Possession supersedes title scrutiny in injunction cases; without a clear title dispute, an unregistered sale agreement does not invalidate established possession rights.

Judgment:

Heard Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the respondent, on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. This is a Second appeal preferred aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.04.2024 in A.S.No.108 of 2022 (Old A.S.No.212 of 2019) on the file of the Chairperson, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda confirming the Judgment and decree dated 06.06.2019 in O.S.No.261 of

2011 on the fie of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

3. Initially, the respondent/plaintiff herein filed suit vide O.S.No.261 of 2011 for perpetual injunction against the appellant herein with respect to house with open land surrounded by cement poles and compound wall admeasuring 680 sq.yds. in Sy.No.149of Waddepalli Revenue village at Ashoka Colony Area, Hanamkonda, Warangal. The respondent acquired said land under registered document vide No.1210 of 2010, dated 17.02.2010 from her father Adepu Malliah, who in turn acquired under registered document vide No.3965 of 1997, dated 29.12.1997 executed by one B. Gopal Rao who in turn purchased said land from one Nalla Rama Swamy in the year 1985. The respondent submitted an application for regularization before KUDA and proceedings were issued vide No.LRS/C1/93/2010, dated 31.03.2010. Said property was assessed as 2-4-1531/1 and permission was granted vide Permit No.99, dated 04.06.2010. Said property had compound wall and cement poles. On 08.03.2011, the appellant caused interference by disturbing the compound wall and cement poles. Therefore, suit for perpetual injunction was filed. The appellant’s case is ownership of land to an extent of Ac.2.06 Gts. in Sy.No.147 but not Sy.No.149.

4. Upon examining the entire documentary evidence and oral evidence, the suit has been decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein preferred First Appeal and said First Appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is preferred raising the following substantial questions of law.

a. Whether the Appellate Court erred in failing to consider that the Simplicitor suit for perpetual injunction is not maintainable?

b. Whether the plaintiff had clear title over the schedule property?

c. Whether the plaintiff satisfied the court in proving that the schedule property doesn’t form part of Sy.No.147?

d. Whether the Appellate court erred in confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.261 of 2011?

5. Among the above substantial questions of law, the appellant emphasized on question No.(a) i.e. maintainability of a suit for injunction simplicitor when there is a cloud on the title. In that regard, reliance is placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case between RBANMS Educational Institution v. Gunashekar and another, [2025 SCC OnLine SC 793], wherein, it is held that conveyance of any immovable property requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 . In the instant case, the respondent has relied upon an unregistered Agreement of Sale executed by Nalla Rama Swamy in favour of B. Gopal Rao. Therefore, a question is raised about the genuineness of title of the respondent. Here, the appellant lost sight of the fact there is existence of a house coupled with compound wall. When the respondent is in occupation of such a house from the time of construction of said house in the year 2010, the genuineness of the title cannot be looked into and only possession as on date of filing of the suit has to be looked into. The judgment of RBANMS (1 supra) is between an institution which has a Lease Deed wherein