IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.149 of 2025

18^th DAY OF MARCH, 2026 Between:

Dodda Kutumba Rao.

…Petitioner AND Alla Vijaya Lakshmi.

...Respondent

ORDER:

Heard Sri G. Sundaresan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner/ respondent/defendant aggrieved by the judgment passed in C.M.A.No.10 of 2023 dated 02.12.2024 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge at Sathupally, (‘First Appellate Court’), reversing the order dated 29.10.2019 in I.A.No.215 of 2019 in O.S.No.145 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Sathupally, (‘trial Court’).

Brief facts of the case:

3. The background facts of the case are that the petitioner/respondent/defendant and the respondent/appellant/plaintiff are real brother and sister and children of Late Gopaiah. The respondent filed suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioner herein from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property consisting of wet land situated at Kuppenakuntla Village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District in Survey No.280/3/4, to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas. The respondent claims to be absolute owner of the said property under registered Will Deed document bearing No.3 of 2019 dated 24.05.2019 executed by her father and came into force after the father's death. The respondent intended to do transplantation of paddy work on 30.07.2019 and at that time there was resistance from the petitioner herein and she resisted his efforts with the help of village elders. The petitioner, who is the son of the respondent's father, that is her natural brother, claims to be in possession of the scheduled property and is claiming that said land belongs to him without explaining the manner in which the title is derived. Therefore, a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.145 of 2019 along with an interlocutory application in I.A.No.215 of 2019 seeking interim temporary injunction was filed.

4. The petitioner herein opposed the respondent's case, claiming that his father never executed the will deed and after his death the petitioner came into possession of the petition schedule property. When the respondent and her husband tried to plough the land, he filed caveat petition and he raised paddy in the petition schedule property. In support of his case of being in possession, the petitioner filed three third party affidavits along with the written statement. It is also contended that he has another sister by name Nallamothu Krishnakumari and she is a necessary party to the suit for declaration as she is entitled to a share in her father's property. The petitioner claimed to be in possession of the petition schedule property.

Therefore, claimed that the respondent is not entitled to interim injunction.

5. The respondent exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-13 on her behalf and the petitioner herein marked Exs.R-1 to R-3. Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 are the pattadar passbook and title deed of the respondent's father, Ex.P-3 is the registered Will Deed, Ex.P-4 is the caveat petition filed by the petitioner, Exs.P-5 to P-7 are postal receipts about the caveat petition, Ex.P-8 is the certified copy of 1B namuna, Ex.P-9 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2014 and Exs.P-10 to P-13 are third party affidavits issued in favour of the respondent. Whereas, Exs.R-1 to R-3 are affidavits issued by the holders of land which are adjacent to the petition schedule property issued in favour of the petitioner.

6. Upon examining the version presented by both the parties, the learned trial Court concluded that Ex.P-1 and P-2 are pattaadar passbook and title deed of the respondent's father and there is no dispute about him being the owner of the petition schedule property. The only document that is relied upon by the respondent is Ex.P-