same vendor i.e., M. Yedukondalu of the defendant’s father on the eastern side of the defendant’s above said house property in an extent of square of 247. On the southern side of both the plaintiff’s father purchased property and defendant’s father purchased property, there is a BAZAR located and to further southern side of the said
Bazar, there is compound wall of the Office of Divisional Railway Manager is located i.e., there is a Bazar in between the compound wall and plaintiff’s father purchased property and defendant father’s property and the said Bazar is in width of 30 feet in East to West direction. The original vendor of both plaintiff’s father and the defendant’s father had left vacant site in width of 30 feet under the registered document to the Municipal Authorities, Guntur for the purpose of said Bazar on the southern side of both the plaintiff’s father purchased property and defendant father’s purchased property and since then the people around the vicinity have been using the said Bazar as ingress and egress including the defendant herein for last many years.
7 ii) The defendant further submitted that while real things stood like thus,ii) The defendant further submitted that while real things stood like thus, the plaintiff herein and his other family members, taking advantage of the 30the plaintiff herein and his other family members, taking advantage of the 30 feet Bazar on the southern side of his father’s purchased property, the plaintifffeet Bazar on the southern side of his father’s purchased property, the plaintiff got developed a wicked idea to encroach the said Bazar and to put his ideasgot developed a wicked idea to encroach the said Bazar and to put his ideas into action, few years back, the plaintiff raised a tiled roofed house in theinto action, few years back, the plaintiff raised a tiled roofed house in the middle of the said Bazar in between the compound wall of the Divisionalmiddle of the said Bazar in between the compound wall of the Divisional
Railway Manager Office and his father’s purchased property by leaving only 5Railway Manager Office and his father’s purchased property by leaving only 5 feet of passage way on the southern side of encroached house (i.e., suitfeet of passage way on the southern side of encroached house (i.e., suit schedule here) for ingress and egress of the defendant to his house. Theschedule here) for ingress and egress of the defendant to his house. The plaintiff brother’s son by name Sk. Janna (i.e., the plaintiff in OS No.10/2013plaintiff brother’s son by name Sk. Janna (i.e., the plaintiff in OS No.10/2013 on the file of this Hon’ble Court) also raised another another metal roofedon the file of this Hon’ble Court) also raised another another metal roofed house on western side of the present suit schedule property in the Bazar i.e.,house on western side of the present suit schedule property in the Bazar i.e., southern side of plaintiff’s father purchased property. The defendant alsosouthern side of plaintiff’s father purchased property. The defendant also raised an objection with the plaintiff and his brother with regard to constructionraised an objection with the plaintiff and his brother with regard to construction of their respective houses illegally by way of encroachment in the said Bazarof their respective houses illegally by way of encroachment in the said Bazar and also requested them several times in past to remove their houses so as toand also requested them several times in past to remove their houses so as to enable the defendant to utilize the said 30 feet width Bazar free fromenable the defendant to utilize the said 30 feet width Bazar free from encroachment, but the plaintiff and his brother did not listen to requests madeencroachment, but the plaintiff and his brother did not listen to requests made by the defendant. As the plaintiff is not removing the house from theby the defendant. As the plaintiff is not removing the house from the encroached bazaar, the defendant also made a representation to theencroached bazaar, the defendant also made a representation to the
Municipality Authorities, Guntur about the illegal encroachment of the plaintiffMunicipality Authorities, Guntur about the illegal encroachment of the plaintiff 8 in the Bazar, later the defendant and two others filed a Pre Litigation Casein the Bazar, later the defendant and two others filed a Pre Litigation Case
No.617/2011 and 3705/12 before the District Legal Service Authority, GunturNo.617/2011 and 3705/12 before the District Legal Service Authority, Guntur against the Municipal Authorities, Guntur for direction for removal of theagainst the Municipal Authorities, Guntur for direction for removal of the encroached house in the Bazar by the plaintiff and his brother, wherein theencroached house in the Bazar by the plaintiff and his brother, wherein the
Municipal Authorities appeared before the Hon’ble authority and also filed theirMunicipal Authorities appeared before the Hon’ble authority and also filed their survey report, dt.04.06.2012 after conducting the survey by measuringsurvey report, dt.04.06.2012 after conducting the survey by measuring defendant’s property, the plaintiff’s father property and the present suitdefendant’s property, the plaintiff’s father property and the present suit schedule property herein by the Town Surveyor, Guntur Municipalschedule property herein by the Town Surveyor, Guntur Municipal
Corporation, as per the said report, it is clearly mentioned that ‘T.S 1369 isCorporation, as per the said report, it is clearly mentioned that ‘T.S 1369 is classified as Municipal Road. There are two encroachments in T.S. 1369, oneclassified as Municipal Road. There are two encroachments in T.S. 1369, one is titled and another in A.C Sheet house”. The copy of the said report in filedis titled and another in A.C Sheet house”. The copy of the said report in filed herewith, the same may be read as part and parcel of the counter.herewith, the same may be read as part and parcel of the counter.
