CMA/433/2021 of M/s. Indukuri Life Spaces LLP Vs Sri. C. Kumar Goud and 4 Others on 31 December 2021

1. Sri. C. Kumar Goud, S/o- C .Satyanarayana Goud, Aged about 65 years, Occ.[Business, No.2-2-76t2^5, ][[R. ]]I [[Nagar, BaghRmbeipei, ]][[nyOeraOid_'014.-' ]][- ][--]2. Sri. C. Rakesh Kumar Goud, S/o. e . Kumir [Business, No.2-2-76t2^5, ][[R. ]]I [[Nagar, BaghRmbeipei, ]][[nyOeraOid_'014.-' ]][- ][--]2. Sri. C. Rakesh Kumar Goud, S/o. e . Kumir [[R. ]][[Nagar, BaghRmbeipei, ]][[nyOeraOid_'014.-' ]]2. Sri. C. Rakesh Kumar Goud, S/o. e . Kumir Gouo,'ngbd lUoJfSa veais, O"c.- [Business, R|o.2-2-76tZS, ][R.K. ][Nag,ar, ][Bagh ArnberpEt, ][XvOeiinaOlOie.' ][-"-]3. Sri. C. Mukesh Kumar Goud, S/o. e. Kumir Coud, AgeO ibort SO V"uii, O...Business, No.2-2-76t25, R.K. Nagar, BaghAmberp6t, HVderjOaOlOf f '--"- [Business, R|o.2-2-76tZS, ][R.K. ][Nag,ar, ][Bagh ArnberpEt, ][XvOeiinaOlOie.' ][-"-]3. Sri. C. Mukesh Kumar Goud, S/o. e. Kumir Coud, AgeO ibort SO V"uii, O...Business, No.2-2-76t25, R.K. Nagar, BaghAmberp6t, HVderjOaOlOf f '--"4. Sri. C. Krishna Qgua, plo !,.Saty5narayina Couo, Adeo'iUoui+s yeiis, occ.Business, No.2-2-76t2.!, RX Nagar, B'agh Amberpet] nyOeraOaO_6i4.-' [--]Business, No.2-2-76t2.!, RX Nagar, B'agh Amberpet] nyOeraOaO_6i4.-' [--]5. Sri. C. Abhitash Goud,-Slo. C. Kris-hna Go"ud, ngeO'ab;ui'26 vJaii,-O"-"B usiness, N o. 2-2-Z 6 l2S, R. K._!!aga1 Ba gh Am"berpet, ftyAeiabaOlO f S.B usiness, N o. 2-2-Z 6 l2S, R. K._!!aga1 Ba gh Am"berpet, ftyAeiabaOlO f S.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

Petition under order XXX|X Rule '1 & 2 R/w. Section 151 cpc praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High bourt ["may ]nepleased to grant ad-interim- injunction against the respondenti, restraining therespondents, their henchmen or agents from interfering with the peaceful posseisionof the plaintiff in the petition schedule property, SCHDULE OF THE PROPERTY

All that the land totar admeasuring Ac. 20.07.s1 Gts (equivarent to g1697.04 sq.meters), rn Survey Nos. 438, 439, 440 part, situated at pasumamra Viilage formerlyunder Hayathnagar Revenue _Arrandar, presenfly under the pedda Amberpetmeters), rn Survey Nos. 438, 439, 440 part, situated at pasumamra Viilage formerlyunder Hayathnagar Revenue _Arrandar, presenfly under the pedda AmberpetIvlunicrpality and Adulapurmet Revenue Mandar, iranga Reddy District, NORTH .in 100' Radial Road connecri!-s sy. No. 440rp and 439 ry1qole sourH to Gowreily Junction Neighb-ours rand oRR in Sy. and Neili-roouri r.ro. iac-ensr ano.|91q!o9urs [land ][in ][Sv. ][No. ][440lp, ][436 ][and ][+iolp ]wesr . r.reighbours ianain!y ruo.4401P,441 and 442in 100' Radial Road connecri!-s sy. No. 440rp and 439 ry1qole sourH to Gowreily Junction Neighb-ours rand oRR in Sy. and Neili-roouri r.ro. iac-ensr ano.|91q!o9urs [land ][in ][Sv. ][No. ][440lp, ][436 ][and ][+iolp ]wesr . r.reighbours ianain!y ruo.4401P,441 and 442

