IMPORTANT POINT
The validity of unregistered agreements and the maintainability of suits for perpetual injunction based on possession were central to the judgment.

ORDER :

This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the Principal District Judge at Jangaon in C.M.A.No.61 of 2022 dated 17.10.2023 confirming the orders passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon in I.A.No.7 of 2021 in O.S.No.8 of 2021 dated 16.04.2021 invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The revision petitioners herein are defendants and the respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.8 of 2021. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.8 of 2021 before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.8 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff filed application in I.A.No.7 of 2021 seeking temporary injunction invoking the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. contending that the husband of the plaintiff was absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property i.e., agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.486/45, situated at Eeravennu Village of Palakurthy Revenue Mandal, Jangaon District and the revenue authorities have granted assignment patta in his favour and his name was mutated in the revenue records and also issued pattadar pass book in the year 1975-76 and her husband died on 15.11.2020, after his death, she succeeded the property and she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and doing cultivation and eking out her livelihood. She further stated that defendants, without having any manner of right, are trying to interfere and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

3.2. The defendants filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the plaintiff interalia contending that husband of the plaintiff sold the suit schedule property in favour of father of defendant No.1 through un-registered agreement of sale dated 03.03.2008 by receiving the total sale consideration and delivered the possession of the suit schedule property and since then they have been in possession of the said property. In spite of several requests made by the defendants, the husband of the plaintiff has not come forward to execute the sale deed. They further stated that they are doing cultivation by raising paddy, groundnuts, vegetables, etc., and also they got electricity connection. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property, therefore, she is not entitled to grant temporary injunction.

3.3. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the documentary evidence Exs.P.1 to P.8 and Exs.R.1 to R.4, allowed the application and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff till the disposal of the suit vide its order dated 16.04.2021.

3.4. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed C.M.A.No.61 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge at Jangaon. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court by its order dated 17.10.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard M. Rathan Singh, learned counsel, representing Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, and Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff/caveator.

5. Learned counsel for the defendants vehemently contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff for seeking perpetual injunction is not maintainable on the ground that the defendants are disputing the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In such circumstances, the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration, when the suit itself is not maintainable and the Courts below ought not to have granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. He further contended that