HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

The Second Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 05.02.2025, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy in A.S.No.59 of 2022, by which the judgment and decree, dated 13.06.2018, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Medak in O.S.No.78 of 2012 was set aside.

2. The appellants herein are defendants and respondent herein is plaintiff in the suit. The parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.78 of 2012 seeking perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property against defendants. In the plaint it is averred that plaintiff is the owner and pattadar of suit schedule property which is ancestral property and he raised sugar cane crop in the lands and his name was also recorded as pattadar in revenue record and pattadar pass book has also been issued; that defendants without any manner of right trying to interfere with the possession of suit schedule property and hence, the suit for injunction.

4. Defendant No.1 filed the written statement which was adopted by the other defendants denying the suit averments. It is averred that one Laxma Reddy was common ancestor and has got two sons namely Narayana Reddy and Durga Reddy and they partitioned their joint family properties. Durga Reddy married Bagamma i.e., the mother of defendant No.1 and his two wives have no children and the defendant No.1 was adopted by Durga Reddy. Plaintiff is a doctor practicing at Hyderabad and suit schedule land and other properties of Durga Reddy are being looked after by defendant No.1 and he raised crops in the suit schedule lands and that there was earlier partition between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 has got suit schedule property towards his share and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial on behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and another witness was examined as PW2 and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 himself was examined as DW1 and two more witnesses were examined as DW2 and DW3 and got marked Ex. B1 to Ex.B25.

7. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit with the following observations vide judgment and decree dated 13.06.2018:

10. It is evidence of Ex. B25 election identity card that defendant No.1 is a son of Durga Reddy and the same is not seriously questioned by the plaintiff, the defendants admitted in the statements that the plaintiff is adopted by two wives of Durga Reddy, as such plaintiff and defendant No.1 were like brother and sons of Durga Reddy. So the plaintiff also entitled to share in the properties of Durga Reddy. There is no pleading in the plaint that the plaintiff became the owner under Ex.A14 gift deed.

11. The defendant No.1 also filed suit for declaration in OS No.62 of 2008 declaring him as son of Durga Reddy reliefs against the defendant who is plaintiff in the suit in respect of the same property. DW2 and DW3 the same villagers also supported the defendant that defendant No.1 is the son of Durga Reddy born to Bagamma through Durga Reddy. So defendant No.1 being son of Durga Reddy is entitled to share in the properties of Durga Reddy and claiming the suit property towards his share, as such the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction against the defendant No.1 particularly being share holder of the properties left by Durga Reddy Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction.

8. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred appeal vide A.S.No.59 of 2022 on the file of Principal District