For the Appettant : M/s. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFTCESSRI B.NAMRATA REODY, ADVOCATESSRI B.NAMRATA REODY, ADVOCATES

For the Respondents : SRI A.VENKATESH, Advocate The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

THE H( )N'BLE SRI JUSTICE [P. ][NAVEEN ][RAO]ANDTHE H(,N'BLE [SMT. ]JUSTICE [P. ][SREE ][SUDHA]

CML M SCELLANEOUS [APPEAL No'433 ][of ][2021]

JUDGMENT [I ][:rer ][HoN'BLE ][SivII ][JUSIICE ][P' SREE ][SUDHA)]

This Civi Miscellaneous [Appeal is ][preferred ][against ][the]order and [dec ][ee dated ][01.10.2021 ][in ][I'A'No'303 ][of ][2021 in]O.S.No.208 of [2021 ][passed ][by ][the ][Il ][Adclitional District ][Judge']t [istrict ][at L'B. ][Nagar, dismissing ][the ][application]Ranga Recldy fited by the ap rellant/plaintiff [for ][grant ][of ][interim ][iniunction]the [responclents ][therein ][from ][itrtelfering irrto ][the]restraining peaceful posses [;ion ][of ][the ][petition ][schedule ][property]

2. The appe [llant ][herein ][is ][the ][plaintiff ][and ][respondents]herein are the c [efendants ][before the ][lrial ][Court' ][For the ][sake ][of]convenience, [th: ][parties ][are ][referred ][to ][as ][they' ][lvere ][arraryed ][iu]the suit before [t ][re ][trial ][Court]

3. In the ;rounds [of ][appeal' ][the ][appellant/piaintiff]contended that [:he ][trial ][Court ][without ][giving ][any ][weightage ][to]Exs.P-1 to [P-50 dismissecl ][I A'No'303 ][of ][202f ][in ][O'S'No'208 ][of]2021 and it [oug ][rt ][to have considered ][that ][the ][petitiorr ][schedule]propertv [admet suring, Acs'20'07'51 ][gts ][in ][Sy ][Nos'438' ][439 ][ancl]

440/part and the respondents/defendants are claiming only anextent of Acs.2-'1.6 gts. in Sy.No.439, situated in PasumamillaVillage, Pedda Amberpet Municipality and AbdullapurmetRevenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiff alsostated that, admittedly, Syed Mohammed Farooq Miya is theowner of tl-re extent claimed bv the defendarrts and thedefendants have no valid title over the suit schedule property,but the plaintiff's predecessors in the title had purchased thesaid extent directly from the legal heirs of the Syed MohamoodFarooq Miyan. The piaintiff further stated rirat the HMDA hadapproved the lavout of the plaintiff over the petition scheduleproperty and the same is placed before it under Ex.p_49 andthat the plaintiff has clear fitle and right over the suit schedureproperty through multiple registered sale deeds Exs.p_1 to p_3and registered Development Agreement-cum-Irrevocable GpAunder Exs.P-4 to P-25 covering the total extent of land and thus,the plaintiff has right over the suit schedule property. Theplaintiff further submits that it has invested crores of money,time and energv into the project on the suit schedule propertyand had acquired the required permissions from the HMDAunder Ex.R-49 and RERA authorities under Ex.p_50. Theplaintiff also stated that though the defendants have noConveyance Deed, they are claiming ownership from Ex.R_23,

