HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.195 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

The Second Appeal is filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2025 in A.S.No.85 of 2018 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad wherein and whereunder, the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2017 in O.S.No.788 of 2006 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar was confirmed.

2. Heard Mr.M.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record.

3. The appellant herein is plaintiff, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they were 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 Suit vide O.S.No.788 of 2006 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar for Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, associates etc., from interfering with the lawful possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.8.02 gts, bearing Survey No.25, situated at Kothwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, having purchased the same from Mr.M.V.Subba Rao vide Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.1792/2000, dated 17.07.2000. Since then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is further averred that on 10.03.2006 and 15.03.2006, the defendants in collusion with revenue authorities got entered their names in possession column of pahanies and are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the Suit.

5. The Suit against defendant No.1 abated and defendant Nos.2 and 3 remained ex-parte.

6. Defendant No.4 filed written statement and contended that Mr.M.V.Subba Rao is not the owner of the suit schedule property and the same was declared by the Land Ceiling Tribunal, Hyderabad in C.C.No.337/W/75 and the same was confirmed by the High Court vide order dated 28.06.1979 in C.R.P.No.6795. Therefore, the vendor of plaintiff has no manner of right to alienate the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff misrepresented and suppressed the real facts before the Court. Defendant No.4 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from defendant Nos.1 to 3 under the registered sale deed document bearing No.767 of 2008 dated 20.01.2008. He further stated that his vendors are in possession of the property since, 1950 onwards.

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

1) Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

3) To what relief ?

8. During the course of trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of defendants DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B29 were marked.

9. After full-fledged trial, on considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs.

10. The trial Court in its judgment categorically observed as hereunder:-

(6) As seen from the entire documents Ex.B1 to B29 the name of the defendant No.4 reflected as Pattedar and possessor since 2008-09 and prior to that his vendors names were recorded in possessor column as per Pahanis filed by the plaintiff also. The plaintiff failed to file single document to establish their possession over the suit schedule property. Moreover in the cross-examination PW1 admitted that as on the date of filing of the suit they did not file any document to show their possession over the suit schedule property and as on today he did not file any suit before any court for cancel