Page 1 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARAYANPET
PRESENT : Smt Vindhya Naik,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NARAYANPET .
Friday, this the 27th day of February, 2026.
O.S. NO. 47 of 2024
(Old O.S.No. 51 of 20 17 ( Prl .JCJ, Narayanpet, Transferred)
Between:-
Kosgi Venkat Reddy s/o Late Laxmappa, aged about 65 years, occup agri R/o H.No. 2-6-71/2C Singar base locality of Narayanpet town proper Dist Mahaboobnagar
...Plaintiff
AND
1.Vinod s/o late Sudharshan aged about 40 years occup, photo grapher R/o H.No. 1-2-20/30 LIGH quarters Narayanpet Dist
2.S. Venkatesh s/o Buggappa aged, about 38 years occup, masan R/o 1-8-39 B.C Colorly locality of Narayanapet.
3.K. Narayana s/o Buggappa aged, about 50 years occup, masan R/o H.No1-8-74 B,C,Colony locality of Narayanpet
4.E.Mallappa s/o Sayappa, aged, about 45 years occup, masan R/ H.No 1-8-78 B.C Colony locality of Narayanpet.
5.Sale Jalandar S/o Hanmanthu aged, about 44 years occup, Business R/o H.No 1-48. Nidugurthi village of Utkoor, Narayanpet.
...Defendants
This suit is coming before me on 18.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Narayana, Advocate for the plaintiff, and Sri Sitha Rama Rao, Advocate for the defendants and having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:- :: JUDGMENT::
1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit schedule land.
Page 2 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024
Brief averments of the plaint:
2.The brief averments of the plaint are the land bearing Sy.No 469 dry total an extent of Ac.14.39 gts originally belongs to the father of the plaintiff namely late Laxmaiah s/o Ashappa kosgi R/o Narayanpet proper. During his life time the father of the plaintiff used to cultivate the above said land up to his death and he died. About more than 30 years back leaving behind his two sons namely Kosgi Venkat Reddy[ plaintiff herein) and Kosgi Bheem Reddy as his successors for the above said land and also his other properties. For which after death of their father, the plaintiff and his younger brother namely above said Kosgi Bheem Reddy have acquired the succession right over the said land and also other properties of their deceased father and started cultivating the said land jointly with peaceful mariner. However after death of their father immediately the plaintiff and his above said younger brother couldn't transferred R.O.R for the said land in their name. For which some years the name of the father of the plaintiff shown as pattedar even after his death also, but in possession Column the name of the plaintiff and his younger brother name continuously shown as a cultivator of the said land.
3.Further it is submitted that in the year 1990 the plaintiff and his younger brother have transferred the R.O.R for the said land in their name, thereafter through Registered sale deeds doc.nos 70/1992, an extent of Ac.3.19 gts alienated to one Ananthaiah and Ashok, reg
Page 3 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 document 1960/1990 alienated an extent of Ac.2.00 gts to Sunka
Rameshwar Reddy and Surapur Ashok and alienated an extent of Ac.3.00 gts to Kattekam Ananthaiah, Surapur Ashok through Reg sale deed
Documnt no 1959/1990 and also alienated an extent of Ac.3..00 gts, through reg sale deed doc.no. 1774/1990 to Sunka Narashima Reddy, and
Surapur Ashok an extent of Ac.2.00 gts alienated Sunka Rameshwar Redy and surapura Ashok through reg documt no 1777/1990 thus the plaintiff and his brother have alienated total an extent of total Ac.12.19 gts have alienated to above said persons. The plaintiff and his brother jointly alienated the said sale deeds after making plot alienated the same to various persons above said land towards northern side; thereafter the purchasers of the Remaining land the plaintiff and his brother partitioned and in the said oral partition the suit land an extent of Ac. 1.75 cents fallen to the share of the plaintiff, and remaining land fallen to the share of his younger brother. The plaintiff continuously cultivating the suit land with peaceful manner by raising different crop. But all of sudden the defendant made an abjection that their plots have existing in the suit land for which on 19-01-2017 the Plaintiff conducted survey over the land bearing sy.no 469 in the said survey it was clearly reveals that the defendants are not having their plot in the suit land.. The plaintiff after the survey has fixed the boundaries of the suit land with boundary stones, and the boundaries of the suit land specifically shown in plaint scheduled
Page 4 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024
Column. The plaintiff was also raised compound wall in the suit land long back which is existing in the suit land towards southern side which runes west to east direction. For clear understanding the plaintiff drown sketch map annexed it to the plaint. To prove the exact location of the suit land, filed here with photos and CDs of the suit land. The plaintiff in order to sowing the Castrol crops over the suit land recently ploughed the same with hired tractor and the same was clearly visible in CD and its photos.
