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.

JUDGMENT :

RENUKA YARA, J.

Heard Sri Mohd. Ghulam Rasool, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for respondent onadmission. Perused the entire record.

2. The Second Appeal is preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2025 in A.S.No.72 of 2023 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (‘First Appellate Court’), wherein the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2023 in O.S.No.12 of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar (‘Trial Court’), has been set aside by reversing the decree of perpetual injunction granted in favour of theplaintiffs/appellants herein.

3. The background facts of the case are that the appellants herein have filed a suit of perpetual injunction against the respondents herein to restrain them from interfering with the suit schedule property consisting of plot to an extent of 1,000 square yards in Ward No.1, Block No.10 situated at S.S.Gutta, Mahabubnagar. The appellants claim that one Sardari Begum was the original landlord owner at S.S.Gutta, Mahabubnagar. She has sold 1000 square yards of land to one Anjaiah Goud under a registered sale deed and said Anjaiah Goud has sold the property to Shaik Mahaboob and also one Yousuf Bee purchased 500 square yards of land under separate registered sale deed and Syedunisa Begum purchased 500 square yards for Sadari Begum. After Anjaiah Goud sold the 1000 square yards of land to Shaik Mahaboob, his legal heirs have sold said land to the appellants. Shaik Mahaboob sold the land to Habeeb Mohammed and Habeeb Mohammed in turn old the land to the appellants and delivered vacant possession. The appellants have also obtained municipality permission for construction of compound wall and a room in the suit schedule property. In proof of their title and possession, the appellants have relied upon Ex.A-1 registered sale deed document No.592/1963 dated 12.06.1963, Ex.A-2 registered sale deed document No.1941/2002 dated 14.05.2002, Ex.A-3 registered sale deed document No.59/2003 dated 06.01.2003 and Ex.A-4 permission of municipality, dated 21.10.2003. While the appellants intended to construct compound wall and room, there was interference from Bala Krishna Reddy and therefore, a suit in O.S.No.383 of 2003 was filed seeking perpetual injunction, but said suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter, in the year 2008 when one Sayad Izaz Shoukat Ali interfered with the appellants’ possession and the suit in O.S.No.328 of 2006 was filed and the same is pending. The said Bala Krishna Reddy filed a petition to implead himself in O.S.No.328 of 2006 and he is impleaded as defendant No.3 in said suit. While things stood thus, on 05.01.2014, 10.01.2014 and 21.01.2014 there was interference in the suit schedule property by the defendant/respondent herein with attempts to forcibly occupy the land of the appellants.Therefore, suit for perpetual injunction has been filed.

4. The respondent has filed written statement claiming that he is owner of 577 square yards of land having purchased from BKR Estates. The said BKR Estates purchased the land from Nizamunnisa Begum and Nizamunnisa Begum had purchased said land from one Sampath Kumar. Further, it is the case of the respondent that Shaik Mahaboob and his legal heirs have