The court affirmed that in seeking an injunction over immovable property, examination of title is necessary if challenged by the opposing party.

JUDGMENT :

RENUKA YARA, J.

1. Heard Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sriram Polali, learned counsel for the appellant on admission. Perused the entire record.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant/appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the common judgment and decree dated 02.04.2025 in A.S.No.173 of 2022 (Old A.S.No.02 of 2019) and I.A.No.1284 of 2023 and I.A.No.1370 of 2024 and I.A.No.1285 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, (‘First Appellate Court’), wherein the appeal was dismissed confirming judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018 in O.S.No.695 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, (‘Trial Court’), wherein suit filed for perpetual injunction against the respondents/respondents/ defendants, has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents claiming to be absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 3240 square yards out of 4000 square yards in Sy.No.105 (part) situated at Medipally Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’) under registered sale deed document bearing No.11913/2003, dated 30.03.2003 marked under Ex.A-1. The registered sale deed was executed by General Power of Attorney (‘GPA’) holder A. Venkateshwar Rao representing the owners G. Yadaiah and K. Bikshapathy. The said G. Yadaiah and K. Bikshapathy have purchased suit schedule property from one Meer Ahmed Khan through his GPA holder Mohd. Yaseen through registered document No.2669/1982 dated 25.08.1982 under Ex.A-3. The said G. Yadaiah and K. Bikshapathy executed GPA in favour of A. Venkateshwar Rao under GPA document bearing No.25/1983, dated 28.02.1983. Further, the case of the appellant is that on 18.04.2011, the respondents have illegally dispossessed the appellant from 760 square yards of land out of 4000 square yards. Further, illegal attempts have been made by the respondents on 31.05.2011 to occupy the suit schedule property. In the said context, the appellant filed suit in O.S.No.280 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and obtained status quo order dated 23.12.2011 in I.A.No.620 of 2011 in O.S.No.280 of 2011. During the operation of the said status quo order on 14.02.2012 violating the said orders, the respondents have illegally occupied the suit schedule property. In the said circumstances, the appellant has withdrawn the said O.S.No.280 of 2011 to file a comprehensive suit by filing I.A.No.148 of 2012. The said I.A. was allowed by the said Court and copy of the said order is marked as Ex.A-4. Taking advantage of withdrawal of the said suit, the respondents started interfering with the suit schedule property. To curtail the illegal acts of the respondents, the appellant approached police and when there is no action on the part of the police, the present suit in O.S.No.695 of 2012 was filed seeking perpetual injunction.

4. Per contra, the case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that respondent No.1 is owner and possessor of plot No.3 and respondent No.2 is owner and possessor of plot Nos.4, 5 and 6 admeasuring 1100 square yards each i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 are owners and possessors of total land admeasuring 4400 square yards. The link documents of the vendors of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are document bearing No.200 of 1983, dated 14.01.1983/Ex.B-3, document bearing No.199 of 1983, dated 17.01.1983/Ex.B-4, document bearing No.700 of 1983, dated 04.02.1983/Ex.B-6 and document bearing No.699 of 1983, dated 04.02.1983/Ex.B-8. Subsequently, respondent Nos.1 and 2 by virtue of their registere