which appears to be a conditional [Agreement of ][Sale ][on ][a ][plain]paper, but tl rey have not filed [any ][evidence ][to ][prove]subsequent de [relopment/transactions ][with ][respect ][to ][Ex.R-23']It is also contr nded that [though the ][defendants are claiming]that their nam ls are [reflecting ][in ][the ][pahanies,, ][they ][failed ][to]prove their l ossession [over ][the ][extent ][of ][suit ][schedule]property. The plaintiff [further ][contended ][that ][the ][clefendants,]on one hand, :laiming [to ][be the ][owners ][of ][the ][land ][under]Ex.R-23, on t 1e other [hand, ][they ][are ][claiming ][adverse]possession in espect [of ][the ][said land, ][which ][is rl ][disputed]question of fac . It [is ][well ][settled ][law ][that ][adverse ][possession]can be consider:d only [in ][case ][of hostile ][possession ][i e' ][rvithout]the consent of t re owner' It [is contended ][that ][as ][per the photos]under Ex.P-21 f [led ][by ][the defendants the ][consffuction ][activities]are going on in the [petition ][schedule ]ProPerty [and ][they' ][are ][in]possession of [the ][suit ][schedule ]ProPerty [and that ][even ][the]defendants hal: [admitted the ][same ][and ][the ][said ][admission]itself is sufficier [t ][to grant ][injunction ][in ][its ][favour' ][TLre ][plaintiff]also contencled [hat ][though ][the defenclants ][are ][claimitrg ][that ][the]conversiot.t [of ][l, ][nci ][in ][Sy.No ][439 ][was done ][behind their ][back']not [inir iate ][any ][steps ][against the ][conversion ][order ][and']they clid therefore, [sougl ][t ][this Hon'ble Court ][to ][set ][aside ][the ][dismissal]of the impugnet [order ][dated ][01t0'2021']

-4, The suit in O.S.No.208 of 2021, is filed by tl're plaintiff M/s. Inclukuri Life Spaces LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership,Hyderabad, against the defendants seeking to grant perpetualinjunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen,subordinates, workmen or any other persons claiming throughor acting under them from interfering in any manner with theplaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suitschedule property. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.303of 2021 is filed by the plaintiff for grant of interim injuncrionrestraining the defendants from ir-rterfering into the peacefulpossession of the suit schedule property and the same wasdisnrissed by the trial Court vide order dated 01.10.2021.

5. The plaintiff was entrusted with a total extent of landadmeasuring Acs.20.07.51 gts. (equivalent to 91697.04Sq. meters) irl Sy.Nos.438, 439 and 440/part, situated inPasumamilla Village, Pedda Amberpet Municipaiity andAbdullapurmet Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It alsoacquired the land admeasuring Acs.11.01 gts. in Sy.No.43g andan extent of Acs.7-28 gts. in Sy.No .440/ part and other extent oflands in Pasumamilla Village, Abdullapurmet RevenueMandal, Ranga Reddy District. The flow of title regarding theland in Sy.No.439 is that, originally one Syecl Mohamood I

