HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.187 of 2023 JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 10.02.2022, passed in A.S.No.68 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Warangal, wherein and whereby the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2017 passed by the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in O.S.No.109 of 2011, decreeing the said suit, was set aside, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The facts of the case in brief, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal are that the suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, etc., from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The averments of the plaint, in nut-shell, are that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from one Shanigarapu Mallikamba under a registered sale deed dated 19-10-

2000 and ever since the said purchase, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and her name was also mutated in the municipal records. However, it was pleaded that the original sale deed was misplaced. The defendant, being a stranger, to the suit schedule property is trying to interfere with the same and with an intention to grab it, on 23.01.2011 and 31.1.2011, the defendant along with his men, came to the suit schedule property and tried to interfere and occupy the same, but the plaintiff could resist the same with the help of her family members and while leaving the spot, the defendant declared that he will occupy the property.

Hence the suit.

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing all the material facts and that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor possessor of the suit schedule property. It is admitted that the plaintiff purchased the property from S.Mallikamba under a registered sale deed and subsequently, she sold the same to the daughter of the defendant by name V.Rajitha Deyi, under an agreement of sale, dated 29.07.2003, for a sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- and after receiving the entire sale consideration, on 17.08.2002, the plaintiff handed over the link documents to V.Rajitha Devi and inducted her into possession of the suit schedule property and ever since the said date, his daughter i.e., V.Rajitha Devi was in possession and enjoyment of same and also constructed first floor over the existing building during September, 2010. While the work was in progress, the plaintiff along with unsocial elements came to the spot and forcibly necked out the workers and locked the house. The defendant lodged a complaint before Inthezargunj Police Station, but the police neither registered the case nor took any action. As such, the defendant complained before the Superintendent of Police, Warangal, who referred the same to the C.I. of Police, Matwada, but as the sons of the plaintiffs are working in Police Department, no action was taken against the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

5. To establish her case before the trial Court, the plaintiff got herself examined as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to ExA-3. The defendant to prove his case, examined himself as DW-1 and also examined DWs-2 to 5 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-10.

6. The trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, vide judgment dated 27.01.2017, observed that the plaintiff was able to establish her case and accordingly, decreed the suit by granting injunction in her favour restraining the defendant and his family members from in any way from interfering with the peac