IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the grant of temporary injunction, affirming the petitioners' possession over the property and rejecting the respondents' claims due to lack of evidence.

ORDER:

(K. Sujana, J.)

The present revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/appellant/respondent No.1/defendant No.1, being aggrieved by the order dated 22.09.2022 in C.M.A.No.112 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 09.08.2018 passed in I.A.No.172 of 2017 in O.S.No.1434 of 2017 on the file of the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri S.Ganesh, learned counsel for revision petitioners, and Sri A.Najeeb Khan, learned counsel for respondents.

3. The primary contention of the revision petitioners is that the orders of the Courts below are based on assumptions and presumptions and are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. It is contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner entered into an Agreement of Sale with respondent No.1 in the year 1989 and paid the entire sale consideration and has been enjoying the possession over the suit schedule property and the respondent No.1 has not denied execution of said Agreement of Sale and receiving the sale consideration of the same. Further, the trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiffs failed to establish the prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss.

4. O.S.No.1434 of 2017 was filed seeking perpetual injunction over the suit schedule property. In the said suit, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.172 of 2017 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) praying to grant ad-interim injunction restraining respondent No.1 and her husband, GPA and Power of Attorney holders, associates, henchmen, labourers, agents, servants or any other supporters from interfering or dispossessing them from the suit schedule property.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in I.A.No.172 of 2017. The brief facts of the case are that originally, late Afzal Rasool Khan, who was husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 6 was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having been allotted the same under the allotment letter dated 10.09.1982 from respondent No.2 – Co-operative Housing Society (for short ‘respondent No.2 – Society’). On 16.10.1988 Afzal Rasool died leaving behind the petitioners and his daughters as his legal heirs and successors.

6. Thereafter, the petitioners and daughters of late Afzal Rasool filed O.S.No.985 of 2011 on the file of XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, praying to declare them as legal heirs of late Afzal Rasool, the same was decreed on 30.08.2011 as a result of which they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interruption. The respondent No.2 – Society used to send notices to petitioners for conducting the General Body meeting in the name of late Afzal Rasool Khan. The petitioners made representations to respondent No.2 – Society stating that the original allotment letter dated 10.09.1982 was misplaced and requested the respondent No.2 – Society to furnish a certified copy or an attested copy of the same.

7. That apart, the petitioners also made representations to respondent No.2 – Society on 19.10.2011, 30.06.2014 and 14.09.2014 for grant of certificate and permission to raise the constructions, the same was acknowledged by respondent No.2 – Society but they failed to take any action. In the meantime, when the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interruption, the respondent No.1 has fraudulently created the documents and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners. As such, prayed to grant the relief of ad-interim injunction restraining respondent No.1 and her husband, GPA and Power of Attorney holders, associates, henchmen, labourers, agents, servants or any other supporters from interfering or dispossessing them from the suit schedule p