Farooq Miyan was the sole and absolute owner of the landadmeasuring I cs.2-"16 gts in the said survey number. After thedeath of Syed Vohamood Farooq Mivan, his legal heirs haveclividec'l the sai I propertv anlong themselves ancl that [some ][of]them have ext cuted the registered Agreemerrt of [Sale-cum-]GPA dated 091,2.2019, bearing document [No.3392i ][2020; and]with respect tc their share of land admeasuring [Ac.1-16 ][gts.]-some of the le ;al heirs have [registered ][Agreement ][of ][Sale ]cum-GPA date,l 21,.12.20L9, bearing document [No.3393/2020;]and with respec: to the land admeasuring [Ac.0-25 gts. ][in favour]of M/s. Sri Adi [ya ]Infra, represented by [its Managing ][Partner.]They inlurn file i application for conversion of [the ][above ][said]land from agrir ultural usage to non-agricultural [usage vide]proceedings dat d 28.09.2020. Later, [the legal rePresentatives ][of]Syed Mohamoo I Farooq Miyan [also ][sold ][out ][their ][retained]extent of land tc an [extent ][of ][Ac.0-15 ][gunts ][to NI/s. ][Sri ][Aditya]Infra by way of registered [sale ][deed ][vide ][document]lated [08 ][02.2021 ][and ][sale deed ][clocument]No.1806/2021, No.1809/2021, d [rted ][08.Oz.zOZL ][and ][for ][an ][extent of Ac'0-.t3 ][gts']of land and Ac.0 [02 ][gts' respectively, ][and ][thus, ][NI/s' ][Sri ][Aditya]Infra has alienu ted [the land ][to ][an ][extent ][of ][Acs ][2-16 ][gts']to [1161'6 ][Sq. ][Yards) ][in ][Sy'No'439,/part ][in](equivalent PasumamillaVilagean&enjoyingthepossession'Thereafter'admeasuring I cs.2-"16 gts in the said survey number. After thedeath of Syed Vohamood Farooq Mivan, his legal heirs haveclividec'l the sai I propertv anlong themselves ancl that [some ][of]them have ext cuted the registered Agreemerrt of [Sale-cum-]GPA dated 091,2.2019, bearing document [No.3392i ][2020; and]with respect tc their share of land admeasuring [Ac.1-16 ][gts.]-some of the le ;al heirs have [registered ][Agreement ][of ][Sale ]cum-GPA date,l 21,.12.20L9, bearing document [No.3393/2020;]and with respec: to the land admeasuring [Ac.0-25 gts. ][in favour]of M/s. Sri Adi [ya ]Infra, represented by [its Managing ][Partner.]They inlurn file i application for conversion of [the ][above ][said]land from agrir ultural usage to non-agricultural [usage vide]proceedings dat d 28.09.2020. Later, [the legal rePresentatives ][of]Syed Mohamoo I Farooq Miyan [also ][sold ][out ][their ][retained]extent of land tc an [extent ][of ][Ac.0-15 ][gunts ][to NI/s. ][Sri ][Aditya]Infra by way of registered [sale ][deed ][vide ][document]lated [08 ][02.2021 ][and ][sale deed ][clocument]No.1806/2021, No.1809/2021, d [rted ][08.Oz.zOZL ][and ][for ][an ][extent of Ac'0-.t3 ][gts']of land and Ac.0 [02 ][gts' respectively, ][and ][thus, ][NI/s' ][Sri ][Aditya]Infra has alienu ted [the land ][to ][an ][extent ][of ][Acs ][2-16 ][gts']to [1161'6 ][Sq. ][Yards) ][in ][Sy'No'439,/part ][in](equivalent PasumamillaVilagean&enjoyingthepossession'Thereafter'

the plaintiff had [presented ][an application dated ][21.07.2020 to]HMDA for approval of the residential draft Layout [and ][while]the said application is under process for approval [by ][the]HMDA and also got registered the ongoing project in the suitschedule property under the name and style of ["INDUKURI]LAKE SHORE" with the Telangana State Real EstateRegulatory Authority, the defendants rvithout an1, right, titleand interest over the suit schedule property started interferingand disrupting the functioning of the developmerlt activitiesupon the suit schedule propertv, therefore, the plaintiff filed thepresent application for grant of interirn injunction restrainingthe defendants from interfering into the peaceful possessionancl enjovnrer.rt of the suit schedule propertv

6. On the other hand, the defendants filed counter affidavitdenying petition averments of the plaintiff. They admitted thatSyed Mohamood Farooq Miyan was the pattadar and possessorof the land to an extent of Acs.2-16 gts. in Sy.No.439 situated inPasumamilla Vitlage, but denied execution of sale deed by thelegal representatives of Syed Mohamood Farooq Miyan. Theyfurther stated that there is no document filed by the plaintiff orcontents of the documents filed by the plaintiff establishes thatthey are the legal heirs of late Syed Mohamood Farooq Miyan