4.It is submitted that on 09-06-2017 the plaintiff started for sowing the suit land for raising the said Castrol crops, but all of sudden all the defendants without having any right over the suit land for the first time came to the suit land and tried to stop for sowing the Castrol crops.
At that time the plaintiff with the help of his well wishers prevented the illegal act of the defendants. Again on 10-06-2017 all the defendants with ill motive in order to grab some western side of the suit land came to the suit land and tried to occupy some extent of western side portion of the suit land, at that time also with the help of his well wishers the plaintiff prevented the illegal act of the defendants, thereafter on the said day the plaintiff rushed to the police Narayanpet and narrated the illegal act of the defendants. At that time in the presence of the police Narayanpet the defendants given an assurance in future they will not going to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. But when the plaintiff was started to sowing the said Castrol crop in the suit land on the
Page 5 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 very next day i.e. on 11-06-2017 by gathering unsocial elements came to the suit land and without having any right and title over the same tried to stop for sowing the suit land and also tried to occupy the western side some extent of the suit land. At that time with great difficulty the plaintiff with the help of his well-wishers prevented the illegal act of the defendants. The defendants, with false allegations stated that they have purchased the plots from the vendees of the plaintiff. If really the defendants have purchased the plots from the vendees of the plaintiff the said land existing towards northern side of the suit land, but the defendants ought to have search their plots in the open place of their vendors with malafied intention even though conducting survey over the suit land taking the advantage of old age of the plaintiff intending to occupy the suit land. While leaving the suit land on the said day the defendant daily threatened that at any cost they will occupy the suit land, hence except no other remedy as per the direction of the police Narayanpet to protect his lawful possession over the suit land the plaintiff approached this court and, field the present suit. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to sue and the defendants are liable to be sued.. Hence the plaint.
Brief averments of Written Statement filed defendant:
5.Defendants denied the allegations levied against them and also denied plaint averments and contended that, they are the owners, possessors and enjoyer of open plots purchased from their vendors which
Page 6 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 are part and parcel of land suit land bearing syNo.469 situated at padrnalaya traders' colony @ Padmavathi colony palla Bujurg shivar of
Narayanpet town.
6.It is bring to the notice of this court that suit land syNo.469 consists of total extent ac. 14-39 gts, and sold the said entire extent tent by the plaintiff and his younger brother kosgi Bheemreddy in favour of prospective purchasers including vendor of these defendants through the registered sale deed documents and delivered the possession of total extent to them. At present single inch of land is not available to the plaintiff to claim either in possession and ownership over the suit land syNo.469. However taking the advantage of some fake and fabricated entries in the revenue records, it is not in dispute about the execution of registered sale deed documents as referred in the said Para out of total extent Ac.14-39gts to an extent Ac.12-19gts as averred in the said Para,
However on calculating the said extent increased to an extent Ac.13-19gts, the plaintiff and his younger brother have sold an extent Ac.1-10gts in favour of smt.Usha w/o Bheemsain Rao, Tallampally Krishnamurthy and katta suresh through registered sale deed document No.1051/1991 on 29- 6-1991 and delivered the possession of said extent to them. Further the plaintiff and his brother have sold an extent Ac.1-10gts in favour of Sri.
Venkatramulu Goud Advocate Narayanpet and laxmiakanth Paladi and
M.Srinivasulu through the registered sale deed document No.1236/1991
Page 7 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 on 7-8-1991 for valuable sale consideration and delivered the possession of said extent to them. Now the admission made by the plaintiff in the said para about the execution of said and as stated supra to an extent 12-19 gts and through the said sale deed documents an extent ac.1-10gts and an extent Ac. 1-10 gts total extent comes to Ac.14-39 gts. Once the total extent Ac.14-39gts of land in syNo.469 was sold and registered sale deed documents, the question of possession of plaintiff and his brother does not arise. When the purchasers who purchased the land in the year, 1990, 1991 and 1992, obtained permission from Municipality Narayanpet by way of approved lay-out from directory of town and country planning
Hyderabad under L.P.No.81/95 in the land syNo.468 and 469 total extent was converted into plots by showing A bit and B bit and sold all the plots as hot-cake about two decades back through the registered sale deeds documents and all the purchasers are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of said extent purchased by them including these defendants and relatives of defendants No.3 and 4. Out of said total extent Ac.14- 39gts in suit land syNo.469, as many as ten houses and one church was constructed and in the municipal area left as per said lay out plan the municipality officials are erected fencing boundary around the said area.
Now on the spot single inch of land is not available to the plaintiff.