iii) The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff maternal unclesiii) The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff maternal uncles
before filling this suit, also got filed the Pre-Litigation Case No.1551/2012before filling this suit, also got filed the Pre-Litigation Case No.1551/2012
before the District Legal Service Authority, Guntur against the defendant andbefore the District Legal Service Authority, Guntur against the defendant and
another with all false averments, later the defendant also appeared before theanother with all false averments, later the defendant also appeared before the authority and brought to their notice with all true facts, during which time, theauthority and brought to their notice with all true facts, during which time, the plaintiff herein and his brother also had orally agreed to remove theirplaintiff herein and his brother also had orally agreed to remove their encroached houses. The copy of the said petition is filed herewith. As the suitencroached houses. The copy of the said petition is filed herewith. As the suit schedule property is situated in the Municipal Bazar, the Municipal Authoritiesschedule property is situated in the Municipal Bazar, the Municipal Authorities were prepared to remove the encroachments made by the plaintiff, but thewere prepared to remove the encroachments made by the plaintiff, but the 9 plaintiff anticipating removal of encroachments in the suit schedule propertyplaintiff anticipating removal of encroachments in the suit schedule property instead of co-operating with the authorities got filed this present suit and hisinstead of co-operating with the authorities got filed this present suit and his brother’s son also filed another suit in OS No.10/2003 on the file of Hon’blebrother’s son also filed another suit in OS No.10/2003 on the file of Hon’ble
Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur against the defendant with all falsePrl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur against the defendant with all false averments by suppressing the above true material facts and obtained theaverments by suppressing the above true material facts and obtained the exparte interim orders against defendant herein IA No.29/13 in OSexparte interim orders against defendant herein IA No.29/13 in OS
No.10/2003, for which the plaintiff or his brother’s son are not entitled for theNo.10/2003, for which the plaintiff or his brother’s son are not entitled for the same. As per averments mentioned in the affidavit of the plaintiff, it is thesame. As per averments mentioned in the affidavit of the plaintiff, it is the
Municipal Authorities, who are going to take action against the plaintiff hereinMunicipal Authorities, who are going to take action against the plaintiff herein over the suit schedule property but the plaintiff got filed this suit against theover the suit schedule property but the plaintiff got filed this suit against the defendant only and obtained exparte orders in IA only to show to the Municipaldefendant only and obtained exparte orders in IA only to show to the Municipal
Authorities, that he is having some interim orders in his favour in respect of theAuthorities, that he is having some interim orders in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property, so that as the suit is pending before the Hon’ble Court,suit schedule property, so that as the suit is pending before the Hon’ble Court, the Municipal Authorities will not remove the encroachments made by him inthe Municipal Authorities will not remove the encroachments made by him in the suit schedule property, except this reason there are no bonafide groundsthe suit schedule property, except this reason there are no bonafide grounds on part of the plaintiff in filling the present suit against the defendant.on part of the plaintiff in filling the present suit against the defendant.
iv) The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff got filed the suit withiv) The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff got filed the suit with all false averments by suppressing the above true material facts as such theall false averments by suppressing the above true material facts as such the plaintiff is not entitled for the said interim relief in IA and as such the same isplaintiff is not entitled for the said interim relief in IA and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. The defendant was not at all present in the suitliable to be dismissed. The defendant was not at all present in the suit schedule property on the alleged time of interference as alleged by the plaintiffschedule property on the alleged time of interference as alleged by the plaintiff 10 and there was no cause of action arose at all for filling the suit. The plaintiffand there was no cause of action arose at all for filling the suit. The plaintiff also filed to file any registered documents in the Hon’ble Court to establish anyalso filed to file any registered documents in the Hon’ble Court to establish any prima facie title/ownership/right/interest in respect of the suit schedule propertyprima facie title/ownership/right/interest in respect of the suit schedule property as such the plaintiff totally failed to establish basing on which document, heas such the plaintiff totally failed to establish basing on which document, he got filed this present suit and on this ground alone, the present suit is liable togot filed this present suit and on this ground alone, the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the documents filed on his behalf do not support the case ofbe dismissed as the documents filed on his behalf do not support the case of the plaintiff. The boundaries and the entire suit schedule are not correct andthe plaintiff. The boundaries and the entire suit schedule are not correct and totally false. The plaintiff did not approach the Hon’ble Court with clean handstotally false. The plaintiff did not approach the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and filed this suit malafidely by concealing the true material facts only to obtainand filed this suit malafidely by concealing the true material facts only to obtain an exparte interim orders from the Hon’ble Court as such the suit is liable to bean exparte interim orders from the Hon’ble Court as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff in his plaint got mentioned that his grand fatherdismissed. The plaintiff in his plaint got mentioned that his grand father acquired the suit schedule property about 30 years back and had been inacquired the suit schedule property about 30 years back and had been in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death, after demise of his father,possession and enjoyment of the same till his death, after demise of his father, the suit schedule property is devolved upon the plaintiff, but in real, the fatherthe suit schedule property is devolved upon the plaintiff, but in real, the father of the plaintiff by name Shaik Saida is still alive and not died as mentioned byof the plaintiff by name Shaik Saida is still alive and not died as mentioned by the plaintiff and he is residing in his own house at present, this fact alone itselfthe plaintiff and he is residing in his own house at present, this fact alone itself shown that the plaintiff malafidely suppressed the true facts before the Hon’bleshown that the plaintiff malafidely suppressed the true facts before the Hon’ble
