Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1340 (TS)

Surampalli Krishna Kumari v. Meda Bhadraiah

2025-10-29

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
ORDER : Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree passed in C.M.A.No.06 of 2017, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam, which was preferred against the orders passed in I.A.No.598 of 2015 in O.S.No.255 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Khammam, wherein the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam vide order dated 30.01.2017 in I.A.No.598 of 2015 in O.S.No.255 of 2015 allowed the petition and granting temporary injunction against respondents restraining them from causing any interference as to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Property. 2. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent/defendant filed C.M.A.No.06 of 2017 on the file of Principal District Judge, Khammam on the ground that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of Ac.0.26 guntas and defendant No.1 having land to the west of her land and pestering her to alienate Ac.0.26 guntas as she is not inclined to hear the demand, as such they were trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment and the learned Principle District Judge having gone into the merits of the case have allowed and set aside order passed by the learned Junior Civl Judge, Khammam in I.A.No.598 of 2015. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the learned trial Court as petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendant. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff purchased and extent of Ac.3.20 guntas in Sy.No.207/AA situated at Pallipadu Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District, by paying land revenue to the government, wherein the government has issued title deed and pass book. The respondents are trying to grab the land by taking advantage of the financial backdrop of the petitioner as he could not be able to resist. 5. The respondents are trying to grab the land by taking advantage of the financial backdrop of the petitioner as he could not be able to resist. 5. The respondents were trying to interfere with their peaceful possession as such the present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction and the respondents have filed counter pleadings and contended that the plaintiff sold away Ac.1-00 guntas of land from east to west in favour of Sri Golla Bhaskar Rao and Ac.1-00 guntas to Sri Kurra Murali and Ac.0.34 guntas to Sri Makineni Naga Ramesh left over land is to an extent of Ac.0.26 guntas is in exclusive possession of the petitioner which is not correct and the land that was held by the petitioner as claimed within the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed No.1375/1985 was alienated by the petitioner and there is no inch of land in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and by taking undue advantage of the entry in the pattedar pass book and title deed coupled with the entries in the pahanies now trying to make a false claim. 6. It is further contended that the respondent No.2 is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac. 6.20 guntas out of Sy. No.196/E situated at Pallipadu village and the land of the respondent No.2 is situated to the west of the land of the petitioner covered under the document bearing No.1375/85 7. It is further contended by the respondent that as the petitioner already alienated the entire extent of land covered under the document No.1375/85 in three bits which are nominally named as ABC for proper appreciation as shown in the rough sketch filed by the respondents. The first bit ‘A’ which is on the eastern side of the land of the respondent No.2 was alienated by the petitioner in favour of Sri Kurra Murali and Sri Makineni Naga Ramesh through registered sale deed No.2471/2008. he said Sri Kurra Murali and Sri Makineni Naga Ramesh had alienated the land in favour of Sri Chinthakuntla Madhu Kumar through registered sale deed 1319/2012 marked as Ex.R.4. Further the Sri Chinthakuntla Madhu Kumar alienated the land to an extent of Ac 1.34 gts in favour of one Sri Golla Murali Krishna and Sri Mohd Iqbal Pasha through registered sale deed bearing No.1083/2013 which is marked as Ex.R.5. Further the Sri Chinthakuntla Madhu Kumar alienated the land to an extent of Ac 1.34 gts in favour of one Sri Golla Murali Krishna and Sri Mohd Iqbal Pasha through registered sale deed bearing No.1083/2013 which is marked as Ex.R.5. In all the three registered documents the western side boundary was mentioned as the land of Sri Meda Narsalah who is none other than the father of the Respondent No.2. 8. It is further averred that the land marked in Ex.R.1 as 'B' bit measuring to an extent of Ac 1.00 which is to the East of bit 'A" land alienated by the petitioner in favour of Golla Bhaksar through registered sale deed 1157/2002 which is marked as Ex.P.13. The rest of the extent of land named is marked as 'C' bit which is to the further East of bit 'B land alienated by the petitioner in favour of Sri G. Anjaiah through registered sale deed dated 17-08-2002 which is marked as Ex P.12, It is evident from the eastern boundary as mentioned in the registered sale deed No. 1157 of 2002. Thus, there is no land within the Eastern and Western boundaries as described in petition schedule property. It is further contended by the Respondents in their counter that the purchasers of the lands from the petitioner have got erected stone pillars around three bits in between their respective lands. The stone pillars erected on the western boundary of bit 'A' demarcates the land of bit 'A' and the land owned and possessed by the Respondent No.2. In the 'A' bit land the purchaser raised Jawar crop and the purchaser of the 'B' bit land got cultivated through one Sri Nageswar Rao and the purchaser of 'C' bit land got raised cotton crop through Sri Challagondla Srinivas Rao of Pallipahad village during the crop year of 2015-16. 