Telangana High Court

Uppari Ravi vs Smt. K.Venkata Suryakumari on 29 November, 2023

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

                  C.R.P.NO.2668 OF 2023

Between:

Uppari Ravi and another

                                                 ... Petitioners
And

Smt K.Venkata Suryakumari
                                                 ... Respondent

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:        29.11.2023


THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers    :   Yes
   may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be    :   Yes
   marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to          :   Yes
   see the fair copy of the Judgment?


                                  _____________________
                                   SUREPALLI NANDA, J
                                   2
                                                          CRP_2668_2023
                                                                   SN,J




      THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                     C.R.P.NO.2668 OF 023


% 29.11.2023

Between:
# Uppari Ravi and another
                                                   ... Petitioners
                                 And


$ Smt K.Venkata Suryakumari
                                                 ... Respondents

< Gist:
> Head Note:


! Counsel for the Petitioners   : Ms Pratusha Boppana
^ Counsel for Respondent        : Mr S.Prakash



? Cases Referred:

1. 2019 (2) ALT 287 (DB)
                                  3
                                                             CRP_2668_2023
                                                                      SN,J




         HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                     C.R.P.NO.2668 OF 023

ORDER:

Heard Ms Pratusha Boppana, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr S.Prakash,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This civil revision petition is filed challenging the propriety

and legality of the order dated 04.08.2023 passed in C.M.A.No.7

of 2023 on the file of 1st Additional District Judge, Sangareddy,

whereby and whereunder the Civil Miscellneous Appeal (CMA)

was dismissed confirming the order of temporary injunction

dated 24.01.2023 in I.A.No.248 of 2021 in O.S.No.738 of 2021

on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy.

3. For the sake of convenience, the reference of the parties is

made as per their array in the suit before the Lower Court.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for grant of perpetual injunction

against the defendant in respect of the open plot bearing

No.104, admeasuring 200 sq. yards in Sy.No.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11,

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 550,

970, 971, 973, 975, 976, 977, 978, 980, 981, 982, 984, 985,

986, 990, 991, 992, and 993 situated at Patencheruvu Town and

CRP_2668_2023 SN,J

Mandal, Sanga Reddy District as described within the bounderies

shown in the plaint schedule hereinafter called as (suit schedule

property).

5. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.248 of 2021 under order 39 Rules

1 and 2 seeking grant of temporary injunction against the

defendant from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the suit property.

6. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff in brief is that he

purchased the suit schedule property from one Mohd. Zakir

Hussain under registered sale deed bearing document No.37854,

of 2018, dated 27.08.2018 and took delivery of possession of

property on the same day and ever since he has been in

possession of the property. The respondents/defendants without

any manner of right whatsoever long with anti social elements

came to the suit schedule property on 22.06.2021 and tried to

interfere with his possession of the property but he could resist

their attempts of interference with the support of his family

members and well wishers and therefore, temporary injunction

may be granted against the respondent pending disposal of the

suit.

CRP_2668_2023 SN,J

7. The respondents/defendants filed counter denying the title

and possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over suit property.

Their case is that they are owners and possessors of nine guntas

in Survey No.22 and 24 guntas in Survey No.974 situated at

Patancheruvu Town and Mandal. According to them, nine guntas

in Survey No.22 is their ancestral property. Regarding 24 guntas

in Survey No.74, their plea is that Uppari Mallaiah, the brother of

the 2nd respondent/defendant purchased the land under

registered sale deed bearing document No.1726 of 1973, dated

27.09.1973 from Jalagiri Pentaiah. The said Mallaiah had no

issues and so he brought up the 1st respondent/1st defendant

and he executed registered gift deeds bearing document

Nos.2438 of 2007 and 2439 of 2007, dated 25.01.2007 in favour

of the respondents/defendants in respect of nine guntas in

Survey No.22 and .24 guntas in Survey No.974 in equal shares

and ever since both the respondents/defendants had been in

possession and enjoyment of the said subject land.

8. They alleged that the petitioner's vendor Mohammed

Zakeer Hussain sold the suit property to the petitioner by

showing their land of twenty four guntas in Survey No.974.

They further alleged that the petitioner's vendor had tried to

interfere with their possession of their land in Survey No.974

CRP_2668_2023 SN,J

and so they filed O.S.No.60 of 2017 on the file of Principal Junior

Civil Judge at Sangareddy for perpetual injunction against him

and his henchmen and the Court in I.A.No.379 of 2017 granted

adinterim injunction in their favour.

9. They stated that when some strangers had tried to

dispossess them of their land on 11.11.2013 and 16.12.2013

they filed O.S.No.291 of 2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil

Judge at Sangareddy for perpetual injunction and on their

application vide I.A.No.1289 of 2015 Court appointed Advocate

Commissioner to identify their land with the help of their Mandal

Surveyor and accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner identified

their land and fixed boundaries by conducting Panchanama in

the presence of Mandal Surveyor and parties and their counsel's.

