OS.No. 692 of 20221 to 26
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT KUKATPALLY
Present :Sri V. Srinivas,
Senior Civil Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally
Dated this 21st day of April, 2025
OS. No. 692 of 2022
(Old OS. No. 941 of 2017)
Between:
Rajabhather Raveendranath, S/o: M.Rajabhather Mudaliar, Age: 69 years, Occ: Business, R/o: 87B, 5th Street, Daffodil Apartment, Bharathinagar, Old Perungalathur, Chennai- 63
... Plaintiff
And
1. Mr B.Anirudh Rao, S/o: Mohan Rao, Age: Major, Occ: Private Service, R/o: D-302, St Johnson Wood Building Apartment, Deodan, Tawarekare Road, Near Oracle Building, Chikka Adugodi, Banglore-560029.
2.Mr B.Anitheja Rao, S/o: Mohan Rao, Age: Major, Occ: Private Service, R/o: D-302, St Johnson Wood Building Apartment, Deodan, Tawarekare Road, Near Oracle Building, Chikka Adugodi, Banglore-560029.
3. P.Kumar, S/o: P.Venkaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No: 2-89/2/2, Gopannappali Thanda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 20222 to 26
4. Narsimulu, S/o: Not known, Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o: C/o: P.Kumar, R/o: H.No: 2-89/2/2, Gopannpally Thanda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District.
...Defendants
This Suit is coming on 15.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Narsimha Reddy, learned counsel for the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are ex exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
Initially the present suit filed before the Prl Senior Civil
Judge, Ranga Reddy District vide OS.No. 941/2017 subsequently the
said suit transferred to this court and renumbered as OS. No.
692/2022.
2.The plaintiff filed the suit for Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 4, their accomplices, henchmen and all persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of all that the plot No. A655, in
Sy.No. 148, admeasuring 500 Sq. Yds or 418 Sq.Mts, situated at
Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga
Reddy District bounded by East: Plot No. A 672, West: 33 feet wide road, North: Plot No. A656 and South: 33 feet wide road (herein after referred as “the suit plot”).
3.In brief the plaintiff case is that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit plot having purchased the same for valuable consideration from her vendors namely B.Tulasi Bai 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 20223 to 26
and 7 others represented by their GPA holder namely P.R.Chowdhary through registered sale deed bearing document No. 6726 of 1987
dated 01.09.1987.
4.Since then the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit plot as absolute owner, since the suit plot is the open land the plaintiff used to visit and clear the bushes on yearly basis and used to visit the suit plot in three to four months gap of intervals. The plaintiff visited the suit plot on 21.05.2017 and found some vegetable plants planted in the suit plot. On enquiry the plaintiff came to know that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 planted vegetable plants. They have requested the plaintiff to wait for two weeks to reap the vegetables. The plaintiff believed them and waited for two weeks and again visited on 04.06.2017 and found that the boundary stones of the suit plot were missing. Immediately very next day on 05.06.2017 plaintiff got re-erected boundary stones of the suit plot and fenced with barbed wire and also placed a warning board at the suit plot. The plaintiff once again visited the suit plot on 10.06.2017 and found that the entire corner stones and vertical stones along with barbed wire around the suit plot were missing. Upon enquiry with the local people, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant Nos.3 and 4 along with some hired goons have uprooted the stones and taken away in a tractor laden wagon. The plaintiff immediately complained 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 20224 to 26
to the police Gachibowli, Hyderabad. In spite of the said complaint there was no action from the police and they have advised, the dispute being civil in nature approach the civil court for appropriate remedy. The plaintiff having no other option he got re-erected the boundary stones around the suit plot and appointed a watchman to safe guard the suit plot till such time, the plaintiff approached the court for appropriate relief.
5.The plaintiff approached the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and apprised the fact that the plaintiff had purchased the suit plot for valuable consideration, but the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 claims that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of entire land in
Sy.No. 148 and the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the custodians of the said property. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 did not see the documents of the plaintiff and they have tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot. Since the plaintiff is unable to resist the illegal interference of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 therefore he filed the present suit.
