( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil procedure being aggrieved by a Judgment and Decree dated 27-4-2004 made in A. S. No. 192 of 2002 on the file of the learned additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Guntur, wherein the Judgment and Decree dated 9-9-2002 made in O. S. 860 oi 1997 on the file of the learned II Additional senior Civil Judge, Guntur, dismissing the suit, was reversed.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the defendant. Respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff (since died and respondents 2 to 5 were brought on record as his legal representatives), who filed the suit in O. S. No. 860 of 1997 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The parties are bereinatter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

( 3 ) IT is Ihe case of the original plaintiff that out of the suit schedule property of 248 square yards, his father purchased 225 square yards under a registered sale deed dated 25-2-1936 from one Sakala mutyam. Himself along with his brother were owning the property adjoining from north to south and a partition was effected between his father and the children of his father s brother, namely, Ameer Ali, after his death on 6-7-1957 under a registered parti- lion deed. The defendant is also a party to the said partition, in which 23 square yards of land was allotted to his father and to the east of the plaint schedule land, the defendants family was allotted the site, and they have constructed a house upto the border of the plaint schedule property. After the death of his father, himself and his sister partitioned their property under a registered partition deed dated 6-7-1971 and in that partition, he was allotted with the plaint schedule property and ever since he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. As he was working as a Government servant at various places, the property was kept vacant and some garbage was thrown into the site by the neighbours; thereby causing nuisance. Therefore, the defendant and some others made an application to the local authority on 24-5-1976 and the municipal authorities sent a Memo to him on 25-4-1977 to construct a compound wall around the plaint schedule site. While the things stood thus, he leased out the site to one Abdul Khaleel of Siraj Steel Industries, but he vacated the same later. It is also stated that he was the Mutawalli of a wakf, which is having 20 acres of land situated at the outskirts of the Guntur town. The defendant and his brothers wanted to sell away the same claiming to be a personal property and in that connection, he filed a suit in O. vs. No. 21 of 1991 on the file of the learned iii Additional District Judge, Guntur. In view oi filing of the said suit, the defendant bore grudge against him and obstructing for the enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

( 4 ) THE defendant filed a detailed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. It is inter alia stated that since the subject-matter relates to immovable property, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. The plaintiff has no title over the suit schedule property. The sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff is subsequent to the partition deeds and as such, it is not binding on the defendant. The deiendant has been residing in the suit property for the last 4 decades and it is known to each and everybody in the locality. The first plaintiff or any one of the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit properly at any point of time. The report of Advocate Commissioner also establishes that the plaintiff has no possession over the suit site. The alleged correspondence between the first plaintiff and the Municipal Corporation has no bearing and it is not binding on the defendant. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial :

Click Here to Read the rest of this document