The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Civil Revision Petition No.2533 of 2024

Order:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.No.35 of 2022, dated 18.04.2024 by the learned Principal District Judge at Bhongir, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Bhongir in I.A.No.611 of 2021 in O.S.NO.197 of 2021, dated 05.09.2022, granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondents/appellants/plaintiffs restraining the petitioners/ appellants/ defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. .

2. Heard Sri Venugopal Reddy Goddindla, learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents/defendants and Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for respondents/appellants/plaintiffs. Perused the record. 3. The suit is filed by the respondents herein seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioners with respect to suit schedule property consisting of schedule ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties i.e. agricultural lands in Sy.No.56/B admeasuring Ac.3.03 Gts., Sy.No.56/A/3 admeasuring Ac.1.01 Gts. and Sy.No.56/A/1 admeasuring Ac.1.01 Gts. respectively, situated at Mannevari Turkapalle Revenue Village, Thurkapally Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District. The respondents are claiming to be owners and possessors of schedule ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties and are in possession of said property having purchased the same under registered sale deeds and are issued with pattadar pass book and title deed. The respondents are receiving money under Raithu Bandhu scheme and their names are reflected in Dharani pahanies. The petitioners herein are no way concerned have cast greedy and interfered with the possession of the respondents leading to filing of the suit. At the time of filing of the suit, the respondents have filed I.A.No.611 of 2021 along with the suit. Said I.A has been dismissed vide order dated 05.09.2022 by the learned Trial Court after giving an opportunity to both the parties to put forth their case. The respondents have marked Exs.P1 to P28 and petitioners herein have marked Exs.R1 and R2. The learned Trial Court referred to the contents of each of the exhibits and came to a conclusion that there is no clarity as to which party is in actual physical possession of the suit schedule properties and therefore, the truth in the version of the respective parties has to be decided only after trial and therefore, dismissed the petition denying grant of temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the CMA was preferred before the learned Appellate Court. In the CMA, the learned Appellate Court considered the evidentiary value of Exs.P1 to P28, more particularly, the entries made in Dharani portal with respect to respondents being the pattadars and possessors and granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

4. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the Appellate Court has failed to consider the possession of the petitioners over the petition schedule properties by taking into consideration the third party affidavits which prove possession of the petitioners over the petition schedule properties from the year 2003 onwards. Further, it is pleaded that the learned Appellate Court did not consider the title of the petitioners herein in G.O.Ms.No.153, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 03.06.2016. It is pleaded that the learned Appellate Court failed to consider whether delivery of possession of the suit schedule properties to the respondents is symbolic or actual. Lastly, it is pleaded that there is failure on the part of the learned Appellate Court to consider whether the respondents can be considered as possessors and owners by virtue of registered sale deed executed on 01.04.2021 by the legal heirs of vendors of the petitioners.

5. During arguments in the revision, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are in possession of the