HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.995 of 2023

ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated

23.11.2022 passed in C.M.A.No.91 of 2019 on the file of the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, whereby the order dated 18.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.942 of 2018 in O.S.No.2658 of 2018 on the file of the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, was set aside and temporary injunction was granted in respect of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.

2. Heard Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for respondent No.1

3. The petitioners herein are defendants Nos.1 & 2, respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are defendant Nos.3 to 7, respectively, in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.2658 of 2018 for perpetual injunction restraining defendants Nos.1 to 4 from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is averred that Bhawari Devi Soni had purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed dated 12.03.1957. Satyanarayan Soni and Bhawari Devi Soni had no biological children and as per the customs of their community, they adopted the plaintiff, performed his marriage and treated him as a member of their joint Hindu family. While so, Bhawari Devi Soni executed a Will dated 20.12.1994 in favour of the plaintiff bequeathing all her immovable properties including the suit schedule property to him. The Will specifically provided that husband of Bhawari Devi Soni-Satyanarayan Soni could enjoy the rental income during his lifetime and thereafter, absolute ownership would pass on to the plaintiff.

5. Defendant No.1 is accused of taking advantage of Satyanarayan Soni’s poor health and mental condition to execute a Gift deed dated 20.10.2009. Similarly, defendant No.3 is alleged to have created a Will dated 26.12.1994, fraudulently claiming ownership of the property. These documents are claimed to be invalid having been obtained by fraud, coercion and misrepresentation.

6. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement asserted that Bhawari Devi Soni died on 02.01.1995, leaving behind only her husband Satyanarayana Soni to succeed to the property; that plaintiff is not the son of Late Satyanarayan Soni and Late Bhawari Devi Soni. The alleged will deed dated 20.12.1994 is a forged and created document to grab the suit schedule property. The plaintiff filed L.R. applications in R.C.Nos.45 and 47 of 2010 which were dismissed by order dated 22.11.2017. Late Satyanarayan Soni executed Will deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 24.10.2016 in respect of the suit schedule property and subsequently, defendant No.1 gifted the same to his wife and thus, they became owners of the suit schedule property.

7. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.942 of 2018 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C., seeking temporary injunction. Defendant No.3 filed counter resisting the said application. The trial Court observed that there is ambiguity with regard to the authenticity of the Will deed and also with regard to the true owner of the suit schedule property and the same can be determined only at subsequent stage and not at the initial stage and accordingly, dismissed the said application, vide order dated 18.10.2019.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed CMA.No.91 of 2019, contending that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that he was in possession of the suit schedule property as well as the fraudulent nature of the documents created by defendant Nos.1 to 3; that though voluminous documentary evidence is placed on record, the trial Court erred in holding that the plaintiff failed to show prima fac