IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 678 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order passed in C.M.A. No.1 of 2022, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda dismissing the same and confirming the order passed in I.A.No.52 of 2021 in O.S.No.138 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda, Ananthapuram District. Between: G. Jayasheela Reddy, S/o Late G.Govinda Reddy, aged 60 years. Cultivation H.No. 147. K.Y.Kondrahalli, Kore Malaram Post, Bangalore. ...Appellant/Plaintiff AND 1. Golla Bramhaiah, S/o. Late Golla Venktramappa, Aged about 62 years, D.No.6/127, Cultivation, Hindu, Papireddipalli Village, Gorantia Mandal. Ananthapuramu District. 2. Golla Nagaraju, S/o. Golla Venkatramappa, Aged 45 years. Cultivation, Hindu, Papireddipalli village, Gorantia Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. 3. Chenchannagari Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Late Narayanappa, Aged 56 years. Real estate Business, D.No.1/249-5-E2A, Narayanamma Colony, Penukonda Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. 4. P. Govinda Reddy, S/o. Dasi Reddy, Aged 40 years. Real estate. Balepalyam, Kanaganipalli Mandal, Business, D.No.8-74, ' Ananthapuramu District. ...Respondents/Defendants Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI NARSI REDDY The Court made the following: APHC010141442024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the seventeenth day of March two thousand and twenty five PRESENT The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 678 of 2024 Between: ...Petitioner G Jayasheela Reddy and ...Respondents Golla Brahmaiah and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1.S Krishna Reddy Counsel for the respondents: 1. 2.K Narsi Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.02.2024 dismissing CMA No.1 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda by confirming the order dated 21.01.2022 dismissing I.A.No.52 of 2021 in O.S.No.138 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant 2 CRP.No.678 of 2024 temporary injunction till disposal of the suit restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the land to the extent of Ac.04.16 cents out of Ac.14.78 cents in S.No.577-1 of Budili village. The petitioner/appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for declaring the right and title of the plaintiff over the plaint ‘A’ schedule property which is described here below and grant consequential permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants, their men etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the same. Govt Dry, Survey No.577-1, extent Ac.4.16, out of Ac.14.78 bounded by East: Land of Aswatha Reddy, West: Koduru-Dharmavaram road. North: Land of P.Aswatha Reddy and others. South: Land of Ranganatham and others. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is briefly as follows: a) The land of Ac.4.16 cents in S.No.577-1 is the single plot owned and possessed by the respondents no.1 and 2/defendants no.1 and 2 and their mother Atchamma. They sold the said property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 02.02.2007 and delivered possession of the same on the same day. Since then, the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same by raising crops by using water from the bore well of Ranganath @ Raghunath Reddy, S/o late Nagi Reddy whose land in S.No.576-1 is on the southern side of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff erected iron 2. 3 3 CRP.No.678of 2024 fencing with stone pillars with a iron gate of the said property to prevent encroachments. b) Due to mistake and oversight, the S.Nos.578, 581 and 690-3 apart from S.No.577-1 and also total extent of land of Ac.5.38 cents instead of Ac.4.16 cents were noted in the registered sale deed dated 02.02.2007. Hence, the said description of property is shown as plaint 'B’ schedule. In fact, the defendants no.1 and 2 and their mother had no right or possession over Ac.0.78 cents in S.No.578, Ac.0.78 cents in S.No.581 and Ac.1.82 cents in S.No.690-3. Those survey numbers are not situated either in the vicinity or around the S.No.577-1. The entire land in S.Nos.578, 581, 690-3 belong to Adinarayana Reddy, Manjunatha Reddy, Noorjahan, Nese Chinna Narayanappa, Adinarayana, Y.Narayanappa and others who are in actual physical possession and enjoyment for long time till today. The plaintiff is a deaf and dumb person having no other support, whereas the defendants are powerful and influential having large support of unruly elements. Fearing threat of dispossession as per the proclamation by the defendants in the village that they were trespassed into the suit schedule ‘A’ property by removing fence, the plaintiff approached the Court. Therefore, it indicates that the defendants no.1 and 2 and mother have land only in S.No.577-1 to an extent of