10. They alleged that the petitioner along with her men had

trespassed into their land in Survey No.974 on 08.05.2021, and

tried to remove the boundary stones fixed by the Advocate

Commissioner. They lastly alleged that the petitioner is not

entitled for temporary injunction and so the petition is liable to

be dismissed.

11. The petitioner got marked 75 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.75

and the respondents marked 33 documents as Ex.R.1 to R.33.

CRP_2668_2023 SN,J

12. The trial Court after considering the pleadings and

documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner

made out prima facie and the balance of convenience is in her

favour and by order dated 24.01.2023 allowed the petition

granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner.

Aggrieved thereby, the respondents/defendants preferred

C.M.A.No.7 of 2023 and the Court of I Additional District Judge

at Sanga Reddy after considering the material on record by order

dated 04.08.2023, dismissed the C.M.A. confirming the order of

the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents/defendants

filed the present civil revision petition.

13. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter affidavit in the

present civil revision petition along with relevant documents.

Heard the arguments of both learned counsel's on record and

perused the record.

14. Ex.P.1 is the registered sale deed dated 24.07.1997, a

perusal of the sale deed shows that the vendors therein are

owners and possessors of Ac.25.16 guntas in the suit Survey

numbers and that to develop the land into residential colony

they divided the entire land into house plots and they sold plot

No.104 which is the suit plot in favour of Mohammed Asghar.

CRP_2668_2023 SN,J

15. Ex.P.2 is the sale deed dated 20.10.2008, executed by the

said Mohammed Asghar in favour of Mahmood Ali in respect of

plot No.104 i.e. the suit plot. The said Mahmood Ali sold the

suit plot to Mohammed Zakir Hussain dated 22.03.2013.

16. The petitioner/plaintiff purchased the subject suit plot from

Mohd. Zakir Hussain on 27.09.2018. In all those sale deeds the

boundaries mentioned for the said suit plot are North: Plot

No.103, South: Plot No.105 East: Plot No.107, West: 30 feet

wide road. Thus, the title deed of the petitioner and its link

documents as mentioned above consistently show that the suit

plot is in existence within specific boundaries. They also would

prove that prima facie the petitioner has title over the suit plot.

But the contention of the respondents that what was sold to the

petitioner/plaintiff under Ex.P.4, sale deed is their land in Survey

N.974, but not the suit plot, is without any merit. The reasons

are not far to seek. It is the admitted case of the respondents

that they purchased 24 guntas in Survey No.974 under Ex.R.24,

registered sale deed dated 27.09.1973. A perusal of th sale

deed would show that Jalagari Pentaiah sold 24 guntas in Survey

No.974 in favour of Mallaiah, the brother of the 2nd respondent.

It is crucial to note that in the sale deed the boundaries of the

land of 24 guntas in Survey No.974 are not given that clearly

CRP_2668_2023 SN,J

goes to show that the vendor sold the land without identifying

the land and similarly the vendee purchased the land without

knowing the identity of the land. But strangely Ex.R.24 and

R.26 gift deeds dated 25.01.2007 would show the boundaries for

the land of 24 guntas in Survey No.974. The donor having

purchased the property without knowing the identity of the land

gifted the property in equal shares to the respondents by giving

specific boundaries. The identity of the land as given in the gift

deeds is not credible for the reason that in the link document i.e.

the registered sale deed dated 29.09.1973, boundaries were not

all given for the identity of the land thus, the respondents having

defective title in respect of their own land cannot justifiably

contend that the vendor of the petitioner sold the suit plot by

showing their land in Survey No.974.

17. The Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2019

(2) ALT 287 (DB) in Palem Chandra Shekar and others v

Palem Bikshapathy and others, in particular, at para 15,

observed as under:

"15. It is indeed trite to state that an interim order cannot be passed by a Court in thin air. It necessarily has to be passed in relation to a particular identifiable parcel of land. In case, the

CRP_2668_2023 SN,J

order does not relate to an identifiable parcel of land, the order itself would be meaningless. It is certainly not expected of a Judicial Officer to pass meaningless orders. Therefore, the learned trial Court was well justified in refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the appellants, considering the fact that the very physical location of schedule 'A' and 'B' properties is unclear from the documents submitted by the parties.

The above citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner is not applicable to the present case as in that

case, the plaintiff could not establish the physical location of his

land and so the Lower Court declined to grant temporary

injunction and the order of the trial Court was confirmed in

C.M.A. by the High Court. In the case on hand, the plaintiff by

producing his title and link documents clearly established the

physical location of the suit plot.

18. The petitioner apart from proof of prima facie title,

established prima facie possession by producing Ex.P.35 to P.74

pahanis for the period from 1955 to 1958, 2019 to 2020. The

trial Court as well as appellate Court after properly considering

the material on record consistently held that the petitioner made

prima facie case and observed that the balance of convenience is

in her favour. The appellate Court did not commit any illegality

CRP_2668_2023 SN,J

or impropriety in passing the order impugned in the present civil

revision petition and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.