A legal right to a permanent injunction exists to protect lawful possession from interference, irrespective of ownership claims.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 09.08.2011 in A.S.No.2 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty (“First Appellate Court” for short) reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 28.10.2009 in O.S.No.225 of 2003, on the file of the Junior Civil, Gooty (“Trial Court” for short).

2. The appellants herein are defendants and the respondents herein are plaintiffs in O.S.No.225 of 2003. During the pendency of the second appeal, 1^st respondent died, respondent Nos.3 to 5 are added as legal representatives of deceased 1^st respondent.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.225 of 2003, with a prayer for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs of the plaint schedule property.

4. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the above said suit filed appeal suit in A.S.No.2 of 2010 before the First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Judge allowed the appeal setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the 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.225 of 2003, is as follows:

(i) The plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule property.Originally, the plaint schedule property belongs to Gaggalapalli Sunki Reddy and his wife G. Laxmamma. At the time of marriage, they gifted the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs under a registered gift deed, dated 18.01.1982. The plaintiffs have accepted the gift and ever since the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Some time, they have also leased out the properties to others. Except the plaintiffs, none others have any right, title or possession to the plaint schedule property. While so, the defendants who have no manner of right or title to the plaint schedule property are trying to obstruct the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property.

(ii) One Subba Lakshmamma filed suit in O.S.No.24 of 1991 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Gooty against the defendants and father of 1^st defendant with regard to plaint schedule property and other properties and after full trial, the suit was dismissed. In this connection, the defendants are claiming some amount from the plaintiffs on the ground that the father of the 1^st defendant have spent huge amount for the litigation. The plaintiffs are nothing to do with the alleged huge amount spent by the father of the 1^st defendant. They have no right to claim any amount from the plaintiffs. They have somehow wanted to grab the plaint schedule property.

7. The 1^st defendant filed written statement before the trial Court and the same was adopted by the 2^nd defendant denying the material averments made in the plaint. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: The 2^nd plaintiff is the paternal aunt of 1^st defendant and 2^nd defendant is his mother. The alleged donors of the plaintiffs are the paternal grandparents of 1^st defendant. One G. Sunki Reddy has two sons viz., G. Venkata Reddy (father of 1^st defendant) and G. Rami Reddy and all of them constituted coparcenary. G. Lakshamamma, wife of Sunki Reddy ha