6.The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their Written Statement denying allegations against the defendants. It is submitted by them that the defendant No. 1 is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac–6.00 gts., and defendant No. 2 is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac-5.09 gts., in Sy.No. 148 of
Gopanpally Village, Lingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 20225 to 26
defendant No.1 inherited the property admeasuring Ac–06.00 gts from his great Grand Mother Late Smt Madati Rukimini, W/o. Late Narsimha
Rao. The said late Rukimini had purchased the same from
M.Nagireddy admeasuring Ac–2.00 gts., Jahed Ali admeasuring Ac– 02.00 gts., and P.Narsimha admeasuring Ac–02.00 gts., through registered sale deeds vide document No. 4085/1999, dated 15.06.1999, 5207/1999, dated 04.08.1999 respectively. The said
Rukimini in turn bequeathed the said land through a will deed dated 20.12.2000 in favour of her great Grand Son who is defendant No. 1 herein. On demise of said Rukimini on 23.02.2001 the said will deed came into force and the defendant No.1 became absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac – 6.00 gts., in suit Sy.No. 148.
7.The defendant No.2 inherited the property admeasuring
Ac-5.09 gts from his Grand Father namely Late B.Bhasker Rao. The said B.Bhasker Rao had purchased the said property from B.Tulasi Bai,
W/o. Late B.Narsinga Rao, admeasuring Ac–3.09 gts., and one Gokul
Singh admeasuring Ac–02.00 gts., total Ac 5.09 gts through registered sale deeds vide document No. 4007/1999, dated 11.06.1999. The said
B.Bhasker Rao in turn bequeathed the said land admeasuring Ac- 05.09 gts., through a will deed dated 02.12.2002 in favour of his
Grand Son who is defendant No.2 herein. On Demise of said
B.Bhasker Rao on 03.12.2002 the said will deed came into force and 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 20226 to 26
the defendant No.2 became the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac–05.09 gts., in suit Sy.No. 148.
8.One Late B.Narsinga Rao was purchased the total land admeasuring Ac 11.09 gts., in suit survey No. 148 vide document No.
266/1971 dated 04.03.1971. Upon his death his wife B.Tulasi Bai got entered her name in the Revenue Records. The said B.Tulasi Bai along with her son B.Rajeshwar Rao sold the land admeasuring Ac 08.00 gts., in suit survey number to Gokul Singh, M.Nagi Reddy, Zahed Ali and P.Narsimulu through registered sale deed vide document No.
6771/1996, dated 18.05.1996. Subsequently the said Madati Rukimini and B.Bhasker Rao to their extent which they have purchased applied for mutation of their names in the Revenue records, the same was mutated by the revenue authorities and issued Pattadhar passbook and title deeds in their favour. After demise of Madati Rukimini and
B.Bhasker Rao, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed an application for sanction of mutation before the concern revenue officials who after due enquiry ordered sanction of mutation in favour of defendant
Nos.1 and 2 and issued Pattadhar Passbooks and title deeds in their names.
9.The defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and before them their predecessors in title are in continuous possession and enjoyment of their lands in Sy.No. 148 for the past 18 years. The entire property is fenced with barbed wire and a gate. The said B.Bhasker Rao also 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 20227 to 26
purchased adjacent land Ac 0.1.5 gts. In the year 2000 in Sy.No.
155/156 for providing right of way to the above said lands. The predecessors in title had also built a farm house with 800 sq.feet plinth area, dug borewells, laid 800 feet underground pipeline for irrigating land and built one underground sump. There is also a power connection in agriculture category in the name of B.Bhasker Rao with consumer number 1310300200 issued in the year 2002. Power from this line is still using in the agriculture operations. The said agriculture lands are being used continuously for the last 18 years for raising paddy, jawar, maize, onion, vegetables etc. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the supervisor and farm worker of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 farm and they have been engaged for cultivation activities in the said lands. The land in Sy.No. 148 was not converted from agriculture land to non agriculture land at any point of time as such there is no house plot existing in the above mentioned land. Since from the beginning and till today it is agriculture land only, therefore the suit property claimed by the plaintiff does not in exist. The alleged registered sale deed is illegal and void document. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are supervising and doing the agriculture activities in their land therefore the allegations made against this defendants, that the plaintiff visited the suit property and the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 planted vegetable plants when the plaintiff visited the suit plot, contacted with the defendant Nos. 3 and 4, the defendants removed boundary stones is 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 20228 to 26
false. The plaintiff in order to file the present suit invented the false cause of action and filed the present suit. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
10.The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 not to filed their written statement within statutory period therefore they were set exparte.
