G. RADHA RANI
Vaddiraju Ranga Raodied – Appellant
Versus
Vitasagaram Sudershan – Respondent
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
Chepana Peda Appalaswamy Vs. Chepana Appalanaidu and others
P. Buchi Reddy and others Vs. Ananthula Sudhakar
Mahendra C. Mehta and others Vs. Kousalya Co-op. Housing Society Limited., Hyderabad and others
Kuturu Narasimha Reddy Vs. Pusala Venkataiah and others
Rukmini Bai @ Laxmi Bai and others Vs. K.Mohanlal
Lisamma Antony and another Vs. Karthiyayani and another
Syeda Rahimunnisa Vs. Malnan Bi (dead) by legal representatives and another
Ananthula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by legal representatives and others
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.