and got dividt d the land in Sy.No.439. It is further stated thatwhen the defer Ldants are in physical possession and cultivationof the land adr reasuring Acs.2-16 gts. since more than 50 years,the question c i dividing the land between the alleged legalheirs of late S. ed Mohamood Farooq Miyan [woulci ][not ][arise]and all the dc cuments filed by the plaintiff [are ][bogus ][and]created one. Tt ey mainly contended [that ][their ][paternal ][grand-]father, namely Chetty Ramaiah had [purchased ][an ][extent of]Acs.2-16 gts. in Sy.No.439 of [Pasumamilla ][Village,]Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal, [Ranga ][Reddy District, from]the original pa tadar Syed Mohamood [Farooq ][Miy.an ][in ][the]year 1,966 and s nce then, [they were ][in ][uninterruptecl ][physical]possession of th r land and cultivating [the ][same ][till ][his ][death ][in]the year 1977. i bsequent [to his ][death, ][his ][seven sons ][were ][put]in physical poss tssion and [they were ][cultivating ][the ][said ][land]and the name of [grand-father ][of the defendants, namelv Chetty]Ramaiah was t learly recorded [in ][the ][Revenue ][rt:cords ][in]possessory colur rn since [1966 ][to ][till ][his ][death ][in ][the ][veat ]['1977]and tlrc' certifiet [copies ][of ][pahanies ][from ][1967 ][to ][2079-2020]clearly establisl r [about ][the ][physical ][possession ][of ][the]defendants and [t ]reir [agnates ][in ][respect ][of ][the ][land ][in ][an ][extent]of Acs.2-39 gts. [in ][Sy'No.439. ][They ][also contended ][that ][the]panchanama [co ][rducted ][by ][the ][Tahsildar, ][Hayathnagar]\--when the defer Ldants are in physical possession and cultivationof the land adr reasuring Acs.2-16 gts. since more than 50 years,the question c i dividing the land between the alleged legalheirs of late S. ed Mohamood Farooq Miyan [woulci ][not ][arise]and all the dc cuments filed by the plaintiff [are ][bogus ][and]created one. Tt ey mainly contended [that ][their ][paternal ][grand-]father, namely Chetty Ramaiah had [purchased ][an ][extent of]Acs.2-16 gts. in Sy.No.439 of [Pasumamilla ][Village,]Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal, [Ranga ][Reddy District, from]the original pa tadar Syed Mohamood [Farooq ][Miy.an ][in ][the]year 1,966 and s nce then, [they were ][in ][uninterruptecl ][physical]possession of th r land and cultivating [the ][same ][till ][his ][death ][in]the year 1977. i bsequent [to his ][death, ][his ][seven sons ][were ][put]in physical poss tssion and [they were ][cultivating ][the ][said ][land]and the name of [grand-father ][of the defendants, namelv Chetty]Ramaiah was t learly recorded [in ][the ][Revenue ][rt:cords ][in]possessory colur rn since [1966 ][to ][till ][his ][death ][in ][the ][veat ]['1977]and tlrc' certifiet [copies ][of ][pahanies ][from ][1967 ][to ][2079-2020]clearly establisl r [about ][the ][physical ][possession ][of ][the]defendants and [t ]reir [agnates ][in ][respect ][of ][the ][land ][in ][an ][extent]of Acs.2-39 gts. [in ][Sy'No.439. ][They ][also contended ][that ][the]panchanama [co ][rducted ][by ][the ][Tahsildar, ][Hayathnagar]\--

