O.S.No.47 of 2024 1 dt: 04-05-2026
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT GADWAL.
MONDAY, ON THIS THE 4 TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.
Present:-Smt.T.LAKSHMI, Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024.
(Old O.S.No.65 of 2014).
Between:
Allee bee, W/o Md.Usman, aged 50 years, occ; Agriculture, R/o Yelkur village, Maldakal Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.
...Plaintiff
AND
1. Vallur Sali Sab, S/o Nabisab, aged 50 years,
2. Hussain, S/o Vallur Sali Sab, age 28 years, Both are occ; Agriculture, R/o Yelkur village, Maldakal Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.
...Defendants
This suit was coming on 30.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Shivnarayana, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri
G.Sudhakar, Advocate for Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants for Perpetual
Injunction restraining the defendants their men and agents permanently from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the land in Sy.No.584/GHA with an extent of Ac.1-32 guntas situated
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 2 dt: 04-05-2026
at Yelkur village of Maldakal Mandal, the suit schedule property herein.
2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property along with other lands which she succeeded from her parents
Smt.Hussainamma and Bade Sab as she was kept at their house even after marriage along with her husband Mohd.Osman. The plaintiff and her husband used to administer the family affairs and agriculture and after demise of Hussainamma, the plaintiff name was recorded in the revenue records for the year 2003 to establish ownership and possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In order to meet the family necessities and to repay the loan the plaintiff offered to sell Ac.1-00 of land in Sy.No.584/GHA and the defendant No.1 and 2 expressed their intention to purchase the land and fixed price, since plaintiff not interested to the price offered by defendant No.1 and 2 she sold the land to one
Rylampadu Nagaraju on 08-08-2013 and since then defendants bore grudge with ill motive and intending to grab the remaining land of plaintiff and even threatening the plaintiff that how the purchaser will cultivate the land. Thus, even the purchaser is not showing any interest to cultivate the land purchased from plaintiff, hence plaintiff personally raised cotton crop in the suit schedule property. The defendants in collusion with rowdies came to the suit schedule property on 18-08-2014 at about 11:00 AM while plaintiff was removing the weed in her cotton fields the defendants
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 3 dt: 04-05-2026
trespassed into the land of plaintiff and even tried to dispossess her.
However, plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the defendants and while leaving the suit schedule property defendants threatened that they will come again and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.
Hence, the suit.
3. On receipt of summons, the defendants filed their written statement by denying the plaint averments. The contention of defendants is that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.584 is Ac.11-08 guntas at Yelkur village of
Maldakal Mandal, out of it the plaintiff is the owner of the land with an extent of Ac.2-32 guntas in Sy.No.584, whereas defendant No.1 is the owner of the land with an extent of Ac.5-24 guntas. The land of plaintiff is not situated at one place and likewise even the land of defendant No.1 also not situated at one place since long time. The defendant No.1 inherited his land from his ancestors. The land in Sy.No.584 is a dry land and defendant No.1 dug bore well in his land with an extent of Ac.3-24 guntas and used to supply water through his other lands but not through suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 never intended to purchase the land from plaintiff with an extent of Ac.1-00 nor threatened her to sell the remaining land. It is true plaintiff sold Ac.1-00 of land to one
Rylampadu Nagaraju with boundaries East: previously Elka Savari land now Ismail is in possession as owner, West: R.Eeranna who sold an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas, North: Land of R.Krishna and R.Naganna,
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 4 dt: 04-05-2026
South: Kalwa. The plaintiff intentionally mentioned false boundaries in the sale deed executed by her in favour of Nagaraju on 08-08-2013, the defendants never interfered or trespassed on 18-08-2014 into the land of plaintiff as the same are fallow lands. The plaintiff intentionally suppressed the real facts and filed false suit with false boundaries. The defendants also sold Ac.1-00 of land out of Ac.2-00 to two persons namely Ismail and Eeranna with an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas each on 01-08-2014 along with standing crop of cotton with specific boundaries i.e., West: defendants balance Ac.1-00 of land out of Ac.2-00, East: Land of R.Nagaraju (plaintiff sold land), North: R.Chinna Eeranna, R.Nadipi
Anjaneyulu and R.Naganna, South: Kalwa. Further the boundaries of left over land of defendants with an extent of Ac.1-00 are East: Ismail, West:
Appapalli Venkatanna, North: R.Venkatanna, Chinna Pakkeranna,
R.Pedda Eeranna, South: Kalwa. Thus, in the compact area of Ac.2-00,
Ac.1-00 of land sold and balance Ac.1-00 of land defendants raised commercial cotton crop. The left over land of defendant No.1 i.e., Ac.3-24 guntas with boundaries East: Khasim Sab, Khaja, Jaffar, West: R.Krishna,
North: Ismail and Khasim Sab, South: Ibrahim, Ismail and Nagaraju in which also the defendant No.1 raised cotton crop and if injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff the defendant will sustain irreparable loss and injury, thus he filed an application for conducting survey with boundaries.
