Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 27 (TS)

Kasarla Lingama @ Lingaiah v. Mohd. Lateef

2026-01-06

RENUKA YARA

body2026
JUDGMENT : RENUKA YARA, J. 1. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the appellant, on the question of admission. Perused the record. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree in A.S.No.83 of 2022 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge at Kamareddy (for short ‘the learned First Appellate Court’) dated 25.11.2025 setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.24 of 2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Kamareddy (for short ‘the learned Trial Court’) dated 17.10.2022, wherein, in First appeal filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in favour of the appellant herein granting perpetual injunction has been allowed, consequently dismissing the suit for perpetual injunction. 3. The background facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff herein claimed to be absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No.211/19 to an extent of Ac.0.11 Gts., bounded on North: Agricultural land of Kasarla Bhumavva, South: Agricultural land of Bhumaiah, East: Agricultural land of Timakkapally Rajaiah and West: Agricultural land of Kasarla Bhumavva situated at Devanpally Village shivar of Kamareddy Mandal, Kamareddy District. The appellant's father was the original owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and after his death, said land was inherited by the appellant. Upon inheritance, the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of the appellant and he obtained loan from PACCS by mortgaging the suit schedule property. The pahanies for the years 1999 to 2015 show the ownership and possession of the appellant over the suit schedule land. While so, the respondents who have no right over the suit schedule property caused interference on 01.07.2015 by creating fake documents and therefore, a suit for perpetual injunction has been filed. 4. The respondents 2 to 4 filed written statements in sum and substance stating that the agricultural land of Sy.No.211 has been converted into plots in the year 1987 through GP.LP No.6/ 1987 issued by Grama Panchayat, Devanpally Village. The respondent No.1 and respondent No. 2 have purchased Plot No.1 to an extent of 133.3 sq.yds. under the registered document No. 617 of 1989, dated 23.03.1989. Likewise, the respondent No.2 purchased plot No.2. Therefore, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 are in possession of the plots. The respondent No.2 left the plots unconstructed. The appellant is not in possession and not cultivating the said plots. under the registered document No. 617 of 1989, dated 23.03.1989. Likewise, the respondent No.2 purchased plot No.2. Therefore, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 are in possession of the plots. The respondent No.2 left the plots unconstructed. The appellant is not in possession and not cultivating the said plots. Therefore, according to respondents No.2, there is no cause of action for filing the suit. On similar lines, respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed written statement stating that land in Sy.No.211 was converted into plots and the purchasers of plots are in possession and enjoyment. The layout was issued vide GP LP No.06/1987. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 purchased the plots under document Nos.3108 of 2010 and 3109 of 2010, dated 31.05.2010 and are in possession. In fact, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have constructed a house bearing H.No.5-82 by availing bank loan. It is the case of respondent Nos.3 and 4 that the appellant is not in possession and the suit is to be dismissed. 5. The learned Trial Court upon assessing the evidence adduced by the appellant and the respondents has decreed the suit. The appellant got himself examined as PW1 and the respondents got themselves examined as DWs 1 to 4. The appellant got marked Exs.A1 to A19 and the respondents got exhibited Exs.B1 to B17. A perusal of the documents marked in ‘A’ series on behalf of the appellant show that there are certified copies of pahanies under Exs.A1 to A6 for the years 1954-55 to 2012-13. Further there is a certified copy of Bhubharathi certificate under Ex.A7. Ex.A8 is certified copy of Pahani of ROR record, Ex.A9 is certified copy of Pahani containing property declaration certificate vide document No.2455 of 1992 and Ex.A12 is the Release Deed vide document No.105 of 2015. Further, Ex.A13 is Rectification of release deed document No.412 of 2015, Exs.A14 and A15 are original title deed and patta passbook, Ex.A16 is certified copy of pahani for the year 2013, Exs.A17 and A18 are certified copies of pahanis for the years 2014 and 2015 and Ex.A19 is the valuation certificate. The documents filed by the appellant primarily show existence of suit schedule land and the Exs.A12, A14 and A15 show title deed and passbook in proof of ownership of the appellant. Pahanies up to the year 2015 allegedly show the possession of the appellant on account of mutation of his name in the revenue records. 6. The documents filed by the appellant primarily show existence of suit schedule land and the Exs.A12, A14 and A15 show title deed and passbook in proof of ownership of the appellant. Pahanies up to the year 2015 allegedly show the possession of the appellant on account of mutation of his name in the revenue records. 