7.It is bring to the notice of this court towards the southern side of the land syno.469 there exists a compound wall constructed by Battula
Page 8 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 savarappa two decades back around his purchased land, but the plaintiff has vexatious averments that he has constructed compound wall, the question of construction of compound wall does not arise. on 10-6-2017 tried to grab some western side area and tried marking the suit land and approached police Narayanpet and again on 11-6-2017 tried to stop sowing and prevented the same and questioned the same they alleged to have purchased plots from vendors and taking advantage of his old age intending to occupy and as per police direction he has filed the suit and injunction petition, the plaintiff or his younger brother has got any sort of right over the land they ought to have filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession challenging the alienation. The boundaries are not tallying on the spot and claiming false boundaries by the plaintiff. As on date of filing of the suit these defendant No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the plot No.135D 133.33 sq.yards as purchased by him through registered sale deed document No.4239/2009 dated 29/9/2009 from S.Ashok and S.Rameswar Reddy and came into possession and erected fencing boundary stones. So also the defendants No.2 and 5 and other sale deed document No.1332/96 dated 29-8-1996 purchased by padmamma w/o Hanmanthu R/o utkoor in syNo.468 and 469 plot
No.129/B extent Ac.132.22 and delivered the possession of same to her.
And another document No.1150/2011 on 25-4-2011 purchased by V.Vijay
R/o Narayanpet in land syNo.458 and 469 plot No.130A extent ac.133.33
Page 9 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 sq.yards and the defendant No.2 has purchased the plot syNo.468 and 469 plot no.135A extent Ac. 133.33. sq.yards from his vendor on 18-9- 2015 through sale deed document No.3602/15 and the link document
No.2302/2012 dated 30-5-2012 purchased by Badrappa s/o Nagappa R/o
Balchakkar Yadgir Dist Karnataka state. But taking the advantage of exparte status quo order dated 14-6-2017 the plaintiff with the support of land mafia has removed the boundary stones highhandedly, Illegally, unlawfully without having any right, title and possession, subsequent thereto approached SHO Narayanpet and lodged complaint about the illegal activities of plaintiff and his associates, and police have visited the spot and restrained the plaintiff from removing existing boundary stones, and after directions of police officials the plaintiff and his associates have erected the said boundary stone in the said area. Consequently he is liable to be prosecuted in the court of law to disobedience of status quo order. In order to prove the said fact I have herewith files the photographs and CD.
The plaintiff has no prima facie case and balance of convenience and irreparable injury cause to him. By suppressing all the stated supra facts they have approached this court with unclean hands to evict us from lawful possession. In fact balance of convenience is in our favour, serious injury would be caused to us if the court grants injunction order. The plaintiff has suppressed the real and genuine facts. Hence he is not entitled any relief much then the relief sought by him. The court fee paid
Page 10 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 is insufficient as the plaintiff is not entitled any such relief, he ought to have filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Therefore, there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff in order to invoke the indulgence of the court to grant the relief of perpetual Injunction.
8.That the roads covered under the said approved layout belong to the Municipality Narayanpet as such Municipality Narayanpet is not made party to the suit. The suit Municipality Narayanpet is necessary and proper party in the absence of said authority the present form of suit is not tenable. The malafide intention of the plaintiff is to occupy the said roads under the guise of suit proceedings.
9.That the documents filed by the plaintiff clear reveal that entire land syNo.469 was sold by the plaintiff and his brother, though the same was disclosed on perusal of documents, intentionally in order create fraud upon court by misrepresenting the facts wantedly suppressed the execution of registered sale deed documents in favour of smt.Usha and others and sri. Venkatramulu goud Advocate and other for wrongful gain.
Hence plaintiff is not entitled indulgence of this Hon'ble court. The boundaries of sale deed document No.1959/90 to an extent Ac.3-00gts are as follows East: Golla Lingppa west: remaining agriculture land North siddan Narsappa land and south S.Rameswar Reddy and S.Ashok land.
And boundaries of document No.1966/90 extent ac.2-00gts are as same boundaries of above said document and document No.1773/90 extac.2-00
Page 11 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 gts and document No.1774/90 extent ac.2-00gts are same except south land of savarappa and document No.70/92 extent ac.3-19gts bounded as
East and south: K,.ananthayya land and S.Ashok and West:BC Colony syNo.470 and south: sidda Narsappa land. All the said sale deed documents are executed for their family and legal necessities. And vendor of these defendants also purchased land syNo.468 through the sale deed document No.1115/91 dated 9-7/1991 boundaries to an extent Ac.4- 10gts in land syNo.468 are as follows: East Poshal Ramanna agriculture land, West; land syNo.469 Rameswar Reddy agriculture land North:
surpur Ashok agriculture land and south: Ramchander Rao agriculture land. On perusal of all the said documents the boundaries mentioned by the plaintiff are created for the purpose of the case and no such boundaries are existing on the spot. As such no relief is entitled by the plaintiff.
