For perpetual injunctions, the appellant must affirmatively prove possession and existence of land, especially against counterclaims of conversion, failure of which leads to dismissal.

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 appellant's father was the original owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and after his death, said land was inherited by the appellant. Upon inheritance, the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of the appellant and he obtained loan from PACCS by mortgaging the suit schedule property. The pahanies for the years 1999 to 2015 show the ownership and possession of the appellant over the suit schedule land. While so, the respondents who have no right over the suit schedule property caused interference on 01.07.2015 by creating fake documents and therefore, a suit for perpetual injunction has been filed.

4. The respondents 2 to 4 filed written statements in sum and substance stating that the agricultural land of Sy.No.211 has been converted into plots in the year 1987 through GP.LP No.6/ 1987 issued by Grama Panchayat, Devanpally Village. The respondent No.1 and respondent No. 2 have purchased Plot No.1 to an extent of 133.3 sq.yds. under the registered document No. 617 of 1989, dated 23.03.1989. Likewise, the respondent No.2 purchased plot No.2. Therefore, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 are in possession of the plots. The respondent No.2 left the plots unconstructed. The appellant is not in possession and not cultivating the said plots. Therefore, according to respondents No.2, there is no cause of action for filing the suit. On similar lines, respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed written statement stating that land in Sy.No.211 was converted into plots and the purchasers of plots are in possession and enjoyment. The layout was issued vide GP LP No.06/1987. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 purchased the plots under document Nos.3108 of 2010 and 3109 of 2010, dated 31.05.2010 and are in possession. In fact, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have constructed a house bearing H.No.5-82 by availing bank loan. It is the case of respondent Nos.3 and 4 that the appellant is not in possession and the suit is to be dismissed.

5. The learned Trial Court upon assessing the evidence adduced by the appellant and the respondents has decreed the suit. The appellant got himself examined as PW1 and the respondents got themselves examined as DWs 1 to 4. The appellant got marked Exs.A1 to A19 and the respondents got exhibited Exs.B1 to B17. A perusal of the documents marked in ‘A’ series on behalf of the appellant show that there are certified copies of pahanies under Exs.A1 to A6 for the years 1954-55 to 2012-13. Further there is a certified copy of Bhubhar