Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
RENUKA YARA
Kasarla Lingama @ Lingaiah – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Lateef – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RENUKA YARA, J.
1. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the appellant, on the question of admission. Perused the record.
2. This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree in A.S.No.83 of 2022 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge at Kamareddy (for short ‘the learned First Appellate Court’) dated 25.11.2025 setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.24 of 2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Kamareddy (for short ‘the learned Trial Court’) dated 17.10.2022, wherein, in First appeal filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in favour of the appellant herein granting perpetual injunction has been allowed, consequently dismissing the suit for perpetual injunction.
3. The background facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff herein claimed to be absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No.211/19 to an extent of Ac.0.11 Gts., bounded on North: Agricultural land of Kasarla Bhumavva, South: Agricultural land of Bhumaiah, East: Agricultural land of Timakkapally Rajaiah and West: Agricultural land of Kasarla Bhumavva situated at Devanpally Village shivar of Kamareddy Mandal, Kamareddy District. The
For perpetual injunctions, the appellant must affirmatively prove possession and existence of land, especially against counterclaims of conversion, failure of which leads to dismissal.
The court affirmed that in seeking an injunction over immovable property, examination of title is necessary if challenged by the opposing party.
In a second appeal, the court cannot overturn concurrent factual findings of lower courts without proof of legal error or perversity, stressing the burden of proof on the claimant regarding possessio....
In a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff's possession prevails over claims of title disputes, emphasizing the need for factual evidence of possession rather than just title claims.
A suit for injunction is not maintainable if the plaintiff has knowledge of unclear title issues and the vendors lack the right to convey property.
A simple suit for injunction is not maintainable when there is a dispute over title, and the plaintiffs must prove possession within the claimed boundaries.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