Court and got filed this present suit. To elicit the truth in ground realities beforeCourt and got filed this present suit. To elicit the truth in ground realities before the Hon’ble Court in and around the suit schedule property, the defendant isthe Hon’ble Court in and around the suit schedule property, the defendant is herewith also filing a separate petition for appointment of an Advocateherewith also filing a separate petition for appointment of an Advocate
Commissioner to visit the suit schedule locality and not down the physicalCommissioner to visit the suit schedule locality and not down the physical 11 features and to submit the report before the Hon’ble Court. The defendant hasfeatures and to submit the report before the Hon’ble Court. The defendant has no necessity or occasion to interfere with the peaceful possession as allegedno necessity or occasion to interfere with the peaceful possession as alleged by the plaintiff in his affidavit. The defendant herewith also filling the roughby the plaintiff in his affidavit. The defendant herewith also filling the rough sketch plan of the suit schedule locality, the same may be read as part andsketch plan of the suit schedule locality, the same may be read as part and parcel of the counter. The plaintiff totally failed to establish the cornets of theparcel of the counter. The plaintiff totally failed to establish the cornets of the plaint either in facts or in Law, as such the above suit is liable to be dismissed.plaint either in facts or in Law, as such the above suit is liable to be dismissed.
Such other allegations which are not specifically denied or admitted are notSuch other allegations which are not specifically denied or admitted are not deemed to be admitted or denied. The defendant reserves his right to filedeemed to be admitted or denied. The defendant reserves his right to file
additional written statement, if any in the Hon’ble Court. Hence the defendantadditional written statement, if any in the Hon’ble Court. Hence the defendant
prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs andprays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs and pass all such necessary orders in the interest of justice. The defendant filedpass all such necessary orders in the interest of justice. The defendant filed
additional written statement with the same averments and hence the same isadditional written statement with the same averments and hence the same is
not discussed.not discussed.
7.Basing on the pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendant, the following issues were settled for trial by the trial court on 04/06/2013:-
1) Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the suit?
2) Whether the defendant tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?
4) To what relief?
12
8.Additional Issue was also framed by the trial court on 17/07/2017:-
5) Whether the plaintiff really suppressed the real facts and filed the present suit?
9.In the course of trial, the sole plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and
Exs.A1 to A6 marked on behalf of the Plaintiff. Two Independent witnesses on behalf of the Plaintiff were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. On the other hand the sole defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B7 marked on behalf of the defendants. The relative of defendant was examined as D.W.2. One
Independent witness on behalf of the defendant was examined as D.W.3.
10.The trial Court after hearing both the plaintiff and the defendant, passed judgment and decree dated 03.10.2018, decreeing the suit by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, associates, laborer, confederates, followers etc, from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over plaint schedule property.
11.Aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 03.10.2018 of the trial
Court, the appellant/defendant preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:
1) The Judgement and Decree of the Lower Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case.
13
2) The Lower Court failed to receive the evidence placed on behalf of the
Appellant in a positive manner instead of taking the same in negative to the contentions of the Appellants.
3) The Lower Court wrongly interprèted the oral and documentary evidence placed on behalf of the Appellants.
4) The Lower Court given it's Judgement upon it's own surmises and conjectures.
5) The Lower Court ought to have held that the suit schedule property is not ancestral property of the respondent and the respondent raised the house in the suit schedule property, which is on middle of the passage road, as such the respondent is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the plaint and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6) The Lower Court ought to have held that in view of the fact that the father of the plaintiff and father of the defendant had purchased the their respective property under Exs.B-4 and 1 from the common vendor and as per the link documents marked in lower court, there is a 30 feet road on their southern side, taking advantage of it, the respondent raised the house in the suit schedule property on the road as such the respondent is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the plaint and the suit was liable to be dismissed.
7) The Lower Court ought to have held that the respondent was not entitled for the suit reliefs sought in the plaint as the respondent filed the original suit 14 without disclosing the real fact that his father's property is already located on the northern side of the suit schedule property and there is no valid legal title, right, prima facie case, etc. in respect of the suit schedule property, as such the suit was liable to be dismissed.