Mandal, [through ][the ][Revenue ][Inspector, ][in ][the ][year ][2000]disclose [that the ][defendants ][and ][their ][agnates ][are]clearly cultivating [the ][said ][land ][and ][enioying ][physical ][possession ][of]the said land [till ][date. ][They ][further ][submitted that ][the ][persons]to [be ][the ][legai representatives ][of ][late Syed ][Mohamood]claiming Farooq Miyan [without ][their ][knowiedge ][and ][in ][coliusion ][with]the Revenue [authorities ][got ][mutated ][their ][names ][in ][the]Revenue records [as ][Pattadars ][and obtained ][pass ][books and ]deeds. They [also contended ][that ][it ][is ][settled ][principle ][of ][law]that under [ROR ][Act, ][the ][pattadar, ][who ][is ][not ][in ][possession ][of]the land, is [not entitled ][for ][issuance ][pass ][books and ][title ][deeds']contended [that ][when ][the ][defendants ][are ][in]They also possession [of ][the ][land to ][an ][extent ][of ][Acs'2-16 ][gts' ][in ][Sli ]['No'439']there is no [necessify ][to ][interfere ][with ][the ][alleged development]work of the plaintiff. [It ][is ][also ][conter-rded ][that the ][plaintiff ][in]collusion with [the ][alleged ][land ][owners ][is trying ][to ][grab ][the]land of the [defendants ][and ][it ][is ][only a ][developer ][and ][GPA]holder of the land [owners ][and, therefore, ][the ][present ][suit filed]by the plaintiff [is ][not ][maintainable. They ][further ][stated ][that ][one]Khundmiri [and ][Syed ][Kunia Fathima ][jointly ][filed ][a ][suit]Syed Isa in O.S.No.983 of [201,6 ][on ][the ][file ][of ][IV ][Additional ][District ludge,]Ranga Reddy District, for [partition ][and cancellation ][of ][GPA ][in]respect of the iand in [Sy.Nos.48 ][to 51,53, ][54,81 ],82,92,93,96, 423, 424 and 499 of pasumamilla Village, AbdullapurmetRevenue Manr [al, Ranga Reddy District, the deferdants filedimpleading pe ition in the said suit and the same is coming upfor counter. I is also contended that the defenclants alsosubmitted an a rprication dated 20.04.2019 before the Tahsirdar,Abdullapurme, Revenue Mandar, for issuance of pass Books inrespect of lanrl admeasuring Acs.2_16 gts. in Sy.No.439 ofPasumamilla V llage, and also an application dated 0g.01,2020requesting not to mutate the names of any other prersons asthey are in posl ession of the land for more than 50 .years. Thedefendants, thr refore, sought to dismiss the atrove saida ppl ica tion.

7. Now it is for this Court to see whether the h.ial Courterred in not grar ling the injunction or not?

8. The plaint ff is the absolute owner and possessor of theland in an exter:t of Acs.20_07.51 gts. in Sy.No.43g , 439 and,440/part of Parumamilla Village, Abdullapurmet RevenueMandal, Ranga Reddy District, whereas the defenclants areclaiming to be tt e owners of the land to an extent of Acs.2-16gts. in Sy.No.43,,. Therefore, the main dispute is onlv withregard to an exte rt of Acs.2-16 gts. The plaintiff contended thatit has purchase I the land from *thq legal heirs of Svecl

Mohamood [Farooq ][Miyan' ][who ][is ][the ][absolute ][owner ][of ][the]Iand, [whereas ][the ][defendants stated ][that their ][paternai ][grand-]father [purchased ][the ][said ][land ][in ][the year ][1966 ][from ][Syed]Mohamood [Farooq ][Miyan ][and ][from ][then ][onwards' ][his ][legal]heirs [and ][agnates are ][in ][possession ][of ][the ][said ][land ][and ][also]cultivating [the ][same ][and that ][their ][names ][were ][also ][recorded ][in]the pahanies [from ][1966 ][to][ 2019-2}in ][possessory ][column ][and, ][as]saie [deeds ][executed ][bY the ][Iegal]such, [the ][alieged]representatives [of ][Syed ][Mohamood ][Farooq ][Miy"t ][are ][not ][valid]and binding [on ][them' ][Admittedly' ][the ][plaintiff ][filed ][sale deeds']which are [registered documents ][and thus' ][primafacie' ][they]title [and ][possession ][over ][the ][suit ][schedule property']proved The trial [Court ][observecl ][that ][the defendants ][filed ][pahanies ][and]are in [possession ][of ][the ][land ][and ][granted ][injunction ][in ][their]favour. No [doubt, they ][filed ][pahanies ][but ][they ][did ][not ][file]pattadar pass [books' ][When ][the defendants ][ciaim ][to ][be ][residing]in the suit schedule [properW ][for ][more than ][50 ][years, ][why ][they]did not submitt an [application ][for ][issuance ][of ][pattadar ][pass]books tili 20.04.2019 [is ][not explained ][by ][them.]

