Telangana High Court
Sri Kummari Pochaiah vs Smt. Pilli Padma on 21 August, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1503 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the
order dated 11.08.2023 passed in CMA No.18 of 2021 by the learned I
Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.
(For sake of convenience, the petitioner herein is referred to as
'defendant' and respondent as 'plaintiff ')
FACTS:-
3. Plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S.No.171 of 2021 against the
defendant seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and
his men from interfering with her possession over the suit schedule
property i.e. land admeasuring Ac.0.35 ½ guntas in Sy.No.388/A
situated Vedira Village, Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District (for
short, 'subject property') contending as follows:-
i. Originally, in the revenue records, the entries were made in the
name of Dulimitta Lachi Reddy s/o Rajaiah in respect of the
subject property. The said Dulimitta Lachi Reddy, sold the
subject property to one Bejjanki Yellaiah under a registered sale
deed bearing document No.337 of 1982 dated 02.06.1982. The
said Bejjanki Yellaiah sold the subject property to one Thodeti
Bapu s/o Ashaiah, under a registered sale deed bearing
document No.3524 of 2009, dated 04.11.2009. The said Thodeti
Bapu, in turn, sold the subject property to Mohammed Abdul
Nayeem under a registered sale deed bearing document
No.3335 of 2011 dated 25.07.2011. The said Mohammed Abdul
Nayeem sold the subject property to the plaintiff under a
registered sale deed bearing document No.1281 of 2015 dated
30.04.2015. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, she is the
absolute owner and possessor of the subject property.
ii. While so, when the defendant tried to interfere with her
possession over the subject property lastly on 02.02.2021, she
filed the aforesaid suit against the defendant for perpetual
injunction restraining him from interfering with her possession
over the subject property.
iii. Plaintiff further contended that the defendant herein created
registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.918 of
2003, dated 31.10.2003 from Kummari Santosh Kumar, his
brother's son.
iv. The said gift settlement deed was not entered in the revenue
record and he has not handed over the possession of the same to
the defendant.
v. When the defendant came to know that the plaintiff is in
possession of the subject property, he got executed a registered
dispute relinquishment deed in favour of plaintiff bearing
document No.6613 of 2016 dated 23.06.2016 by receiving an
amount of Rs.1.00 lakh and thus, the defendant relinquished his
rights over the subject property stating that he will never
dispute at any time and cancel the said registered gift settlement
deed and that the plaintiff is in possession of the subject
property since long time.
vi. The defendant has not entered into the suit land. As such his
title and rights were relinquished over the suit schedule
property.
vii. The defendant filed written statement contending that one
Kummari Santhosh Kumar, is the original owner and possessor
of the subject property.
viii. In fact, subject property was purchased by father of the said
Kummari Santhosh Kumar, in the name of Kummari Santhosh
Kumar from Bejjanki Yellaiah under a simple sale deed long
back.
ix. Kummari Santhosh Kumar, filed a suit O.S.No.1037 of 1990 for
declaration of title and possession against the said Bejjanki
Yellaiah, who in turn filed written statement admitting the title
and possession of said Kummari Santhosh Kumar, and basing
on the said admission in the said written statement, the suit was
decreed on 19.09.1990. The name of Kumamri Santhosh
Kumar, was entered in the revenue records, pattadar passbooks
and title deeds were also issued. Since then, said Kummari
Santhosh Kumar, is in possession of the subject property.
x. Bejjanki Yellaiah in collusion with Thodeti Babu, created a
fake and fictitious sale deed bearing document No.3524 of
2009, dated 04.11.2009 in respect of the subject property. The
said Thodeti Babu tried to enter his name in the revenue record.
Therefore, Bejjanki Yellaiah filed appeal vide No.D/4000/2012
appeal before RDO, Karimnagar against Kummari Santhosh
Kumar and Bejjanki Yellaiah who admitted title and possession
of said Kummari Santhosh Kumar, and filed a compromise
petition. Thereafter, the RDO Karimnagar has passed an order
dated 06.07.2015.
xi. The defendant being junior paternal uncle of Kummari
Santhosh Kumar, looking after the affairs of the subject
property and carrying on the agricultural operations on behalf of
Kummari Santhosh Kumar.
xii. In view of the family affairs, the said Kummari Santhosh
Kumar, executed a registered gift deed bearing document
No.1224/2003, dated 31.10.2003 in favour of the defendant in
respect of the subject property. The same was not acted upon
and subsequently, the said gift deed was not accepted by the
defendant. Therefore, the said Kummari Santhosh Kumar, is the
title holder and in possession and enjoyment of the subject
property.