11.Basing on the rival pleadings the following issues were framed for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor
of the suit schedule property ever since the date of its
registration in his name?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants 1 to 4 as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
12.During the trial, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and brought on the record ExA1 to A3 documents viz., Register sale deed bearing document No. 6726 of 1987, dated 01.09.1987,
Encumbrance certificated dated 02.03.2017 and 28.02.2017 respectively.
13.On behalf of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 the defendant
No.1 is examined as DW1 and marked Ex.B1 to B42 documents. Out of them ExB1 to B3 and B34 to B36 are similar documents i.e., sale deed bearing document No. 4085 of 1999, 5207 of 1999 and 4007 of 1999.
21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 20229 to 26
14.After closure of the evidence of both side, the learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written arguments and advanced their oral arguments. Thus heard and perused the record.
ISSUE Nos. 1 and 2 :
1. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property ever since the date of its registration in his name?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants 1 to 4 as prayed for?
15.Since issue Nos.1 and 2 are interrelated therefore they have taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetation of the facts.
16.It is the contention of the plaintiff is that he has purchased the suit schedule property through ExA1 registered sale deed bearing document No. 6726 of 1987 dated 01.09.1987 from his vendor namely B.Tulasi Bai and 7 others represented by their GPA holder namely P.R.Choudhary whoes GPA registered vide document No. 455 of 1987 and by virtue of the above said sale deed he came into possession of the suit schedule property since then he has been enjoying the suit schedule property as absolute owner and possessor but when he visited the suit schedule property on 21.05.2017 he found some vegetable plants therefore he enquired with the 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202210 to 26
defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who requested the plaintiff to wait for two weeks for removal of the plants after reaping the vegetables, the plaintiff again visited the suit schedule property on 04.06.2017 then he found missing of the boundary stones and he re erected the boundary stones and also fenced the suit schedule property with barbed wire. The plaintiff once again visited the suit schedule property on 10.06.2017 then he found missing of the boundary stones, barbed wire then he enquired with the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 then they have claimed that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the suit schedule property, therefore the plaintiff filed the present suit.
17.On the other hand it is the contention of the defendants is that the grand parents of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the entire land in Sy.No. 148 through registered sale deeds covered under ExB1 to B3 documents from original owners namely B.Tulasi
Bai. The grand parents of the defendant No. 1 and 2 executed will deed bequeathing Ac 6.00 gts of the land in favour of the defendant
No. 1 and Ac 5.09 gts of the land in favour of the defendant No.2.
After death of the grand parents of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by virtue of will deed their names were mutated in the revenue records.
It is further contention of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is that the entire land in Sy.No. 148 to the extent of Ac 11.09 gts is agriculture land, it was never converted into housing plots. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202211 to 26
were and prior to them the predecessor in title of the defendant Nos.
1 and 2 in possession of the entire land in Sy.No. 148 by cultivating the said land obtaining the electricity connection, therefore there is no question of developing the said land into plots and sold the same to the plaintiffherein. It is the further contention of the defendant Nos.
1 and 2 is that when the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property there is no question of alleged interference by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
18.It is to be noted that in a suit for perpetual injunction the plaintiff has to establish his exclusive possession over suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff in order to establish his possession over the suit schedule property he has relied upon ExA1 sale deed, except the above said documents the plaintiff not filed any documents to prove his possession over the suit schedule property. It is the contention of the plaintiff is that the ExA1 sale deed is much prior to all the documents that relied by the defendant covered under ExB1 to B42. It is further submitted that the
ExA1 sale deed of the plaintiff prevail over the documents of the defendant. Therefore his possession is established by virtue of the above said sale deed.
19.Now it is relevant to refer relevant portion of cross examination of PW1. During the cross examination of PW1 denied that the entire land in Sy.no. 148 not converted into residential layout.
21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202212 to 26
He admitted that in the suit property there was existing of vegetable crops. He further admitted that except his sale deed no other document is available with him to show that the suit property is situated in Sy.No. 148. He further admitted that there is fencing to the entire land in Sy.No. 148. He further admitted that there is existence of bore well and electricity connection. He further admitted that there is a servant room in the said land and there is agriculture operation in part of the land in sy.no. 148.