Ac.4.16 cents and they did not have any land in the other three survey numbers, c) Out of the land of Ac.4.16 cents in S.No.577-1, an extent of Ac.2.16 cents was acquired by them from their ancestors and by way of partition deed dated 10.09.1964 executed between the father of the defendants no.1 and 2 by name Venkataramappa and their grand father Venkatappa and their junior paternal uncle Nanjundappa and the other extent of Ac.2.00 by way of gift deed dated 19.07.1982 executed by 4 CRP.No.678of 2024 Papamma and Nanjundappa. Recently, due to hike in prices of land, the defendants no.3 and 4 who are engaged in real estate business, approached the plaintiff to sell the property to them. The plaintiff refused to sell the property. Hence, they hatched up a plan to create trouble to the plaintiff to make wrongful gain. The plaintiff learnt that the defendants no.3 and 4, in collusion with the defendants no.1 and 2, created false, nominal and fictitious documents. 4. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statements along with the suit in the above said I.A.No.172 of 2022 was filed with the same case as in the plaint. The petition was opposed by filing separate counters of the respondents no.1 and 2 and counter of respondent no.3. Counter of the respondents no.1 and 2 is briefly as follows; The petition is bad for suppression of true and material facts and not maintainable in law or on facts. The petitioner must have right, title and possession and enjoyment over the property as on the date of filing of the petition, but the petitioner failed to file any documentary evidence. The petitioner has no right, title or possession over the suit schedule property. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief since he has evil intention to grab the land of the respondents no.3 and 4 under the guise of temporary injunction order. The father’s name of the respondents no.1 and 2 is Venkataramanappa @ Venkataramappa, S/o Venkatappa. They denied all the averments in the case of the petitioner. The revenue records show that the petitioner is in possession of land of Ac.2.00 in S.No.577-1 only. The petitioner purchased the other extent of land in the other three survey numbers as per the sale deed, apart from 5. 6. 7. 5 CRP.No.678 of 2024 Ac.2.00 in S.No.577-1. The name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records in relation to the other three survey numbers also. It is well settled principle of law that the buyer should be careful in examining the right, title, possession and enjoyment of the property before purchasing the land. The petitioner cannot claim land to an extent of more than Ac.2.00 in S.No.577-1. The land sold to the petitioner by the respondents no.1 and 2 and Atchamma is an extent of Ac.5.38 cents in four survey numbers under the sale deed dated 02.02.2007. The petitioner ought to have got rectification deed executed to create the extent, if the land purchased is in S.No.577-1. Without such rectification of sale deed executed and entries in the revenue records corrected, the suit and interlocutory applications are not'maintainable. The petitioner has not deliberately filed certified copy of 1-B extract and cultivation accounts before the Court relating to the disputed property. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of declaration of title and injunction for suppression of material facts and evidence. The present suit was filed taking advantage of wrong boundaries mentioned in the sale deed with regard to Ac.2.00 in S.No.577-1. The respondents no.1 and 2 did not sell or intend to sell the total extent of Ac.4.16 cents out of Ac.6.50 cents out of Ac.14.78 cents in S.No.577-1 to the petitioner. The suit was filed to grab the valuable property of Ac.2.16 cents which is in possession of the respondents no.3 and 4 with absolute right and title. After due enquiry, the revenue authority mutated the names of the respondents no.1 and 2 in the revenue records for an extent of Ac.1.97 cents out of Ac.6.50 cents in S.No.577-1. The respondents no.1 and 2 sold the said land of Ac.1.97 cents to the respondents no.3 and 4 under a registered sale deed dated 27.04.2021 vide document No.1929/2021 with specific boundaries and put them in possession of the same on the same date. 6 CRP.No.678 of 2024 Since then, the respondents no.3 and 4 had been in possession and the same without any interruption. enjoyment A.Venkatalakshmamma, A.Lakshmidevamma, Alivelamma attested the over sale deed by receiving sale consideration of their share. They attested the sale deed as they could not be present on the day of registration of the sale deed due to their ill-health. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief. The respondent no.3 filed counter on the same lines as the counter of the respondents no.1 and 2. On behalf of the petitioner Exs.P.1 to P.22 were marked, behalf of the respondents Exs.R.1 to R-18 were marked. No witness was examined on either side. 8. On 9. Documents marked for Petitioner/ Plaintiff Description of document of Date SI. No. Document Original Registered Sale deed 02.02.2007 Ex.P-1 5 photos with Compact Disc Ex.P-2 Copy of Re-settlement Register Certified Copy of Registered sale deed Ex. P-3 27.08.1945 Ex.P-4 Certified Copy of Registered Partition Deed Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed 13.09.1965 Ex.P-5 10.03.1967 Ex.P-6 Original Registered Gift Settlement Deed Certified Copy of Registered sale deed Certified Copy of registered gift deed 19.07.1982 Ex.P-7 16.01.1967 Ex.P-8 22.05.1980 Ex. P-9 7 CRP.No.678 of 2024 Ex.P-10 03.10.2011 Certified Copy of Registered Partition Deed Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed Computerized Adangal of 1431 Fasli Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed Computerized Adangal of 1431 Fasli Computerized Adangal of 1431 Fasli Advocate Commissioner report Commissioner sketch " ^ ' Ex.P-11 03.01.2011 Ex.P-12 05.12.2013 Ex.P-13 07.10.2021 Ex. P-14 17.06.1975 Ex.P-15 07.10.2021 Ex.P-16 07.10.2021 Ex.P-17 Ex.P-18 Ex.P-19 Mandal Surveyor sketch Ex. P-20 Warrant of commission Ex.P-21 Memo filed by advocate commissioner Memo filed by advocate commissioner Ex.P-22 Documents marked for Respondents/ Defendants Date of Document SI. Description of document No. Ex.R-1 03.12.2020 Notarized Genealogy Ex.R-2 27.04.2021 Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed Ex.R-3 02.07.2021 Computerized Form - IB Ex.R-4 02.07.2021 Computerized Form - IB Ex.R-5 02.07.2021 Computerized Form - IB 8 CRP.No.678 of 2024 Attested Copy of Adangal of 1424 Fasli Attested Copy of Adangal Attested Copy of Adangal of 1424 Fasli Attested Copy of Adangal of the year 2004 Attested Copy of Adangal of 1423 Fasli 27.07.2021 Ex.R-6 27.07.2021 Ex.R-7 27.07.2021 Ex.R-8 27.07.2021 Ex.R-9 27.07.2021 Ex.R-10 Attested Copy of Adangal of 1422 Fasli 27.07.2021 Ex.R-11 Attested Copy of Adangal of 1423 Fasli Attested Copy of Adangal of 1417 Fasli Attested Copy of Adangal of the year 27.07.2021 Ex.R-12 27.07.2021 Ex.R-13 27.07.2021 Ex.R-14 2004 Computerized Adangal of 1430 Fasli 26.06.2021 Ex.R-15 Computerized Adangal of 1429 Fasli Computerized Adangal of 1428 Fasli Computerized Adangal of 1430 Fasli 26.06.2021 Ex.R-16 26.06.2021 Ex.R-17 26.06.2021 Ex.R-18 After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the petitioner while seeking the equitable relief, has to tides and that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed 10. show his bona are in respect of Ac.5.38 cents in four survey numbers with no separate except photographs and CD, the petitioner had not boundaries, but. filed any documentary evidence to show that he has been in possession A’ schedule property as on the date of further observed that the title is to be decided only and enjoyment of the petition filing of the suit. It is 9 CRP.No.678 of 2024 after trial to ascertain the intention of the respondents no.1 and 2 and The trial Court held that the petitioner couid not establish prima facie possession over the petition 'A' schedule property for want of documentary prima facie possession of Ac.4,16 cents. their mother in selling the property to the petitioner. evidence of 11. Aggrieved by the order and decree the petitioner/plaintiff appellate Court and were filed by the petitioner, grant relief in favour of the appellant / petitioner / plaintiff concurring with the trial Court. Having aggrieved by the order and decree in appeal, the present revision petition was filed. preferred appeal in CMA No.1 of 2022 before the additional evidence under Exs.P.17 to P.22 The appellate Court also declined to 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to consider that the possession of vacant land would follow the title and that boundaries prevail apart the He further over extent and survey numbers, submitted that the Commissioner also reported that there is a fencing all around the schedule property, but the same was not considered at all, and erroneously observed that there is no other evidence. He further submitted that the certified copies of revenue record filed under Exs.P.13, 14, 16 and 19 to 23 clearly show that the petitioner was in possession of the property even the petition. He further submitted that since boundaries prevail over the extent of land and the date of filing of the suit and as on survey numbers and the property sold to the petitioner is a single plot of land within the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed, the contention of the unsustainable. He further submitted that if any other property was left to the respondents no.1 and 2 on any side of the land sold respondents is absurd and to the 10 CRP.No.678 of 2024 petitioner, the names of the vendors must have been shown at least as of the