xiii. The plaintiff along with neighbours tried to grab the subject
property by creating false and fake document bearing
No.6613/2016 dated 23.06.2016. Therefore, the defendant has
lodged a complaint with Police, Ramadugu, who in turn
registered the same as a case in Cr.No.85/2020 and on
completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid
charge sheet against them. The same was taken on file as
S.C.No.2014/2021 by the V Additional Sessions Judge,
Karimnagar. Thus, the plaintiff on the basis of false and
fictitious documents claiming possession of the subject property
and trying to grab the same. In the said process, he has filed the
present suit.
xiv. Plaintiff has filed a petition vide I.A.No.87/2021 in
O.S.No.171/2021 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC
seeking ad-interim injunction.
xv. The defendant filed counter in I.A.No.87 of 2021 opposing the
averments made in the said petition.
xvi. Vide order dated 13.07.2021, learned II Additional Junior Civil
Judge, Karimnagar, dismissed the said application relying on
the decree and judgment in O.S.No.1037 of 1990, MRI report
stating that the plaintiff is in possession of the subject property
and that the defendant executed a dispute relinquishment deed
bearing document No.6613 of 2016, dated 23.06.2016,
compromise appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Karimnagar and proceedings vide Proc.No.B/4767 of 2016
dated 13.12.2016 of Tahsildar, Ramadugu Mandal,
xvii. Trial Court further held that the plaintiff did not show that the
said Kummari Suresh Kumar, alienated or transferred the
property to Thodeti Babu but she filed a registered sale deed
bearing document No.3524 of 2009 dated 04.11.2009 executed
by Bejjanki Yellaiah in favour of Thodeti Babu. Thus, trial
Court relied on the aforesaid decree and judgment and also
order passed by the RDO and etc., The trial Court also placed
reliance on the pendency of the aforesaid crime No.85/2020.
The trial Court held that there is no prima facie case in favour
of the plaintiff in respect of the subject property.
xviii. The trial Court further held that the defendant claiming right
over the subject property through Mohammad Abdul Nayeem
under Doc.No.1081 of 2015 dated 30.04.2015, the said Mohd.
Abdul Nayeem got it from Thodeti Babu and Thodeti Babu got
it from Bejjanki Yellaiah. In such case, the defendant cannot
execute a dispute relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff,
more particularly, when his name was not incorporated in
revenue records by virtue of gift deed, executed by Kummari
Santhosh Kumar, and further held that there is no prima facie
case in favour of the plaintiff.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff preferred an
appeal vide CMA No.18 of 2021. Vide judgment dated 11.08.2023,
learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, allowed the appeal
by setting aside the order dated 13.07.2021 in I.A.No.87 of 2021
passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge.
5. The appellate Court held that the contention of the defendant
that Ex.P.8 registered relinquishment deed bearing document
No.6613/2016 dated 23.06.2016 was created one is a triable issue. The
decree and judgment dated 19.09.1990 in O.S.No.1037 of 1990 and
order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the RDO, Karimnagar vide Appeal
No.D/4000/2012 were passed recording the compromise. The
appellate Court also observed that the name of the plaintiff was
entered in the revenue record, latest pattadar passbooks and title deeds
were also issued in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is in
possession of the subject property. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled
for ad-interim injunction.
6. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/defendant filed the
present revision contending that the plaintiff approached the trial
Court by suppression of material facts and with unclean hands.
Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for equitable relief of injunction.
The plaintiff has to establish prima-facie case, balance of convenience
and irreparable loss. In the present case, the plaintiff failed to establish
the same. Thus, the trial Court dismissed the said application filed by
the plaintiff and it is a reasoned order. The appellate Court set aside
the same with erroneous findings. Therefore, the order dated
11.08.2023 in C.M.A.No.18 of 2021 passed by the learned I
Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, is liable to be set aside. In
support of his case, he has placed reliance on the following
judgments:-
1. Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary vs. Sitaram Bhalchandra
Sukhtankar 1
2. National Airport Authority vs. Vijaydutt 2
3. Shaik Ameer Johni vs. Shaik John Ahmed 3
4. Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India 4
5. Ammani vs. The Tiruchengode Municipality 5
6. D.Suguna vs. Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Temple 6
7. Mandadi Ranganna vs. T.Ramachandra 7
AIR 1983 SC 742
AIR 1990 MP 326
1991 (2) ALT449
AIR 1992 Delhi 197
AIR 2004 Mad 333
2004 (4) ALT 407
AIR 2008 SC 2291
7. Whereas, Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel appearing for
plaintiff would contend that the trial Court erred in dismissing the
application filed by the plaintiff seeking ad-interim injunction. The
trial Court cannot give findings with regard to the title while deciding
an interlocutory application. On consideration of the said aspects
only, the appellate Court rightly allowed the appeal filed by the
plaintiff by setting aside the order dated 13.07.2021 passed by the trial
Court in I.A.No.81/2021. It is a reasoned order.
