Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 80 (AP)

P. Sarada v. Penakalapati Mahesh

2026-01-22

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2026
ORDER : B.S. Bhanumathi, J. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the decree and the judgment, dated 15.12.2025, in C.M.A.No.03 of 2025 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ananthapur. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: a. The revision petitioners are the defendants. The respondent / plaintiff filed O.S.No.459 of 2024 for perpetual injunction pleading that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.2.90 cents in Sy.No.28-2 having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 22.06.2021, and has been in possession of the same ever since the date of purchase, but, the defendants, who have nothing to do with the plaint schedule property, are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property by high handedly creating a rastha. b. Along with the suit, I.A.No.756 of 2024 was filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction on the same grounds. 3. The respondent No.3 / defendant No.3 filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and further stating as follows: a. Penakalapati Hanumantharayudu is the elder brother of late Penakalapati Lakshmanna. The respondent No.1 is the wife and the respondents Nos.2 and 3 are the children of P.Lakshmanna. The land of Ac.3.63 cents in Sy.No.113-1 shown as ABCD in the rough plan belongs to the family of the respondents and P.Hanumantharayudu. It was partitioned. Ac.1.83 cents on the western side of it fell to the share of P. Hanumantharayudu. The remaining land of Ac.1.80 cents fell to the share of P.Lakshmanna. On the southern side of ABCD land, adjacent to AB, there is a road leading from Venkatadripalli to Ankampalli. The parties were in their respective shares as per the partition. It is on the western side of CDEF to some extent. P.Narayana Swamy S/o. P.Hanumantharayudu also sold Ac.1.83 cents in Sy.No.113-1 and the land in Sy.No.30-2 to P.Jagadheesh, the brother of the petitioner in the year 2012. The respondents continue in their eastern part. Ac.3.00 cents of land in Sy.No.28-2 shown as CDEF is on the northern side on ABCD land adjacent to CD. It was purchased by the petitioner / plaintiff from R.Musalaiah on 22.06.2021. Ac.4.50 cents in Sy.No.30-2 shown as GHEI belongs to P.Hanumantharayudu. It was sold by him to P. Jagadheesh. The respondents continue in their eastern part. Ac.3.00 cents of land in Sy.No.28-2 shown as CDEF is on the northern side on ABCD land adjacent to CD. It was purchased by the petitioner / plaintiff from R.Musalaiah on 22.06.2021. Ac.4.50 cents in Sy.No.30-2 shown as GHEI belongs to P.Hanumantharayudu. It was sold by him to P. Jagadheesh. Ac.4.50 cents of land in Sy.No.30-1, Ac.0.16 cents of land in Sy.No.30-2 together shown as GIJK, belongs to the respondents and has been in their possession and enjoyment. It is on the western side to GHEI adjacent to GI. There is a path way shown as PQRS alongside the ADHG passing through the lands of P. Jagadheesh and the plaintiff. The respondents are reaching their land GIJK in Sy.Nos.30-1 and 30-2 through this rastha. The respondents’ family has been using PQRS rastha for a long time. b. On 22.07.2005, the vendor of the petitioner, R.Musalaiah, executed an agreement in favour of P.Hanumantharayudu clearly stating that the right of rastha was given to P.Hanumantharayudu to reach the land in Sy.No.30-1 and 30-2 to an extent of Ac.9.33 cents on the western side through the petition land. After the death of P.Lakshmanna on 12.07.2023, these respondents are enjoying PQRS rastha to reach their land. The petitioner, with a mala fide intention, closed the rastha by fencing between D to C points and causing obstruction. The respondents have no alternative rastha to reach their land. There is standing red gram crop in the land in Sy.Nos.30-1 and 30-2 shown as GIJK. There is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition on 10.01.2025 and the ad interim injunction granted on 16.12.2024 was vacated. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner / plaintiff preferred appeal vide C.M.A.No.03 of 2025. 6. After hearing both the parties, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction. 7. Aggrieved by the order and decree in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 8. Heard Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners / defendants and Sri A.Hari Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff. 9. 6. After hearing both the parties, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction. 7. Aggrieved by the order and decree in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 8. Heard Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners / defendants and Sri A.Hari Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the existence of rastha is clearly mentioned in the sale deed of the petitioners under which he purchased the land from Musalaiah. She further submitted that even for the petitioners, the rastha on the western side in the land in Sy.No.113-1 of P. Jagadheesh is used to reach from the land of the petitioner to the main road on the southern side and a similar right exists to P. Jagadheesh to pass through the land of the petitioner to reach the other land of P. Jagadheesh in Sy.No.30-2, and P. Jagadheesh agreed to allow the respondents to pass through this rastha to reach their land in Sy.No.30-1 & 30-2. She further submitted that since the land of the respondents in Sy.No.113-1 has direct access to the road on the southern side, the appellate Court observed that they have access to enter their land. She further submitted that the appellate Court was in error in observing that nothing was shown by the respondents that except PQRS rastha, there is no other way to reach their land in Sy.Nos.30-1 and 30-2, as it is clear from the plan and the petitioner has not pleaded or shown about the alternative way. Further, she submitted that the appellate Court observed that the respondents had not taken any advocate commissioner to get the features recorded about the non-availability of alternate rastha, and a commissioner can be appointed later on, but it cannot be a basis to disbelieve and dismiss the case of the respondents. