1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’, for brevity) by the unsuccessful 2nd defendant is directed against the decree and judgment dated 02.08.2010 of the learned Principal District Judge, Sanga Reddy of Medak District passed in A.S.no.1 of 2008. The learned Principal District Judge while allowing the said first appeal had set aside the decree and judgment dated 20.12.2007 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy passed in O.S.No.407 of 2003 and had decreed the said suit for perpetual injunction filed by the sole plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of Ac.1.33 guntas in Sy.No.334/A/1 and another Ac.1.33 guntas in Sy.No.334/A/2 totally admeasuring Ac.3.26 guntas at Munipally village and Mandal of Medak District more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/2nd defendant (‘the 2nd defendant’, for brevity) and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff (‘the plaintiff’, for brevity). The 2nd respondent herein is the 1st defendant in the suit. I have perused the material record.

3. At the time of admission of this appeal, this Court had taken note of the substantial questions of law mentioned in the ground no.11 as the substantial question of law involved in this appeal. The said substantial questions are as follows:

“1. Whether Ex.A-15 unregistered Relinquishment Deed can be relied to recognize the relinquishment of right by Defendant No.1 in favour of his brother Kantha Rao (PW4)?

2. Whether the Memo filed by the Defendant No.1 at Appellate Stage quite contrary to his own pleadings and evidence on oath in the suit can be considered by the First Appellate Court to reverse the judgment?

3. Whether the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court with regard to effect of Memo and Ex.A-15 are perverse?

4. Whether the requirement of prima facie title is not material for granting perpetual injunction?”

(Reproduced verbatim)

4. To adjudicate the lis and answer the substantial questions of law, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings and the chronology of events that lead to the filing of this appeal by the 2nd defendant.

4.1 The plaint averments, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiff is the pattedar, owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.Nos.334/A/1 and 334/A/2 totally admeasuring Ac.3.26 guntas situated at Munipally village and Mandal of Medak District. The plaintiff’s name is recorded as pattedar and possessor of the said land in all the revenue records and he is presently cultivating the said land from the year 1998 and is enjoying the said plaint schedule land. Originally, one Patlolla Kantha Rao was the pattedar of the said plaint schedule land. The said land fell to his share during the family settlement prior to 1998 and the property was mutated in his name in all the revenue records. In the year 1998, the said Kantha Rao had offered to sell the said suit land to the plaintiff on account of his family and personal necessities. On 6.02.1998, the plaintiff had purchased Ac.1.33 guntas for a consideration of Rs.37,500/- under a registered sale deed. Again, the plaintiff had purchased the remaining extent of Ac.1.33 guntas for a consideration of Rs.42,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 12.03.1999. From the dates of the said purchases, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said respective extents of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is having pattadar passbook, title deed book and also the title deed of the original pattedar with him. The same are filed into Court. The copies of the pahanies for the years 1998-99, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03, the copy of the chowfasla for the years 2000-01 to 2002-03 and the encumbrance certificate also support the case of the plaintiff in regard to title and possession over the plaint schedule lands. The 1st defendant is the brother of the said Kantha Rao, the original pattedar. Th