10.It is submitted that the said wrong and illegal entries stands in the name of the plaintiff in the ROR, pahanies and pass book do not create any right in his favour, nor extinguish the existing right, title and possession of vendor of these defendants. If any rights intend to claim by the plaintiff he has approach the civil court for seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession, bot so far no such step has been taken by him till date and simply claiming injunction without he being in possession over the suit land. Consequent thereto he is not entitled any equitable
Page 12 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 relief much less injunction order as he has approached this court with unclean hands suppressing that he is not in physical possession of suit land. Hence present form of suit is not tenable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the then presiding officer.
1. Whether the plaintiff is in actual, physical possession of the suit land as on the date of suit ?
2. whether the suit filed by plaintiff is maintainable for
the relied of perpetual injunction ?
3. whether the suit is bad for non joinder of
municipality as party to the suit?
4. whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for ?
5. To what relief ?
12.On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.6 are examined, the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 was eschewed as they did not subject themselves to cross-examination despite sufficient opportunities and Exs.A.1 to A.24 are marked and on behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 to D.W.3 are examined and Ex.B.1 to B.9 are marked.
13.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiffs and defendants.
14.Before proceeding with the case discussions, it is appropriate to mention that the present suit was initially filed before Prl.Junior Civil
Judge at Narayanpet, where the presiding officer of that court had framed
Page 13 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 the issues and was at the stage of further plaintiff evidence and when the matter posted for defendant evidence the case was then transferred from the court of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet to this court, as per the orders of Hon’ble High Court for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad vide letter ROC No.7059/OP CELL/2024, Dt:24.10.2024 and also as per the directions of Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Narayanpet vide proceeding dis No.3080 of 2024 dt:25.10.2024.
Point:
15.It is the case of the plaintiff that the land extent Ac.14-39 gts in sy.no.469 at Pallbuzrug shivar originally belong to father of plaintiff namely late Laxmaiah s/o Ashappa. During his life time he cultivated the suit land. After his demise i.e., about more than 30 years back his two sons namely Kosgi Venkat Reddy and Kosgi Bheem Reddy succeeded the said land and started cultivating jointly. Subsequent to the death of their father they could not transfer the revenue records in their name and thus the name of father of the plaintiff was being reflected as pattedar even after his death. That in the year 1990 plaintiff and his younger brother’s name got reflected in the revenue records. Thereafter major portion of the property was alienated by them in different names. Land extent Ac.3-19 gts was alienated to one Ananthaiah and Ashok vide reg.sale deed doc.No.70/1992. Land extent 2 acres was alienated to Sunka Rameshwar
Reddy and Surapur Ashok vide reg.doc.No.1960/1990. Land extent Ac.3
Page 14 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 was alienated to Katekam Ananthaiah and Surapur Ashok vide reg.doc.No.1959/1990. Land extent Ac.3 was alienated to Sunka
Narshimha Reddy and Surapur Ashok vide reg.doc.No.1774/1990. Land extent Ac.2 was alienated to Sunka Rameshwar Reddy and Surapur Ashok vide reg.doc.No.1773/1990. Thus plaintiff and his brother jointly alienated total land extent Ac.12-19 gts. The purchasers of the said lands made them in plots and further alienated to various persons. In the remaining land the plaintiff and his brother said to have orally partitioned the suit land and an extent of Ac.1-75 cents fallen to the share of plaintiff and the remaining land fallen to the share of his younger brother. That the plaintiff is continuously cultivating his land peacefully but on 17.01.2017 the defendants objected stating that their plots are existing in the suit land.
Plaintiff said to have conducted survey, during which boundaries of the suit land with boundary stones were fixed over the land sy.no.469. The plaintiff also raised compound wall towards the south side which runs from west to east direction. While the plaintiffs were working in their fields the defendants interfered on 09.06.2017, 10.06.2017 and again on 11.06.2017 with ill motive to grab western side of the suit land by stating that the subject matter i.e., plots are purchased by them from plaintiff’s vendees. It is further submitted that if really the defendants have purchased the plots from the plaintiff’s vendees then the defendant ought to have searched their plots towards the northern side of the suit land
Page 15 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 where such land exists but with malafide intention defendants are interfering.
