THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1124 of 2025

ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Khammam, in CMA.No.4 of 2024.

2. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.1019 of 2021 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Mobile court, Khammam.

The parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. O.S.No.1019 of 2021 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant in respect of dry land admeasuring Ac.0.21 guntas in Sy.No.127/A/4, Arempula Village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’). Plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant became the owner of the suit property having succeeded to the same from her father. Plaintiff No.2 purchased the suit property from the defendant under sada sale deed dated 28.04.1986 for sale consideration of Rs.21,000/, which was scribed on stamp paper worth Rs.5/- and the plaintiff No.2 was handed over possession of the same. The name of the plaintiff No.2 has been recorded as possessor continuously in the revenue records.

4. It is stated that the plaintiff No.2 instituted a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.306 of 1990 seeking registration of the unregistered sale deed. However, due to ill health, he could not consult his counsel and could not attend the Court. As such, the suit was dismissed for default. Later, the plaintiff No.2 applied before the Tahsildar, Khammam (Rural), for regularization of the sada sale deed and issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘ROR Act’). As there was no response from the Tahsildar for a long time, the plaintiff No.2 preferred ROR Appeal No.A3/9470/2016 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam. The RDO issued notices to both the parties and conducted enquiry. The appeal was disposed of in favour of the plaintiff No.2. Thereafter, the Tahsildar regularized the sada sale deed dated 28.04.1986 under the provisions of the ROR Act and the plaintiff No.2 was issued pattadar passbook and title deed bearing No.T 26060080007 with Khata No.16. The name of the plaintiff No.2 has been recorded as pattadar and possessor of the land in the revenue record.

5. It is submitted that the plaintiff No.2 gifted the suit property to his wife, plaintiff No.1, by registered Gift Deed bearing document No.8154/2018 dated 01.10.2018 and delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.1 applied for mutation before the Tahsildar by virtue of registered gift deed. The mutation proceedings are pending with the Tahsildar and the land is being continued in the name of the plaintiff No.2 in the revenue record.

6. It is stated that, while the matter stood thus, the defendant tried to grab the suit property. He came to the suit property along with his henchmen on 11.09.2021 along with JCB machine and scolded the plaintiffs in filthy language and high-handedly destroyed the fencing, pillar and boundary stones.

7. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed IA.No.1 of 2021 seeking temporary injunction and ex parte ad interim injunction was granted by the trial Court by order dated 27.09.2021. The defendant filed CMA.No.4 of 2024 challenging the order dated 27.09.2021 passed in IA.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.1019 of 2021 and subsequent flouting of mandate of Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for 1077 days as against the principles of natural justice. The appellate Court by the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 allowed the CMA and set aside the ex parte injunction order granted IA.No.1 of 2021 dated 27.09.2021.

8. In CMA.No.4 of 2024, it was contended by the defendant that the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No.306 of 1990 was dismissed. Thus, the application of the plaintiff No.2 for