The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff cannot claim injunction against the true owner without lawful possession and title.

JUDGMENT

DR.K.MANMADHA RAO, J. - Second Appeal No. 260 of 2023 has been filed assailing the Judgment and Decree dtd. 21/3/2023, passed in A.S.No.78 of 2015 by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (in short "the first appellate court") in dismissing the Appeal by confirming the Judgment and decree dtd. 24/3/2015 in O.S.No.586 of 2014 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada (in short "the trial court)". Second Appeal No. 262 of 2023 has been filed assailing the Judgment and Decree dtd. 21/3/2023, passed in A.S.No.83 of 2015 by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (in short "the first appellate court") in dismissing the Appeal by confirming the Judgment and decree dtd. 8/4/2015 in O.S.No.587 of 2014 passed by the learned VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada (in short "the trial court)".

2. The parties will herein after be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Suit for the sake of convenience.

3. Since the facts and issue involved in all the Second Appeals are one and the same, I find it expedient to decide these matters by a Common Judgment.

4. For the sake of convenience, S.A.No. 260 of 2023 is taken as leading case.

5. The appellant herein is the appellant/ plaintiff; respondent is the respondent/ defendant in the courts below. The appellant/ plaintiff is different and respondent/ defendant is common in both the Appeals and also before the courts below.

6. Initially the appellant/ plaintiff before the court below has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the respondent/ defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property contending that the suit schedule property was purchased by one Pinnamaneni Venkata Ratnam under a Sale Agreement dtd. 11/5/1973 from the defendant and his father S. Yesudasu. Later said Venkata Ratnam executed a Will dtd. 21/11/1984 in favour of his two sons namely Pinnamaneni Ranga Rao and Pinnamaneni Krishna Rao bequeathing his properties to them. Later he died on 19/6/2000. Therefore the said Will came into operation. Subsequently P. Krishna Rao gifted his properties to his two sons namely plaintiff and Babji under Registered Gift Deed dtd. 30/4/2015, since then they have been possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. While so, the defendant and his men developed an evil eye to knock away the said property and threatened with dire consequences. Hence the suit.

7. The defendant filed Written Statement denying all material averments made in the plaint and contended that the father of the defendant has leased out an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in R.S.No.117/2D of Gunadala Village in 1970 to one Pinnamaneni Venkata Ratnam on monthly makta at Rs.1, 000.00 to Yesudasu till 1976 till his death. Later his sons Ranga Rao and Krishna Rao used to continue the tenancy by paying makta at Rs.3, 000.00 till 2012. Later they stopped to pay makta. The defendant and or his father never sold their land including the plaint schedule rpoeprty to the plaintiff or his ancestors, the alleged agreement of sale is forged, which is not referred to in the alleged Will also. The said land was assigned by Government noted in Resettlement Register of Gunadala Revenue Village, as such it cannot be alienated. The plaintiff has no right over the plaint schedule property. Therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court eventually framed the following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is in wrongful possession of the plaint schedule property without having title?

(3) To what relief?

9. During the course of trial PWs-1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and Ex.A1 to A7 were marked and on behalf of the defendant, Dws-1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B13 were marked.

10. After thorough enquiry, the trial court holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property, but his possession is w