SECOND APPEAL 168 of 2000 on 1 March 1990

1. Whether the defendants attempted to interfere with thepossession and enjoyment of the plaintiff?possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetualinjunction as prayed for?injunction as prayed for?

3. To what reliefl

8. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, he himself was examinedas PW. I and relicd upon Ex.Al to A.5. On behalf of defendants, DWs.land 2 were examined and got marked Ex.Bl to 83.

9. The prirnary Clourt tbund that ptaintiff is in possession of land to anextent of Ac.O-15 gts., and defendants dug foundation in the plaintiflslanci, as such. the trial Court by granting injunction what the plaintiffprayeri, has also granted reiief lor recovery of possession by removingstructure put Lrp by the deflendants. The hrst Appellate Court reversed thesaid Iindings and allowed the appeal by [dismissing ]the [entire ][suit.]Aggrier.'ed bv the same, the [present ]second [appeal ][is frled ][by ][the ][plaintiff.]

10. The plaintiff and defendants [are ][claiming their ][respective ][extents]of land basing on the [sale deeds executed ][by ][a ][common vendor ][to ][them]and this is not in dispute. [The entire dispute is, whether the ][plaintiff ][is ][in]possession of Ac.0-15 gts., of land what he [purchased ][under ][the sale ][deed]under Ex.A[ or not. [The ][defendants ][case ][is ][that, ][defendant ][No.l]purchased Ac.0-04 3/4'h [gts., ]having [purchased ][under ][Ex-Bl ][sale ][deed]and plaintiffs sale deed [is prior ][one and ][the ][defendants' ][sale ][deed ][is]subsequent one. It [is ][also ][not ][in ][dispute that ][the vendor ][of ][both ][of ][them]had sold any excess tand. [Therefore, ][this Court ][has ][to ][see as ][to what ][the]extent ol plaintifls [possession ][is ][and ][what the ][extent ][of ][defendants']possession is, before granting any [injunction ][in ][respect ][of ][suit ][schedule]property.

ll. The contention of the defendants [is that ][the ][plaintifls ][land ][on ][the]w'estem side of suit land [was encroached ][by ][a ][third party ][and ][the ][plaintilf]is trying to encroach upon [the defendants' ][land ][of ][Ac.0-04 ][3i4'h ][gts., on]the basis o[ injunction [in ][the ][suit. ][Unfortunately, both the parties ][have]not rcsorted to demarcate their [respective extents ][ofland ][in ][possession ][by]tixing the boundaries. ['Ihe trial ][Court ought ][to ][have resorted ][to ][tlx ][the]boundaries basing [on the ][sale deeds ][of ][plaintiff ][and defendants and that]u ould have resolved entire [issue.]

12. It is also not the case of [the ][plaintiff ][that the ][defendants ][are ][in]excess of what they [purchased ][to ][encroach ][upon ][his ][land. ][The ][plaintiff]from the sale deed has established [that ][he ][has ][purchased ][the ][suit ][land ][and]he has also further established [from ][the ][permission ][that he is entitled to]raise construction of [compound ][wall ][in ][respect ][of ][lands ][in ][Ex.Al' ][The]only [question ][now ][is, ][what ][was the ][extent ][actually the ][plaintiff ][is ][in]possession on the basis of [E.x.A ][I ][sale ][deed. ][Further question ][is, ][what ][was]the extent of defendants [were ][in ][possession ][basing ][on ][their ][sale ][deed.]Both parties have [agreed ][that ][if ][injunction ][is ][granted ][leaving ][Ac.0-04]3/46 gts., ofthe [defendants' land, ][they ][have no ][grievance. ][Ifthat ][be ][so,]the [judgment ]of [Appeltate Court ][completely ][denying the ][injunction ][to the]plaintiff cannot sustain. Therefore, [the ][plaintiff ][is entitled ][for injunction]in respect of suit tand [leaving Ac.0-04 ][3/4'h ][gts., ][of ][the ][defendants'land]and he is not entitled [to ][make ][use ][ol ][the injunction ][to ][encroach ][upon]defendants' land of Ac.0-04 [3/4'h ][gts.']

13. The tnal Court [has ][gianted ][a ][reliel ][which ][is ][not ][at ][all ][prayed by the]plaintiff. When the suit is for injunction, [the ][Court either ][to ][grant]injunction or dismiss the suit, but [it ][cannot grant larger ][reliefs ][beyond the]relief prayed. The triat Court [granted larger ][relief ][than ][the ][relief ][sought]by the plaintiff in the suit. [The ][Appettate ][Court ][also erred ][in ][dismissing]

II

i

I

To

Kj.

J

the entire [judgment ]and decree of the trial Court, which is beyond thescope.

