IMPORTANT POINT
Gift under Hindu Law is valid only when it is accompanied by delivery of possession and property should be registered.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-2nd respondent aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2022 passed in I.A. No.39 of 2022 in O.S. No.40 of 2022 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred as per their array before the trial court.

3. The petitioners (respondents 2 and 3 herein) filed suit vide O.S. No.40 of 2022 for Perpetual Injunction restraining the 2nd respondent (petitioner herein) from interfering with their possession over the suit schedule property and also filed I.A. No.39 of 2022 seeking temporary injunction. The trial court passed orders in I.A. No.39 of 2022 granting temporary injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the suit schedule property until further orders. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent filed this revision contending that the petitioners created bogus Gift Deed alleging that their father executed it in their favour. The trial court failed to see that the father of the 2nd respondent executed a will deed in his favour as he looked after his welfare. The father of the 2nd respondent used to look after the suit schedule property till his death and pay house tax and electricity bills. Earlier, the petitioners attacked the 2nd respondent with an intention to kill him and he filed a report before the Chenchupally Police Station and the police registered a case in Crime No.58 of 2021 dated 25.06.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 452 and 506 read with 149 IPC. In view of the interim orders of the trial court, the petitioners were trying to evict the 2nd respondent from his possession over the suit schedule property and prayed to set aside the order dated 02.09.2022 passed in I.A No.39 of 2022 in O.S No.40 of 2022 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam.

4. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner-2nd respondent and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3-petitioners.

5. As seen from the record, the petitioners filed a suit for perpetual injunction and filed I.A No.39 of 2022 seeking temporary injunction. The contention of the petitioners was that they were the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property i.e. 1st petitioner was the owner and possessor of the vacant site towards East side of the house bearing No.3-1-38 to an extent of 373.33 sq. yds., and the 2nd petitioner was having vacant site towards east side of the house bearing No.3-1-38 also to an extent of 373.33 sq. yds., situated at Vidyanagar Colony, Chenchupalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. They acquired the suit schedule property from their father through Gift Deed dated 14.01.2011. After that, they came into possession of the suit schedule property and the 1st petitioner dug a bore well in her property and the 2nd petitioner constructed an iron petal shed in her property. Both of them constructed compound wall on three sides except in between them. They were in exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. After their marriages, they were staying away from the suit schedule property. Taking advantage of their non-residence, their father i.e. 1st respondent along with their step brother i.e. 2nd respondent, developed greedy eye and with active support of the unsocial elements in the village, without having rightful ownership over the schedule land, were trying to interfere with their possession. On 09.07.2021, the respondents (defendants) with the help of their henchmen tried to occupy the schedule property, but the petitioners resisted the same. As they apprehended danger to their possession, they filed the suit and the petition under Rule-42 (c) of A.P. Agency Rules read with Section 151 of CPC.

6. The 2nd respondent filed counter stating