Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1279 (TS)

Tursam Seetha v. Gudipudi Adi Lakshmi

2025-10-24

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : J.Sreenivas Rao, J. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order, dated 10.06.2025, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam, (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate’) in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.1 of 2022, where under temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed. 2. Heard Mr. T.Vasantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dannana Tharun Kumar, learned counsel for respondent. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed by the Sub-Divisional magistrate. 4. The facts giving rise to filing of this civil revision petition, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.1 of 2022 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property i.e. house bearing No.4-124 located in 330 square yards situated at Laxmidevipalli Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 for grant of temporary injunction. 5. In the said suit, the plaintiff stated that she purchased the suit property from Kalasani Naramma w/o Venkateswarlu through sale deed, dated 27.11.2019, by paying valuable sale consideration and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendant without having any manner of right tried to interfere with the suit schedule property. Initially learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate granted ‘status quo’ in I.A. No.1 of 2022 on 15.03.2022. Thereafter, the said I.A. was allowed on 25.04.2023. Aggrieved by the above said order, the defendant had approached this Court and filed C.R.P. No.957 of 2024 and this Court while setting aside the order, dated 25.04.2023, remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration and further directed the trial Court to consider the status report if any filed by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Chathakonda and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the parties, by its order, dated 26.09.2024. Thereafter, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the I.A. No.1 of 2022 on 10.06.2025. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition. Thereafter, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the I.A. No.1 of 2022 on 10.06.2025. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 6.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff had purchased the property through sada sale deed dated 27.11.2019 from the rightful owner by paying entire sale consideration and since then she has been in possession of the same and the defendant is not having any manner of right over the suit schedule property. Even according to the averments made in the counter affidavit in I.A.No.1 of 2022, the defendant is claiming right in respect of house bearing No.4-126, whereas the plaintiff is claiming rights in respect of house bearing No.4-124. In spite of the same, the Court below without properly considering the contentions raised by the plaintiff and the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.1 of 2022 and the counter affidavit filed by the defendant, passed the impugned order. 6.2 He further submitted that the Panchayat Secretary, Laxmidevipalli Gram Panchayat furnished the information through letter dated 24.02.2025 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, wherein it is mentioned that house bearing No.4-124 stands in the name of Kalasani Venkateswarlu and house tax was paying regularly to the said house and also stated that the plaintiff has made an application to mutate her name in the Gram Panchayat records on the ground that she had purchased the property and the said application is pending. 6.3 He also submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate without giving any reasons and without marking the documents as exhibits, dismissed the application stating that the petitioner failed to establish her prima facie case and balance of convenience, though the petitioner filed various documents to prove that she has been in possession of the suit schedule property and the impugned order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is contrary to law. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the defendant obtained Form No.11 from Gram Panchayat, wherein it is mentioned that K.Venkateswarlu is having only an extent of 165 square yards. Whereas the plaintiff is claiming rights to an extent of 330 square yards basing upon the alleged sale deed. The plaintiff has not produced any iota of evidence that she has been in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Whereas the plaintiff is claiming rights to an extent of 330 square yards basing upon the alleged sale deed. The plaintiff has not produced any iota of evidence that she has been in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has rightly dismissed the application by giving cogent reasons and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Hence, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.1 of 2022 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, she had purchased the property from Kalasani Naramma w/o late Venkateswarlu on 27.11.2019 and since then she has been in possession of the same. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.1 of 2022 invoking the provisions of Rule 42(C) of the Telangana Agency Rules. In the said application, the defendant filed counter stating that she is having land admeasuring Ac.1.02 guntas in Sy.No.17 and one house bearing No.4-126. 9. The record further reveals that Panchayat Secretary, Laxmidevipalli furnished the information to the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate through letter dated 24.02.2025, wherein it is stated that House bearing No.4-124 stands in the name of Kalasani Venkateswarlu and the Gram Panchayat regularly receiving house tax, and also stated that the plaintiff has submitted application in the year 2023 for mutation of her name in the panchayat records on the ground that she had purchased the above said house property. Even according to the pleadings, plaintiff is claiming rights in respect of house bearing No.4-124 and the defendant is claiming rights over the house bearing No.4-126. The documents which are filed along with the suit reveal that Kalasani Venkateswarlu is owner of the house bearing No.4-124 and after his death, his successor namely Kalasani Naramma, who is none other than his wife, executed sale deed, dated 27.11.2019, in favour of the plaintiff. 10. The documents which are filed along with the suit reveal that Kalasani Venkateswarlu is owner of the house bearing No.4-124 and after his death, his successor namely Kalasani Naramma, who is none other than his wife, executed sale deed, dated 27.11.2019, in favour of the plaintiff. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate while dismissing the injunction application has not given any reasons much less valid reasons and that only he has stated that the tax receipts filed by the plaintiff stands in the name of Kalasani Venkateswarlu and the plaintiff has not placed any other document to show that she is having right in respect of 330 square yards. 11. It is relevant to mention that the plaintiff’s vendor has not disputing about the execution of sale deed dated 27.11.2019 in favour of the plaintiff and it is not in dispute that the plaintiff had submitted application in the year 2023 before Gram Panchayat for mutation of her name basing upon the above sale deed and the said application is pending. Unless the name of the plaintiff is mutated in the Gram Panchayat records, the Gram Panchayat will not issue tax receipts in the name of the plaintiff and it is also not in dispute that Gram Panchayat is receiving tax to the above said house. 12. The nature of relief sought by the plaintiff is a simple suit for perpetual injunction. This Court is of the considered view that, whether the plaintiff is having right to claim land admeasuring 330 square yards basing upon the sale deed dated 27.11.2019, and whether the said sale deed is admissible or not, the same has to be adjudicated during the course of trial only and the defendant is not disputing that the plaintiff vendor is owner of house bearing No.4-124. The only dispute between the parties is in respect of extent of the land abetting to the said house and the same has to be adjudicated during the course of trial only. 13. The only dispute between the parties is in respect of extent of the land abetting to the said house and the same has to be adjudicated during the course of trial only. 13. For the foregoing reasons, while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the impugned order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, dated 10.06.2025, is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside and the parties are directed to maintain ‘status quo’ in respect of the suit schedule property as on today till the disposal of the suit. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is directed to dispose of the suit i.e. O.S.No.1 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and both the parties are directed to cooperate for disposal of the suit without taking any undue adjournments. It is needless to mention that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is directed to dispose of the suit on its own merits, basing upon the evidence, which is going to be adduced by either of the parties, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. 14. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.