In property disputes, possession follows title; plaintiffs established a prima facie case warranting temporary injunction despite defendants' claims.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6.

2. The present petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Senior Civil Judge Bagepalli in MA No.50/2024 confirming the order of the Civil Judge and JMFC-Bageppalli in O.S.No.382/2022 by rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC.

3. Parties to the proceedings shall be referred to as per the status before the trial Court as plaintiffs and defendants.

4. Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. Along with the plaint, an application came to be filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for an order of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs' suit schedule property.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs that one Maddanna, S/o Degani Maddireddy, was the original owner of property bearing Survey No. 66/5, measuring 0.08 guntas, situated at Gujjepally Village, Kuthur Majara, Pathapalya Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk. The said Maddanna S/o Degani Maddireddy sold the suit schedule property to the father of the plaintiffs, namely Sri.Venkatarayappa by way of a registered sale deed dated 20.09.1943 and thereafter his name was mutated in the revenue records till his survival.

6. It is submitted that during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiffs, he was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and after his death, the plaintiffs and their mother were in enjoyment of the same. This being the state of affairs, the mother of defendant No.1 Smt.Ramakka filed suit against the plaintiffs in OS No.214/2002 for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs. The said suit, after detailed trial, came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 preferred an appeal in RA No. 133/2005, which also came to be dismissed on 12.04.2014. Thereafter, the contention of the defendant No.1 came to be rejected with regard for grant of any permanent injunction in her favour.

7. The husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant Nos. 3 to 6 filed O.S.No.222/2002 against the plaintiffs for permanent injunction. The said suit also came to be dismissed. It is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the same was again challenged in RA.No.134/2005. The said appeal also came to be dismissed on 12.04.2014. It is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property. They have absolutely no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. They filed a frivolous suit without there being any right or interest in the suit schedule property by claiming ownership to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, their respective suits came to be dismissed and the appeals challenging the same also came to be dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiffs, having filed the present suit for the relief of permanent injunction and having relied upon the sale deed of their deceased father and having inherited the same, have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property during the lifetime of their father and after the death, the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

8. The plaintiffs have produced RTC Extract and the sale deed to show that their father was the owner and the RTC standing in the name of the father of the plaintiffs. This being the s