8. The aforesaid facts would reveal that according to the
plaintiff originally, the subject land belongs to Dulimitta Lachi Reddy,
who in turn sold the subject property to Bejjanki Yellaiah under
Ex.P.4- registered sale deed bearing document No. 337 of 1982 dated
02.06.1982. The said Bejjanki Yellaiah sold the subject property in
favour of Thodeti Babu under Ex.P.5-registered sale deed bearing
document No. 3524/2009 dated 04.11.2009. The said Thodeti Babu
sold the subject property in favour of Mohd.Abudul Nayeem under
Ex.P.6-registered sale deed bearing document No.3325 of 2011 dated
21.11.2011. The said Mohd. Abdul Nayeem sold the subject property
to the defendant under Ex.P.7- registered sale deed bearing document
No.1281 of 2015 dated 30.04.2015.
9. It is also relevant to note that the name of the plaintiff was
mutated in the revenue records. Exs.P.10 and P.11- old pattadar
passbooks and Ex.P.12 latest passbook - cum - title deed were issued
in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P.13 is a copy of I-B Namuna issued in
favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also filed Ex.P.1 to P.3-
pahani patrikas for the years 1974-75, 1978-79 and 1980-81 to show
that Dulimitta Lachi Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of
the subject property. Ex.P.14 is the latest pahani for the year 2017
wherein the name of the plaintiff is mentioned as pattadar and
possessor of the subject property. Thus, by filing Ex.P.1 to P.3, the
plaintiff proved that said Dulimitta Lachi Reddy was the absolute
owner and possessor of the subject land as on the date of execution of
Ex.P.4 sale deed bearing document No.337/82, dated 02.06.1982 in
favour of Bejjanki Yellaiah. The plaintiff has also proved prima facie
title and possession by producing Exs.P.5, P.6 and P.7 registered sale
deeds and Exs.P.10 to 12- passbooks and title deed.
10. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that on coming to know
that the plaintiff is in possession of the subject property, the defendant
has executed Ex.P.8-registered relinquishment deed bearing document
No.6613/2016 dated 23.06.2016 in favour of the plaintiff by receiving
an amount of one lakh and in the said deed, the defendant
categorically admitted that he is relinquishing all his rights over the
subject property in favour of the plaintiff. But the defendant is
disputing the said document and according to him, it is a created
document. Whether it is created document or whether the defendant
received the said amount of one lakh rupees from the plaintiff or not is
a triable issue and the same will be decided after conducting full-
fledged trial. The same cannot be considered while deciding an
interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
CPC.
11. Even according to the defendant, he is the junior paternal
uncle of Kummari Suresh Kumar and defendant used to look after the
affairs of the subject property by carrying on agricultural operations.
The registered gift deed vide document No.1224/2003 dated
31.10.2003 executed by Kummari Santhosh Kumar, in favour of the
defendant did not act upon, the same was not accepted by the
defendant. Therefore, according to the defendant, the said Kumamri
Suresh Kumar was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject
property. Again the said facts are triable issues and the same can be
considered on completion of full fledged trial. The same cannot be
considered at interlocutory stage. Thus, according to the defendant,
Kummari Santhosh Kumar, is defendant's brother's son who is the
absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. His contention
that he is looking after the affairs of the subject property cannot be
considered at this stage and it can be considered after concluding full
fledged trial.
12, Ex.R.3-decree and judgment in O.S.No.1037 of 1990 and
Ex.R.4 order dated 06.07.2015 of the RDO, Karimnagar, in Appeal
No.D/4000/2012 were passed on compromise and on considering the
written statement and admission of claim by Bejjanki Yellaiah in
favour of Kummari Santhosh Kumar. Both the said orders are prior to
Ex.P.8 registered relinquishment deed.
13. Perusal of the Ex.P.8 registered relinquishment deed would
reveal that the defendant himself specifically stated about gift
settlement deed bearing document No.1223/2003, registered sale deed
bearing document No.1281/2015 dated 30.04.2015 executed by Mohd.
