IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
S Murali Mohan and Others – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 150 of 2013
Decided on : 02-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 04-6-2012 in A.S.No.87 of 2011 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 22-7-2011 in O.S.No.88 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.
2. The appellants herein are defendants 1 and 2 and the respondents are plaintiffs 1 to 5 in O.S.No.88 of 2007 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kurnool.
3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.88 of 2007 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kurnool, with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from entering into or in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule properties and for costs of the suit.
4. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, decreed the suit with costs in favour of the plaintiffs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from entering into or in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule properties. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants/appellants approached this Court by way of second appeal.
5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.
6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.88 of 2007, is as follows:
The said Gowli Rudrappa purchased earlier under a registered sale deed dated 26-9-1947. Ever since, the 1st plaintiff and his predecessors had been in possession and enjoyment of it absolutely and independently in their own right.
(b) It is further pleaded that the 2nd plaintiff purchased plaint B-schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 16-8-2001 from Annamma, wife of Buchanna. The said Annamma earlier purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 27-01-1986 from one Chennamma, wife of Naganna. The said Chennamma earlier purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 17-8-1973 from Chinna Kesanna and Naganna.
(c) It is further pleaded that the 3rd plaintiff is the owner of plaint-C schedule properties, purchased item No.1 of plaint C-schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 16-10-1996 from one Danamaiah. The said Danamaiah and his brother earlier purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 27-01-1986 from one Chennamma. The said Chennamma, in turn, purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 27-8-1973 from Chinna Kesanna and Naganna. The said documents show that earlier the said Chinna Kesanna and Naganna mortgaged the said property to Chennamma under a registered mortgage deed dated 23-9-1969 and to discharge the said mortgage, executed the registered sale deed dated 27-8-1973. It is further pleaded that the 3rd plaintiff also purchased item No.2 of plaint C-schedule properties under a registered sale deed dated 09-3-1998 from Mohammed Khasim’s sons, Sheik Mohammed Alla Baksh and Sheik Mohammed Hussain. The said Mohammed Khasim earlier purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 09-7-1984 from Thimmakka, wife of Telugu
The court affirmed that registered sale deeds establish ownership and possession, overriding claims of government assignment when not substantiated by evidence.
In matters of permanent injunction, plaintiffs must demonstrate legal possession, which was upheld as valid against claims of governmental assignment, affirming the necessity of evidential support fo....
In a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff establishes title, a reasonable presumption of lawful possession can be drawn. The defendant's challenge to the title must be examined to determin....
Settled possession, supported by revenue records and documents, entitles a party to permanent injunction, even in the absence of title, when the true owner is not a party to the suit.
Point of law: High Court cannot set aside findings of fact of the first appellate court and come to a different conclusion on reappraisal of evidence while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 C....
In a suit for injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.
A suit for injunction is not maintainable without a concurrent suit for declaration of title when ownership is disputed, emphasizing the necessity of primary evidence in possession claims.
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when the defendant raises a genuine dispute regarding the plaintiff's title, and the plaintiff fails to prove lawful possession.
It is within the realm of the competent authority to take appropriate action to resume the assigned land. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not applicable in respect of an agreemen....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.