Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
V. Srinivas, J.
A.V. Sridhar Reddy and Ors. – Appellants
versus
Ch. Ramanaiah Tirupati
Chittoor District and Ors. – Respondents
Appeal Suit Nos.156 and 372 of 2009
Decided on 28.11.2025
(A) Injunction – Suit for Permanent Injunction – In a suit for permanent injunction, Court is not required to conclusively determine or declare title to property – It must examine whether there is a prima facie case, existence of a legal right, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable harm – However, when title is seriously disputed, Court may incidentally consider it to decide whether injunction can be granted – This does not convert suit into one for declaration of title – Where de jure possession depends on ownership, issue of title becomes central, as possession cannot be determined without addressing ownership – Party seeking permanent injunction to restrain interference of third party, he must establish lawful possession of property – De jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to property in case of vacant site – Plaintiff must succeed on strength of his own case and cannot rely on weakness of defendant’s case. (Paras 23, 25 and 51)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 96 and 100 – Appeal – Locus Standi – To be entitled to file appeal the person must be one aggrieved by decree – Unless a person is prejudicially or adversely affected by decree he is not entitled to file appeal – No appeal lies against a mere finding – Both Sections 96 and 100 CPC provide for appeal against decree and not against judgment – On grounds of justice, appeal may lie against a finding, provided that it would operate as re judicata so as to preclude a party aggrieved by the finding from agitating the question covered by the finding in any other proceeding. (Paras 73 and 75)
Result: Appeal allowed with costs.
JUDGMENT (COMMON)
These regular appeals under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure are directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.38 of 2002 dated 26.02.2009 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional District Judge at Tirupati.
2. The plaintiffs, before the Trial Court, are the appellants in A.S.No.156 of 2009 as well the defendant Nos.5 to 7, before the Trial Court, are the appellants in A.S.No.372 of 2009.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Trial Court.
4. The plaintiffs, who are appellants in A.S.No.156 of 2009, instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents or anybody claiming under them from in anyway interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs and for costs.
5. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.3 died and his legal representatives were added as plaintiff Nos.4 to 7, vide order dated 10.06.2005 passed in I.A.No.178 of 2005, by the Trial Court.
6. As well, the defendant Nos.5 to 7, who are appellants in A.S.No.372 of 2009, were also impleaded by themselves, vide order, dated 03.04.2006 passed in I.A.No.01 of 2006 by the Trial Court.
7. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the Trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings.
8. The case of the plaintiffs in brief in the plaint was as follows:
(i) The plaintiffs are related to each other and they purchased the suit schedule property from one T.Veeramma and P.Lakshmi Devi under an agreement of sale dated 09.05.1980 and possession was delivered to them on the date of agreement itself. Then the plaintiffs obtained three sale deeds dated 05.11.1990, 15.11.1990 and 23.11.1990 and enjoying the entire plaint schedule property, which is covered in ‘A’ schedule as three items and consolidated as ‘B’ schedule.
(ii) The plaint schedule land used an agricultural land. As the town developed, the plaintiffs could not cultivate the same. With an intention to dispose of the property by making into parts, they have reclaimed the land in the last week of October 1999. They leveled the plaint schedule property which is part and parcel of ‘A’ schedule property and made it ready to make layout.
(iii) The defendant No.4 is the cousin of the vendors of the plaintiffs and they had some misunderstandings since a long time. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have no manner of right over the plaint schedule property. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 with due connivance of the defendant No.4, about a week back came to the plaint schedule property and objected the plaintiffs that they are having right over the property in Survey No.496/2.
(iv) Originally, the land in Survey No.496 was sub- divided into five sub-divisions i.e., 496/1 to 496/5. The plaint schedule property is situated in Survey No.496/5 and none of the defendants have right, title or interest over the plaint schedule property. The defendants with an evil intention to knock away the plaint schedule property, tried to dispossess the plaintiffs on 13.11.1999 and 14.11.1999. Hence, the suit.
9. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed to contest the case before the Trial Court and they remained exparte.
10. The defendant No.3 denying all the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement as well additional written statement as follows:
i) There is no agreement of sale dated 05.09.1980 in favour of the plaintiffs. In the legal notices dated 20.01.1982 and 07.06.1984 issued by Veeramma to this defendant, she only claimed an undivided share in the suit land along with this defendant’s vendors. There is no mention that she was the absolute owner, in exclusive possession, or that she executed an agreement of sale dated 09.05.1980 in favor of the plaintiffs.
ii) The present suit is the result of conspiracy and collusion between Defendant No. 4 a
(1) Permanent Injunction – In a suit for permanent injunction, Court is not required to conclusively determine or declare title to property – De jure possession has to be established on the basis of ....
In property disputes, the onus lies on the claimant to prove title, with reliance on unproven wills and agreements leading to dismissal of claims.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of valid documentation and unchallenged possession in establishing ownership rights, as well as the requirement for legal challen....
A plaintiff can obtain a permanent injunction against defendants interfering with her possession if exclusive ownership is established through revenue records, even amidst claims of co-ownership.
A vendor cannot sell land they do not own; a suit for injunction is not maintainable without a declaratory relief establishing ownership.
A plaintiff with clear title and possession can seek an injunction against interference, even in the face of disputed title, provided they substantiate their claims with appropriate evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
