The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is upheld in injunction suits despite title disputes, reaffirming the principle of protecting long settled possession from forcible eviction without due process.

-

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 24-3-2006 in A.S.No.6 of 2001, on the file of the learned District Judge, Vizianagaram, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 14-11-2000 in O.S.No.304 of 1994, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

-

2. The appellants herein are defendants 1 and 2 and the respondents are plaintiffs 1 to 7 in O.S.No.304 of 1994 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

3. During the pendency of the second appeal -- the 3^rd respondent died and her legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 8 to 10; the 4^th respondent died and her legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 11 to 16; the 5^th respondent died and her legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 17 to 20; the 6^th respondent died and her legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 8 to 10; and as per Court order dated 22-12-2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2021, respondents 24 to 27 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased respondents 1, 2, 8, 9, 13, 21 and 22.

4. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.304 of 1994 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, with a prayer for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 and their men and followers, trespassing into the plaint schedule lands or in any portion and put up any constructions or permit any of the defendants or their agents or their men to lay out any roads or put or in any way interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.304 of 1994 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendants in the above said suit filed A.S.No.6 of 2001 on the file of the learned District Judge, Vizianagaram. The learned District Judge, Vizianagaram, dismissed the appeal suit by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit approached this Court by way of second appeal.

6. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

-

7. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.304 of 1994, is as follows:

(a) It is pleaded that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are sons of one late Vakatipudi Tamma Rao and the 3^rd plaintiff is the widow of late Tamma Rao and plaintiffs 4 to 7 are daughters of late Tamma Rao and during the life time of Tamma Rao, he purchased the plaint schedule property with trees thereon from one Dr. Chodimella Syamala Rao through a registered sale deed, dated 19-9-1962, measuring approximately Ac.15-00 situated in Vizianagaram 2^nd bit bearing old Assessment Nos.14/1/A, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and since then, late Tamma Rao and the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till the death of Tamma Rao on 27-4-1976 and subsequently, the 1^st plaintiff himself is managing the plaint schedule property and that the plaint schedule property is pre-settlement minor inam lands covered by T.D.No.957 in Jaggucheruvu Istuva in Vizianagaram 2^nd bit and that the vendor of late Tamma Rao, in turn, purchased the plaint schedule lands and the remaining part of land in T.D.No.957 from Thota Narasimhulu.

(b) It is further ple