THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITIONNo.3137 of 2025

ORDER:

Aggrieved by order, dated 01.08.2025, passed in CMA.No.3 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Narayanpet, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. O.S.No.112 of 2023 was filed by the revision petitioner (Mr. S.Ashok), before the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Narayanpet, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from their interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

3. I.A.No.234 of 2023 in O.S.No.112 of 2023 was filed by revision petitioner, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C’) seeking temporary injunction. By an order dated

30.12.2024, the trial Court refused to grant ad-interim injunction and dismissed the petition.

4. Aggrieved by order, dated 30.12.2024, C.M.A.No.3 of 2025 was filed revision petitioner before the Principal District Judge at Narayanpet.

5. By an order dated 01.08.2025, the Appellate Court dismissed the C.M.A., confirming the order dated 30.12.2024, in I.A.No.234 of 2023 in O.S.No.112 of

2023.

6. The said order in C.M.A. is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that Chandram Reddy and Ananthaiah purchased land admeasuring Ac.2-00 gts in Sy.No.487/A/AA/2 by a registered sale deed bearing document No.1786 of 1994, dated 19.03.1994 from Thippanna and Thimmanna (sons of Rayappa). It is further submitted that petitioner purchased the share of Ananthaiah admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts by registered sale deed document No.671 of 2002 dated 27.05.2002.It is also submitted that his name was entered in the revenue records and a pattadar passbook was issued, and that the passbook of petitioner (Dharani passbook) is intact and he is in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit.

8. It is submitted that both the Courts below erred in not considering the aspect of the possession, the documents in favour of petitioner, mutated in his name to the extent of Ac.1-00 gts. That the order dated 01.08.2025, in C.M.A.No.3 of 2025 is bad in law as the sale deed bearing document No.2006 of 2001 dated 16.12.2001 of the respondents does not contain photographs of vendor and purchaser. That the same is not in accordance with Section 32A of the Registration Act, 1908, which introduced compulsory affixing of photographs and that the Amendment Act, 48 of 2001 dated 24.09.2001 had already come into effect. On this basis, it is submitted that vendor of petitioner, Ananthaiah, never executed any sale deed in favour of respondents, that this fact was ignored by the Appellate Court and not considered in its order in C.M.A. It is also submitted that land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts pertaining to Chandram Reddy, is mutated in the name of respondents. That document-Ex.R6 marked is not considered in the right perspective.

9. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that respondents purchased the property admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts from Ananthaiah (vendor of petitioner) vide registered sale deed document bearing No.2006 of 2001 dated 16.12.2001. It is further submitted that petitioner was never in possession and has not filed any documents pertaining to Conversion under NAALA Act or a copy of layout permission granted by the concerned authorities. It is also submitted that without conversion of agricultural land under NAALA and without layout permission, plots cannot be made and sold. In the absence of such documents, petitioner’s claim is invalid. It is also submitted that exhibits filed and marked by petitioner i.e., P1 to P13 do not speak of any conversion under NAALA Act or any layout permission. It is also submitted that petitioner has not served any documents relied upon.

10. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the Appellate Court rightly observed the discrepancies in the survey numbers and concluded that they create doubt about petitioner’s claim of pur