The Mandal Surveyor surveyed the land of defendants and furnished
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 5 dt: 04-05-2026
report along with plan, thus defendant applied for certified copy of survey report and on the intervention of plaintiff, the Tahsildar has not furnished the report. Thus, the suit schedule property mentioned in the plaint is not a compact area of Ac.2-32 guntas since Ac.1-00 of land is at one place which was sold to Nagaraju by plaintiff, whereas Ac.1-32 guntas is situated at another place which is the suit schedule property. However, the plaintiff mentioned false boundaries and filed false suit to grab the land of defendants. Thus, plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands by suppressing the real facts, hence prayed the court to dismiss the suit by awarding exemplary costs in the interest of justice.
4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?
2) To what relief ?
5. On behalf of plaintiff, PW1 to PW5 were examined and got marked
Ex.A1 to A21. However, the Pw.1 evidence was eschewed basing on the memo filed by the learned counsel for plaintiff. On behalf of defendants,
DW1, DW3 and DW4 are examined and got exhibited Ex.B1 to B23. The evidence of DW.2 was eschewed.
6. Heard, the learned counsel for plaintiff and defendants and perused the documents filed by plaintiff and defendants.
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 6 dt: 04-05-2026
7. Initially the suit is filed before Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal vide
O.S.No.65 of 2014 and later it was transferred to this court vide
proceedings ROC.No.7059/OPCell/2024, dated 24-10-2024 of the
Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana and renumbered as
O.S.No.47 of 2024 on the file of this court.
8. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property which she inherited from her mother Hussainamma and mutated her name in revenue records and cultivating the property as absolute owner and defendants being adjacent land holders interfering into her peaceful possession. Per Contra, the contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff filed false suit by mentioning false boundaries by suppressing the real facts and she was never in possession of suit schedule property nor cultivated the same nor they interfered into her peaceful possession.
9. It is settled law that in a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering into plaintiff possession, the plaintiff has to establish that as on the date of filing of the suit she was in lawful possession over the suit schedule property and that defendants tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. Now the plaintiff has to prove that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit for seeking the relief of perpetual injunction.
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 7 dt: 04-05-2026
10. ISSUES NO.1:
In order to prove that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property she failed to enter the witness box to substantiate her claim over the suit schedule property inspite of filing her affidavit as Pw.1 and even her affidavit was eschewed basing on the memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff. The husband of plaintiff is examined as Pw.2 who filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination under Order XVIII Rule 4 (1) of CPC. His evidence is nothing but reiterated version of plaint pleadings. The evidence of Pw.2 reveals that his wife, plaintiff is owner and possessor of land in
Sy.No.583/GHA/2 with an extent of Ac.2-32 guntas of Yelkur village of
Maldakal Mandal which she succeeded from her parents. After the demise of her parents, she mutated her name in revenue records and enjoying the property as absolute owner. Later, plaintiff sold Ac.1-00 of land in favour of Nagaraju through registered sale deed out of Ac.2-32 guntas thus, she left over with Ac.1-32 guntas. Though defendants admitting the extent of land of plaintiff they are disputing with regard to the location of suit schedule property, thus they approached revenue authorities for survey to which VRO, Yelkur village after visiting the property issued location sketch map which was even attested by
Tahsildar. The LAO/Special Deputy Collector also acquired Ac.0-10 cents of land for formation of Jurala Lift Irrigation Project Canal and also
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 8 dt: 04-05-2026
paid compensation to plaintiff. The defendants with intention to confuse the plaintiff with created facts and documents only to protract the litigation interfering into peaceful possession, inspite of conducting the survey by the Government and even after issuance of 1-B Namuna, pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of suit schedule property.