g. Learned counsel for the plaintiff [would ][contend ][that ][the]

defendants have no title deeds over [the ]suit [schedule ][property]and the Rel,enue records filed bv them camrot [be ][treated ][as ]

deeds. Howevr r, the trial Court held that the ciefendants haveproved their pc;session over the suit schedule property.

10. It is the settled principle of law that in a suit forinjunction, prii u-facie, the parties must establish theirpossession ove; the suit schedule property. In a decisionreported in MAliIA MARGARIDA SEeUEIRA FERNANDESV/s. ERASMO J \CK DE SEeUEIRAT the Honible A|s1 eeuliheld in para70, r rhich is extracted hereunder:

'lt wculd be imperative that one who claims possessionmust give aI such details as enumerated hereunder, Thev areonly illustra:ive and not exhaustive:

(u) who i;or are the owner or owners of the property:

(b) title othe propertv;(.) who i, in possession of the title documents;(.) who i, in possession of the title documents; (d) identiy of the claimant or claimants to possession.; (e) the d;te of entry into possession; (f) howre came into possession - whether he purchasedthe p,operty or inherited or got the same in gift or byany oher method;the p,operty or inherited or got the same in gift or byany oher method; (g) in ce;e he purchased the property, what is theconsireration; if he has taken it on rent, hor^r much isthe rert, licence fee or lease amount;consireration; if he has taken it on rent, hor^r much isthe rert, licence fee or lease amount; (h) if tak,n on rent, licence fee or lease-then insist on rentdeed,licence deed or lease deed;deed,licence deed or lease deed; (D who are the persons in possession/ occupation orotherwise living with him, in what capacity; as familymembers, friends or servants, etc.;otherwise living with him, in what capacity; as familymembers, friends or servants, etc.; (,) subsequent conduct i.e. any event which might haveextinguished his entitlement to possession or causedshift therein; andextinguished his entitlement to possession or causedshift therein; and

(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession butcontinue in possession.'continue in possession.'

11. Further, though the defendarrts stated that they are inpossession of Ac.2-76 guntas of land ancl filed pahanies toprove the same, they have not stated on which side of thesurvey number they possessed Ac.2-16 guntas and that theyhave also not pleaded that the plaintiff encroached into theirland. It is the case of the defendants that they are in possessionof Acs.2-16 gts. of land in Sy.No.439, but they cannot disruptthe construction activities in an extent of Acs.20.02.51 gts. inSy.Nos.438, 439 and 440/part, siruared in pasumamilla Village,Abdullapurmet Revenue Mandal, Ranga Recldy District. If at allany construction is going on in the suit schedule properfy, it isfor them to approach the appropriate Forum for necessaryrelief.

