Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. RADHA RANI, J.
Vaddiraju Ranga Raodied as per L.Rs - Petitioner
Versus
Vitasagaram Sudershan - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 221 of 2007
Decided On : 06-09-2024
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Permanent injunction – The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendant regarding possession of land, claiming ownership through partition and revenue records. The trial court granted the injunction, but the lower appellate court reversed this decision, leading to the second appeal. The court found that the lower appellate court erred in determining title based solely on land acquisition proceedings without valid documentation. The court reaffirmed that possession follows title, and entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. (Paras 11, 12, 17, 36, 38)
(B) Substantial Questions of Law – The court addressed whether the lower appellate court was justified in finding title for the defendant without valid documents and whether it erred in its possession findings contrary to evidence. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners and in possession of the property. (Paras 11, 12, 36, 38)
Facts of the case :
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of land through partition and sought an injunction against the defendant, who contested their ownership and claimed possession through ancestral rights. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the lower appellate court reversed this ruling.
Findings of Court :
The court found that the lower appellate court's reliance on land acquisition proceedings was misplaced and that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners.
Issues : The main issues were the validity of the lower appellate court's findings on title and possession.
Ratio Decidendi : The court ruled that the lower appellate court erred in its findings, emphasizing that possession follows title and that mere entries in revenue records do not confer ownership.
Result : The second appeal was allowed, reinstating the trial court's decision.
JUDGMENT:
G. Radha Rani, J.
This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants-respondents-plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2007 passed in A.S.No.30 of 2006 by the IV Additional District Judge, Warangal, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006 in O.S No.323 of 2001 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
2. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court as plaintiffs and defendants.
3. The plaintiff No.1 filed the suit in O.S No.323 of 2001 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, workmen and all the persons acting on his behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, open land admeasuring Ac.0-34 guntas situated in part of Sy.No.89 situated at Rangashaipet Village, Warangal Mandal and District.
4. The contention of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff was the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0-34 guntas forming part of Sy.No.89 situated at Rangashaipet Village, Warangal Mandal and District. The land in Sy.No.89 was consisting of Ac.1-27 guntas. The plaintiff got the same in partition with his brothers decades ago. Ever since then, the name of the plaintiff was mutated as pattedar and he was paying land revenue to the concerned authorities. The State Government had issued Raithu passbook, recognized the title, interest and right of the plaintiff in Sy.No.89. Out of Ac.1-27 guntas, the plaintiff sold an extent of Ac.0-33 guntas to Sri Gade Veeraiah (now late) and delivered the possession of the same, which was towards the North and West sides of the suit land. The name of Gade Veeraiah was recorded in the revenue records as having been purchased from the plaintiff. The right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the entire Sy.No.89 was undisputed. Towards Eastern side of the said land, a 100 feet wide road was laid connecting the hunter road with Khammam road by constructing a flyover Railway Track, near Warangal Railway Station in 1999. Because of the developmental activities adjacent to the said property, the price of the said land escalated catching the eyes of the land grabbers including the defendant. The defendant was a toddy tapper by caste and profession and he was also a land grabber. Because of the increase of market value and illegal attempts of land grabbers in the near vicinity, the plaintiff wanted to erect fencing around the suit land and collected stone pillars for erection of barbed fencing. On 06.03.2001 and 11.03.2001, the defendant with an intention to obstruct the laying of fencing, came over the suit land with un-social elements. The plaintiff was aged 75 years. With the help of his sons, the plaintiff could protect his possession on the spot. The defendant was residing in the village, but the plaintiff was a resident of a nearby town. To protect his right and possession over the suit land, the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction.
5. The defendant filed written statement contending that the plaintiff was neither the owner nor the possessor of any inch of land in Sy.No.89 situated at Rangashaipet, much less, the suit land at any point of time till date. He denied that the plaintiff got the alleged suit land in partition with his brother. He contended that the defendant and his brother got the land through their ancestors and they were peacefully enjoying the same. The same was evidenced with revenue records. The Government acquired the land to an extent of Ac.0-4 ½ guntas vide RC.No.M/933/94, LAO (RDO), Warangal out of Sy.No.89 for laying 100 feet road and paid compensation to the defendant family and to Gade Veeraiah family for their respective extents after thorough enquiry. Taking advantage of the name of the plaintiff wrongly recorded in the revenue records, the suit was filed with a malafide intention for illegal gain. The plaintiff was intending to grab the land of the defendant. The defendan
Possession follows title; entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. A suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking declaration of title when possession is established.
The plaintiff must establish clear title to succeed in a suit for injunction; mere possession is insufficient without title.
(1) Only when title is clear, Court can decide question of de jure possession.(2) Question of title can be decided only by filing a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and not a suit for inju....
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
In a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff establishes title, a reasonable presumption of lawful possession can be drawn. The defendant's challenge to the title must be examined to determin....
A plaintiff not in possession must seek recovery of possession to maintain a suit for injunction; failure renders the suit non-maintainable.
In a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff's possession prevails over claims of title disputes, emphasizing the need for factual evidence of possession rather than just title claims.
In a suit for injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.
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
