IMPORTANT POINT
Injunction—Plaintiff has to succeed his case with his own strength but not on weaknesses of opponent—Possession of plaintiff is to be established.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 11.09.2012 in A.S.No.57 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2010 in O.S.No.89 of 2007 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Nakrekal.

2. The suit O.S.No.89 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiff- N.Ramulu against the defendants-Dasari Narsaiah and Nagulapati Bixam seeking permanent injunction by restraining the defendants from not to interfere with the possession over the property of an extent of Ac.2.25 guntas out of Sy.No.902 situated at Eduloor Village, Kattangur Mandal (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’). In support of his contentions, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 to 5 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.18. The first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and D.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.57 of 2010 and the appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 11.09.2012 allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2010 in O.S.No.89 of 2007. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, the defendants preferred this second appeal.

3. The brief facts before the trial Court are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and exclusive possessor of the suit schedule property. One Nagulapati Pedda Pitchaiah is paternal senior uncle purchased Ac.5.11 guntas in the above survey number from Narla Narsaiah in partition, the suit land fell to his father’s share, out of Ac.5.11 guntas Nagulapati Pedda Pitchaiah sold Ac.2.26 guntas to Nimmagoti Sathaiah, but at the time of mutation, the suit schedule property was wrongly mutated in the name of Narla Meenaiah. As such, his paternal senior uncle gave an application to the Revenue Officers on 02.03.2007 seeking rectification of wrong entries and accordingly, they rectified the wrong entries by proceedings No.B/1349/2007 dated 30.04.2007 and also issued pattadar pass book in his favour. The plaintiff would state that the defendants without having any manner of right interfered with his possession on 26.10.2007 and hence, he filed the suit.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it was asserted that one Narla Meenaiah was the absolute owner of the land to an extent of Ac.5.11 guntas out of Sy.No.902, which was acquired in a partition with his brothers viz., Narla Narsaiah, Papaiah and Thirupathaiah. Out of the said extent, he sold some portion to one A.Pedda Veeraiah through an unregistered sale deed about 40 years back and the remaining land of an extent of Ac.2.12 guntas (suit schedule property) to the first defendant through registered sale deed dated 03.10.2007. From then onwards the first defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. They would further assert that the Order in B/3473/2007 is a collusive one, for which they preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda, and it is stated to be pending for consideration.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants would assert that the basis of the plaintiff is Ex.A.1 which was issued without notice to the vendor of the defendant Meenaiah and it is in violation of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and as such the same is illegal. He would further contend that the plaintiff manipulated the mutation proceedings under Exs.A2 and A3, for which a statutory appeal was preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer and obtained stay of operation of