Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 91 (AP)

S. Lakshmi Narasamma v. R. Anitha

2026-01-27

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2026
ORDER : B.S. Bhanumathi, J. This revision is filed by the respondents / defendants under Article227 of the Constitution of India against the decree and the order, dated 11.11.2025, allowing the appeal in C.M.A.No.06 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Penukonda, which was filed against the decree and the order, dated 01.12.2023, dismissing I.A.No.286 of 2023 in O.S.No.195 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda, filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., along with the suit, seeking interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule items Nos.1 and 2 properties described below: Item No.1: Property situated in Sri Sathyasai district, R.D. of Puttaparthy and S.R.D. of Chilamattur within the limits of Gownivaripalli revenue village. Item No.2: 2. The respondent herein filed the suit against the revision petitioners stating the case briefly as follows: a. The petition schedule properties of Ac.0.56 cents in Sy.No.103-1 and Ac.0.56 cents in Sy.No.108, in total, Ac.1.12 cents belong to Rangamma W/o. late Chinna Narasimhappa. She was in possession of the same till she sold and delivered the same to the petitioner under a registered sale deed, dated 07.11.2014. Since then, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising crops without objection from anybody. The name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. After division of the survey numbers, the petitioner got only Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.108-A1 and Ac.0.56 cents in Sy.No. 103-1B1. After an elaborate enquiry, the Tahsildar, Gorantla mandal issued pattadar passbook to the petitioner under patta No.3022 as per the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. The petitioner obtained a crop loan from the State Bank of India, Gorantla, by deposit of title deed. The Village Revenue Officer issued a confirmation certificate with boundaries of the land to prove possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. The respondents do not have any right over the plaint schedule properties. They developed an evil eye to grab it and are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. The Village Revenue Officer issued a confirmation certificate with boundaries of the land to prove possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. The respondents do not have any right over the plaint schedule properties. They developed an evil eye to grab it and are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. b. The respondents filed a counter denying the case of the petitioner and further stating as follows: Nagappa S/o. Yerrappa and Gangappa S/o. Babanna purchased half share, i.e., Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.103 and Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.108 on 20.02.1951 from K.V.Subba Rao S/o. K.Vasantha Rao. Chowdepalli Pedda Narasimhappa and Chinna Narasimhappa are sons of Gangappa. Nagamma and Lakshminarasamma are the daughters of Pedda Narasimhappa. Rangamma is the wife of Chinna Narasimhappa. Thus, Ac.1.25 cents in Sy.No.103 belongs to Pedda Narasimhappa and Chinna Narasimhappa. They enjoyed it during their life time. On the death of Pedda Narasimhappa, his wife, Narasamma and daughters, Nagamma and Lakshminarasamma succeeded to his half share of the property. The remaining half share was enjoyed by Rangamma. Chinna Narasimhappa died issueless. The entire property is owned and enjoyed by Nagamma, Lakshminarasamma and Rangamma and they are in joint possession of it. Rangamma does not have exclusive title to the properties, but sold her share without specific boundaries and extent and sub division of land. Hence, the petitioner has to file a suit for partition and separate possession, if she purchased it from Rangamma. By suppressing the facts, the petitioner obtained the revenue record, though not in possession. Therefore, the respondent No.1 filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Puttaparthy, to rectify the records by deleting the name of the petitioner as only the respondents are in possession. 3. The documents filed by the parties are shown hereunder:- Documents marked on behalf of the petitioner Documents marked on behalf of the respondents --Nil-- 4. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition stating that there is dispute as to identity of the plaint schedule property and the title of the petitioner over the plaint schedule property and that these aspects can be decided only after full-fledged trial as it is not a stage to make roving enquiry. With such view, the trial Court held that there is no prima facie case. With such view, the trial Court held that there is no prima facie case. It was further observed that though the respondents had not filed any documents as to their ownership in the petition schedule properties, the counter and arguments advanced go to show that they are joint holders of the property and therefore, balance of convenience tilts in favour of the respondents and the respondents would suffer irreparable loss if injunction is granted and reverse is not the position if interim injunction is not granted. 