HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3366 of 2024

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2024 passed in C.M.A. No.22 of 2023 by the Principal District Judge at Medak, wherein the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by confirming the order, dated 13.10.2023in I.A.No.1132 of 2023 in O.S.No.402 of 2023 passed by the trial Court.

2. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Challa, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Manohar, learned counsel for respondentNo.1 and no representation on behalf of other respondents, despite service of notice.Perused the record.

3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they arearrayed in the suit.

4. The brief facts of the case arethat the plaintiffs filed a suit vide O.S.No.402 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medak against the respondents to declare the sale deed No.4738 of 2003, dated 18.10.2003 as null and void and also for perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.1 from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property.The petitioners also filed I.A.No.1132 of 2023 for ad- interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit.Respondent No.1 filed counter resisting the application.

5. Thetrial Court videorder dated 13.10.2023 dismissed the said I.A.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal videC.M.A.No.22 of 2023 and the appellate Court videimpugned order dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally, Chukka Balaiah was the pattedar of the agricultural land admeasuring Acs.4.14guntas in Sy.No.292, situated at Kallakal Village, Manoharabad Mandal, Medak District. The said Chukka Balaih hastwo sons namely, Chukka Narsaiah and Chukka Balaiah and after the death of Chukka Narsaiah, his legal heirs were impleaded as respondent Nos.3 to 9. Chukka Balaiahhas a daughter by name Chukka Veeramani and she was given land to an extent of Ac.1.33 guntas by grandfather namely, Chukka Balaiah and balance extent of Acs.2.22 guntas fell to the share of Chukka Narsaiah and his three sons and after the demise of Chukka Balaiah, the said land was inherited by Chukka Narsaiah and his sons i.e., petitioners herein. He would further submit that the petitionersfiled suit for partition in O.S.No.76 of 2022in which respondent No.1 was made party as respondent No.5; the respondent No.1 filed written statement stating that she purchased the land admeasuring Ac.1.31 guntas in Sy.No.284/A/2 (old) and 291/2 (new) under the registered sale deed documentNo.4738 of 2003, dated 18.10.2003 from respondent No.2 herein, who in turn purchased the said property under the registered sale deed document No.2743 of 1996, dated 05.08.1996 from one Amarnath Agarwal and who inturn purchased the said property under a registered sale deed document No.920 of

1995, dated 20.02.1995 from Veerakka Balamani.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that respondent No.1 has claimed right over the suit schedule property by basing on resurvey. Therefore, burden is on respondent No.1 to prove that Sy.No.284/A/2 was changed to Sy.No.291/2 and as the respondent No.1 was trying to alienate the suit schedule property, the petitioners filed the suit along with application for ad-interim injunction. He would submit that the trial Court dismissed the application on erroneous findings and without considering the documents placed on record by the petitioners. He would further submit that the appellate Court also committed error in dismissing the appeal on perverse findings and failed to consider the fact that the property claimed by respondent No.1 and the property being claimed by the petitioners is different.

8. Learned counsel f