14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The [judgment ]anddecree of the first Appellate Court is confirmed to the setting aside of thejudgment and decree of the trial Court with regard to grant of relief ofrecovery of possession by removing structure, if any, raised by thedefendants. The tindings of the first Appellate Court in denying the reliefof injunction to the plaintiff is set aside. Instead injunction is [granted ]tothe ptaintiffover the suit land excluding defendants' land of Ac.0-04 3/4'hgts., which is on northem side of suit land. It is made clear that plaintiffin the guise of present injunction in respect of suit land, is not entitled toencroach upon the defendants' extent of land Ac.0{4 3/4h [gts., ]Thereshalt be no order as to costs.

15. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shallstand closed'

sd/-B.s.cHrRANJEEVrJOINT REGIST [RAR]//TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICER

The I Additional District [Judge, Karimnagar. ][(with records)]

The Senior Civil Judge, [Karimnagar.]

One CC to Sri Y.Ashok [Raj, ][Advocate ]IOPUC]One CC to Sri P.Amarender [Reddy, ][Advocate ][OPUC]One CC to Sri P.V.Subba [Rao, ][Advocate ][OPUC]One CC to Sri P.Amarender [Reddy, ][Advocate ][OPUC]One CC to Sri P.V.Subba [Rao, ][Advocate ][OPUC]

J

Two CD Copies

One Spare CoPY

HIGH COURT

DATED:2910712O22

si4 I4:\c\'.'io\?JUDGMENTc1 9 JIll202lSA.No.168 of 2000* 0g)?"

PARTLY ALLOWING THE SA WITHOUT COSTS.

e.\

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

SECOND APPEAL NO: 168 OF 2000

Between:

Muddaragadda Kanakaiah, S/o.Ramaswamy GovtServant R/o.JammikuntaKarimnagar District.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. Paka Manjulatha, Wo.Dyavadeenam Household

2. Paka Dyavadeenam, S/o.Lasmaiah Govt. Servant

3. Paka Lasmaiah, S/o.Raja Mallaiah Agriculture (Rl to 3 Ri/o.Jammikunta Village Karimnagar District.)

4. Bhangiri Umesh, S/o.Sayanna Agriculture Rl/o.Chelpur, Huzurabad TaluqKarimnagar District' Karimnagar District'

...RES'.NDENTS

Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the decree of the Court of the IAdditional District Judge, Karimnagar in AS No.12 of 1990 datd 2110411994prefened against the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar inOS No.148 of 1984 dated 21103/1990.

Decree: This Second Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds ofAppeal, the Judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court and the Court ofFirst instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments ofSd Y.Ashok Raj, advocate for the Appellant and of Sri P.Amarender Reddy,Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 and of Sri P.V.Subba Rao, Advocate forthe Respondent No.3.Appeal, the Judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court and the Court ofFirst instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments ofSd Y.Ashok Raj, advocate for the Appellant and of Sri P.Amarender Reddy,Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 and of Sri P.V.Subba Rao, Advocate forthe Respondent No.3.

This Court while allowing the Second Appeal in [part ]doth Judgment and decree asfollows:- 't. That the judgment and decree of the first appellate court is confirmed to thesetting aside of the [judgment ]and decree of the trial court with regard to grantof relief of recovery of possession by removing structure, if any, raised by thedefendants;setting aside of the [judgment ]and decree of the trial court with regard to grantof relief of recovery of possession by removing structure, if any, raised by thedefendants; ItIliItIliI

2. That the finding of the first appellate Court in denying [the ][relief ][of injunction ][to]the plaintiff is set aside;the plaintiff is set aside;

3. That injunction is granted to the [plaintiff ]over the suit [land ][excluding]defendants land of Ac.0-04 3/4th [guntas ]which [is ][on northern ][side ][of ][suit land;]defendants land of Ac.0-04 3/4th [guntas ]which [is ][on northern ][side ][of ][suit land;]

4. That the plaintiff in the guise of present injunction in respect of suit [land, ][is ][not]entitled to encroach upon the defendants extent of land Ac.0-04 [3/4th ][guntas;]entitled to encroach upon the defendants extent of land Ac.0-04 [3/4th ][guntas;]

and

5. That there shall be no Order as to costs [in ]this [SA.]

Sd/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVIJOINT REGISJOINT REGIS

/iTRUE COPY//

SECTIOOFFICER

To1. The I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.2. The Senior Civil Judge, Karimngar.3. Two CD Copies4. One Spare Copy1. The I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.2. The Senior Civil Judge, Karimngar.3. Two CD Copies4. One Spare Copy KjI

HIGH COURT

DATED:2910712022

DECREE

SA.No.168 of 2000

PARTLY ALLOWING THE SA WITHOUT COSTS.

@(\q\