6. In response to the evidence adduced by the appellant, the respondents got marked Ex.B1 attested copy of death certificate of respondent No.1, Exs.B2 and B3 certified copies of pahanies for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88, Exs.B4 to B10 sale deeds, Ex.B11 Agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 09.09.2009, Exs.B12 to B16 registered sale deeds and Ex.B17 Encumbrance certificate. The documents marked by the respondents are meant for demonstrating that the land in Sy.No.211 has been converted into plots and sold to various individuals under Exs.B4 to B16. 7. Upon considering this evidence, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit on two grounds. One is that Exs.A14 and A15 show ownership of the suit schedule property by the appellant and Exs.A2 to A6, A16 to A18 show possession. Further, there is an inference made about probable interference by the respondents. On account of proof of ownership in the form of Exs.A14 and A15 and Pahanies showing possession, the suit has been decreed. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, the respondents preferred First Appeal before the learned First Appellate Court vide A.S.No.83 of 2022. 8. The learned First Appellate Court examined the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties and made observation with respect to admission by the appellant as PW1 that the respondents are claiming their plots to be situated in his agricultural land. Further, an important point which was ignored by the learned Trial Court is that respondent No.1 died in the year 2009 whereas the suit for perpetual injunction against him was filed in the year 2015 with an allegation that respondent No.1 along with respondent Nos.2 to 4 has interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land belonging to the appellant. Since there was categorical plea that respondent No.1 was actively involved in interference when he died six years prior to filing of the suit, the learned First Appellate Court entertained a doubt about the interference, if any, by the respondents as not being proven. Since there was categorical plea that respondent No.1 was actively involved in interference when he died six years prior to filing of the suit, the learned First Appellate Court entertained a doubt about the interference, if any, by the respondents as not being proven. It is observed that a suit is filed against a dead person alleging interference on his behalf. Likewise, it is observed that there may not be any interference from the remaining respondents, but a false allegation about causing interference is made against them. It is held that though there are documents in proof of possession and ownership on behalf of the appellant, the consistent plea of the respondents in the written statements has been that the suit schedule property as mentioned in the plaint schedule does not exist on ground. It is the consistent case of respondents that the land in Sy.No.211 was converted into plots way back in the year 1987 and that the land of the appellant as per boundaries given in plaint schedule is not in existence. When such a plea was taken, according to the learned First Appellate Court, heavy burden lies on the appellant to prove that his land as mentioned in the plaint schedule exists. Whereas, except the evidence of the appellant as PW1, there is no other documentary evidence to show the existence of suit land as per boundaries given in the plaint schedule. In view of the admission by the appellant as PW1 that his land is claimed by the respondents as part of their plots, according to the learned First Appellate Court, there is serious dispute with respect to title and therefore, a suit for mere injunction simpliciter is not maintainable. Upon examining the documentary evidence, it is held that the appellant is claiming Ac.0.11 Gts. of land adjacent to the plots covered by Grama Panchayat Layout vide GP.LP No.6/1987 and therefore, it is the burden of appellant to establish his case but he cannot rely on the weakness of the case of respondents. Irrespective of the fact that the respondents have admitted that they are not concerned with land in Sy.No.211/19, but that their plots are situated in Sy. Nos.211/13, 211/15, 211/16 and 211/21, the learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, the present Second Appeal has been preferred. 9. Nos.211/13, 211/15, 211/16 and 211/21, the learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, the present Second Appeal has been preferred. 9. In the Second Appeal, the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law: 1) Whether the findings of the first appellate court are perverse to that of the findings of the Trial Court? 