The court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo of the property, emphasizing the prevention of irreparable harm and the need for detailed adjudication of ownership disputes.

JUDGMENT :

N. Tukaramji, J.

1. We have heard Mr.V.Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel, argued on behalf of Mr.Arvind Geedipelly, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos. 2 and 3; Mr.A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel, argued on behalf of Mr.Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff and Mr.K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/defendant No.1.

2. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 221 of 2024 has been filed by appellants/defendants Nos.2 and 3, challenging the order dated 19.03.2024 in I.A. No. 125 of 2023. Similarly, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.230 of 2024 has been preferred by the same appellants, contesting the order dated 19.03.2024 in I.A. No.126 of 2023.

3. As both appeals arise from orders passed in related interlocutory applications within O.S. No.150 of 2023, before the IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, and since the reliefs sought are similar, they are being heard and adjudicated together in this common judgment.

4. These appeals are brought by appellants/respondents Nos. 2 and 3/defendants Nos.2 and 3, challenging the decrees and orders dated 19.03.2024 in I.A. Nos.125 and 126 of 2023 in O.S. No.150 of 2023. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, had allowed the applications of respondent No.1/petitioner/plaintiff, granting a temporary injunction restraining respondent No.3/defendant No.3 from altering and alienating the petition schedule property.

Brief Facts:

5. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration as the absolute owner and possessor of the schedule property i.e., Ac.1.09 guntas in Sy.No.299, Puppalaguda, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and to declare the sale deeds dated 29.12.2022 (executed by the respondent No.2/defendant No.1 in favour of appellant No.1/defendant No.2) and 16.01.2023 (executed by appellant No.1/defendant No.2 in favour of appellant No.2/defendant No.3) as null and void and not binding on the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks recovery of possession.

6. For facility of reference, hereinafter the respondent No.1/petitioner/plaintiff is arrayed as ‘the petitioner’ and the appellant Nos.1 and 2/respondent Nos.2 and 3/defendant Nos.2 and 3 as ‘the respondent Nos.2 and 3’ respectively, in accordance with the I.A.Nos.125 and 126 of 2023.

7. The petitioner claims title to the schedule property through a registered sale deed dated 07.07.2012 and an exchange deed dated 30.03.2013, executed by the vendors Nagula Sattemma and others.

Originally, the land in Sy.No.299 (Ac.13.01 gts.) was classified as evacuee property, with Nagula Sathaiah, Nagula Srinivas and Nagula Swamy as tenants over Ac.10.01 gts. Upon application, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, allotted this land to them on 16.12.1994, by issuing a sale certificate, whereby conferred title.

Subsequently, Nagula Sathaiah and Nagula Swamy executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of M.Subba Rao in 1994. Acting on their behalf, the attorney executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 for Ac.7.20 gts. on 08.02.1995. Additionally, the remaining Ac.2.20 gts. was sold to Smt. Sandeepa on 03.07.1997. Due to an error in the northern boundary description in respondent No.1’s sale deed, a registered rectification deed was executed on 23.05.2007.

After the demise of Nagula Sathaiah and Nagula Swamy, their legal heirs, along with Nagula Srinivas, filed O.S. No. 60 of 2000 before the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga R