APHC010818862018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6444/2018 Between: K. Kumara Swamy ...PETITIONER AND Yalagonda Ramajinamma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M SOLOMON RAJU 2 The Court made the following order: The present revision petition is filed aggrieved by order dated 31.07.2018, passed in C.M.A.No.37 of 2015, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Anantapuram. 2. The petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.24 of 2013, seeking permanent injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the plaint schedule property. Along with the said suit, he also filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.111 of 2013, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 CPC, seeking to grant temporary injunction against the respondents/defendants. After hearing the parties, the trial Court allowed the said application by order dated 05.10.2015. 3. Questioning the said order, the respondents/defendants preferred civil miscellaneous appeal vide C.M.A.No.37 of 2015, on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu. After hearing both parties, the learned I Additional District Judge allowed the appeal by setting aside the injunction order dated 05.10.2015, granted by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. 3 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that, he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of gift deed dated 06.08.2011, said to have been executed by his grandfather, namely K.Ramanjineyulu. Whereas, it is the case of the respondents/defendants that, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11.07.2005, the original owner, i.e., the grandfather of the petitioner, K.Ramanjineyulu, had already alienated the suit schedule property in favor of respondent Nos.1 & 2. Suppressing the fact that he had already alienated the suit schedule property to respondent Nos.1 & 2, he executed gift deed in favor of the petitioner on 06.08.2011. From the above, it is clear that, as on date of execution of the gift deed in favor of the petitioner, the executant, i.e., the petitioner’s grandfather, K.Ramanjineyulu, had no title over the suit schedule property. The Trial Court, without taking into consideration of the documents filed by the respondents/defendants, granted temporary injunction in favor of the petitioner/plaintiff. The 4 Appellate Court after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the petitioner’s grandfather had no title as on the date of execution of the gift deed in favor of the petitioner and set aside the injunction granted by the Trial Court, by order dated 31.07.2018. 7. In view of the clear findings given by the Appellate Court, in respect of the title over the suit schedule property, there are no grounds warranting the interference of this Court with the order under challenge. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.08.01.2025 DSB 5 54 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CRP No.6444 of 2018 Date 08.01.2025 U DSB