2) When the Trial Court framed 3 issues and had given categorical findings that, the plaintiff established his case for granting the relief of injunction, the first appellate court as against the said 3 issues framed 2 issues contrary to the issues framed by the Trial Court and giving its own findings contrary to the findings of the Trial Court, is it valid in Law? 3) When the Plaintiff claimed the suit schedule land by virtue of a title succeeded from his father, he proved his title and possession and considering the said documentary evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunction in his favour and the first appellate court also observed that the admission of the D.W's.1 to 5 that they are no way concerned with the land in Sy.No.211/19 of Devanpally and they are concerned with only with the land in Sy.No.211/13, 15, 16 and 21, giving a finding that the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction by simply observing that the defendant No.1 was no more and cannot believe the interference of the defendant Nos.2 to 4, is valid in Law when the specific claim is against all the defendants including the defendants no.2 to 4? 4) When the plaintiff got knowledge about the death of the defendant No. 1 after filing the suit, had withdrawn the suit against the defendant No.1, the same was permitted by the Trial Court and the suit was contested by the defendant Nos.2 to 4, in such a case whether the finding of the first appellate court that, the alleged interference of the defendant No.1 who already died and the plaintiff is not entitled for the injunction is valid in Law? 5) When the Plaintiff has specifically pleaded about the interference of the defendant No's. 2 to 4 also and the same is not disputed by them, on the other hand the said defendants claimed that, the plaintiff in the guise of land claimed by him in Sy.No.211/19, interfering with their plots of land in Sy.No.211/13, 15, 16 and 21, is it not sufficient to say that, the defendants are interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff schedule land and the finding of the first appellate court contrary to the same, is valid in Law? 6) When the First Appellate court failed to frame the issue as provided under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act and without answering the same, when the trial court framed the said issue and answered in favour of the plaintiff by giving findings, granting the relief of injunction, the same is set aside, is valid in Law? 7) Whether the non consideration of material documents placed by the plaintiff by First Appellate court is valid in Law? 10. The above alleged substantial questions of law are about the factual findings given by the Trial Court and validity of contradictory findings given by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The above questions do not raise any issue of law. The substantial questions of law at Sl.Nos.3 to 7 are not in the nature of substantial questions of law, but rather in the form of questions related to factual findings given by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. It is to be noted that for grant of relief of perpetual injunction, the appellant has to prove prima facie case of legal possession, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. In that regard, the documentary evidence marked in ‘A’ series on behalf of the appellant does show prima facie case of ownership and possession of the land by the appellant from the year 2000 on paper. However, when there is a counter plea by the respondents that land in Sy.No.211 is converted into plots, there is a need to establish that the suit schedule land exists in the form of agricultural land and that the same is in possession of the appellant. However, when there is a counter plea by the respondents that land in Sy.No.211 is converted into plots, there is a need to establish that the suit schedule land exists in the form of agricultural land and that the same is in possession of the appellant. When there is a plea that the land in Sy.No.211 is converted into plots, the person who approached the court i.e. the appellant has to prove that the defence taken by the respondents is false. 11. In the instant case, the admission by the appellant that the respondents are claiming land in suit schedule land as part of their plots, shows that there is a dispute between the rival parties about identity of land on ground. Such being the case, the burden is on the appellant to prove his possession and existence of suit schedule land on ground with the boundaries shown in the plaint schedule. However, such evidence is not adduced before the Trial Court. The second important point observed by the learned Appellate Court is filing a suit for perpetual injunction against a dead person alleging that a dead person has interfered with the suit schedule land. Since a false statement is made against a dead person about interference, a genuine doubt is entertained about whether or not there was interference by the remaining respondents. When the respondents have filed documents in ‘B’ series showing conversion of certain part of land in Sy.No.211 into plots and construction of houses in said plots, production of pahanies will in itself not prove the case of the appellant about being in possession of land in Sy.No.211/19. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there was no infirmity in the findings given by the First Appellate Court while assessing the evidence adduced by the appellant and the respondents before the Trial Court. There are absolutely no questions of law to be considered, much less substantial questions of law in the Second Appeal. Therefore, the Second Appeal lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.