20.The answers given by PW1 during his cross examination that the entire land in Sy.No. 148 is fenced, there is a bore well and electricity connection, there is a servant room and agriculture operations in the part of the suit land which itself lend support to the case of the defendant that the defendants are in possession of the entire land in Sy.No. 148 by doing agriculture operations, which also supported by the documents filed by the defendants covered under
ExB6 to B16 pattadhar passbook and title deed, pahanies covered under ExB18 to 29 and electricity pass book covered under ExB30. It is not the case of the plaintiff is that in the suit schedule property there is agriculture operation, having obtained electricity connection for the bore well and there is a servant room in the suit schedule property. According to plaintiff the suit schedule property is part and parcel of the land in Sy.No. 148. The fact that admitted by PW1 during 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202213 to 26
his cross examination that there is agriculture operation in the entire land in Sy.No. 148, itself is showing that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Contra the defendant by filing the pattadhar pass books, the pahanies covered under (ExB18 to B29) and electricity pass book pertaining to land in Sy.No. 148 (ExB30) they have proved that they are in possession of the land in
Sy.No. 148. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for perpetual injunction. Accordingly the issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiff.
ISSUE No.3
To what relief ?
21.The plaintiff filed the suit claiming to be owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of ExA1 sale deed having purchased from his vendor namely B.Tulasi bai and 7 others represented by their GPA holders. The defendant also claiming that they have purchased the entire land in Sy.No. 148. Admittedly the alleged suit plot lying in sy.No. 148. Both the parties are claiming the suit schedule property from the same vendor. When the defendant set up his case claiming that they are the owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of their sale deeds, mutation proceedings issued by the concerned
Thasildar it can be hold that there is a cloud over the title of the 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202214 to 26
plaintiff. When there is a cloud over the title of the plaintiff the plaintiff ought to have filed suit for declaration of his title and perpetual injunction rather the suit for simplicitor for injunction.
22.In this regard the learned counsel for the defendant relied upon the decision of our Hon’ble Supreme court in T.V. Ramakrishna
Reddy Vs M.Mallappa and Ors., reported in MANU /SC /0608 /2021 it was held that; “9. The Issue is no more res integra. The position has been crystalised by this Court in the case of Anathula
Sudhakar P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.
MANU/SC/7376/2008: (2008) 4 SCC 594 in paragraph 21, which read thus:
21. To summarise, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under:
(a) Where a cloud is raised over the Plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the Plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the Plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202215 to 26
sue for an injunction simpliciter.
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar [Annaimuthu
Thevar v. Alagammal, MANU/SC/0416/2005: (2005) 6
SCC 202]). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202216 to 26
relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal Rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to the Plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.
10. It could thus be seen that this Court in unequivocal terms has held that where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, a suit for injunction could be 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202217 to 26
decided with reference to the finding on possession. It has been clearly held that if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
11. No doubt, this Court has held that where there are necessary pleadings regarding title and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. However, it has been held that such cases are the exception to the normal Rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction.
12. In this background, we will have to consider the facts of the present case.
13. The Plaintiff-Appellant claims to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of a sale-deed executed by one K.P. Govinda Reddy in his favour on 13.4.1992. In turn, according to him, the said property was sold by one
Smt. Varalakshmamma in favour of his vendor K.P.
Govinda Reddy on 26.3.1971. He claims that he had 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202218 to 26
mortgaged the suit property for taking loan from one financial institution. He further claimed that an endorsement was also issued by the Corporation of City of Bangalore that Khata regarding the suit property is transferred to the Appellant. According to the Plaintiff-
Appellant, when the Bangalore Mahanagar Palike withdrew the Khata in his favour, he went to the High
Court and succeeded therein.
14. Per contra, the Defendant No. 2 (Respondent No. 1 herein) is specifically denying the title of the Plaintiff-
Appellant. He claims to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of a sale-deed dated 5.4.1984 from one M.
Shivalingalah. He also claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same on the basis of the said sale-deed. It is his case that K.P. Govinda Reddy got the title set up falsely and created fabricated documents with regard to possession. It is also his case that compound wall was constructed by him and not by the Plaintiff, as claimed.
15. It could thus clearly be seen that this is not a case where the Plaintiff-Appellant can be said to have a clear title over the suit property or that there is no cloud on
Plaintiff-Appellant's title over the suit property. The 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202219 to 26
question involved is one which requires adjudication after the evidence is led and questions of fact and law are decided.”
