HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.201 of 2023

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2022 passed in A.S.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy whereby and where under the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2018 passed in O.S.No.29 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kamareddy was confirmed.

2. The appellant herein is plaintiff and the respondents are defendants in the suit. For convenience, the parties are referred to, as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present Second Appeal are that the plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. It was averred that he purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing No.3088 of 2005, dated 11.11.2005, while so, the defendants tried to interfere with the suit schedule property on 24.02.2014 and tried to remove the boundary stones with a desire to grab the land of the plaintiff and hence, the suit.

4. The defendants have filed written statement denying the plaint averments and inter alia stated that defendant No.1 is the holder of the open plot No.69 in Sy.No.52/1, 53, 55, 56, 129/1/2C vide G.P.L.P.No.01/2003 admeasuring 316.38 sq. yards having purchased it under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.4581 of 2013 and prior to it, his predecessor were in possession and enjoyment as absolute owners. The plaintiff is wrongly identifying the said plot No.69 belonging to defendant No.1 and triangular shape plot of P.Soujanya, w/o Defendant No.3 admeasuring 123.33 sq. yards as suit plot and trying to come into the possession of the said lands. The suit property claimed by the plaintiff is not in existence and identifiable. That the boundaries given in sale deed No.3088 of 2005 is contradictory with that of the boundaries mentioned in link sale deed No.2114/81. The plaintiff under the guise of orders of this Court, approached revenue authorities and attempting to occupy the plot No.69 by misrepresenting it as suit land. The defendants immediately filed protest petition requesting the authorities not to accord permission for conversion in favour of the plaintiff without considering their grievances. It is further stated that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land and therefore, the question of interference by the defendants on 24.02.2014 does not arise and the suit is filed only to trespass and damage of the property of the defendants and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the pleadings the trial Court framed two issues for trial:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction as prayed?

2) To what relief?

6. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.B1 to B.16 were marked.

7. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the suit with the following observations:-

“i) PW1 could not establish his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. When PW1 has not established his possession, the said fact of alleging interference by the defendants does not arise. Further PW1 in his cross examination admitted that 20 to 25 days prior to filing of this suit, he was called by the police of PS Kamareddy on the complaint lodged by Defendant No.2 in respect of the suit land and he was advised by the police to approach the Court to resolve the dispute. He also admitted that since the date of approaching police, there is no interference in the suit land by the defendants. This suit was filed on 11.03.2014. If the defendants have interfered on 20-25 days prior to filing of this suit, they would have interfered only before 15-02-2014 and there is no interference by defendant No.2 after 15.02.2014. But as per the pleadings, the plaintiff submitted tha