Abdul Nayeem in favour of the plaintiff. He has also referred about
the pendency of the cases and the advise given by elders and well
wishers to settle the same. He has also admitted about receiving of the
amount of one lakh rupees and relinquishment of his rights over the
suit schedule property. He has also further admitted that the plaintiff is
in possession of the subject property from the beginning and he never
in possession of the subject property. There are two witnesses to the
said document. Whether the defendant executed the said
relinquishment deed or not is again a triable issue which can be
decided after concluding full fledged trial. While deciding an
application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the Court has
to consider triple point formula i.e. prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable loss. At the interlocutory stage, the
Courts shall not give any finding with regard to the reliability and
genuinity of any document. Considering the documents filed by the
parties, the Court has to decide the application filed under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The above said suit is for injunction
simplicitor. Therefore, the Court has to consider prima facie title of
the plaintiff and possession over the suit schedule property.
14. As discussed supra, the plaintiff is claiming right over the
subject property basing on Ex.P.7 registered sale deed. The plaintiff
has also filed Ex.P.1 to P.6 documents to show that she is in
possession of the subject property. Her name was also mutated in
revenue records and in proof of the same, she has filed Exs.P.13-1B
Namuna certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Ramadugu. She has also
filed Ex.P.9 mutation proceedings No.B/4716/2016 dated 13.06.2016
isisued by Tahsildar, Ramadugu, Ex.P.10 and P.11 are old pattadar
passbooks and title deed, Ex.P.12 latest pattadar passbook and title
deed.
15. Thus, the plaintiff proved her prima facie title and
possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of
the suit. Without considering the said aspects, the learned trial Court,
relying on Ex.R.3 judgment and decree in O.S.No.1037 of 1990,
Ex.R.4 copy of the order dated 06.07.2015 of the RDO, Karimnagar in
Appeal No. D/4000/2002, dismissed I.A.No.87 of 2021. As discussed
supra, both are on compromise. In both the cases, Bejjanki Yellaiah
admitted the claim of Kummari Santhosh Kumar. Thereafter, he has
executed Ex.P.8-relinquishment deed bearing document
No.6613/2016 dated 23.06.2016. Therefore, the said aspects have to
be considered on conducting full-fledged trial. On consideration of
the said aspects only, learned appellate Court set aside the order
passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.87 of 2021 in O.S.No.171 of 2021,
dated 30.07.2021.
16. It is relevant to note that the Apex Court in Dalpat Kumar
vs Prahlad Singh8 and Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs Kartick
Das9, Bacharaj Singhvi vs. Hastimal Kothari10 and
E.Managamma vs. A.Muniswamy Naidu 11 while dealing with an
application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. seeking
ad interim injunction held that the Courts have to see triple point
formula i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable
loss.
17. With regard to the scope of revision under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance
on the judgment of the Apex Court in M/S. Estralla Rubber vs.
Dass Estate (Private) Ltd 12 wherein it was held that the exercise of
power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep
inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to
see that they do duty expected or required by them in a legal manner.
The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct
all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the
AIR 1993 SC 276,
1994 (4) SCC 225
1980 (2)ALT 472
AIR 1983 AP 128 DB
2001 (8) SCC 97
jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this
power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is
restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation
of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does
not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well
settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot
exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment
in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is
not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or
ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no
evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no
reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the
court or Tribunal has come to.
18. In Waryam Singh vs. Amarnath13, Ahmedabad Mfg. and
Calico PTG Co.Ltd vs. Ram Tahel Ramnand 14 and Bathutmal
Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibat R.Tarta 15 the Apex Court held that
the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India must be
exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order tokeep
(1954) 1 SCC 51= 1954 SCC OnLine SC 13
(1972) 1 SCC 898
(1975) 1 SCC 858
the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for
correcting mere errors.
19. As discussed supra, in the present case, the plaintiff has
filed the aforesaid documents including latest pattadar passbooks and
title deed to show her possession over the property. Without
considering the said aspects, learned trial Court dismissed I.A. No.87
of 2021 filed by the respondent herein relying on Ex.R.4-Decree and
Judgment in O.S.No.1037 of 1990 and Ex.R.4 copy of the order
passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer without considering the fact
that in both the cases Bejjanki Yellaiah admitted the Kummari
Santhosh Kumar, claim. The trial Court failed to consider Ex.P.8
relinquishment deed executed by the defendant in favour of the
plaintiff by receiving an amount of rupees one lakh. Trial Court has
also failed to consider the contention of the defendant that whether he
has executed the relinquishment deed or not is triable issue and the
same can be considered after full-fledged trial. It cannot be considered
while deciding interlocutory application. Thus, the finding of the trial
Court is perverse and the same was considered by the appellate Court
vide impugned order. Therefore, there is jurisdictional error which can
be corrected by this Court by invoking its power under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on
the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Gangubai Babiya
Chaudhary (supra) wherein it was held that when an interim
injunction is sought, the Court may have to examine whether the party
seeking the assistance of the Court, was at any time in lawful
possession of the property and if it is so established, one would prima
facie ask the other side contesting the suit to show how the plaintiffs
were dispossessed.