72. It is to be noticed that both the parties are claimingownership in an extent of Acs.2_-1,6 gts. in Sy.No.439, but the plaintiff hereir filed only suit for grant [perpetual ][injunction]restraining th r defendants, their henchmen, [subordinates,]workmen or i ny other persons claiming [through ][or ][acting]under them frc m interfering [in ][any ][manner ][with ][the ][plaintiff's]peaceful posse ssion and enioyment [over ][the ][suit ][schedule]property. On rne hand, the [defendants ][stated ][that ][it ][has]the and [from ][the ][originai ][pattadar ][way ][back ][in ][the]purchased year 1966 and are in [possession ][of ][the said land and ][also]the [;ame. ][In ][order ][to ][prove ][the ][same, ][they ][mainly]cultivating relied upon E: .R-23 - Original [Agreement ][in ][Urdu ][dated]02,09.7966 alonl with [English ][translated ][copy. ][A ][perusaL ][of ][the]said rlocument [r ]hows [that ][it ][was ][executed ][by ][Syed ][Nlohamood]favour [of Sri Chetty ][Ramaiah ][for ][an extent ][of]Farooq Miyan [i, ][r ]Ac.2.10 guntas f tr [his own ][needs ][and ][necessitres ][for ][a ][total ][sale]consideration o. [Rs.1,500/- ][and ][received ][Rs'100/- ][as ][advance]with a conditior [that ][the advance ][amount of ][Rs'400/- ][should ][be]within [one ][month ][ancl ][the ][balance ][amount ][of ][Rs1'000/-]paid also should [be ]1 [aic'l ][within ][one ][month to ][register the property]in the name [of v:nclee, otherwise ][the ][Agreement of ][Sale ][will ][be]treated as cance [led. ][But, ][the ][defendants ][failed ][to ][file ][the ][said]sale deed [regist ][lred ][by ][the ][original ][pattadar ][in ][the ][name ][of]paternal grand-'ather [after ]Payment [of ][the ][entire ][amount']IMoreover, [Ex.R- ][23 ][is ][exec.uted ][for ][an extent ][of ][Ac'2' ][t0 ][gltntas]

but not Ac.2.16 guntas. As such, they also contended that theyperfected title by adverse possession. The issue of ownership inrespect of the suit schedule property between the plaintiff anddefendants is to be decided by appropriate Court in a suit fordeclaration of title.

13. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of real estate andconskucting and developing the lands including the suitschedule property in Sy.No.439 by obtaining necessarvpermissions from the concerned departments. He aiso obtainedpermission for conversion of land from agricultural usage tonon-agricultural usage on 28.09.2020. The plaintiff has taken upthe construction activity in an extent of Acs.20.07.51 gts. inSy.Nos.438, 439 and 440 / part, and the extent of land in disputeis only an extent of Acs.2-16 gts. in Sy.No.439. The plaintiffgave an application to HMDA on 21,.07.2020 and HMDAapproved draft residential lavout rvith housing under gatedcommunity (with compound wall) in the entire suit scheduleproperty on 09.07.2021 and unless the defendants are notrestrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffover the suit schedule property, irreparable loss would becaused to the plaintiff. However, the trial Court withoutconsidering the documents filed by the plaintiff and only by \

To

relying upon [the ][pahanies ][filed by ][the defendants ][held that ][the]defendants a'e [in ][possession ][of ][the suit ][schedule ][property ][and]granted injur [Lction ][against ][the ][plaintiff' ][The said ][order ][dated]01.10.2021 is [rot ][proper and ][is ][liable ][to ][be ][set aside]

L4. In the [r ][esult, ][this ][Civil ][Miscellaneous ][Appeal is ][allowed]setting asidr the [orcler ][and ][decree ][dated ][01'10 ][2021 ][in]i.A.No.303 rf [2021 ][in ][O'S'No ][208 ][of ][2021 ][and ][the]respondentsT [defendants are restrained ][from ][interfering ][in ][to]the peacef ul [rossessiot't ][of ][the ][suit ][schedule ][propL'rty ][No order]as to costs.

15. Miscell rneous [applications ][pending, ][if ][anv. ][sh ][all ][stand]

closed.

"''[i$Hua?$'mR(ruSECTION [OFFICER]

//TRUE [COPY']

i'H:'Ltii'U#)i*#j,x'ilTi[H5#rli#i3'1:bi*'n"'i two CD [CoPie ][;]s. On" [SPare ][Co ]'YKi HIGH COURTDATED3111212021

f.1:

JUDGMENTCMA.No [433 ][of ][2O21]

\20[lrN ][2!)22]/

ALLOWING [THE ][C[ ][AWITHOUT ][COSTS']CJ\€' ,