9. It is further contended by the Respondents that out of the land to an extent of Ac 6.20 gts and possessed by the Respondent No.2, an extent of Ac 1.08 gts was alienated to Chilakala Venkata Narayana and his two brothers through a registered sale deed 1478/2006 and also another extent of Ac 0.22 gts of land in favour of Respondent No.3 herein through registered sale deed No. 1479/2006. It is further averred that the Respondent No.2 have taken the above two extents of land on lease and sown cotton seeds in the land taken from the Respondent No.3. The Eastern boundary shown in the registered sale deeds 1479/2006 coupled with the documents 2471/2008, 1390/2012, 1083/2013 and 1157/2002 will dispel the claim and contention of the petitioner. 10. It is also further contended by the respondent No.2 that he raised cotton crop in the eastern part of his land and green gram in the western part. The petitioner is well aware of the facts as contended by the respondents and the petitioner has approached the Court with un-clean hands suppressing the true facts which are well within the knowledge of the petitioner, while seeking the equitable relief of injunction. As, such the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as sought by her either on facts or in law. It is further contended that there is no cause of action for the petitioner and the cause of action is invented one and when there is no land at all to the petitioner within the boundaries as described in the schedule property, the question of trespass and dispossession of the petitioner does not arise. The respondents who are contesting the petition are respondent Nos.1 to 5. 11. Having heard both the counsels, considering the documentary evidence which is placed, the learned Judge came to a conclusion that the petitioners made out prima facie case and balance of convenience in her favour and if no injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner, there is every likelihood of causing an irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money of that the loss, and allowed the petition granting temporary injunction against the respondents. 12. Being aggrieved by the same the present CMA is filed on the following ground contending that the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam having gone into the entire grounds have allowed the CMA dismissing the I.A.No.598 of 2015 in O.S.No.255 of 2013 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam and set aside the order passed by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam. Being aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed on the ground that the learned Judge did not consider the fact that the petitioner/plaintiff has sold the part of her land in the eastern side of the western portion as detailed in the plan annexed in the suit documents and there is no justification whatsoever to ignore the same and evolve a new case craved out basing on some mistake of the western boundary in one of the documents and in view of the said reasoning on the entire order while reversing the well- considered trail Court order. Further, the learned Judge failed to see that when the defendants/respondents have not denied Ex.P1 the balance land of Ac.0-26 guntas is still available with the plaintiff, as it is her land and ignoring the assertion of the petitioner/plaintiff that a mistake has crept in Ex.P8 on the western boundary and thereby set aside the injunction granted by the learned trial Court. 13. It is further contended that the appellant Court did not consider the rest of proceedings in the suit and ought to have protected the interests of the helpless lady to protect her peaceful possession and enjoyment of continuation of her suit property and further contended that the learned Judge erred materially in opining that the question of locating the suit land in between Ex. P8 and the defendants land at this stage. 14. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material placed on record, though the point which raised before this Court is whether the error committed by the learned trial Court in allowing appeal and setting aside injunction order granted by the learned Junior Civil Judge, whether there was any grounds made out for interfering with the said findings. Whether the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge deserves to be confirmed. 15. Whether the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge deserves to be confirmed. 15. Admittedly, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking permanent injunction over their peaceful possession in respect of land of Acs.0.36 guntas which was remained as balance land after disposing of the Ac.1-00 to Sri Golla Bhasker Rao vide its registered sale deed bearing No.1157/2002, dated 17.08.2002 in Ex.P13 and Acs.1.34 guntas was sold to Sri Kurra Murali and Sri Makineni Naga Ramesh by way of G.P.A. cum sale by way of documents bearing No.2471 of 2008, in and out of total land situated in an extent of Acs.3.20 guntas in and out of Survey No.207/A covered under the registered sale deed vide its document bearing No.1375 of 1985, dated 30.04.1985. 16. On perusal of Judgment passed by the learned trial Court Judge that as there is no dispute that the western side of the land purchased under Ex.P1 which is an undisputed fact and it is the contention of the petitioner that after alienation of land under Exs.P8 and P2, the remaining Ac.0.26 guntas land which was purchased under Ex.P1, since the learned counsel for the respondent raised the contention that the western side boundary was wrongly mentioned as land of Sri M.Narsaiah, as the contentions of the respondent counsel is not supported by any material document whereas the documents Exs.P8 to P13 would show that there remains AC.0-26 guntas of land to the petitioner and it is supported by the Ex.P2 pattedar passbook, Ex.P3-1B form and Ex.P4 pahani for the year 2014. In Exs P2 to P4. 