21. As discussed supra, in the present case, the plaintiff filed the
aforesaid documents including latest passbooks and title deeds to
show her possession.
22. In National Airport Authority (supra), the Madhya
Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) held that the relief of temporary
injunction is an equitable one and is in the domain of the Court's
judicial discretion. Therefore, even where the three well known
concurrent conditions (Prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable injury) requisite for grant of the relief exist, the Court, on
the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in exercising its
discretion judicially, may still refuse the relief as where there has been
delay and the party applying for the relief has not come with clean
hands.
23. As discussed supra, whether the plaintiff approached the
Court with clean hands or not, is a triable issue and it can be
considered by the trial Court after full-fledged trial, but not at
interlocutory stage.
24. In Shaik Ameer Johni (supra), the then High Court of
Andhra Pradesh held that it is for the plaintiff to establish prima face
that they were in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit.
The Court cannot depend upon the weakness in the case of the
defendant and because the defendant did not establish his case of
alleged tenancy, it cannot come to the conclusion that the plaintiff's
case must be true.
25. But in the present case, the plaintiff established her prima
facie title and possession over the suit schedule property.
26. In Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. (supra), the Delhi High
Court held that the suppression of material fact by itself is a sufficient
ground to decline the discretionary relief of injunction. A party
seeking discretionary relief has to approach the court with clean hands
and is required to disclose all material facts which may, one way or
the other, affect the decision. A person deliberately concealing
material facts from court is not entitled to any discretionary relief. The
court can refuse to hear such person on merits. A person seeking relief
of injunction is required to make honest disclosure of all relevant
statements of facts otherwise it would amount to an abuse of the
process of the court.
27. As discussed supra, the plaintiff has filed all the aforesaid
documents including Ex.P.1 pahani copy for the year 1974-75. The
suppression of fact by the plaintiff as pointed by the defendant is a
matter of trial and the trial Court has to consider the same after
concluding full-fledged trial but not at interlocutory stage.
28. In Ammani (supra), the Madras High Court held that an
injunction cannot be granted when the conduct of the plaintiff or his
agents has been such as to disentitle him to assistance of the Court.
29. In the present case, the conduct of the parties i.e. whether
Ex.R.8-relinquishment deed is executed by the defendant or not can be
considered after concluding full-fledged trial, but not at interlocutory
stage.
30. In D.Suguna (supra), the then High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad held that ordinarily, a person in possession of
the property is entitled for grant of temporary injunction. However, it
is important that such possession must not be unlawful. If the
possession is found to be unlawful, it cannot be protected by way of
temporary injunction.
31. Facts of the present case are different to that of the above
case. In the present case, the plaintiff filed aforesaid documents
including latest passbooks and title deeds to show that she is in
possession of the subject property.
32. In Mandadi Ranganna (supra), the Apex Court held that a
person who had kept quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal
with the properties exclusively, ordinarily would not be entitled to an
order of injunction.
33. In the present case, according to the plaintiff, the defendant
tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit
schedule property lastly on 02.02.2021 and therefore, the facts of the
said case are slightly different to the facts of the present case.
Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the present case.
34. As discussed supra, in the present case, the trial Court erred
in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of CPC relying only on Exs.R.4 and R.8 and without
considering the fact that whether the defendant executed Ex.R.8-
relinquishment deed by receiving an amount of one lakh rupees or not
is a triable issue. On the other hand, the learned Appellate Court on
consideration of the documents filed by the plaintiff and that the
plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, set aside the
order passed by the trial Court. There is no error in the order passed
by the appellate Court. Therefore, the order dated 13.07.2021 passed
in I.A.No.87 of 2021 in O.S.No.171 of 2021 by the II Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, is set aside. The petitioner
herein/defendant and her men and agents are hereby restrained from
interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the
suit schedule property, till disposal of the suit O.S.No.171 of 2021.
35. In the light of the above discussion, the Civil Revision
Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 11.08.2023 passed in
CMA No.18 of 2021 by the learned I Additional District Judge,
Karimnagar, I.A.No.87 of 2021 in O.S.No.171 of 2021 is allowed
granting temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his men and
agents etc, from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiff over the suit schedule property, till disposal of the suit in
O.S.No.171 of 2021.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
revision shall stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Dated:21.08.2024
Vvr