8) The Lower Court ought to have held that the suit was liable to be dismissed as the respondent/plaintiff intentionally suppressed the earlier Pre-Litigation
Proceedings either in the pleadings or in his evidence before the Hon’ble
District Legal Service Authority, Guntur, wherein the Hon’ble Authority gave direction to the Municipal Surveyor, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur to visit the locality and to conduct the survey therein, accordingly the Municipal
Surveyor conducted the survey and filed the report before the Hon’ble
Authority stating that the disputed house is an encroached one and the house is raised on the middle of the road, which is used for ingress and egress for inhabitants including the appellant.
9) The Lower Court ought to have held that after filing of the Municipal
Surveyor report before the Hon’ble District Legal Service Authority, Guntur, the respondent gave an oral undertaking to the Authority that he was going to remove the house in the suit schedule property and requested for short time and when the Municipal Authorities, Guntur were planning to remove the house in the suit schedule property, the respondent anticipating removal of the same malafidely to divert the issue got filed the suit before the Hon’ble Court 15 against the defendant only so that Municipal Authorities will not remove the structure in the suit schedule property.
10) The Lower Court ought to have held that the respondent/plaintiff and his brother's son by name Shaik Janna also raised another house adjacent to the present suit schedule property on the middle of the road and the respondent in collusion with said Sk. Janna filed two separate suits before the Hon’ble Prl.
Junior Civil Judge Court, Guntur against this appellant for permanent injunction without any cause of action, interference from the appellant side and with all false averments.
11) The Lower Court right from the beginning went wrong in deciding the case and wrongly held that the respondent successfully proved his case, but in contra, he failed to prove his case.
12) The Lower Court failed to appreciate the ground realities and the circumstances of ease and oral, documentary evidence and rough sketch plan adduced by the appellant, that clearly negates the case of the respondent, which all clearly establish that the respondent approached the Hon. Court with unclean hands by suppressing the true facts.
13) At any rate, the Judgement and Decree of the Lower Court is not correct and is liable to be dismissed.
12.The respondent/plaintiff in furtherance to receipt of the appeal notice, got filed his vakalat and contested the appeal.
16
13.No additional evidence is adduced in this Appeal by either of the parties.
Both counsels submitted their respective arguments. I have perused the entire material on record.
14.Now, the points for consideration are:-
1) Whether the Judgment and decree dated 03.10.2018 in OS.No.9/2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur is liable to be set aside?
2) To what relief?
15.POINT NO.1:-
Since this is a suit for injunction simplicitor, the burden heavily lies on the plaintiff to establish that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and the defendant is interfering with his possession and enjoyment.
16.It is the case of the sole Plaintiff as P.W.1 that he is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property which is fully described in the schedule filed along with the plaint. He submits that his grandfather acquired the suit schedule property about 30 years back. He submits that his grandfather acquired the suit schedule property from his father and P.W.1 has got the suit schedule property from his grand father in the year 2000. He submits that since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with absolute rights and title. He submits that the Municipal corporation authorities mutated the name of his grand father in their records and imposed 17 house tax for the house situated in the suit schedule property. P.W.1 submits that he has been paying house tax in respect of the suit schedule property in the name of his grand father to the Municipal Corporation authorities. He submits that he had also obtained electricity service connection bearing
No.1122300081201 to the suit schedule property in the name of his grand father and paying the electricity consumption charges to the department. He submits that the said fact is known to one and all in the vicinity in the locality including the defendant.
17.P.W.1 further submitted that the defendant is having house property on the western side of the suit schedule property. The defendant is having influence in police, Municipal, Revenue, judicial department and also political.
He submits that the defendant taking undue advantage of the same, has been making hectic efforts to grab the suit schedule property. He submits that the defendant is influencing the Guntur Municipal Corporation authorities by misrepresenting them and trying to dispossess P.W.1 from the suit schedule property. He submits that as per the instigation of the defendant, the Municipal
Corporation Authorities has been making efforts to demolish P.W.1’s house.
He submits that he has been requesting the defendant not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property but the defendant did not hear his requests and continued his illegal acts and activities to dispossess P.W.1 from the plaint schedule property and thereby grab the 18 same. He submits that the Municipal Corporation authorities are also co- operating to the defendant to do his illegal acts. He submits that the defendant has no manner of right, title and possession over the suit schedule property to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
18.P.W.1 submits that while things stood thus, the defendant with a view to cheat, defraud and deprive his rights over the suit schedule property and proclaimed in the vicinity that he is going to dispossess P.W.1 from the suit schedule property by using force through the Municipal Authorities and thereby to grab the same. He submits that the defendant has no manner of right, title and possession over the suit schedule property, since he is absolute owner of schedule property. He submits that the defendant also threatened him with dire consequences and continuing his illegal acts. P.W.1 submits that while so, he approached the police and reported the illegal acts of the defendant, but the police did not take any action as the matter is in civil nature and advised
P.W.1 to approach the Civil Court. P.W.1 submits that he had also got issued a telegram notice dt.02.01.2013 to the Municipal Authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by
P.W.1. He submits that the defendant is having men and money power and having influence in the police and political and also having brutal force in the vicinity. Whereas P.W.1 is unable to resist the illegal acts of the defendant. He 19 submits that the defendant is taking undue advantage of his weakness and making hectic efforts to disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property either personally or through the Municipal Corporation
Authorities and thereby to grab the same. P.W.1 submits that the defendant has no manner of right and title over the suit schedule property to dispossess him. P.W.1 submits that he has no capacity and not in a position to resist the illegal acts of the defendant. Hence this suit.
