HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

The Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 22.10.2024, passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak in A.S.No.14 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree, dated 23.03.2018, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel in O.S.No.147 of 2010 was confirmed.

2. Heard Smt. Anita Kiran, learned counsel representing, Sri Praveen Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant on record.

3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein are defendant Nos.1 to 6 in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The brief facts of the case, which led to the filing of the present Second Appeal, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants, in respect of land, i.e., Ac.0.10 ½ gts each in Survey Nos.104/A/1 and 104/A/2, Ac.0.21 gts in Survey No.104/Le, Acs.0.07 gts each in Survey Nos.104/E, 104/2 and 104/2, total admeasuring to Ac.1.23 gts situated at Venkatapur Agraharam village of Toopran Mandal, Medak District (hereinafter referred to as suit scheduled property).

5. In the plaint, it is averred that; the plaintiff purchased the suit scheduled property along with other properties from original owners vide registered document No.1198 of 2010 dated 03.09.2010 and was in possession; that the defendants without having any manner of right are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction.

6. Defendant No.2 filed written statement and defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 adopted the same. It is averred that the defendant No.1 is bonafide purchaser of the land in Survey No.104 to an extent of Ac.2.04 gts., the suit schedule property forms part and parcel of the said land; that defendants purchased the same from original owners vide simple sale deed dated 29.02.1987 and defendant No.1’s name was also mutated in the revenue records and further pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in her favour and since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:-

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants over the suit schedule property as prayed for?

ii) To what relief?

8. During the course of trial, plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and his vendor, Yema Anjaneyulu, was examined as PW2 and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.2 was examined as DW1, Domala Pochaiah and Vaddepally Pentaiah are examined as DW2 and DW3 respectively and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.

9. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 23.03.2018.

10. The trial Court categorically observed as hereunder:-

18. The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the proceeding No. 8/391/2010 not pertaining to defendants 13-B proceedings and he relied Ex. A13 which is issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Toopran showing 390 is a inward number titling recommendation of Koneru Rangarao Land Committee implementation No. 10.3 regarding. Ex. A12 is the memo issued by Deputy Tahsildar endorsing no file is available vide File No. B/391/2010, dt: 15-4-2010 is also no useful to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not supposed to rely on the weakness of the defendants, he must stand on his own legs. However there is no such pleading either from plaintiff or defendants. The plaintiff picked such number on going through the pahanies only. Since there is no dispute with regard to original ownership as such Ex.A4 to A11 are no useful. Though Ex.A4 to A11 showing the names of original pattedars names as pattedars