16.On the other hand defendants denied all the allegations levied upon them and contended that they are the owner and possessor of open plots purchased by them from their vendors which are part and parcel of suit land bearing sy.no.469. It is pleaded that originally the suit land in sy.no.469 consists of extent Ac.14-39 gts and the entire extent was sold by plaintiff and his younger brother in favour of prospective purchasers including vendor of these defendants through reg.sale deed and plaintiffs are not left with any inch of land to claim their possession and owner ship in land sy.no.469 but by taking advantage of fabricated entries in revenue records the present suit is filed by them. Defendants do not dispute the alienation done under reg.sale deed as refered by plaintiff in thier pleadings in para No.3 for total extent Ac.12-19 gts out of Ac.14-39 gts but contended that on calculating the said extent that was alienated it comes to extent Ac.13-19 gts and not Ac.12-19 gts. It is further submitted that apart from alienating the said lands plaintiff and his younger brother have sold an extent of Ac.1-10 gts in favour of Smt Usha w/o Bheemsen Rao under reg.sale deed doc.No.1051/1991 on 29.06.1991 and delivered the possession further they also sold extent Ac.1-10 gts in favour of Sri Venkat
Ramulu goud, Advocate and Laxmaiah kanth Palladi and M.Srinivasulu through reg.sale deed doc.No.1236/1991 on 07.08.1991 and delivered the
Page 16 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 possession. That the above said two documents were intentionally supressed by plaintiff only to occupy their plots. Thus after selling of the entire extent of Ac.14-39 gts the question of plaintiff being in possession over the suit property does not arise. The purchasers who purchased the lands in the year 1990, 1991 and 1992 had obtained permission from
Municipality, Narayanpet by way of approved layout from directory of town and country planning, Hyderabad under LP No.81/95 in land sy.no.468 and 469, total extent was converted into plots by showing A bit and B bit which were all sold about 2 decades back and the purchasers are in peaceful possession including the defendants and relative of D.3 and D.4.
That towards the southern side of the land in sy.no.469 there exists a compound wall constrcuted by Batula Savarappa about 2 decades back around his purchased land and plaintiff vexaciously pleaded that he constructed the compound wall. The plaintiff ought to have filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession challenging the alienation.
That no such land as claimed by plaintiff is in existence, false boundary is pleaded there is no agricultural land on the spot. It is further submitted that D.1 is in possession over plot No.135/D to extent 133.33 sq.yards having purchased by him under reg.sale deed doc.No.4239/2009
dt:29.09.2009 from S.Ashok and S.Rameshwar Reddy. So also D.2 and
D.5 purchased plot No.129/B in sy.no.468 and 469 extent 132.22 sq.yards vide reg.sale deed doc.No.1332/96 from Padmamma w/o
Page 17 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024
Hanmanthu. V.Vijay purchased land in sy.no.458 and 469 plot No.130/A extent 133.33 sq.yrds vide reg.sale deed doc.No.1150/2011 dt:25.04.2011.
D.2 purchased plot No.135/A extent 133.33 sq.yards in sy.no.468 and 469 vide reg.sale deed doc.No.3602/2015 and link document
No.2302/2012 purchased by Bhadrappa s/o Nagappa. That the road covered under the approved layout belongs to municipality Narayanpet who are necessary and proper party and are not made as party to the suit.
17.Since the question of maintainability goes to the root of the matter and is a preliminary issue affecting the very jurisdiction of the
Court to grant relief, this Court proposes to take up and decide Issue No.2 first.
Issue No.2 whether the suit filed by plaintiff is maintainable for the
relied of perpetual injunction ?
In the present case, the defendants have not confined their defence to a mere denial of interference. On the contrary, they have specifically pleaded that the entire extent of Ac.14-39 gts in Sy.No.469 was alienated by the plaintiff and his younger brother under various registered sale deeds and that no land remained with the plaintiff. In support of their contention, the defendants relied upon Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 to show further alienations of
Ac.1-10 gts each in favour of third parties. They have also relied upon subsequent registered sale deeds, namely Ex.B4 to Ex.B7 under which they claim to have purchased specific plot numbers formed in Sy.Nos.468
Page 18 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 and 469. Under Ex.B4, Defendant No.1 claims purchase of Plot No.135/D from S. Ashok and S. Rameshwar Reddy. Under Ex.B5, Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.5 claim purchase of Plot No.129/B. Under Ex.B6 and
Ex.B7, further plots are claimed to have been purchased through registered sale deeds.
18.By producing and relying upon these registered sale deeds, the defendants have asserted independent title and possession over the plots and have categorically contended that the plaintiff has no subsisting right, title or possession in the suit land. They have even disputed the very existence of any remaining agricultural land as claimed by the plaintiff.
19.Thus, the defence is not limited to denial of possession but amounts to setting up a rival title supported by registered documents.
Such a plea, if raised and supported by documentary evidence, casts a serious cloud over the plaintiff’s alleged title. In such circumstances, the appropriate remedy would be to seek declaration of title and consequential relief, and a mere suit for perpetual injunction is not sufficient to resolve the controversy.
20.Hence, in view of the above discussion, the decision relied by plaintiff counsel of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Yamparala
Venkateshwarlu v. Shaik Khatunbi and another reported in 1998 (5) ALT 602 does not render any assistance to the plaintiff in support of his case as in that case, the honorable high Court observed that if possession is
Page 19 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 established and title is not seriously under cloud, a bare injunction suit can be entertained. But in the present case the defendants have set up a complete rival title and pleaded that the entire property was already alienated, supported by registered documents, thus the facts and circumstances are different from that case. Hence, that decision is not assisting the plaintiff. Similarly the other case laws which plaintiff counsel relied upon of Hon’ble High court i.e., 1.) Seera Simhachalam and another vs. Pediredla Simhachalam and others reported in 2000 (2) ALT 479, 2.)P.Buchi Reddy and others vs. Ananthula Sudhakar reported in 1999 (2)
ALT 192, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in KM.Krishna Reddy vs. Vinod
Reddy and another reported in 2024 (1) ALD 54 (SC) is also not in plaintiff’s support as defendant has set up a rival title basing on registered document, as such the fact and circumstances are completely different.