17. Further, It clearly mentioned that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of Ac.0.26 guntas of land. Though there is no dispute regarding the remaining land of 0.26 guntas for western side boundary is stated as the father of the respondents No. 1 and 2, but physically the land is available on the ground which is in the possession of the petitioner. But, it is denied by the respondent. 18. It is contended that the respondent No.2 alienated the land of Ac.1.08 guntas through registered sale deed No.1478/2006 in favour of Sri Chilakala Venkata Narayana, but the respondents have not filed the said registered sale deed before this Court to prove bonafides. But, it is denied by the respondent. 18. It is contended that the respondent No.2 alienated the land of Ac.1.08 guntas through registered sale deed No.1478/2006 in favour of Sri Chilakala Venkata Narayana, but the respondents have not filed the said registered sale deed before this Court to prove bonafides. Further, it is the case of the respondents that the respondent No.2 alienated Ac.0.22 guntas of land in favour of Chilakala Parvathamma out of Ac.6.20 guntas through a registered sale deed No.1479/2006, to ascertain whether the eastern side land was sold to Sri Chilaka Venkata Narayana and his two brothers in said document and the land is mentioned as eastern side boundary to the Ac.1.08 guntas, but the respondent did not choose to file any document. Further, the respondent filed Exhibit: R4 and R5 which shows that the western side of the land was sold under Exs.R4 and R5, the land of Sri M.Narsaiah is mentioned. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent No.2 raised the cotton crop and green gram crop in the land taken on lease from Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana and his two brothers and the petitioner is not averred in the affidavit as to the nature of the crop i.e., raised in the petition schedule property. 20. On perusal of the entire contentions of the respondents, though it is denied as to the extent of Ac.0.26 guntas as contended by the petitioner/plaintiff, but on perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, who have gone into entire documentary evidence placed by the petitioner and as there was no documentary evidence placed by the respondents, as the respondents did not choose to file any registered sale deed before the Court to prove that the actual boundaries which are existing. But, the learned trial Judge considering the entire material placed and also the documentary evidence which are placed by the plaintiff, in the absence of the documentary evidence on behalf of the defendant have rightly granted the temporary interim injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. But, the learned trial Judge considering the entire material placed and also the documentary evidence which are placed by the plaintiff, in the absence of the documentary evidence on behalf of the defendant have rightly granted the temporary interim injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. But the learned appellant Court without considering the said documents, held that the aspect of the boundary dispute cannot be gone into at this juncture and further held that having considered, that the Ex.P8 prima facie establishes that plaintiff sold the land commencing from the land she held with the starting point of the land of the defendant as the eastern side of the defendant land and thus the question of alienating the suit land in between the land of Ex.P8 and defendant land does not arise. Thus the aspect of existence of boundary was not rightly considered by the learned trial Court and therefore the same was set aside. It is also held that the Court cannot at this stage decide whether the boundary of western side is incorrectly mentioned or not. 21. Hence, prima facie there is no dispute with regard to the plaintiffs possession over the land of Ac.0.26 guntas in view of the same the learned lower Appellate Court ought to have seen that the unless and until the said possession is not secured pending the suit of the very purpose of filing of the suit would get defeated and the plaintiff would suffer great irreparable loss. Hence, for the said reasons, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. 22. On perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court Judge, it appears that learned trial Judge have rightly granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff in respect of Ac.0.26 guntas. And the lower appellate Court without considering the same has set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court Judge. 23. Hence, for the said reason this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, where the said order passed by the lower appellate court deserves to be set aside. Hence, in the result the CRP is allowed setting aside the order and decree passed in CMA No.06 of 2017, reviving the interim injunction granted by the learned Junior Civil Judge in I.A.No.598 of 2015 in O.S.No.255 of 2015 in favour of petitioner/plaintiff. Hence, in the result the CRP is allowed setting aside the order and decree passed in CMA No.06 of 2017, reviving the interim injunction granted by the learned Junior Civil Judge in I.A.No.598 of 2015 in O.S.No.255 of 2015 in favour of petitioner/plaintiff. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition shall stand closed.