19.On the other hand it is the contention of the sole defendant as D.W.1 that his father, Annavarapu Nagaiah purchased one property on 02.04.1977 from one M. Yedukondalu in an extent of 157 Square Yards of house site in
D.Nos.55 3/B, 88 AIC in Guntur Municipal limits and the same was duly registered as Document No.1213/1977 of the Sub-Registrar Office. Guntur and since then his father became the absolute owner with peaceful possession till is death in 1977. D.W.1 submits that after death of his father, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property with Door No.3-19-37, which is bounded by East:Shaik Saida Saheb 90 links, West:Raju 89 links,
North:Subramanyam 35 links, South:Bazar-35 links. D.W.1 submits that the plaintiff's grandfather by name Shaik Saida Saheb also purchased one site from his father's same vendor, namely M.Yedukondalu on the eastern side of his father's above property in an extent of 249 Square Yards of house site under Registered Sale Deed No.1159/1978, Dt.05.04.1978 of Joint Sub- 20
Registrar, Guntur. DW.1 submits that on the Southern side of both his father's purchased property and the plaintiff's grand father purchased property, there is a Bazar located and to further Southern side of the said Bazar, there is a compound wall of the Office of Divisional Railway Manager is located, i.e., there is a Bazar in between the compound wall and his father's purchased property and the plaintiff's grand father purchased property and the said Bazar is in width of 30 feet in East to West direction.
20.D.W.1 submits that the original vendor of his father and the plaintiff’s grand father had left vacant site in width of 30 feet under Registered
Document to the Municipal Authorities, Guntur for purpose of said Bazar on the southern side of both his father's purchased property and the plaintiff's grand father purchased property and since then the people around the vicinity are using the said Bazar as ingress and egress including D.W.1 for last many years. D.W.1 submits that he filed the rough sketch plan of the suit schedule locality along with his written statement. He submits that as per the plan filed by him, grand father of plaintiff's house is situated on eastern side to their house.
21.D.W.1 submits that while real things stood like thus, the plaintiff and his other family members taking advantage of the 30 feet width Bazar on the
Southern side of his grand father's purchased property, the plaintiff got developed a wicked idea to encroach the said Bazar and to put his ideas into 21 action, few years back, the plaintiff raised a tiled roofed house in the middle of the said Bazar in between the compound wall of the Divisional Railway
Manager Office and his grand father's purchased property by leaving only 5 feet of passage on the Southern side of his constructed house in encroached site, (i.e., suit schedule herein). The plaintiff's father brother by name Shaik
Janna (i.e., the plaintiff in OS No.10/2013 on file of this Hon’ble Court) also raised another tiled roofed house on the Western side of present suit schedule property in middle of Bazar. D.W.1 submits that he also raised an objection with the plaintiff and his brother’s son with regard to encroachment and construction of their respective houses illegally in the said Bazar and also requested them several times to remove their houses so as to enable D.W.1 to utilize the said 30 feet width Bazar free from encroachment, but the plaintiff and his uncle did not listen to his requests. He submits that due to the plaintiff's encroachment, the Southern side road becomes narrow and it becomes difficult for their passage and the rain and used drain water gets stagnated there, which causes much problems in the locality.
22.D.W.1 submits that as the plaintiff is not removing the house from encroached site, he also made a representation to the Municipal Authorities,
Guntur about the illegal encroachment of the plaintiff, later D.W.1 and two others filed a Pre-Litigation Case No.617/2011 and 3705/2012 before the
District Legal Service Authority, Guntur against the Municipal Authorities, 22
Guntur for direction for removal of encroached houses in the Bazar by the plaintiff and his junior paternal uncle, wherein the Municipal Authorities appeared before the Hon’ble Authority and after conducting the survey by measuring his father's purchased property, the plaintiff's property and present suit schedule property by the Town Surveyor, Guntur Municipal Corporation, they also filed survey report, Dt.04.06.2012 and as per the said report, it clearly mentioned that "T.S.1369 is classified as Municipal Road, there are two encroachments in T.S.1369, one is tiled and another in A.C.Sheet house", the said report is filed herewith.
