In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff must prove prima facie possession of the property; the weakness of the defendants' case cannot justify relief.

JUDGMENT :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

The present Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 13.06.2023, passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in A.S.No.28 of 2020, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2019 passed by the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.2929 of 2016 was confirmed.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal, are that the plaintiff filed the suit claiming that his father by name Kannaiah was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having acquired the same by way of a registered sale deed bearing document No.130/1951, dated 16.04.1952; that his father died on 26.04.1991; that he constructed a house in part of the property and a part of the remaining land was sold to third parties; that he, being a Ganesh devotee, constructed a Mandapam in 137 square yards and had been erecting Ganesh idol every year for the past 30 years; that the defendants with an evil intention to grab the mandapam land, by using political influence, got a Panchayat convened on 10.10.2016, however, in the said panchayat, the defendants promised that they will not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the said Mandapam; that when defendants tried to grab the property by creating fabricated and fictitious documents, he resisted the said illegal acts; and that on 30.10.2016, the defendants came to the suit schedule property and tried to grab the same and as such, he filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants.

4. The defendants filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and submitted that one A.Sathaiah, A.Narayana and A.M.Krishna, who are brothers and constitute a joint family, have purchased the plot in two spells to an extent of 360 square yards from the father of the plaintiff; that ever since the said purchase, they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment without any interruption; that due to growth in the family, all the three brothers lived separately in different places; that before construction of a house in the land, Sathaiah disposed of 200 square yards to third parties and a house was constructed in the remaining extent of 170 square yards; that the defendants leased out the plot of 170 square yards bearing House No.9-1-224/5/A to a tenant; that Sathaiah died issueless leaving behind his wife and the defendants as his legal heirs to the suit schedule property; that in the year 2015, the defendants divided the suit schedule property into three equal shares; and that the plaintiff filed a case with false averments and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of suit schedule property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is able to prove the alleged interference of the defendants?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(4) To what relief?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself got examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-6 were marked.

7. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2019. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:-

“In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff has to establish lawful possession as in t