Accordingly issue No.2 is answered against plaintiffs.
Issue No.1 Whether the plaintiff is in actual, physical possession of
the suit land as on the date of suit ?
As per the case of the plaintiff, he continues to be in possession of the suit schedule property in Sy.No.469 and the defendants are attempting to encroach upon the same. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that they have been in lawful possession of their respective plots for several years and that no agricultural land exists on the ground as claimed by the plaintiff.
Page 20 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024
21.The facts which are not in dispute are that the land in
Sy.No.469 originally belonged to the plaintiff’s father and the plaintiff and his brother have alienated substantial portions of the said land I.e
Ac.12.19 gts under registered sale deeds and that the purchasers have formed layouts and further sold plots in Sy.No.469. The facts in dispute is that the plaintiff asserts that an extent of Ac.1-75 gts remained with him after the alienations and that he being in possession of the said extent and cultivating the suit schedule property.
22.The present suit is one for grant of perpetual injunction. When a plaintiff approaches the Court seeking such discretionary relief, the burden squarely lies upon him to establish that he was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. It is a settled principle of law that a party seeking injunction must approach the Court with clean hands and without suppressing any material facts. It is equally well settled that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot derive any benefit from the alleged weaknesses, if any, in the defence set up by the defendants.
23.Though the defendants have set out elaborate pleadings tracing their title through several registered sale deeds and layout approvals, this
Court is of the considered view that such an exercise is beyond the scope of the present suit. The suit being one for perpetual injunction simpliciter,
Page 21 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 the primary burden lies upon the plaintiff to establish his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the alleged interference by the defendants. The Court is not called upon to locate individual plots or adjudicate rival title claims in detail.
24.Having said that, it is to be noted that the defendants do not dispute the alienations pleaded by the plaintiff to the extent of Ac.12-19 gts though they contend that the correct calculation comes to Ac.13-19 gts. It is also their specific plea that the lands so alienated were converted into plots and sold to various purchasers.
25.From the material on record, S. Ashok and S. Rameshwar
Reddy are the vendors in Ex.B4 that correspond to the purchasers under
Ex.A21 and Ex.A24. Therefore, there exists a prima facie link between the alienations admitted by the plaintiff and the subsequent transaction covered under Ex.B4.
26.However, insofar as Ex.B5 to Ex.B7 are concerned, though they relate to plots said to have been formed in Sy.Nos.468 and 469, no independent link documents have been placed on record to trace the chain of title from the original purchasers under Ex.A20 to Ex.A24 to the vendors under Ex.B5 to Ex.B7. In the absence of such complete title chain, the linkage must be independently established.
27.Be that as it may, the admitted alienations to the extent of
Ac.12-19 gts are not the present subject matter of dispute. The documents
Page 22 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 marked as Ex.B4 to Ex.B7 pertain to plots formed within the extent admittedly alienated by the plaintiff and his brother. Therefore, prima facie, the plaintiff is not disputing the alienations to that extent.
28.However, the real dispute arises not merely on paper transactions but on the ground. According to the plaintiff, even after the admitted alienations, a portion of land remained with him, and the defendants are unlawfully interfering with his possession over the western side of the suit land. On the other hand, the defendants contend that they are in possession of their respective plots formed in the layout and that it is the plaintiff who is attempting to interfere with their possession.
29.Thus, though the documentary alienations are not seriously disputed as such, the controversy is essentially with regard to identification of the land on ground, physical possession, and whether any extent remained with the plaintiff after the admitted sales. Therefore, the dispute is essentially one relating to actual location and possession on the spot rather than the mere existence of registered sale deeds.
30.In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as
PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A24. PW.2 Sri R. Satyanarayana was examined at the instance of the plaintiff; however, his evidence was eschewed as he did not subject himself to cross-examination despite sufficient opportunities. The evidence of PW.3 Sri Meeran Chand was also eschewed for the same reason. G. Sudhakar was examined as PW.4, the
Page 23 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 plaintiff’s brother Kosgi Bheem Reddy was examined as PW.5, and Bandi
Mala Reddy was examined as PW.6. PWs.4 and 6 are admittedly known to the plaintiff.
31.The chief affidavit of PW.1 is a reiteration of the plaint averments. Exs.A1 to A5 relate to the entire extent of Ac.14-39 gts in
Sy.No.469, which originally stood in the name of the plaintiff’s father and is not in dispute. Exs.A6 and A7 are pahanies for the years 2004-05 and 2009-10 standing in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A8 is 1-B Namuna,
Ex.A9 is the old pattadar passbook, Exs.A10 to A16 are Mee-Seva pahanies for the years 2010 to 2016, and Ex.A17 is 1-B ROR, all reflecting the plaintiff’s name. These documents show revenue entries in favour of the plaintiff.
32.However, the defendants contend that the revenue entries continued in the plaintiff’s name despite alienation of the land and that the plaintiff is taking advantage of such entries. To establish his physical possession and identification on the ground, the plaintiff mainly relied upon Ex.A18 – a panchanama dated 19.01.2017 along with a touch map – and Ex.A19 – photographs with CD. On perusal, Ex.A18 relates to the entire extent of Ac.14-39 gts in Sy.No.469 and not specifically to the suit schedule extent. Therefore, it does not conclusively establish the physical location of the specific suit property. The photographs under Ex.A19 show
Page 24 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 boundary stones and cultivated land however, they do not clearly establish that the same pertain exclusively to the suit schedule property.
33.During cross-examination, PW.1 stated that out of the total extent, 13 acres were sold to purchasers, which contradicts the pleading that only Ac.12-19 gts were alienated. If the version of PW.1 is accepted, only one acre would remain and not Ac.1-75 gts as claimed. This inconsistency creates serious doubt regarding the extent allegedly retained by the plaintiff.
34.Even the defendants have taken inconsistent stands regarding the extent of land allegedly sold by the plaintiff. As per the written statement, the defendants do not dispute the alienations referred to by the plaintiff in para No.3 of the plaint to the extent of Ac.12-19 gts out of
Ac.14-39 gts in Sy.No.469. However, they contend that on proper calculation, the total extent alienated under those very sale deeds comes to Ac.13-19 gts and not Ac.12-19 gts as pleaded by the plaintiff.
35.Further, the defendants specifically plead that apart from the above alienations, the plaintiff and his younger brother sold an extent of
Ac.1-10 gts in favour of Smt. Usha w/o Bheemsen Rao under registered sale deed Doc.No.1051/1991 dated 29.06.1991 marked as Ex.B1 and another extent of Ac.1-10 gts in favour of Sri Venkat Ramulu Goud,
Advocate, Laxmaiah Kanth Palladi and M. Srinivasulu under registered
Page 25 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 sale deed Doc.No.1236/1991 dated 07.08.1991 marked as Ex.B2, and delivered possession thereunder. On that basis, they contend that the entire extent of Ac.14-39 gts stood alienated and that no land remained with the plaintiff.
36.The inconsistency in the defendants’ plea is that, on one side, they accept the sale deeds mentioned by the plaintiff. They only say that the plaintiff has wrongly calculated the total extent. According to them, the total comes to Ac.13-19 gts and not Ac.12-19 gts as stated in the plaint. In fact, if the extents mentioned by the plaintiff are properly added, they do come to Ac.13-19 gts. Therefore, the plaintiff has made a mistake in calculation.
37.On the other side, the defendants rely on two more sale deeds under Exs.B1 and B2 (each for Ac.1-10 gts) and argue that if those are also included, the entire Ac.14-39 gts was sold and nothing remained. So, the plaintiff is wrong in calculating the extent sold, and the defendants, while accepting the plaintiff’s sale deeds, are trying to show that the entire land was sold by adding two more transactions. Such mutually inconsistent calculations regarding the extent sold create ambiguity in the defendants’ own stand as to how and to what extent the entire land stood alienated. Thus, the defendants are taking mutually inconsistent positions, approbating and re-probating at the same time, which is impermissible in law.
Page 26 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024
38.However, except marking the documents, the defendants did not examine either Smt Usha w/o Bheemsen Rao purchaser in Ex.B1 or
Sri Venkat Ramulu goud, Advocate and Laxmaiah kanth Palladi and
M.Srinivasulu who are purchasers in Ex.B2 to substantiate their plea that the said extents were actually sold and delivered to them. In the absence of such supporting evidence, the mere production of the sale deeds, which even do not go to disclose any boundaries, is not sufficient to conclusively establish total divestment as pleaded by the defendants.
39.PW.5, the plaintiff’s brother, expressed ignorance about
Exs.A20, A21, A23 and A24. PW.6 also expressed ignorance regarding sale of the entire land and did not specifically deny the suggestion that the entire extent was sold. Nothing material could be elicited in the cross- examination of DW.1 affecting the core issue. Much of the cross- examination of DW.1 pertains to defendants’ documents I.e in respect to
Ex.B1 to B7. This point is already discussed earlier that the real controversy is essentially with regard to identification of the land on ground, physical possession and not about documentary alienations as such.