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff submitted that the appellate Court had rightly allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction. He further submitted that the revision petitioners failed to offer any reason as to why they could not get a commissioner appointed to prove their contention that there is no other alternative way as contended by them in their counter. He further submitted that the revision petitioners failed to offer any reason as to why they could not get a commissioner appointed to prove their contention that there is no other alternative way as contended by them in their counter. He further submitted that even the rough sketch of the disputed land filed by the respondents is blank and does not indicate the features of the other lands below the land in Sy.Nos.30-1 and 30-2. He further submitted that if at all, there is no other alternative way after raising the fence, it is not explained as to how the respondents are reaching through land and cultivating the crop. 11. In reply, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that till the recent past, there was no much trouble because the ad interim injunction was in force for a short period before it was vacated by dismissing the petition by the trial Court in January, 2025 and thereafter, it was granted again by virtue of the order in the appeal on 15.12.2025, a month back, but unless the crop is taken care by passing through the rastha, the revision petitioners would suffer irreparable loss due to the damage to the entire standing crop of red gram. She further submitted that the respondent / plaintiff failed to explain the clear reference of the use of rastha in the sale deed and suppressing clear recitals in the sale deed, filed the suit in respect of the entire land and obtained ad interim injunction as though there is a threat to possession of his entire schedule property. In this regard, she further submitted that the revision petitioners are not claiming any kind of right over the rest of the property of the respondent / plaintiff except to the extent of rastha which is part in the rastha shown as PQRS. It is also submitted by her that appointment of commissioner would only help to record the features existing on land and substantiate the case of the revision petitioners, but it is not the only piece of evidence to establish their case which is otherwise established from the document of the respondent / petitioner himself. That apart, the picture of Google map showing the features of the disputed land was also filed. There is no dispute about the picture. The rough sketch tallies with the Google map in material particulars. 12. That apart, the picture of Google map showing the features of the disputed land was also filed. There is no dispute about the picture. The rough sketch tallies with the Google map in material particulars. 12. A perusal of the sale deed, dated 22.06.2021, executed by R.Musalaiah in favour of the petitioner describes the schedule of the property sold with a clear statement that there is a rastha through the land of P. Jagadheesh on his west for the petitioner from Ankampalli road on the southern side to pass towards north to reach the land of the petitioner and similarly, P.Jagadheesh has right of rastha through the land sold to the petitioner to reach the land of P. Jagadheesh (in Sy.No.30-2). According to the revision petitioners, P.Jagadheesh has no objection for using his right of passage to the land of the revision petitioners through the said rastha over which he has right of passage, but it is only the petitioner who is objecting. 13. A combined reading of the pleadings of both the parties, the recitals in the documents filed and the details of the picture and rough sketch filed, establishes that there is prima facie strength in the argument of the respondents that there exists a rastha in the western portion of the land of P.Jagadheesh leading to the land of the petitioner and the same extends till the land of the respondents taking a western turn in the land of the petitioner. Though the respondents stated in their counter that there is no other rastha, no rejoinder was filed denying the same nor is there any averment in the plaint or petition that the respondents / defendants have any other alternative way, though there is an averment made in the plaint that the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession by creating dispute over the rastha. Under these circumstances, the observations made by the appellate Court are against the pleadings and evidence on record. 14. The interim injunction is likely to cause more hardship to the revision petitioners / respondents / defendants, than causing any kind of loss to the respondent / appellant / petitioner, if temporary injunction is refused. It is settled law that the relief of temporary injunction, being an equitable relief, the petitioner has to come with clean hands and establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour. It is settled law that the relief of temporary injunction, being an equitable relief, the petitioner has to come with clean hands and establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour. Prima facie case is understood to mean that a case which requires trial in the suit. Whenever the case pleaded by the plaintiff is denied by the defendants, there is a triable dispute. But, mere triable dispute is not sufficient to grant temporary injunction. The petitioner has to further show that there is balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the petitioner. That apart, when the facts pleaded by the petitioner shows an element of suppression of certain material facts, like in the present case, regarding the averment in his own sale deed about rastha and explaining the case of the respondents by filing at least a rejoinder / reply affidavit, the likely hardship to the respondents due to the interim injunction assumes significance and the relief of temporary injunction can be refused. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner / plaintiff failed to establish the balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour to grant the relief of temporary injunction. 15. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The decree and the judgment, dated 15.12.2025, in C.M.A.No.3 of 2025 are set aside and the order, dated 10.01.2025, dismissing I.A.No.756 of 2024 in O.S.No.459 of 2024 is restored. It is needless to say that the observations made in this order are limited to the interlocutory proceedings as they are based on the evidence available as on date. The trial Court shall conduct trial and take an independent view on the issues basing on the evidence lead by both the parties during the course of trial. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.