11. In support of his contention, PW2 got marked Ex.A1 to A21. Ex.A1 is CC of Khasra Pahani showing that Bade Sab is the pattadar of land with an extent of Ac.2-32 guntas in Sy.No.584/GHA. Ex.A2 is CC of
Pahani for the year 1973-74 showing that Bade Sab is the pattadar of land in Sy.No.584/GHA with an extent of Ac.2-32 guntas. Ex.A3 to A5 are
CC of Pahanies for the years 1985-86 showing that Hussainamma is the pattadar and possessor of land in Sy.No.584/GHA with an extent of
Ac.2-32 guntas. Ex.A6 is ROR proceedings, dt: 05-06-2003 showing the mutation of land in Sy.No.584/GHA with an extent of Ac.2-32 guntas in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A7 to A11 are CC of Pahanies for the years 2009- 10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 showing that plaintiff is the pattadar and possessor of land with an extent of Ac.2-32 guntas in
Sy.No.584/GHA. Ex.A12 and A13 are Mee Seva Pahanies for the years 2015-16, 2016-17 showing that plaintiff is the pattadar and possessor of land with an extent of Ac.1-32 guntas in Sy.No.584/GHA/2. Ex.A14 is CC of old ROR, dt: 05-08-2014 showing that Hussainamma is the pattadar and possessor of land with an extent of Ac.2-32 guntas in
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 9 dt: 04-05-2026
Sy.No.584/GHA. Ex.A15 is pattadar Pass book of plaintiff showing that she is pattadar of land with an extent of Ac.2-32 guntas in
Sy.No.584/GHA. Ex.A16 is Sketch prepared by VRO attested by
Tahasildar, dt: 21-09-2015. Ex.A17 is certificate issued by
LAO/SDC/JLIP, Gadwal, dt: 29-01-2016 showing that Ac.0-10 cents of land of plaintiff was acquired by the Government and paid an amount of
Rs.21,946/-. Ex.A18 is CC of 1-B Namuna (ROR), dt: 13-04-2019 showing that plaintiff is pattadar of land with an extent of Ac.1-32 guntas in Sy.No.584/GHA. Ex.A19 is CC of Pahani for the year 2017, dt: 17-04- 2019 showing that the plaintiff is pattadar and possessor of land with an extent of Ac.1-32 guntas in Sy.No.584/GHA/2. Ex.A20 is Pahani for the year 2015-16 showing that plaintiff is pattadar and possessor of the land with an extent of Ac.1-32 guntas in Sy.No.584/GHA/2 and raised Mirchi crop. Ex.A21 is Pahani for the year 2020-21 showing that the plaintiff is pattadar and possessor of land with an extent of Ac.1-32 guntas in
Sy.No.584/GHA/2.
12. In cross examination Pw.2 admitted that Ex.A16 i.e., sketch map was prepared by VRO however he has not conducted survey over the land covered under Ex.A16 and VRO has not filed survey report before the court and denied that Ex.A16 is not a valid sketch map which is not tallying with the physical possession. Pw.2 admitted his signature and signature of Defendant No.1 along with survey number on panchanama,
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 10 dt: 04-05-2026
dated 05-07-2014 (Ex.B1) when confronted to him and that he has not
filed sketch by demarcating the Ac.0-10 cents of land acquired by the
Government under Ex.A17. Pw.2 even admitted thathe has not got conducted survey for the land in Sy.No.584 for demarcation of plaintiff and defendant lands. Thus the evidence of Pw.2 is contrary to his chief examination, since on one hand he admits that plaintiff filed application for survey however in cross examination his evidence reveals that he has not taken any steps of conducting of survey for demarcation of suit schedule property with defendants land.