23.D.W.1 submits that before filing the present suit, the plaintiff also filed the case in Pre-Litigation Case No.1551/2012 before the District Legal Service
Authority, Guntur against him and another with all false averments, in which
D.W.1 also appeared before the Authority and brought to their notice with all true facts, during which time the plaintiff and his uncle orally agreed to remove their encroached houses, the said copy of PLC is filed herewith. As the suit schedule property is situated in Municipal Bazar, the Municipal Authorities prepared to remove the encroachments made by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff anticipating removal of encroachments in the suit schedule property, instead of co-operating with the authorities got filed this present suit and his uncle also filed another suit in OS.No.10/2013 on file of this Hon’ble Court against D.W.1 23 with all false averments by suppressing the above true material facts, as such the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit reliefs.
24.D.W.1 submits that as the municipal authorities were going to action against the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed this suit malafidely with a view to show to Municipal Authorities, that he filed the present suit and the same is pending in the Hon’ble Court, except this reason there are no bonafide grounds on part of plaintiff in filing the present suit against him. D.W.1 submits that he was not at all present in the suit schedule property on the alleged time of interference as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint and there was no cause of action for filing the suit. The plaintiff did not file any prima facie title documents over suit schedule property in his support and the documents filed on his behalf do not support the case of the plaintiff, on this ground alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The boundaries and suit schedule are not correct and they are all false. The plaintiff's possession in suit schedule property is not lawful possession. D.W.1 submits that to elicit the truth in the suit schedule property locality, D.W.1 filed a petition for appointment of an advocate-Commissioner to visit and note down the physical features, accordingly the Hon’ble Court pleased to appoint Advocate-
Commissioner, but the same was not executed due to non-co-operation of the defendant. D.W.1 submits that he had no necessity or occasion to interfere with peaceful possession as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. The suit is bad 24 for non-joining of Guntur Municipal Corporation as necessary party. Hence, he prays that the suit may be dismissed with costs.
25.The Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that the Lower Court failed to receive the evidence placed on behalf of the Appellant in a positive manner instead of taking the same in negative to the contentions of the Appellants.
This Court had observed that D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the
Appellant. D.W.2 is the relative of defendant. D.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that the plaintiff is residing in the plaint schedule property. D.W.1 also admitted that Ex.B1 sale deed does not show that the southern boundary road is width about 30 feet. He stated that the plaintiff did not encroach the road which is situated on the southern side of his house. D.W.2 in his cross- examination stated that he did not know the relief sought by the plaintiff in plaint and that he did not know when the father of the plaintiff purchased the property and he did not know the extent of the said property. He stated that he did not measure the plaint schedule property at any point of time and that he did not know about the property of the plaintiff and also that he did not know in what extent the plaintiff had constructed his house. D.W.2 was unable to say how much extent of 40 feet road was occupied by the plaintiff. This Court observed that the Trial Court had very much discussed about the said admissions made by D.Ws.1 and 2. Hence the contention of the Learned
Counsel for Appellant is not taken into consideration.
25
26.The Learned Counsel for Appellant contended that Lower Court ought to have held that the suit schedule property is not ancestral property of the respondent and the respondent raised the house in the suit schedule property, which is on middle of the passage road, as such the respondent is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the plaint and the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is the contention of the Plaintiff as P.W.1 that his grandfather acquired the suit schedule property from his father and P.W.1 has got the suit schedule property from his grand father in the year 2000 and since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with absolute rights and title. P.W.1 submits that the Municipal corporation authorities mutated the name of his grand father in their records and imposed house tax for the house situated in the suit schedule property and that he has been paying house tax in respect of the suit schedule property in the name of his grand father to the
Municipal Corporation authorities. He submits that he had also obtained electricity service connection bearing No.1122300081201 to the suit schedule property in his name and paying the electricity consumption charges to the department. This Court observed that D.W.1 in his cross-examination had stated that the plaintiff did not encroach the road which is situated on the southern side of D.W.1’s house. D.W.1 also admitted that Edukondalu sold his total 820 square yards to D.W.1’s father and plaintiffs father and Maganti
Subramanyam. Hence it is clear that the suit schedule property is ancestral 26 property of the Plaintiff i.e., Respondent. Hence the contention of the Learned
Counsel for Appellant is not taken into consideration.
27.The Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that the Lower Court ought to have held that in view of the fact that the father of the plaintiff and father of the defendant had purchased their respective property under Exs.B7 and B1 from the common vendor and as per the link documents marked in lower court, there is a 30 feet road on their southern side, taking advantage of it, the respondent raised the house in the suit schedule property on the road as such the respondent is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the plaint and the suit was liable to be dismissed. This Court observed that D.W.1 in his cross-examination had admitted that Ex.B1 sale deed does not shows that the southern boundary road is width about 30 feet. D.W.1 admitted that the width of the road of southern boundary of Ex B1 was not mentioned. He admitted that in Ex.B4 registered sale deed there is no boundary showing the 30 feet road. D.W.1 admitted that in Ex.B6 the Southern boundary was mentioned as
Macherla Rail road. Witness was asked about the mentioning of schedule in
Ex.B7 for which he stated that he does not know to read Ex.B7 and hence was unable to say whether it contains schedule or not. This Court observed that the
Appellant had failed to come up with any sort of document to show that there is 30 feet width road on the southern side of his property. Hence the 27 contention of the Learned Counsel for Appellant is not taken into consideration.
