The court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction to protect possession pending trial, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence in property disputes.

ORDER :

Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree passed in C.M.A.No.06 of 2017, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam, which was preferred against the orders passed in I.A.No.598 of 2015 in O.S.No.255 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Khammam, wherein the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam vide order dated 30.01.2017 in I.A.No.598 of 2015 in O.S.No.255 of 2015 allowed the petition and granting temporary injunction against respondents restraining them from causing any interference as to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Property.

2. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent/defendant filed C.M.A.No.06 of 2017 on the file of Principal District Judge, Khammam on the ground that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of Ac.0.26 guntas and defendant No.1 having land to the west of her land and pestering her to alienate Ac.0.26 guntas as she is not inclined to hear the demand, as such they were trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment and the learned Principle District Judge having gone into the merits of the case have allowed and set aside order passed by the learned Junior Civl Judge, Khammam in I.A.No.598 of 2015.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the learned trial Court as petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendant.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff purchased and extent of Ac.3.20 guntas in Sy.No.207/AA situated at Pallipadu Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District, by paying land revenue to the government, wherein the government has issued title deed and pass book. The respondents are trying to grab the land by taking advantage of the financial backdrop of the petitioner as he could not be able to resist.

5. The respondents were trying to interfere with their peaceful possession as such the present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction and the respondents have filed counter pleadings and contended that the plaintiff sold away Ac.1-00 guntas of land from east to west in favour of Sri Golla Bhaskar Rao and Ac.1-00 guntas to Sri Kurra Murali and Ac.0.34 guntas to Sri Makineni Naga Ramesh left over land is to an extent of Ac.0.26 guntas is in exclusive possession of the petitioner which is not correct and the land that was held by the petitioner as claimed within the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed No.1375/1985 was alienated by the petitioner and there is no inch of land in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and by taking undue advantage of the entry in the pattedar pass book and title deed coupled with the entries in the pahanies now trying to make a false claim.

6. It is further contended that the respondent No.2 is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac. 6.20 guntas out of Sy. No.196/E situated at Pallipadu village and the land of the respondent No.2 is situated to the west of the land of the petitioner covered under the document bearing No.1375/85

7. It is further contended by the respondent that as the petitioner already alienated the entire extent of land covered under the document No.1375/85 in three bits which are nominally named as ABC for proper appreciation as shown in the rough sketch filed by the respondents. The first bit ‘A’ which is on the eastern side of the land of the respondent No.2 was alienated by the petitioner in favour of Sri Kurra Murali and Sri Makineni Naga Ramesh through registered sale deed No.2471/2008. he said S