13. Pw.3 who is adjacent land owner deposed that plaintiff and defendants are cultivating their lands since 7 years onwards and defendants tried to encroach into the land of plaintiff and even he was also present on the date of interference of the defendants. Pw.3 further deposed that defendants bore grudge on plaintiff as she sold Ac.1-00 of land in favour of one Nagaraju instead of selling to them. The plaintiff and defendants are having lands with one single bit however their both lands separated by lands of Yelka Sab. In cross-examination Pw.3 admitted that Nagaraju is the adjacent land owner of suit schedule property. Pw.3 pleaded ignorance about total extent of land of defendants and total extent of land in Sy.No.584.
14. Pw.4 who purchased Ac.1-00 of land from plaintiff in Sy.No.584 deposed that he is the adjacent land owner to suit schedule property and
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 11 dt: 04-05-2026
plaintiff is having remaining land with an extent of Ac.1-32 guntas which is single bit and defendants are also having lands in single bit and the land of plaintiff and defendants are separated with the land of Yelka Sab. The contention of the Pw.4 is that he was present on the date of interference by defendants into the possession of the plaintiff and plaintiff is only in actual possession over the suit schedule property. Pw.4 in cross examination admitted that plaintiff land is located towards the Southern side of his land and denied that the plaintiff land in located towards
Northern side of his land.
15. Pw.5 deposed that he is having acquaintance with suit schedule survey number as he is Patwari of the village from 1967 to 2005 which is being cultivated by Nabi Sab half share, Bade Sab 1/4th share, Yelka Sab 1/4th share. The entire extent of land i.e., Ac.2-32 guntas i.e., 1/4th share is being cultivated by Bade Sab and after his death Hussainamma and later plaintiff. In cross examination Pw.5 admitted about existence of land in Sy.No.584 is same as shown in Ex.B1. Pw.5 also admitted that Chinna
Yelka Sab, Pedda Yelka Sab and Hussainamma are half shareholders,
Nabi Sab 1/2th share who are in possession over the land in Sy.No.584 till 2005 and pleaded ignorance about the possessors of the land in
Sy.No.584 at present.
16. In order to disprove the case of the plaintiff and to prove their own case defendants relied on oral evidence of Dw.1, Dw.3 and Dw.4. The
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 12 dt: 04-05-2026
defendant No.1 is examined as Dw.1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B23. The contention of Dw.1 in his affidavit is that he is the absolute owner of land with an extent of Ac.5-24 guntas in Sy.No.584 out of Ac.11-08 guntas.
Later he sold Ac.1-00 of land out of Ac.2-00 which is one bit out of
Ac.5-24 guntas to Ismail and Eeranna with an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas each on 01-08-2014 through separate sale deeds. Thus, the defendant
No.1 was left over with Ac.1-00 of land with specific boundaries. Later 58 cents of land was acquired by the Government for Nettempadu canal thus, he was left with Ac.4-32 guntas in Sy.No.584 which was divided among his four sons. The evidence of Dw.1 further reveals that even the land of plaintiff with an extent of Ac.1-32 guntas is one single bit situated towards the Northern side of the Sy.No.584 and they never interfered into the possession of the plaintiff and it is the plaintiff and her husband entered into their land and threatened the defendants.
