THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.32 of 2020

JUDGMENT:

1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed against the order and decree dated 04.11.2019 in I.A.No.258 of 2017 in O.S.No.40 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), wherein and whereby the petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein seeking ad-interim injunction pertaining to house bearing No.11-8 admeasuring 429.75 sq. yards situated at Bachannapet village and mandal of Jangaon District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’), restraining appellant No.1 herein from alienating the suit schedule property, restraining respondent No.4 herein from registering any kind of deeds pertaining to the suit schedule property and also restraining respondent No.5 herein from entering the name of any other persons in the Grampanchayat records in respect of the suit schedule property, was partly allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred at the instance of respondent Nos.1 and 4/defendant Nos.1 and 4, before the trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are that they filed the present suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction and also rectification of Grampanchayat records in respect of the suit schedule property. It is their case that they are owners of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are sons of Late Banda Yadagiri. The said Late Banda Yadagiri executed gift settlement deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. While so, the father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 died in an accident and after his death, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 obtained succession certificate in their favour. Defendant No.1, who has no right and title over the suit schedule property got entered his name illegally in Grampanchayat records taking advantage of absence of plaintiffs in the village. Defendant No.1, in collusion with others created documents in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said circumstances, the present suit and petition were filed by the plaintiffs seeking the above said reliefs.

4. Defendant No.1 filed his counter denying the averments of the petition filed by the plaintiffs. It is his case that he, plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are brothers and Late Banda Yadagiri is their father. He denied execution of gift settlement deed by his father in favour of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. It is his case that the suit schedule property was bequeathed by his mother Banda Ramakka from one Bommanna Raghavulu, who adopted her. On the death of Bommanna Raghavulu, Banda Ramakka received the suit schedule property through a registered will deed and since then, she was absolute owner and possessor of the same. Subsequently, she executed a gift settlement deed in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property and also inducted defendant No.1 in the physical possession of the suit schedule property. As such, he is the real owner of the suit schedule property and due to family needs, he sold away the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 for valid sale consideration. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present application filed by the plaintiffs as the same is devoid of merits.

5. In support of their case, the plaintiffs got marked Exs.P-1 to P-3 and defendant Nos.1 and 4 got marked Exs.R-1 to R-4 in support of their case.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following points for consideration:

“1.Whether the petitioners are having prima facie?

2. Whether the petitioners are having balance of convenience in his favour?

3. Whether the petitioners to be sustained irreparable loss,