THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA SECOND APPEAL No.384 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Devender, learned counsel for the respondent, on admission. Perused the entire record.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2025 in A.S.No.01 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Jayashankar Bhupalpally (‘first appellate Court’), to set aside the same and restore the judgment and decree dated 28.12.2023 passed in O.S.No.1170 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalpally (‘trial Court’) and thereby grant perpetual injunction restraining defendant/respondent herein from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of appellant herein/plaintiff over the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.1-30 guntas in Sy.No.30/A/2 situated at Chelpur Village, Ghanpur Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

3. Initially, the appellant herein/plaintiff filed suit vide O.S.No.1170 of 2022 before the trial Court for perpetual injunction against the respondent to restrain him from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The appellant claimed to be the owner and possessor of agricultural land i.e., suit schedule property having purchased the same through simple sale deeds for valid consideration along with delivery of possession. Thereafter, the name of the appellant was entered in the revenue record as owner and possessor and he was issued pattedar passbook vide patta No.835 and title deed vide No.110789 with unique No.2105440010171. The said pattedar passbook and title deed prove the lawful possession of the appellant over the suit schedule property. There was interference by the respondent on 15.03.2015 leading to filing of the suit for perpetual injunction before the trial Court.

4. The respondent opposed the said suit claim by filing written statement denying the case of the appellant in totality. Out of Ac.1-30 guntas of suit schedule property, the appellant is claiming to have purchased Ac.0-30 guntas from the respondent himself under simple sale deed, whereas, the respondent denied executing any simple sale deed in favour of the appellant. Further, Ac.1-00 guntas of land is allegedly purchased from one Muthyala Kumaraswamy and the said simple sale deed is also not produced. According to the respondent, the simple sale deeds through which the appellant claims title from, are forged and fabricated documents and the same formed basis for issuance of pattedar passbook. Therefore, the respondent has challenged the issuance of pattedar passbook and title deed in favour of the appellant before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu, and vide proceedings No.F/650/1/15, dated 21.04.2015, the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelled the pattedar passbook and also ordered rectification of illegal entries in the revenue record. Since the appellant does not have the original title deed and pattedar passbook is cancelled, mere revenue entries cannot create any interest, as such sought dismissal of the suit.

5. Upon examining the evidence adduced by both the parties orally as well as under Exs.A-1 to A-11 and Exs.B-1 to B-17, the trial Court decreed suit with a finding that in a suit for injunction simplicitor complicated questions of title cannot be gone into and the person, who is not having title, but in settled possession of property on the date of suit is entitled to injunction even against the true owner.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 28.12.2023 by the trial Court, the respondent preferred appeal vide A.S.No.01 of 2024 before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court after examining the evidence on record has given reversing judgment on two grounds. One is that the appellant herein does not have proper title documents i.e., simple sale deed allegedly executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant for Ac.0-30 gu