17. In support of his contention, Dw.1 got marked Ex.B1 to B23. Ex.B1 is Panchanama, dated 05-07-2014. Ex.B2 is CC of ROR, dated 05-09-2014. Ex.B3 is CC of pahani for the fasli year 1423, dated 13-06-2014. Ex.B4 is CC of pahani for the fasli year 1424, dated 05-09-2014. Ex.B5 is CC of pahani for the year 2014-15. Ex.B6 is Old pattadar pass book. Ex.B7 is Original endorsement of Tahsildar,
Maldakal. Ex.B8 is CC of 1(B) namuna, dated 11-07-2016. Ex.B9 is
Meeseva pahani copy, dated 23-02-2017. Ex.B10 is Meeseva pahani,
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 13 dt: 04-05-2026
dated 14-07-2016. Ex.B11 is New pattadar pass book. Ex.B12 is
Meeseva 1(B) namuna dated: 11-07-2016. Ex.B13 is Meeseva pahani
dated 14-07-2016 for the fasli 1425. Ex.B14 is Meeseva pahani dated
14-07-2016 for the fasli 1426 for the Sy.No.584/Ka/2. Ex.B15 is Meeseva 1(B) Namuna, dated 23-02-2017 for Sy.No.584/K3, 583/G4. Ex.B16 is
Meeseva pahani, dated 14-07-2016 for the fasli 1425 for the
Sy.No.584/Ka/3. Ex.B17 is Meeseva pahani, dated: 14-07-2016 for the fasli 1426 for the Sy.No.584/Ka/3. Ex.B18 is Meeseva 1(B) namuna,
dated 23-02-2017 for Sy.No.584/K4, 583/G1. Ex.B19 is Meeseva pahani
for the fasli 1425, dated 14-07-2016 for the Sy.No.584/K4. EX.B20 is
Meeseva pahani for the fasli 1426, dated: 14-07-2016 for the
Sy.No.584/K4. Ex.B21 is Original pattadar passbook of Md.Osman.
Ex.B22 is Original pattadar passbook of Md.Usain. Ex.B23 is Original pattadar passbook of Md.Nabi Sab. In cross examination Dw.1 admitted that the panchanama was conducted for entire extent of land with an extent of Ac.11-08 guntas in Sy.No.584, but not for the extent possessed by the individual pattadars. Dw.1 admitted that in between his land and plaintiff land i.e., suit schedule property the land in Sy.No.584/Kha and
Sy.No.584/Ga is present. The evidence of Dw.2 is eschewed.
18. The adjacent land owner of defendants is examined as Dw.3 who deposed that plaintiff is not having any land with the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint and defendants are in possession and enjoyment
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 14 dt: 04-05-2026
over the land within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff is in possession at different place and with intention to occupy the land of defendants mentioned false boundaries. In cross examination
Dw.3 pleaded ignorance about Vallur Sab, defendant No.1 and his family affairs. Dw.3 admitted that he is having land in Sy.No.584 which he purchased by Vallur Shali Miah and denied that plaintiff is cultivating the suit schedule property.
19. The adjacent land owner is examined as Dw.4 who also deposed in the lines of Dw.3 that plaintiff is not having any land within the boundaries as mentioned in her plaint schedule and defendants are in possession and enjoying the land within the boundaries of plaint schedule. The plaintiff is in possession at different place and with intention to occupy the land of defendants she filed the present suit by mentioning wrong boundaries. In cross examination Dw.4 admitted that he is not having any land in Sy.No.584 and not having any cordial relationship with defendants and pleaded ignorance about filing of criminal case by defendant No.1 against Osman, husband of plaintiff.
20. In the instant case, it is undisputed fact that plaintiff inherited the property with an extent of Ac.2-32 guntas from her mother Hussainamma in which she sold Ac.1-00 of land to Nagaraju thus she was left over with
Ac.1-32 gutnas i.e., suit schedule property. It is also admitted fact that plaintiff initially filed suit for an extent of Ac.2-32 guntas in Sy.No.584/Gha
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 15 dt: 04-05-2026
and later amended the plaint by amending the suit schedule property as
Ac.1-32 guntas in Sy.No.584/Gha, however in both the properties the boundaries are same, to which no clarity was given by plaintiff.