5. Aggrieved by the order and the decree passed by the trial Court, the petitioner / plaintiff preferred appeal in C.M.A.No.06 of 2024. 6. After hearing both the parties, the appellate Court allowed the appeal mainly observing that interim injunction can be granted basing on the possession of the property as on the date of institution of the suit and that the registered sale deed under Ex.P1 coupled with Exs.P2 to P4 established the title and possession of the petitioner over the plaint schedule properties as on the date of filing of the petition / suit and the identity of the property is prima facie established by virtue of Ex.P5 and its merit can be decided later on during the course of trial. The appellate Court is of the view that whatever share is held by Rangamma was sold to the petitioner / appellant and the absence of boundaries of the property under the sale deed / Ex.P1 is only the deficiency which is supplemented in the light of the documents under Exs.P2 to P5, particularly, Ex.P5. 7. The appellate Court rejected the contention of the respondents that the petitioner / purchaser of undivided share ought to have filed a suit for partition and is not entitled to seek relief of temporary injunction, keeping in view that such relief can be granted on establishing prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. 8. Aggrieved by the order under decree of the appellate Court, this revision petition was filed. 9. While reiterating the grounds taken before the trial Court, it was argued that interim injunction cannot be granted in respect of the properties for which there were no boundaries mentioned in the sale deed as the vendor had sold undivided share and therefore, without filing suit for partition and separate possession, the relief cannot be granted. 9. While reiterating the grounds taken before the trial Court, it was argued that interim injunction cannot be granted in respect of the properties for which there were no boundaries mentioned in the sale deed as the vendor had sold undivided share and therefore, without filing suit for partition and separate possession, the relief cannot be granted. It was further argued that Ex.P5 is not valid in law as the V.R.O. has no authority to grant such certificate. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff submitted that the respondent had not filed any document in support of the case pleaded by the defendants and that the appellate Court had rightly appreciated the facts and the legal position and reiterated the same as was held by the appellate Court. 11. In reply, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that though the revision petitioners have not filed any documents, from the case pleaded by the plaintiff and the documents filed by the plaintiff clearly indicate that the property sold is undivided and has no boundaries and therefore, non-filing of any documents by the defendants is not fatal to resist the relief claimed by the plaintiff either in the suit or in the interlocutory application. 12. The enquiry in an interlocutory application is to protect the possession of the property pending adjudication of the main suit. Therefore, what is to be examined is the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss which are cardinal principles and well settled. The main grounds on which the defendants resist the relief are jointness of the property and non-identity of the property for want of boundaries in the sale deed. When the suit and the interlocutory application were filed, specific boundaries were given, the defendants / respondents have not contended that the boundaries are incorrect or the property with such boundaries does not exist. It is not even the case that half share of property of Rangamma which is shown in the suit with specific boundaries is gainful to the plaintiff to the detriment of the property of the defendants. That apart, they mainly failed to file any documents showing joint possession of the properties as on the date of filing of the suit or at any time after Ex.P1. That apart, they mainly failed to file any documents showing joint possession of the properties as on the date of filing of the suit or at any time after Ex.P1. Even if the property when purchased is joint, later if the parties enjoy and possess specific item of property in their respective parts, for the purpose of suit or interlocutory application for injunction, prima facie title as well as possession would support grant of such relief. As per the plaintiff, since the date of purchase of the property, it was put to use by raising crops within these boundaries and necessary mutations were also made in the revenue records with regard to her title and possession. If there is any contrary evidence, that can be placed before the Court by defendants during the course of trial. Basing on such evidence, the trial Court may take an independent view after the trial. For the present, with the pleadings and evidence available on record, there is no error committed by the trial Court. Without any evidence, the trial Court took its view based on counter and arguments only, completely rejecting the evidence placed by the plaintiff. Thus, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order and decree of the appellate Court. 13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.