THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2551, and 2561 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the common orders dated 07.02.2025 passed in C.M.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2020 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.

2. Since the issues involved in both the revisions are intertwined, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.

3. Heard Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, and Sri B.Seshu Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

4.1. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that C.M.A. No.2 of 2020 was filed against the order dated 21.11.2019 in I.A. No.18 of 2019 in O.S. No.178 of 2019, and C.M.A. No.3 of 2020 was filed against the order dated 21.11.2019 in I.A. No.19 of 2019 in O.S. No.179 of

2019.

4.2. The revision petitioner is the defendant in both suits filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties, and the interlocutory applications were filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respective properties.

4.3. The schedule properties are described as land in Survey No.78, measuring 603.55 square yards (506.98 sq. meters) and 902.22 square yards (757.86 sq. meters) situated at Bommakal Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District.

4.4. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, held that the issue of title claimed by either party could not be conclusively determined at the interlocutory stage and directed both parties to maintain status quo pending disposal of the suits.

4.5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/plaintiffs preferred C.M.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2020 before the first appellate Court. The learned III Additional District Judge, upon consideration of the record and observing that the Revenue Divisional Officer’s proceedings confirmed the title and possession of the plaintiffs’ vendors, Gali Yakub and Gali John, modified the trial Court’s order and granted temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession. The petitioner/defendant, being aggrieved, preferred the present Civil Revision Petitions.

5.1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the first appellate Court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs’ vendors were in possession of the property. Such findings, according to him, amount to a prejudgment of the issues that ought to be determined at trial and constitute an excess of jurisdiction.

5.2. He further contends that the appellate Court failed to appreciate the ambiguity concerning the extent of land in the documents relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff, namely Exs.P1, P4, and P5, and ignored the absence of any categorical assertion that the plaintiffs’ vendors were in possession of the disputed property. It is urged that the appellate Court did not properly consider the documents filed by the petitioner/defendant and, by drawing conclusions on possession and title, transgressed the limited scope of enquiry under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

He, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.

6.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the revision petitioner has disputed the extent of the land, and the issue was already adjudicated by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), who confirmed the title and possession of the plaintiffs’ vendor over an extent of Ac.2.11 guntas in Survey No.78. The contention that the vendors sold non-existent land has, therefore, been duly rejected in those proceedings.

6.2. He contends that the respondents/plaintiffs are lawful successors in possession of the said land and that the first appellate Court, while relying on documentary evidence and administrative findings, rightly concluded that the plaintiffs were in possession and entitled to protecti