Telangana High Court
Keshaboina Rajaiah vs Tatipamula Thirumala on 10 September, 2025
The Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara
Second Appeal No.401 of 2024
Judgment:
Heard Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the respondent,
on the question of admission. Perused the record.
2. This is a Second appeal preferred aggrieved by the impugned
judgment and decree dated 18.04.2024 in A.S.No.108 of 2022 (Old
A.S.No.212 of 2019) on the file of the Chairperson, Land Reforms
Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda
confirming the Judgment and decree dated 06.06.2019 in O.S.No.261 of
2011 on the fie of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
3. Initially, the respondent/plaintiff herein filed suit vide
O.S.No.261 of 2011 for perpetual injunction against the appellant herein
with respect to house with open land surrounded by cement poles and
compound wall admeasuring 680 sq.yds. in Sy.No.149of Waddepalli
Revenue village at Ashoka Colony Area, Hanamkonda, Warangal. The
respondent acquired said land under registered document vide No.1210
of 2010, dated 17.02.2010 from her father Adepu Malliah, who in turn
acquired under registered document vide No.3965 of 1997, dated
29.12.1997 executed by one B. Gopal Rao who in turn purchased said
land from one Nalla Rama Swamy in the year 1985. The respondent
submitted an application for regularization before KUDA and
proceedings were issued vide No.LRS/C1/93/2010, dated 31.03.2010.
Said property was assessed as 2-4-1531/1 and permission was granted
vide Permit No.99, dated 04.06.2010. Said property had compound wall
and cement poles. On 08.03.2011, the appellant caused interference by
disturbing the compound wall and cement poles. Therefore, suit for
perpetual injunction was filed. The appellant's case is ownership of land
to an extent of Ac.2.06 Gts. in Sy.No.147 but not Sy.No.149.
4. Upon examining the entire documentary evidence and oral
evidence, the suit has been decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellant herein preferred First Appeal and said First Appeal was
dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is preferred raising
the following substantial questions of law.
a. Whether the Appellate Court erred in failing to consider
that the Simplicitor suit for perpetual injunction is not
maintainable?
b. Whether the plaintiff had clear title over the schedule
property?
c. Whether the plaintiff satisfied the court in proving that
the schedule property doesn't form part of Sy.No.147?
d. Whether the Appellate court erred in confirming the
judgment and decree dated 06.06.2019 passed in
O.S.No.261 of 2011?
5. Among the above substantial questions of law, the appellant
emphasized on question No.(a) i.e. maintainability of a suit for
injunction simplicitor when there is a cloud on the title. In that regard,
reliance is placed upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in case between RBANMS Educational Institution v. Gunashekar
and another 1, wherein, it is held that conveyance of any immovable
property requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of
Registration Act, 1908. In the instant case, the respondent has relied
upon an unregistered Agreement of Sale executed by Nalla Rama Swamy
in favour of B. Gopal Rao. Therefore, a question is raised about the
genuineness of title of the respondent. Here, the appellant lost sight of
the fact there is existence of a house coupled with compound wall.
When the respondent is in occupation of such a house from the time of
construction of said house in the year 2010, the genuineness of the title
2025 SCC OnLine SC 793
cannot be looked into and only possession as on date of filing of the suit
has to be looked into. The judgment of RBANMS (1 supra) is between
an institution which has a Lease Deed wherein an Agreement of Sale is
executed in favour of the respondent and there is attempt to create
cloud over the title. Such a fact pattern is not applicable to the present
case.
6. Further, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case between
Telsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and another v. Ganga Bai
Menariya (Dead) through Lrs. and others 2, wherein, it is held that a
suit for simplicitor injunction may not be maintainable when there is
dispute over title of the property of the plaintiff. In the instant case,
there is no dispute over the title of the respondent being located in
Sy.No.149 over the property of the appellant located in Sy.No.147. In
the case of Ganga Bai Menariya (2 supra), the suit was filed seeking
ownership and possession of the suit land. In the instant case, the
respondent is already in possession of house which is surrounded by
compound wall. The relief sought is to restrain the appellant from
interfering with his possession over the property. In Ganga Bai
2024 SCC OnLine SC 169
Menariya (2 supra), there is a serious dispute about the title of the
plaintiff as being purchased from Panchayat Titardi and said land
belonging to the Government. In the instant case, there is no such
dispute about the actual title of the respondent except that there may be
defect in the title deed of property which is already regularized by the
respondent vide proceedings No.LRS/C1/93/2010, dated 31.03.2010.
Once an Agreement of sale is regularized, the appellant has no case to
allege cloud on the title. Since the possession is already proven and
confirmed by the Trial court as well as the First Appellate Court, this
Court does not see any merit in the substantial questions of law raised
by the appellant. The appellant is trying to create a cloud over the title
of the respondent where there is no such cause. As such, the Second
Appeal is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of
admission. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Second
Appeal, shall stand closed.
_________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 10.09.2025
GVL
