HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

The Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 11.02.2025, passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in A.S.No.334 of 2015, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 06.07.2015 passed in O.S.No.1563 of 2009 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, was confirmed.

2. Heard Sri M.Hamsa Raj, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kuturu Ravinder Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Perused the record.

3. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts as narrated in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.4.15 guntas in Survey No.236 and Ac.2.31 guntas in Sy.No.237, total admeasuring Ac.7.06 guntas situated at Gowrelli village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’), which originally stood in the name of Jakka Sayanna and after his death in the year 1999, his daughter Jakka Yadamma succeeded to the said property being sole legal heir and her name has also been mutated in revenue records and Pattedar Pass Books were also issued in her favour. It is further averred that plaintiffs purchased suit schedule property from Jakka Yadamma under Registered Sale Deed No.18779 of 2006, dated 30.11.2006 and 6400 of 2008, dated 30.06.2008 and their names were also entered in the Revenue Records pursuant to proceedings dated 14.02.2007 and 28.08.2008 and Pattedar Pass Books, title deeds were also issued to the plaintiffs. It is further averred that the defendants without any right or title damaged existing fencing on 08.08.2009 and have removed existing stones on 10.08.2009 and the plaintiffs resisted the said attempts and lodged Police complaint, however, Police advised them to approach Civil Court, hence, the suit is filed against the defendants seeking the relief of perpetual injunction.

5. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte and defendant Nos.3, 4 and 7 filed separate written statements and defendant Nos.5 and 6 filed adoption memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.4.

6. Defendant No.3 has filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also denied that the plaintiffs are owners and possessors of suit schedule property. It is further averred that during his life time, Jakka Sayanna sold out the suit schedule property. Out of which, defendant No.3 purchased an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas in Survey No.236 under registered sale deed document bearing No.2410 of 1997, dated 04.03.1997 and is in possession of the property; Jakka Yadamma never succeeded to the estate of Jakka Sayanna, however, after his death, by misrepresenting the facts, she obtained succession from MRO. After knowing the same, defendant No.3 has filed an appeal before the RDO East Division and vide order, dated 15.03.2008, said proceedings were set aside by the RDO and therefore, plaintiffs have no title or possession over the suit schedule property.

7. Defendant No.4 filed written statement and stated that she has purchased land admeasuring Ac.4.15 guntas in Survey No.236 from Jakka Sayanna. Thereafter, she sold the same in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6; that defendant No.4 and her father and brothers purchased an extent of Ac.10.25 guntas in Survey No.235 and further defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 clubbed their land and obtained common layout for total 13.28 guntas of land.

Therefore, the plaintiffs do not have any right or title in respect of suit schedule property. Written statement filed by the defendant No.4 was adopted by defendant Nos.5 and 6.

8. Defendant No.7 filed written statement contending that he is concerned with land in Survey No.237 admeasuring Ac.2.31 guntas, which was originally stood in the name of Jakka Sayanna and denied that his sole legal heir Ja