28.The Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that the Lower Court ought to have held that the suit was liable to be dismissed as the respondent/plaintiff intentionally suppressed the earlier Pre-Litigation
Proceedings either in the pleadings or in his evidence before the Hon’ble
District Legal Service Authority, Guntur, wherein the Hon’ble Authority gave direction to the Municipal Surveyor, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur to visit the locality and to conduct the survey therein, accordingly the Municipal
Surveyor conducted the survey and filed the report before the Hon’ble
Authority stating that the disputed house is an encroached one and the house is raised on the middle of the road, which is used for ingress and egress for inhabitants including the appellant. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant had relied on the following citation:- S.C 2021 Online SC 1194 wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that “If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, “We will not listen to your application because of what you have done”. The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it.”
The Learned Counsel for Appellant had also relied on the following citations:- 28
1) AIR 2004 SC 2421 – it is pointed out – as a general rule, suppression of material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief.
(SJS Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar).
2) In the recent decision, The Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey (17th
March, 2025; Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 348), it is held that this rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it; and pointed out that similar view has been taken in General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Jai Bhagwan, (2008) 4 SCC 127, in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. Stae Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449.
3) The plaintiff’s conduct disentitles him to equitable relief. As per Section 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act, a person who does not approach the Court with clean hands is not entitled to injunction.
4) C.R. No.2143/2009 Patna H.C. - O-6, R-2(1) of CPC the plaintiff shall disclose all material facts, which are well known to him, in the pleadings.
(Bhagirath Prasad Sigh @ Bachcha Babu vs. Ram Narayan Rai @ Ra,
Narayan on 24-06-2010).
29.This Court observed that mere non-disclosure is not enough, suppression must be material – meaning it would affect the case’s merits if revealed. Suppression of material facts alone does not automatically justify the dismissal of a case unless it affects the merits of the case. This Court observed that non disclosure of the Pre litigation proceedings does not entitle 29 the suit to be dismissed and does not affect the merits of the case. The said suit is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. P.W.1 also in his cross-examination had stated that since the said PLC was still kept pending, he had got filed this suit. Hence the said contention is not considered. As regards the direction given by the Hon’ble District Legal Service Authority,
Guntur, the same has not been filed before this Court. Hence the said contention is also not considered. Moreover D.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that as per the plan of the municipal surveyor given in the PLC
No.16/2011 there is a road on the eastern side of petition schedule property and some houses are situated on the eastern side of the Eastern side road and the width of the road of the said houses is about 5 feet. Hence the contention of the Learned Counsel for Appellant is not taken into consideration.
30.The Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that the Lower Court ought to have held that after filing of the Municipal Surveyor report before the
Hon’ble District Legal Service Authority, Guntur, the respondent gave an oral
undertaking to the Authority that he was going to remove the house in the suit schedule property and requested for short time and when the Municipal
Authorities, Guntur were planning to remove the house in the suit schedule property, the respondent anticipating removal of the same malafidely to divert the issue got filed the suit before the Hon’ble Court against the defendant only 30 so that Municipal Authorities will not remove the structure in the suit schedule property. This Court observed that except the oral contention of the Appellant, there is no substantive proof for the fact that the respondent gave an oral undertaking that he was going to remove the house in the schedule property and requested for short time. This Court observed that the said report was submitted approximately on 11.06.2012 to the Hon’ble District Legal Services
Authority, Guntur. The said suit was filed on 04.01.2013. Hence there is a gap of 6 months in filing the suit and there is no clarity for the delay in not taking any action against the Respondent. Moreover D.W.1 in his cross-examination stated that the plaintiff got constructed his house about 10 yrs back and D.W.2 in his cross-examination stated that the plaintiff got constructed his house about 25 years back. D.W.1 further in his cross-examination stated that he had not filed any suit for declaration against the plaintiff as D.W.1 got right over the plaint schedule property. There is no clarity from the Appellant as to why he had waited for 10 years without filing any suit against the plaintiff and on the other hand waited for the Plaintiff to file suit against him. Hence the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is not taken into consideration.
31.The Learned Counsel for Appellant contended that the Lower Court right from the beginning went wrong in deciding the case and wrongly held that the respondent successfully proved his case, but in contra, he failed to prove his case. The Learned Counsel for Appellant had relied on the following citations:- 31
1) 2005 (1) ALD 268 – In a suit for Injunction, question of title has to be and can be gone into.
2) 2017 (5) ALT 245 – HC of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of
Telangana and the state of A.P. – Tax/receipts/bank pass book/ration card/pension pass book – they cannot be treated as evidence of possession of the plaint schedule property.
