The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Second Appeal No.277 of 2025

Judgment:

Heard Sri P. Ramachander Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the respondent, on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. This is a Second appeal preferred aggrieved by the concurrent judgments passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda in A.S.No.246 of 2022, dated 18.03.2025 and learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in O.S.No.239 of 2008, dated 22.02.2019, wherein, the relief of perpetual injunction sought by the appellant herein was denied. 3. The case of appellant is that he is the owner and possessor of house bearing No.1-9-997 with open place admeasuring 350 sq.yds. situated at Basithnagar, near Julywada, Hanamkonda, Warangal District consisting of three rooms with amenities. The appellant purchased said property from V. Jagan Mohan Reddy under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1099 of 2008, dated 16.02.2008 and since then, he has been paying the property tax and water tax, etc. Further, the name of the appellant is mutated in the revenue records vide ROC No.A3/5475/2008, dated 25.02.2008 and was issued ownership certificate vide ROC No.E/7/30545/2008, dated 05.03.2008. When there was interference from the respondent, suit for perpetual injunction is filed. The case of the respondent is that he has purchased 175 sq.yds. under an Agreement of sale from the vendor of appellant herein and he is in possession of his part of the suit schedule property by constructing a wall separating 350 sq.yds. into 175 sq.yds. each. Since he is working at Singareni Colleries, the appellant herein took advantage and got his name mutated for the entire extent in his name . Further, in the absence of the respondent, the property was dismantled and therefore, a complaint is given to the police in Crime No.35 of 2008.

4. Upon considering the case of both the parties, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit on the premise that the appellant herein has approached the Court with unclean hands as there was no mention about the existence of a wall separating the 350 sq.yds. into 175 sq.yds. each dividing the property into two equal halves between the appellant and respondent. Further, it is observed that the vendor of the appellant has first executed an Agreement of sale in favour of the respondent and then executed a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant and said fact is not mentioned. On the basis of said ground of suppression of facts, the discretionary relief of perpetual injunction is denied. Aggrieved by the same, the First Appeal is preferred before the First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court upon examining the evidence adduced by the parties on record before the learned Trial Court also concluded that there is an admission by the appellant as PW1 that he is not in possession of the entire extent of the suit schedule property but is in possession of only

175 sq.yds. of land. Further, there is suppression of existence of compound wall in the suit schedule property and therefore, confirmed the finding of the learned Trial Court with regard to the suppression of facts and thus, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial court.

5. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal is preferred raising the following substantial questions of law:

1. Both the Courts below gave inconsistent judgments wherein the judgment of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court are on the basis of entirely different points for consideration.

2. Both the Courts below have ignored the cardinal principle of law that in an injunction suit, the defendant who deliberately violated the interim injunction order of the trial Court and trespassed into suit schedule property.

6. During arguments at the stage of admission, the learned counsel for the appell