Defendants are not disputing the title of the plaintiff however their contention is that the land of plaintiff is towards the Northern side of their land and plaintiff is not in possession over the suit schedule property within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. Though plaintiff filed Ex.A1 to A15, A18 to A21 those are pahanies and RORs does not establish the boundaries. Thus, it is for the plaintiff to establish her case that she is in possession over the suit schedule property within the boundaries to claim the relief of perpetual injunction. Though the plaintiff filed Ex.A16, even the boundaries in the sketch are not in accordance to the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. One more thing is that the
Government acquired Ac.0-10 cents of land of plaintiff for Jawaharlal
Nehru Lift Irrigation Project cannel and paid compensation which is evident from Ex.A17, however there is no evidence on record which side of the plaintiff land was acquired and all the revenue records reveal that plaintiff is in possession over the land in Sy.No.584/Gha with an extent of
Ac.1-32 guntas prior to acquisition of land by Land Acquisition Officer and even after acquisition of land by Land Acquisition Officer, to which no explanation offered by plaintiff to substantiate her case which draws an adverse inference against the plaintiff. The own admission of Pw.2 in his
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 16 dt: 04-05-2026
cross examination about non filing of survey report and the sketch map demarcating 10 cents acquired by Land Acquisition Officer that too prepared by the Village Revenue Officer who has not conducted the survey lends support to the version of defendants. Though Pw.3 and
Pw.4 in their evidence deposed that plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property however it is for the plaintiff to establish that she is in possession over the suit schedule property within the boundaries of plaint schedule inspite of acquisition of Ac.0-10 cents of land by Land
Acquisition Officer which was not discharged by plaintiff. Though the village Patwari was examined as Pw.5 no weight can be given to his evidence since he pleaded ignorance about the crucial fact that who are at present in possession over the land in Sy.No.584. Though Dw.1, Dw.3 and Dw.4 were cross examined at length nothing elicited in favour of plaintiff. The admission of Dw.1 in his cross examination that survey was conducted for the land in Sy.No.584 with an extent of Ac.11-08 guntas i.e., entire extent by fixing the boundaries but not for the individual pattadars which lends support to the case of defendants.
21. It is well settled that a suit for injunction is an equitable remedy and the primary requirement for the grant of an equitable remedy is that the person who claims the remedy must come before the court with clean hands. From the material on record it is well established that the plaintiff has suppressed the fact of relationship with defendants. Suppression of
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 17 dt: 04-05-2026
facts by the plaintiff before the court is nothing but unfair. She must show equity and she must show her entitlement of possession over schedule property within the boundaries under the equity of relief she has sought.
Fairness and good faith are the two important things required for obtaining any equitable relief, thus in view of suppression of facts it can be concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of injunction.
22. Thus in view of admissions of Pw.2 during cross examination that he has not got conducted survey demarcating plaintiff and defendants land and no survey report was filed, further the Village Revenue Officer who filed the sketch map under Ex.A16 has not conducted the survey and that he has not filed the sketch map demarcating the 0-10 cents of land acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer is sufficient to say that plaintiff failed to discharge her burden of proof beyond preponderance of probabilities that she is in the possession over the suit schedule property as per the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule as on the date of filing of suit. When defendants disputed the boundaries mentioned in the plaint, that plaintiff is not in the possession of suit schedule property as mentioned in the plaint to which the plaintiff has not taken any steps to disprove the same. When boundaries are not established and when there is dispute with regard to identity of land, injunction cannot be granted since boundaries prevail over the extent and survey number.
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 18 dt: 04-05-2026
23. In any suit, the suit schedule property is to be identified within the boundaries so as to enable the executing court to grant effective relief without any further enquiry. Thus it can be concluded that a decree which is incapable of execution cannot be passed. Thus it is for the plaintiff to establish that suit schedule property is within the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint. Thus the very identity of the property in which the possession is claimed is not established, the question of possession academic and the person cannot be in possession of an unidentified property. The burden U/s 104 of Bharathiya Sakshya Adiniyam is on the plaintiff which she failed to discharge, hence the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. Hence, the issue is answered against the plaintiff.
24. ISSUE NO.2:
In view of findings on issue No.1, this court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for. Hence the issue is answered accordingly.
25. IN THE RESULT,
The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the
4th day of May, 2026.
Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 19 dt: 04-05-2026
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.
(Witnesses Examined)
For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-
PW.1 Alli Bee (Eschewed). DW.1 Shali Sab.
PW.2 MD.Osman. DW.2 Appapally Venkatramulu.
PW.3 Somasunder. (Eschewed).
PW.4 R.Nagaraju. DW.3 Shankaranna.
PW.5 K.Raghavender Rao. DW.4 Rylampadu Venkatramulu.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Plaintiff:-
Ex.A1 is CC of Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55. Ex.A2 is CC of Pahani for the year 1973-74. Ex.A3 is CC of Pahani for the year 1985-86. Ex.A4 is CC of Pahani for the year 1995-96. Ex.A5 is CC of Pahani for the year 2001-02. Ex.A6 is ROR proceedings, dt: 05-06-2003. Ex.A7 is CC of Pahani for the year 2009-10. Ex.A8 is Meeseva Pahani for the year 2011-12. Ex.A9 is Meeseva Pahani for the year 2012-13. Ex.A10 is Meeseva Pahani for the year 2013-14. Ex.A11 is Meeseva Pahani for the year 2014-15. Ex.A12 is Meeseva Pahani for the year 2015-16. Ex.A13 is Meeseva Pahani for the year 2016-17. Ex.A14 is CC of old ROR, dt: 05-08-2014. Ex.A15 is Pass book issued by Tahasildar, Maldakal. Ex.A16 is Sketch prepared by VRO attested by Tahasildar,
dt:21-09-2015.
Ex.A17 is certificate issued by LAO/SDC/JLIP, Gadwal, dt: 29-01-2016. Ex.A18 is CC of 1-B Namuna (ROR), dt:13-04-2019. Ex.A19 is CC of Pahani for the year 2017, dt:17-04-2019. Ex.A20 is Pahani for the year 2015-16. Ex.A21 is Pahani for the year 2020-21.
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.
O.S.No.47 of 2024 20 dt: 04-05-2026
For Defendants:-
Ex.B1 is Panchanama, dated 05-07-2014. Ex.B2 is CC of ROR, dated 05-09-2014. Ex.B3 is CC of pahani for the fasli year 1423, dated 13-06-2014. Ex.B4 is CC of pahani for the fasli year 1424, dated 05-09-2014. Ex.B5 is CC of pahani for the year 2014-15. Ex.B6 is Old pattadar pass book. Ex.B7 is Original endorsement of Tahsildar, Maldakal. Ex.B8 is CC of 1(B) namuna, dated 11-07-2016. Ex.B9 is Meeseva pahani copy, dated 23-02-2017. Ex.B10 is Meeseva pahani, dated 14-07-2016. Ex.B11 is New pattadar pass book. Ex.B12: Meeseva 1(B) namuna dated: 11-07-2016. Ex.B13: Meeseva pahani dated 14-07-2016 for the fasli 1425. Ex.B14: Meeseva pahani dated 14-07-2016 for the fasli 1426 for the Sy.No.584/Ka/2. Ex.B15: Meeseva 1(B) Namuna, dated 23-02-2017 for Sy.No.584/K3, 583/G4. Ex.B16: Meeseva pahani, dated 14-07-2016 for the fasli 1425 for the Sy.No.584/Ka/3. Ex.B17: Meeseva pahani, dated: 14-07-2016 for the fasli 1426 for the Sy.No.584/Ka/3. Ex.B18: Meeseva 1(B) namuna, dated 23-02-2017 for Sy.No.584/K4, 583/G1. Ex.B19: Meeseva pahani for the fasli 1425, dated 14-07-2016 for the Sy.No.584/K4. EX.B20: Meeseva pahani for the fasli 1426, dated: 14-07-2016 for the Sy.No.584/K4. Ex.B21: Original pattadar passbook of Md.Osman. Ex.B22: Original pattadar passbook of Md.Usain. Ex.B23: Original pattadar passbook of Md.Nabi Sab.
Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.
Smt.T.Lakshmi ASCJ, Gadwal.