3) 2016 (4) Civil Court Cases 0477 (Uttarakhand High Court) – para 13 – held “Merely on the basis of entries in Municipal record or payment of house tax, water tax and electricity bill, a person can never become owner of property. (Munishwar vedang vidyalaya Rishikesh vs smt.Luxmi Devi and others school).
4) 1994 (5) SCC 547 – S.C.D.B – A person in unlawful possession or a trespasser cannot seek injunction against true owner – Claiming injunction under pretext of a dispute over land identity against true owner is not permissible – plaintiff must have a personal interest to seek injunction. (Premji
Ratansey Shah v. Union of India)
5) (1994) 5 SCC 547 – The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that injunction cannot be granted to protect possession which is unlawful or without legal basis.
(Premji Ratansey Shah v. Union of India) 32
6) (2008) 4 SCC 594 – The plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie legal right or possession over the suit property. when the title is in dispute, a mere injunction suit is not maintainable (Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy)
7) (1998) 3 SCC 573 – the Hon’ble Court held that injunction cannot be granted when there exists an alternative and efficacious remedy or where it would cause injustice to the other side. (K.K.Modi v. K.N.Modi)
8) In the Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and another v. Ganga Bai
Menariya (Dead) through Lrs. and others, decided on February 22, 2024, the
Supreme Court of India ruled that a suit for a permanent injunction may not be maintainable if the plaintiff fails to prove their title to the disputed property when the defendant contests it.
Justice Vikram Nath delivered this judgment, affirming that when the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s title, a simple injunction suit (a “suit simpliciter for injunction”) may not be sufficient. In such a case, the plaintiff is required to establish their ownership by providing evidence and proving the validity of their documents.
9) A suit for mere injunction is not maintainable if the defendant raises a genuine and substantial dispute about the plaintiff’s title, or if a cloud is raised over the title or possession. Rbanms Educational Institution v B.Gunasekhar.
10) Bombay High Court clarified that injunction can only be granted if the plaintiff shows a valid obligation owed by the defendant, supported by 33 documents such as lease deeds or property records. If possession or title is questionable, injunction cannot be granted. Mukesh v. Charan (2017)
32.This Court observed that the said suit has been filed for Permanent
Injunction. In a suit for Permanent Injuntion possession has to be proved by the Plaintiff as a primary requirement. In Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi
Reddy (Dead) By Lrs. – 2008 Supreme (SC) 526 held that “in a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession.” A Plaintiff claiming an Injunction must prove lawful possession, not necessarily title, but must substantiate claims with credible evidence. Mere assertion of title without possession proof falls short.
The burden of proof lies squarely on the plaintiff to establish possession – not merely title – including physical control or settled possession. It is observed that plaintiffs must produce credible evidence of physical control. This Court observed that the Respondent had got filed Exs.A1 to A5 to show his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. D.W.1 in his cross- examination stated that he did not know whether the plaintiff is paying
Electricity bills and municipal taxes to plaintiffs house. D.W.1 stated that he did know whether the plaintiff filed house tax receipts from the year 1997. This
Court observed that admittedly there is no dispute regarding possession of the 34 suit schedule property. Moreover D.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that the plaintiff is residing in the plaint schedule property. Hence it is clear that the
Plaintiff i.e., Respondent is residing in the suit schedule property and there does not require any further proof for the same. Hence the contention of the
Learned Counsel for Appellant is not taken into consideration.
33.Therefore, in the light of above reasoning, the Court is of the finding that as the evidence on record abundantly prove juridical possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by P.W.1, acts of unjustifiable interference by defendants with the proved possession and enjoyment of
P.W.1 over the plaint schedule property, the Court is of the finding that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with the juridical possession and enjoyment of P.W.1 over the plaint schedule property, except under due process of law. Hence, the Court is of the finding that the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is in proper prospective and there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court, but for varied reasoning.
34.The trial Court, while rendering the judgment, has considered the legal prepositions according to law and rightly decreed the suit for permanent injunction. Because of my foregoing discussion, the Decree and Judgment under appeal seems to be based on the available material evidence and 35 deserves to be confirmed. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.
Accordingly, this point is determined.
35.Point No.2:-
In the light of the finding of the Court on point No.1, that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and the finding of the trial Court does not require any interference, the decree and judgment of the trial Court
dated 03.10.2018 shall be confirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
And, in the light of the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
36.In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment passed by the Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Guntur in
OS No.9/2013, dt.03.10.2018. Both parties do bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the openTyped to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8thcourt, this the 8th day of April, 2026. day of April, 2026.
Sd/- Mohd. Ishrath Fathima, Sd/- Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,
II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)
(FTC), GUNTUR. (FTC), GUNTUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
- Nil - - Nil -
Sd/- Mohd. Ishrath Fathima, Sd/- Mohd. Ishrath Fathima,
II A.C.J (SD) (FTC),
GUNTUR.