HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2024 in A.S.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Medak, whereby and where under the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2019 in O.S.No.95 of 2014 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Narsapur was confirmed.

2. Heard Sri Jelli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Advocate, representing Sri Narendar Jalli, learned counsel for the appellant on record.

3. The appellant herein is plaintiff and respondents herein are defendants. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.

4. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff of agricultural land admeasuring 0.11 guntas., in survey No. 268/A1 of Chitkul village of Kowdipally Mandal, Sangareddy District (herein after referred to as suit schedule property). Originally, the land belongs to ancestors of plaintiff and after death of father of plaintiff, it was transferred in his name and his name was mutated in revenue records; that during life time of father of plaintiff they have raised several crops and due to scarcity of water the plaintiff kept the suit land as barren; that plaintiff erected temporary tin shed for keeping buffaloes; the Defendants without any right, title or interest over the property tried to interfere with possession of the plaintiff on 21.08.2023 and tried to trespass into the suit land. The plaintiff resisted their acts but the defendants threatened to dispossess him and hence, the suit for perpetual injunction.

5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and averred that originally land admeasuring 0.31 guntas in survey No.268 belonged to the father of the plaintiff, and uncle’s of the plaintiff viz., N. Kista Reddy and N. Narayana Reddy and the same was sold in favour of A. Manik Reddy through a simple sale deed dated 05.02.1957 and in return said Manik Reddy sold the same in favour of defendant No.1 on 01.10.1990 through a simple sale deed; that when defendant No.1 approached the revenue authorities for mutation, he was informed that mutation cannot be effected since the suit land was occupied by the residential houses. However, on request, the revenue authorities conducted a survey only to an extent of land admeasuring Ac. 0.09 guntas and when the revenue authorities were conducting survey, the plaintiff came to the land and obstructed and tried stop the survey stating the said land belong to him. Defendant No.1 having knowledge that his vendor has not mutated land in his name and to avoid future litigation got executed a registered sale deed in his favour by the plaintiff to an extent of Ac. 0.09 guntas by paying sale consideration, thereafter the defendant has been in continuous possession. It is further averred that the plaintiff with the support of uneven revenue entries had developed a malafide intention and filed the suit for wrongful gain and prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. The trial Court based on the above pleadings framed following issue:

“(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?”

7. To substantiate the case, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 and examined P.W.2 who is a third party to the suit. Defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.22 and also examined as D.Ws.2 to 5 who are the third parties to the suit.

8. The trial Court on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated

07.11.2019 with the following observations:

“(i) Ex.B.6 which is the 1B ROR for the year 1989- 90 suggest that one Sri. Ram Reddy S/o Narayan Reddy is the pattedar and possessor over land admeasuring 0.11 guntas of land in survey N