A suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable when there is interference with lawful possession, and a declaration of title is not necessary unless there is a genuine dispute over the title.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

1. Heard Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel, representing Sri Alapati Lalith Nikhil, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C) by the defendant/appellants arises out of O.S.No.238 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati which was decreed vide the judgment/decree dated 07.01.2017 and was affirmed in A.S.No.126 of 2017 vide judgment/decree dated 13.03.2023 passed by the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati dismissing the appeal of the present appellants.

3. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 namely Ellanti Nirmala filed O.S.No.238 of 2012 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein (the present appellants and the respondent No.2) and their men etc. from, in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property.

4. The plaintiff's case was that originally the property of an extent of Ac. 2.75 cents in Sy.No.11/2B 2 of No.9, Akkarampalli Revenue Village accounts was the absolute property of one Pedirappagari Kamalamma. She was in possession and enjoyment and sold it out to one Marisetti Venkatachalam under a registered sale deed dated 15.06.1981 for consideration and also delivered possession to him. Subsequently, M. Venkatachalam sold out, to an extent of Ac. 0.10 1/3rd cents out Ac. 2.75 cents with specific boundaries in Sy.No.11/2B 2 in favour of one Gogineni Venkataramana and he sold out the site measuring 2240 sq.ft with specific boundaries and measurements as mentioned in the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 25.09.1996. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any interruption from anybody. The defendants are no way concerned with the plaint scheduled property but high handedly made a forcible attempt on 03.06.2012 to grab while the plaintiff was attempting to fence the plaint scheduled property with barbed wire. Consequently the plaintiff had to file the suit.

5. The defendants filed written statement. Their pleading inter alia is that one Gogineni Venkataramana purchased the suit scheduled property under a registered sale deed dated 23.01.1984 from his vendor Marisetti Venkatachalam. Subsequently, Marisetti Venkatachalam executed registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of the 2nd defendant on 14.11.2007. Pursuant of the registered General Power of Attorney, the power of attorney holder executed a registered sale deed in favour of the 1st and the 3rd defendants under a registered sale deed on 25.02.2008 and also delivered possession to them, and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property without any interruption. The 1st defendant purchased the property situated on the southern side. Even prior thereto the 1st defendant had purchased a vacant site under a registered sale deed. The 1st defendant and the 3rd defendant constructed a compound with cement bricks with a height of 5 feet for all three sites owned by them. There are two sheds roofed with asbestos cement sheds constructed by the 1st defendant on the said compound and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any interruption from anybody. With respect to the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, it was submitted that it did not bear the signatures of Gogineni Venkataramana as he used to sign in English only. The plaintiff’s registered sale deed dated 25.09.1996 was pleaded to be created and fabricated with forged signatures and by impersonation. It was also pleaded that all the original title deeds were handed over to the 1st defendant at the time of execution of registered sale deed in his favour by Gogineni Venkataramana and those original deeds were in their possession. It was also their case that the plaintiff never entered into the possession of the plaint scheduled property. The alleged interfere