boundaries to the land in S.No.577-1 and absence of such discretion in the sale deed of the petitioner, the case pleaded by the respondents is utterly false. He further submitted that the intention of the parties is very much clear from the sale deed that all the property existing within the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed only was intended to be sold. In this regard, he further submitted that if at all the property situated in different survey numbers which is located in different places, the sale deed shall describe land in several bits with distinct boundaries to each bit of land. Therefore, it is very clear from the sale deed which is an admitted document that the respondents no.1 and 2 sold the property within such boundaries. He further submitted that the respondents no.1 and 2 have not shown that they had any property in the other survey numbers so as to pass title over such property to the petitioner. Therefore, he vehemently contended that both the Courts failed to appreciate the case of the petitioner in the light of the documents and erroneously dismissed the petition and appeal. one Though notices were served on respondents no.1 and 2, they The learned counsel for the 13. have not appeared before this Court, respondents no.3 and 4 submitted that the petitioner would get title over the property only to the extent his vendors have in that survey number and if at all there is any mistake in the description of the property in the sale deed, the petitioner has to secure rectification deed and unless such a rectification deed was executed, the petitioner had no right or He further submitted that the fencing possession over the property, around the property was recently erected and therefore, it does not establish that the petitioner has been in possession over such property. It was also submitted that it is a matter of trial to ascertain whether 11 CRP.No.678 of 2024 petitioner purchased the entire property of Ac.4.16 cents or not. but as there is no proof that he is in possession of Ac.4.16 cents as per the revenue accounts, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief. 14. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking advantage of the entries in the revenue record, the relief be declined to the petitioner in view of settled law that the entries in the revenue records are not proof of title and that taken with regard to correction in the revenue record but it cannot be a ground to decline the relief to the petitioner. cannot necessary steps would be 15. As rightly contended by the petitioner, boundaries extent of the land and the prevail over the survey numbers. In case of vacant land, the possession shall follow the title is the general principle. In the present case, there is no dispute as to sale of property by the respondents and 2 along with their mother to the petitioner under the deed dated 02.02.2007. no.1 registered sale As per the sale deed the land sold is in a single plot. It is nowhere contended that the respondents no.1 and 2 and their mother had property anywhere else, pleadings taken by the petitioner that the land in other survey numbers pertain to the other parties whose Inspite of specific names are mentioned above As rightly any part of the property of the property sold their names shall be no specific answer was contended by the petitioner if at all given by any of the respondents. vendors is left on any side of the figured as the neighbouring party. Without explaining such contentions of the petitioner, merely based on the entries in the revenue account about the extent of land in S.No.577-1. the contention of the petitioner is opposed. Unless the vendors retain right over the property, they cannot sell the property in favour of others after parting with their title to the circumstances in this property to the vendee. Therefore, the facts and 12 CRP.No.678 of 2024 present case establish a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. However, both the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the legal principles and the evidence on record and therefore, their orders require interference in revision. In the result, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 16.02.2024 in CMA No.1 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda and the said petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT registrar N OFFICER //TRUE COPY// SEC To, 1. The Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Penukonda The Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Penukonda, One CC to Sri. Ananthapruam District. 2. Ananthapuram District. S. Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. K.Narsi Reddy, Advocate 5. Three C.D Copies. [OPUC] Ssl sree HIGH COURT DATED:17/03/2025 ORDER CRP.No.678 of 2024 ^ 01. APR 2025 IJ ^ . Current Section ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS