Satish Babu Dasari vs K.Gopi Prasad

revision petitioner and Sri.N.M.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the

respondent. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order

dated 13.11.2024 in C.M.A. No.08 of 2024 passed by the learned VI

Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, (for

short, 'the Appellate Court'), wherein, the C.M.A. is filed challenging

the dismissal order dated 15.03.2024 in I.A. No. 588 of 2023 in

O.S. No. 480 of 2023 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil

Judge-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy

District, Kukatpally, (for short, 'the Trial Court') filed under Order

XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction

against the defendant and his agents from interfering with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit

schedule property, has been dismissed.

3. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is

the plaintiff before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, 2 RY,J crp_3951_2024

hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the

Trial Court in O.S. No. 480 of 2023.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit in

O.S. No. 480 of 2023 for perpetual injunction with respect to the

suit schedule property consisting of plot Nos.154, 155, 172 and

173, each plot admeasuring 150 sq. yards., in Block No.111, in

southern part land in Survey No.78 (i.e., 78-B, as per internal

division), total admeasuring 600 sq. yards, having plinth area of

100 sq. feet ACC, situated at Hafeezpet village, Serilingampally

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiff claims to be the

absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having

purchased the same from M/s. Cyrus Investment Limited,

represented by its GPA holder namely Dr. P.S.Prasad vide GPA

No.543 of 1996 represented by his SPA holder namely P.V.S. Sarma

under registered sale deeds document bearing Nos.508 of 2015 and

506 of 2015 dated 31.07.2014. The land in Survey No. 78 of

Hafeezpet village is subject matter of C.S. No.14 of 1958 before the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh and in the final decree, the plaintiff's

vendor got land in Survey No.78 of Hafeezpet village and was

delivered with vacant physical possession. The plaintiff raised

compound wall surrounding the suit schedule property to protect it

from land grabbers. Temporary room was constructed for the 3 RY,J crp_3951_2024

purpose of usage by watchman and also to protect the suit

schedule property. Taking advantage of the plaintiff's absence, the

defendant started illegal attempts to occupy the suit schedule

property and the same were time and again restrained by the

watchman. When the defendant tried to occupy the suit schedule

property with the help of anti-social elements on 27.11.2021, the

said attempts were restrained and the suit for perpetual injunction

is filed. Along with the suit, I.A. No. 588 of 2023 was filed seeking

temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from causing

interference with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit

schedule property. The defendant opposed the I.A. alleging that the

plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands as there are

complicated litigations which are not reported and there is no

information as to on what basis the possession of land in Survey

No.78 of Hafeezpet was delivered to the plaintiff in final decree in

C.S. No. 14 of 1958. No evidence is filed by the plaintiff to prove

his possession over the suit schedule property. The defendant is

paying the electricity bills for plot Nos.1508 and 1511 in Survey

No.78 which were purchased by him under a notarized agreement

of sale dated 22.12.2005. There was no final lay out for the land in

Survey No.78. The plaintiff made attempts to occupy the plot

Nos.1508 and 1511 in Survey No.78 with the help of his friends 4 RY,J crp_3951_2024

and therefore, a suit in O.S. No. 388 of 2019 is filed on the file of

learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally and the same

is pending. In this context, the defendant denied all the allegations

made by the plaintiff.

5. Upon considering the evidence of both the parties, the Trial

Court dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff

preferred C.M.A. before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court

allowed the C.M.A. setting aside the dismissal order of the Trial

Court and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is

preferred.

6. In the grounds of the revision, the defendant pleaded that the

plaintiff did not establish prima face title, balance of convenience,

irreparable loss and hardship for granting relief of injunction. The

suit schedule property claimed by the plaintiff and the defendant

are different and without proper identification, the Trial Court was

not inclined to grant temporary injunction and the Appellate Court

did not consider the same. There are no circumstances warranting

interference with the finding of the Trial Court for granting

injunction. The defendant contended that his possession is

established as the plaintiff is a friend of Sanjeeva Reddy and 5 RY,J crp_3951_2024

Venkat Raju against whom he filed a suit in O.S. No. 388 of 2019

who are attesting witnesses to sale documents of the plaintiff. The

defendant has been in possession of his properties from 2005 and

therefore, the order of the Appellate Court is not sustainable.

Lastly, it is pleaded that the Appellate Court cannot come to a

conclusion solely on the basis of certified copies of the documents

which do not pertain to the property claimed by the plaintiff and

without going into the documentary evidence which establishes the

possession of the defendant over the suit schedule property. It is

pleaded that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff failed to

establish his possession. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly

dismissed the I.A. but the Appellate Court erroneously reversed the

same.

7. During the arguments, learned counsel for the defendant

claimed that the defendant is in possession of the property and was

carrying out construction activity and the same is evident from the

affidavit filed by the plaintiff while seeking temporary injunction in

I.A. No. 588 of 2023 and the Trial Court has noticed the same that

there was already construction of the defendant and there was

intention of further construction which was sought to be prevented

by the plaintiff and therefore, has rightly dismissed the I.A.

Further, it is argued that the Appellate Court has relied upon the 6 RY,J crp_3951_2024

oral argument of the plaintiff that there was a typographical error

about further construction in the suit schedule property and that

there is no construction but attempts to make construction and on

the basis of said arguments, the C.M.A. has been allowed. It is

argued that the plaintiff does not have possession, balance of

convenience and there is no likelihood of irreparable loss as he is

not in possession of the suit schedule property.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is in

possession of the suit schedule property having constructed a

compound wall and a room for watchman in the suit schedule

property. Further, when there was interference from the defendant,

suit for perpetual injunction has been filed in O.S. No. 480 of 2023.

