Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1336 (TS)

Satish Babu Dasari v. K. Gopi Prasad

2025-10-29

RENUKA YARA

body2025
ORDER : Renuka Yara, J. Heard Sri. K.V.Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.N.M.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2024 in C.M.A. No.08 of 2024 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’), wherein, the C.M.A. is filed challenging the dismissal order dated 15.03.2024 in I.A. No. 588 of 2023 in O.S. No. 480 of 2023 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally, (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction against the defendant and his agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, has been dismissed. 3. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the Trial Court in O.S. No. 480 of 2023. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 480 of 2023 for perpetual injunction with respect to the suit schedule property consisting of plot Nos.154, 155, 172 and 173, each plot admeasuring 150 sq. yards., in Block No.111, in southern part land in Survey No.78 (i.e., 78-B, as per internal division), total admeasuring 600 sq. yards, having plinth area of 100 sq. feet ACC, situated at Hafeezpet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from M/s. Cyrus Investment Limited, represented by its GPA holder namely Dr. P.S.Prasad vide GPA No.543 of 1996 represented by his SPA holder namely P.V.S. Sarma under registered sale deeds document bearing Nos.508 of 2015 and 506 of 2015 dated 31.07.2014. The land in Survey No. 78 of Hafeezpet village is subject matter of C.S. No.14 of 1958 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and in the final decree, the plaintiff’s vendor got land in Survey No.78 of Hafeezpet village and was delivered with vacant physical possession. The plaintiff raised compound wall surrounding the suit schedule property to protect it from land grabbers. The plaintiff raised compound wall surrounding the suit schedule property to protect it from land grabbers. Temporary room was constructed for the purpose of usage by watchman and also to protect the suit schedule property. Taking advantage of the plaintiff’s absence, the defendant started illegal attempts to occupy the suit schedule property and the same were time and again restrained by the watchman. When the defendant tried to occupy the suit schedule property with the help of anti-social elements on 27.11.2021, the said attempts were restrained and the suit for perpetual injunction is filed. Along with the suit, I.A. No. 588 of 2023 was filed seeking temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from causing interference with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The defendant opposed the I.A. alleging that the plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands as there are complicated litigations which are not reported and there is no information as to on what basis the possession of land in Survey No.78 of Hafeezpet was delivered to the plaintiff in final decree in C.S. No. 14 of 1958. No evidence is filed by the plaintiff to prove his possession over the suit schedule property. The defendant is paying the electricity bills for plot Nos.1508 and 1511 in Survey No.78 which were purchased by him under a notarized agreement of sale dated 22.12.2005. There was no final lay out for the land in Survey No.78. The plaintiff made attempts to occupy the plot Nos.1508 and 1511 in Survey No.78 with the help of his friends and therefore, a suit in O.S. No. 388 of 2019 is filed on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally and the same is pending. In this context, the defendant denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff. 5. Upon considering the evidence of both the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred C.M.A. before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court allowed the C.M.A. setting aside the dismissal order of the Trial Court and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred. 6. In the grounds of the revision, the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff did not establish prima face title, balance of convenience, irreparable loss and hardship for granting relief of injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred. 6. In the grounds of the revision, the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff did not establish prima face title, balance of convenience, irreparable loss and hardship for granting relief of injunction. The suit schedule property claimed by the plaintiff and the defendant are different and without proper identification, the Trial Court was not inclined to grant temporary injunction and the Appellate Court did not consider the same. There are no circumstances warranting interference with the finding of the Trial Court for granting injunction. The defendant contended that his possession is established as the plaintiff is a friend of Sanjeeva Reddy and Venkat Raju against whom he filed a suit in O.S. No. 388 of 2019 who are attesting witnesses to sale documents of the plaintiff. The defendant has been in possession of his properties from 2005 and therefore, the order of the Appellate Court is not sustainable. Lastly, it is pleaded that the Appellate Court cannot come to a conclusion solely on the basis of certified copies of the documents which do not pertain to the property claimed by the plaintiff and without going into the documentary evidence which establishes the possession of the defendant over the suit schedule property. It is pleaded that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff failed to establish his possession. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the I.A. but the Appellate Court erroneously reversed the same. 7. During the arguments, learned counsel for the defendant claimed that the defendant is in possession of the property and was carrying out construction activity and the same is evident from the affidavit filed by the plaintiff while seeking temporary injunction in I.A. No. 588 of 2023 and the Trial Court has noticed the same that there was already construction of the defendant and there was intention of further construction which was sought to be prevented by the plaintiff and therefore, has rightly dismissed the I.A. Further, it is argued that the Appellate Court has relied upon the oral argument of the plaintiff that there was a typographical error about further construction in the suit schedule property and that there is no construction but attempts to make construction and on the basis of said arguments, the C.M.A. has been allowed. It is argued that the plaintiff does not have possession, balance of convenience and there is no likelihood of irreparable loss as he is not in possession of the suit schedule property. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property having constructed a compound wall and a room for watchman in the suit schedule property. Further, when there was interference from the defendant, suit for perpetual injunction has been filed in O.S. No. 480 of 2023. The plaintiff is claiming title and ownership under registered sale deeds dated 31.07.2014, whereas, the defendant is claiming title under a notarized agreement of sale dated 22.12.2005 which has no legal validity. Further, it is argued that there was a failure to mark the documents before the Trial Court and the said error is rectified by marking the documents before the Appellate Court by filing petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. After considering the documentary evidence, since there is no documentary evidence produced on behalf of the defendant, on the basis of the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, the C.M.A. is allowed. Further, it is argued that there was a typographical mistake in the affidavit about carrying on further construction when there were attempts to make construction by the defendant and therefore, it is argued that the Appellate Court did not commit any error in granting temporary injunction and as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Court. 9. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Infra Developers Limited v. MahaveerLunia and Others , 2025 INSC 772 wherein, reference is made to the case of Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Limited v. Central Bank of India and Others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 352 and held that title and ownership of immovable property can only be conveyed by a registered sale deed. Further, in M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J.Manjula , 2025 INSC 273 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an unregistered agreement to sell does not and cannot by itself create or transfer any right, title, or interest in immovable property. Further, in M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J.Manjula , 2025 INSC 273 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an unregistered agreement to sell does not and cannot by itself create or transfer any right, title, or interest in immovable property. Further, in M.S. Ananthamurthy (Supra) reference is made to Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana , (2012) 1 SCC 656 , wherein it is held that title and ownership cannot be conveyed to power of attorney and that relevant paragraph is extracted and produced below: 47. It is settled law that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance. An agreement to sell is not a conveyance. It is not a document of title or a deed of transfer of deed of transfer of property and does not confer ownership right or title. In Suraj Lamp (Supra) this Court had reiterated that an agreement to sell does not meet the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TPA to effectuate a ‘transfer’. (verbatim reproduced) 10. The order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Trial Court indicates that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff were not exhibited but a reference is made to documents produced in proof of the title i.e., registered sale deeds dated 31.07.2014. Further, the Trial Court held that there is no proof to show that there is a room with electricity connection in the suit schedule property. Lastly, reliance is placed on the averments of the affidavit that the defendant is carrying on construction in suit schedule property and arrived at a conclusion that the defendant is not in possession of the suit schedule property and therefore, dismissed the I.A. No. 588 of 2023. When it comes to adjudication of the C.M.A., the plaintiff got marked Ex.A.1 to A.11 to prove both title as well as possession. When it comes to adjudication of the C.M.A., the plaintiff got marked Ex.A.1 to A.11 to prove both title as well as possession. The documents consists of Ex.A.1 which is the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.506 of 2015 dated 31.07.2014; Ex.A.2, the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.508 of 2015 dated 31.07.2014; Ex.A.3, the original electricity bill; Ex.A.4, online bill enquiry of electricity connection; Ex.A.5, the copy of common order passed in W.P. Nos.14881 and 14885 of 2020 wherein, a direction was given to the GHMC to grant construction permission to the plaintiff; Ex.A.6, the copy of complaint given to the Police about the interference on the part of the defendant; Ex.A.7, the copy of crime petition acknowledgment dated 30.03.2024; Ex.A.8, the GHMC fees intimation letter dated 17.12.2021; Ex.A.9, the GHMC payment receipt dated 23.12.2021; Ex.A.10, the copy of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order in SLP Nos. 15677 and 15678 of 2020 and Ex.A.11, the copy of plaint in O.S. No. 480 of 2023. These documents were held to prove the prima facie case of title and possession in favour of the plaintiff. 11. Coming to the further construction by the defendant, it is clarified that due to a mistake the words ‘further construction’ were mentioned in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the Appellate Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff has shown prima facie case of title and possession through registered sale deeds dated 31.07.2014, online bill enquiry of electricity connection, GHMC fees intimation letter dated 17.12.2021 and payment of tax to GHMC in receipts dated 23.12.2021. The plaintiff has shown the case of interference on the part of the defendant by producing Exs.A.6 and A.7 acknowledgment. On the basis of said documentary evidence and clarification given about the ‘further construction’ by the defendant, the Appellate Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property by setting aside the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Trial Court in I.A. No. 588 of 2023. 12. Having perused the record and considering the arguments, this Court sees that due to failure to mark the exhibits in proof of title and possession, the Trial Court has dismissed the I.A. When said lacuna was rectified before the Appellate Court by adducing the documentary evidence, the case of the plaintiff was strengthened. 12. Having perused the record and considering the arguments, this Court sees that due to failure to mark the exhibits in proof of title and possession, the Trial Court has dismissed the I.A. When said lacuna was rectified before the Appellate Court by adducing the documentary evidence, the case of the plaintiff was strengthened. Further, as per the own averments of the defendant, title is claimed through a notarized agreement of sale dated 22.12.2005 which has no legal validity to claim title. Even in case title is not considered, the defendant has to produce credible evidence to show his possession to deny relief to the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff through Ex.A.5, the copy of common order passed in W.P. Nos.14881 and 14885 of 2020 wherein, a direction was given to the GHMC to grant construction permission to the plaintiff; Ex.A.8, the GHMC fees intimation letter dated 17.12.2021 and Ex.A.9, the GHMC payment receipt dated 23.12.2021, has demonstrated that he was making construction by obtaining relevant sanctions. The aforementioned documents show plaintiff’s attempts at construction. While so, there is no evidence on the part of defendant to show possession or construction or even ‘further possession’. In fact, the defendant failed to mark exhibits on his behalf before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Therefore, when there is no contra evidence to rebut the claim made by the plaintiff seeking temporary injunction under Exs.A.1 to A.11, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the order passed by Appellate Court. Hence, there are no merits in the civil revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.