THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.99 OF 2025 JUDGMENT:-

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2025 passed in I.A.No.986 of 2024 in A.S.No.42 of 2024, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Jagtial, wherein and whereby the application filed by the appellant herein for interim injunction was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri B.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.Arjun, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are that the appellant herein filed a suit in O.S.No.88 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial against the defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas, situated in Sy.No.5/AA of Yeshwantharaopet Village, Gollapally Mandal (hereinafter referred as the suit schedule property). In the plaint, it is averred that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having acquired the same through his own funds and that the defendants are not concerned of the suit schedule property and are interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property; that his name was shown in pattedar column and possession column in the pahanies from the years 2005-06 to 2014 and also in Form 1-B ROR and that he has been paying tax in respect of suit schedule property.

4. Defendants 1 & 2 filed common written statement contending that the plaintiff made false allegations against them only for the purpose of filing a false suit, however, admitted that they and appellant are own brothers. They further contended that their father Urmella Venkaiah purchased the suit schedule property long back from his original owner Gandra Narsinga Rao and after the death of their father, the property was partitioned and appellant and respondents are in exclusive possession of their respective shares and that suit has been filed only to extract money from the respondents and further contended that the suit is barred by limitation.

5. The Trial Court, on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.06.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred Appeal in A.S.No.42 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Jagtial. The Appellant has also filed an application in I.A.No.986 of 2024 for grant of temporary injunction. The respondents filed counter resisting the said application.

6. The First Appellate Court, vide its order dated 02.01.2025, dismissed the said application with an observation that the pahanies filed by the respondents show that the names of appellant as well as respondents are as possessors in respect of land to an extent of 10 guntas each and that the appellant has failed to prove that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also as to how he became the owner.

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2025, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the First Appellate Court has failed to consider Exs.A1 to A8 pahanies from the years 2005-06 to 2014, which shows that the entire suit schedule property was recorded in the name of the appellant. He further submitted that the First Appellate Court has erroneously observed that the appellant had not placed ROR proceedings, however, failed to note that there is no challenge to the said proceedings. He further submitted that the First Appellate Court has erroneously relied upon Exs.B4 to B12, i.e., pahanies, which do not confer any title to the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that Exs.A1 to A8 i.e., pahanies from the years 2005-06 to 2014 and Ex.A9 i.e., Form I-B (ROR) were not properly considered by First Appellate Court and erroneously dismissed the application and hence, prayed to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that th