The plaintiff is claiming title and ownership under registered sale

deeds dated 31.07.2014, whereas, the defendant is claiming title

under a notarized agreement of sale dated 22.12.2005 which has

no legal validity. Further, it is argued that there was a failure to

mark the documents before the Trial Court and the said error is

rectified by marking the documents before the Appellate Court by

filing petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. After

considering the documentary evidence, since there is no

documentary evidence produced on behalf of the defendant, on the

basis of the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, the 7 RY,J crp_3951_2024

C.M.A. is allowed. Further, it is argued that there was a

typographical mistake in the affidavit about carrying on further

construction when there were attempts to make construction by

the defendant and therefore, it is argued that the Appellate Court

did not commit any error in granting temporary injunction and as

such, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the

Appellate Court.

9. In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod

Infra Developers Limited v. MahaveerLunia and Others 1,

wherein, reference is made to the case of Cosmos Co-Operative

Bank Limited v. Central Bank of India and Others 2 and held

that title and ownership of immovable property can only be

conveyed by a registered sale deed. Further, in M.S.

Ananthamurthy v. J.Manjula 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held

that an unregistered agreement to sell does not and cannot by itself

create or transfer any right, title, or interest in immovable property. Further, in M.S. Ananthamurthy (Supra) reference is made to

Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of

1 2025 INSC 772 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 352 3 2025 INSC 273 8 RY,J crp_3951_2024

Haryana 4, wherein it is held that title and ownership cannot be

conveyed to power of attorney and that relevant paragraph is

extracted and produced below:

47. It is settled law that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance. An agreement to sell is not a conveyance. It is not a document of title or a deed of transfer of deed of transfer of property and does not confer ownership right or title. In Suraj Lamp (Supra) this Court had reiterated that an agreement to sell does not meet the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TPA to effectuate a 'transfer'.

(verbatim reproduced)

10. The order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Trial Court

indicates that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff were not

exhibited but a reference is made to documents produced in proof

of the title i.e., registered sale deeds dated 31.07.2014. Further,

the Trial Court held that there is no proof to show that there is a

room with electricity connection in the suit schedule property.

Lastly, reliance is placed on the averments of the affidavit that the

defendant is carrying on construction in suit schedule property and

arrived at a conclusion that the defendant is not in possession of

the suit schedule property and therefore, dismissed the I.A. No. 588

of 2023. When it comes to adjudication of the C.M.A., the plaintiff

got marked Ex.A.1 to A.11 to prove both title as well as possession.

4 (2012) 1 SCC 656 9 RY,J crp_3951_2024

The documents consists of Ex.A.1 which is the certified copy of sale

deed bearing document No.506 of 2015 dated 31.07.2014; Ex.A.2,

the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.508 of 2015

dated 31.07.2014; Ex.A.3, the original electricity bill; Ex.A.4, online

bill enquiry of electricity connection; Ex.A.5, the copy of common

order passed in W.P. Nos.14881 and 14885 of 2020 wherein, a

direction was given to the GHMC to grant construction permission

to the plaintiff; Ex.A.6, the copy of complaint given to the Police

about the interference on the part of the defendant; Ex.A.7, the

copy of crime petition acknowledgment dated 30.03.2024; Ex.A.8,

the GHMC fees intimation letter dated 17.12.2021; Ex.A.9, the

GHMC payment receipt dated 23.12.2021; Ex.A.10, the copy of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court order in SLP Nos. 15677 and 15678 of

2020 and Ex.A.11, the copy of plaint in O.S. No. 480 of 2023. These

documents were held to prove the prima facie case of title and

possession in favour of the plaintiff.

11. Coming to the further construction by the defendant, it is

clarified that due to a mistake the words 'further construction' were

mentioned in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the

Appellate Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff has shown

prima facie case of title and possession through registered sale

deeds dated 31.07.2014, online bill enquiry of electricity 10 RY,J crp_3951_2024

connection, GHMC fees intimation letter dated 17.12.2021 and

payment of tax to GHMC in receipts dated 23.12.2021. The plaintiff

has shown the case of interference on the part of the defendant by

producing Exs.A.6 and A.7 acknowledgment. On the basis of said

documentary evidence and clarification given about the 'further

construction' by the defendant, the Appellate Court granted

temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the

suit schedule property by setting aside the order dated 15.03.2024

passed by the Trial Court in I.A. No. 588 of 2023.

12. Having perused the record and considering the arguments,

this Court sees that due to failure to mark the exhibits in proof of

title and possession, the Trial Court has dismissed the I.A. When

said lacuna was rectified before the Appellate Court by adducing

the documentary evidence, the case of the plaintiff was

strengthened. Further, as per the own averments of the defendant,

title is claimed through a notarized agreement of sale dated

22.12.2005 which has no legal validity to claim title. Even in case

title is not considered, the defendant has to produce credible

evidence to show his possession to deny relief to the plaintiff.

Further, the plaintiff through Ex.A.5, the copy of common order

passed in W.P. Nos.14881 and 14885 of 2020 wherein, a direction

was given to the GHMC to grant construction permission to the 11 RY,J crp_3951_2024

plaintiff; Ex.A.8, the GHMC fees intimation letter dated 17.12.2021

and Ex.A.9, the GHMC payment receipt dated 23.12.2021, has

demonstrated that he was making construction by obtaining

relevant sanctions. The aforementioned documents show plaintiff's

attempts at construction. While so, there is no evidence on the part

of defendant to show possession or construction or even 'further

possession'. In fact, the defendant failed to mark exhibits on his

behalf before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

Therefore, when there is no contra evidence to rebut the claim

made by the plaintiff seeking temporary injunction under Exs.A.1

to A.11, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the order

passed by Appellate Court. Hence, there are no merits in the civil

revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

___________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 29.10.2025 gms