23.The learned counsel for the defendant further relied upon the decision of our Hon’ble Supreme court in Kayalulla Parambath
Moidu Haji Vs Namboodiyil Vinodan reported in MANU/SC/0606/2021 it was held that; “12. It could thus be seen that this Court in unequivocal terms has held that where the Plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, a suit for injunction could be decided with reference to the finding on possession. It has been clearly held that if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
13. No doubt, this Court has held that where there are necessary pleadings regarding title and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. However, it has been held that such cases are the exception to the normal Rule that question of title 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202220 to 26
will not be decided in suits for injunction.
14. In this background, we will have to consider the facts of the present case.
15. From the perusal of the pleadings, it could be seen that it is the case of the Appellant-Plaintiff that he derives the title to the suit property on the basis of registered assignment deed No. 110 of 1977. It is the Appellant-
Plaintiff's case that he is in exclusive possession of the said property. Per contra, it is the claim of the
Respondent-Defendant that the property shown in the margin of the written statement to an extent of 52 V cents belongs to the Respondent-Defendant and that the
Appellant-Plaintiff was illegally claiming right over the said property. It is his specific case that the property is neither included in the assignment deed nor in the purchase certificate produced by the Appellant-Plaintiff. It is his further case that the said property belonged to his father Othenan by virtue of assignment from Puthiyottil
Kanaran. It is his case that the title of Puthiyottil Kanaran under Exhibit-A15 is referable to Exhibit-A14 i.e.
Document No. 2987 of 1924. It is the specific case of the
Respondent-Defendant that after the death of his father, his mother and children applied for purchase certificate 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202221 to 26
by filing Application being O.A. No. 7014 of 1976 to purchase the Jenmam right Under Section 72 of the
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. It is his case that the
Land Tribunal allowed the said application on 9th May 1977. Thereafter, the partition took place between the wife and children of Othenan in the year 1999.
16. The learned trial court in its order has observed that the survey number shown in the plaint Schedule is R.S.
28/1A and the survey number of the property claimed by the Respondent-Defendant in the margin of the written statement is R.S. 30/1. It has further observed that from the report of the Advocate Commissioner it would reveal that the correct survey number of the disputed property would be either R.S. 119/1 оr 119/2. However, the learned trial judge observed that the survey number does not have much relevance in the identification of the disputed property.
17. The learned Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal, though observed that on inspection, the
Advocate Commissioner could see some portion of a revetment in between the plots A and B which has been marked in Exhibit-C1 Plan. It goes on to observe that the said revetment cannot be treated as physical 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202222 to 26
demarcation or boundary because the Advocate
Commissioner is definite that he could not see anything to indicate that there had been such a boundary or revetment and that it was impossible to put up such a revetment throughout the length from east to west because it was a sloping rocky area wherein such a revetment cannot be put up. The learned Appellate Court further observed that when the plot A is admittedly in the possession of the Appellant-Plaintiff, the only finding possible is that the disputed plot B also is in his possession. The learned Appellate Court further observed that if the Respondent-Defendant claims title over the disputed property, then the only remedy available to him, is to recover it under the law. It goes on to observe that in the suit for injunction simpliciter, the only material issue is whether the Appellant-Plaintiff has got actual and exclusive possession over the entire plaint Schedule property including the disputed portion.
18. It could thus clearly be seen that this is not a case where the Appellant-Plaintiff can be said to have a clear title over the suit property or that there is no cloud on
Appellant-Plaintiff's title over the suit property. There is a serious dispute between the Appellant-Plaintiff and 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202223 to 26
Respondent-Defendant with regard not only to title over the suit property but also its identification, which cannot be decided unless the entire documentary as well as oral evidence is appreciated in a full-fledged trial.
19. We find that the present case would be covered by
Clause (b) of paragraph 21 of the judgment of this Court in Anathula Sudhakar (supra). We find that, in the present case, the question of de jure possession has to be established on the basis of the title over the property.