40.On going through the entire material placed on record and on appreciation of the evidence adduced by both sides, particularly by the plaintiff, this Court does not find the evidence sufficient to establish that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as pleaded. Mere
Page 27 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 reflection of the plaintiff’s name in the revenue records, by itself, is not sufficient to prove actual physical possession of the suit schedule property. As already discussed, the defendants have specifically contended that the plaintiff has taken advantage of the revenue entries standing in his name and has filed the present suit with false allegations.
41.In a suit for perpetual injunction, the primary burden lies upon the plaintiff to establish his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case, and cannot depend on the alleged weaknesses in the defence unless the plaintiff first discharges his burden.
42.In the present case, though the revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiff, he has failed to satisfactorily establish the precise identification and physical possession of the suit schedule property on the ground. In the absence of clear proof of possession, this Court cannot grant the discretionary relief of perpetual injunction. Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. Hence Issue No.1 is answered against against plainitffs.
Issue No.3 whether the suit is bad for non joinder of municipality as
party to the suit?
43.The defendants contended that the Municipality,
Narayanpet is a necessary party since the land was converted into
Page 28 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024 plots under an approved layout. However, the present suit is one for perpetual injunction between private parties. No relief is sought against the Municipality. Therefore, no effective decree is required to be passed against the Municipality. In such circumstances, the
Municipality is not a necessary party, and the suit is not bad for non- joinder. Accordingly issue No.3 is answered in favour of plaintiff.
Issue No.4 whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual
injunction as prayed for ?
Since the plaintiff has not proved his possession over the suit schedule property and in view of the serious dispute regarding title and identity of the land, he is not entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction. According issue No.4 is answered against plaintiff.
Issue No.5 To what relief ?
44.In the result suit is dismissed without cost.
(Typed to my dictation to my Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of February, 2026. )
SENOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NARAYANAPET
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(WITNESSES EXAMINED)
FOR THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE DEFENDANTs P.W.1 Kosgi Venkat Reddy D.W.1 Vinod P.W.2 R.Satyanarayana (eschewed) D.W.2 Srigiri Venkatesh P.W.3 Meeram Chand (eschewed) D.W.3 Surapur Ashok P.W.4 G.Sudhakar P.W.5 Kosgi Bheem Reddy
Page 29 of 29 O.S.No.47 of 2024
P.W.6 Bandi Malla Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the plaintiff: Ex.Al is the CC of Pahani for the year 1961-62. Ex.A2 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1967-68 Ex.A3 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1972-73. Ex.A4 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1978-79 Ex.A5 is the CC of Pahani for the year 1989-90 Ex.A6 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex.A7 is the CC of Pahani for the year 2009-2010 Ex.A8 is the 1-B Namoona (ROR), Ex.A9 is the old pattedar pass book Ex.A10 is the Mee-seva pahani for the year 2010: Ex.All is the Mee-seva pahani for the year 2011 Ex.A12 is the Mee-seva pahani for the year 2012 Ex.A13 is the Mee-seva pahani for the year 2013 Ex.A14 is the Mee-seva pahani for the year 2014 Ex.A15 is the Mee-seva pahani for the year 2015 Ex.A16 is the Mee-seva pahani for the year 2016 Ex.A17 is the ROR (Mee-seva). Ex.A18 is the Panchanama Dt:19-01-2017 leng with tounch map Ex.A19 is the 5 photographs along with CU Ex.A20 is the CC of Reg sale deed vide Doc. No. 70/1992, Dt:24-06-2016. Ex.A21 is the CC of Reg sale deed vide Doc.No.1960/1990, Dt:24-06-2016. Ex.A22 is the CC of Reg sale deed vide Doc. No. 1959/1990, Dt:24-06-2016. Ex.A23 is the CC of Reg sale deed vide Doc.No.1774/1990, Dt:24-06-2016. Ex.A24 is the CC of Reg sale deed vide Doc.No.1773/1990, Dt:24-06-2016. For the defendants: Ex. B1 CC of registered sale deed document No.1051/1991 dated 27-06-2017. Ex. B2 is CC of registered sale deed document No.1236/1991 dated 29-07-1991. Ex.B3 is Petition filed before Tahsildar Narayanpet under acknowledgment dated 16-05-2017. Ex. B4 is Original reg.sale deed document No.4239/2009 dated 29-09-2009. Ex. B5 is Original reg.sale deed document No.1332/1996 dated 29-08-1996. Ex. B6 is Original reg. sale deed document No.1150/2011 dated 25-04-2011. Ex. B7 is Original reg. sale deed document No.3602/2015 dated 18-09-2015. Ex. B8 is Photographs (6 photos) along with CD Ex.B.9 Original letter proceedings in file No.3732/2024 RTI dt:26.07.2024 along with true copy of the document blue print layout copy of L.P.Np.81/1995 supplied under RTI Act issued by the Deputy director of the town and country planning, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NARAYANPET.