Since the said property is a vacant site, the issue of title would directly and substantially arise for consideration, inasmuch as without the finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession. As observed in
Clause (c) of paragraph 21 of the judgment cited supra, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in the suit for mere injunction. We do not find that the present case would fall in exception carved out in Clause (d) in paragraph 21 of the judgment cited supra inasmuch as the matter involved cannot be said to be simple and straightforward wherein the Court would decide upon the issue regarding title, even in the suit for injunction.” 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202224 to 26
24.In the present case on the hand also the suit schedule property is the open land. The plaintiff has to prove his dejure possession over the suit schedule property basing upon the title. The issue of title over the suit schedule property is directly and substantially arise for consideration. Without finding on the title the issue of possession cannot be decided. Therefore, the plaintiff ought to have filed suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction when there is cloud upon the title of the plaintiff. Applying the ratio in the above said decision to the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of opinion that the suit for simplicitor for injunction is not maintainable without filing the suit for declaration the title, therefore the suit of the plaintiff liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the issue is answered.
In the result, the suit is dismissed. There is no orders as to costs.
Typed to my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of April, 2025.
Senior Civil Judge
R.R.Dist. at Kukatpally
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiff:
PW-1: Sri R.Ravinder Nath
For defendant:
DW-1: Sri B.Anirudh Rao 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202225 to 26
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Plaintiff:
ExA1:Original registered sale deed document No. 6726 of 1987,
dated 01.09.1987
ExA2:Encumbrance certificate dated 02.03.2017 ExA3:Encumbrance certificate dated 28.02.2017
For Defendant:
ExB1:Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 4085 of 1999, dated 15.06.1999 ExB2:Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 5207 of 1999, dated 04.08.1999 ExB3:Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 4007 of 1999, dated 11.06.1999 ExB4:Certified copy of proceedings No. B/198/2005, dated 02.03.2006 ExB5:Certified copy of proceedings No. B/199/2005, dated 02.03.2006 ExB6:Certified copy of passbook (of Anirudh rao) ExB7:Certified copy of title deed book (of Anirudh rao) ExB8:Certified copy of passbook (of B.Anitej Rao) ExB9:Certified copy of title deed book (of B.Anitej Rao) ExB10: Certified copy of passbook (of Bhaskar Rao) ExB11: Certified copy of title deed book (of Bhaskar Rao) ExB12: Certified copy of passbook (of Rukmini Devi) ExB13: Certified copy of title deed book (of Rukmini Devi) ExB14: Certified copy of passbook of M.Nagi Reddy ExB15: Certified copy of pass book of Zahed Ali ExB16: Certified copy of passbook of P.Narsimha Rao ExB17: Certified copy of Affidavit submitted by B.Tulsi Bai before the MRO, dated 11.06.1999 ExB18: Certified copy fo pahani, 1987-88 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202226 to 26
ExB19: Certified copy fo pahani, 1988-89 ExB20: Certified copy fo pahani, 1989-90
ExB21: Certified copy fo pahani, 1993-94
ExB22: Certified copy fo pahani, 1994-95 ExB23: Certified copy fo pahani, 1995-96 ExB24: Certified copy fo pahani, 1999-2000 ExB25: Certified copy fo pahani, 2000-2001 ExB26: Certified copy fo pahani, 2003-2004 ExB27: Certified copy fo pahani, 2005-2006 ExB28: Certified copy fo pahani, 2010-2011 ExB29: Certified copy fo pahani, 2013-2014 ExB30: Certified copy of electricity passbook,2002 ExB31: Certified copy of Judgment in OS.No. 792 of 2000, dated 19.01.2009 ExB32: Certified copy of Decree in OS.No. 792 of 2000, dated 19.01.2009 ExB33: Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 6771 of 1996, dated 18.05.1996 ExB34: Original sale deed bearing document No. 4007 of 1999,
dated 11.06.1999
ExB35: Original sale deed bearing document No. 5207 of 1999,
dated 04.08.1999
ExB36: Original sale deed bearing document No. 4085 of 1999,
dated 15.06.1999
ExB37: Original sale deed bearing document No. 6771 of 1996 ExB38: Original sale deed bearing document No. 266 of 1971 ExB39: Mutation proceedings dated 07.03.2001 issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District in favour of Madati Rukmini ExB40: Mutation proceedings dated 07.03.2001 issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District in favour of Bondtha Bhasker Rao ExB41: Original death certificate of M.Rukamma @ Rukmini ExB42: Certified copy of Death Certificate in Respect of Bontha Bhasker Rao 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP
OS.No. 692 of 202227 to 26
Senior Civil Judge
R.R.Dist. At Kukatpally 21.04.2025 SCJ R.R.Dist at KKP