APHC010004882026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Monday, the fourth day of May two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.136 of Between: R. Syam Prasad and others and M. Karthik Kumar Counsel for the petitioners: 1. K. Narsi Reddy Counsel for the respondent: 1. S. Lakshmi Prameela The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the fourth day of May two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.136 of 2026 R. Syam Prasad and others ...Petitioners ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Counsel for the respondent: Lakshmi Prameela The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Monday, the fourth day of May two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioners ...Respondent 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.136 of 2026 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the decree and the order, dated 13.11.2025, in C.M.A. No. 1 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Penukonda, filed against the order and the decree, dated 20.06.2025, in I.A. No. 128 of 2025 in O.S. No. 142 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda. 2. The revision petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 seeking perpetual injunction not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property of 166.66 square yards out of 44 cents out of Ac.1.78 cents in G.D.No.70-4 within the limits of Gorantla near Gummaiahgaripalli village, Gorantla Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai district with patta No.1745 bounded by the following boundaries: East : 20 feet width road in same survey number West : Land in Sy.No.70-3 North : Land of S.Nage Naik in same survey number South : 25 feet width road in same survey number 3. The case of the plaintiff is that 44 cents out of Ac.1.78 cents in Sy. No. 70-4 was purchased by S. Nage Naik S/o. late P.Peere Naik from Kamalamma, Sujatha and Jagan Mohan Reddy of Budidagaddapalli, Gorantla Mandal under a registered sale deed, dated 05.01.2022, for an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- and took possession of the same on the same day and that the vendors of S.Nage Naik acquired the said property under a registered partition deed, dated 22.05.2017 bearing document No.1500 of 2017. It is further submitted that on 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.136 of 2026 16.04.2025, S.Nage Naik gifted the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff out of love and affection under a registered gift deed and delivered possession of the same and later, approval for construction of a house was obtained from the Gram Panchayat, Gorantla vide B.A. No. 08/2025-2026, dated 29.04.2025, and proceeding with the construction, however the defendants who are strangers, having no manner of right, title or possession over the said property are trying to interfere with the activity of the plaintiff since they could not purchase the total extent of Ac.0.44 cents as S.Nage Naik refused to sell the property. 4. 4. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing a written statement mainly contending that the mother of the plaintiff was elected as Sarpanch of Gorantla major panchayat and taking advantage of her office, she created permission for construction of the building. It is further contended that the son of the defendants, R. Sai Lochan Reddy and Y. Sai Ritheswara Reddy purchased the total extent of Ac.1.78 cents in Sy. No. 70-4 on 01.08.2002 and 16.10.2002 under two separate registered sale deeds from the original owners and that prior thereto, D.Nagabhushana Reddy was the absolute owner of Ac.1.27 cents out of Ac.1.78 cents. Smt. G.Saravanamma was the owner of Ac.0.44 cents out of Ac.1.78 cents. She was also granted pattadar pass book and title deed bearing No. 549997 with patta bearing No. 978 and thus, the vendors have absolute right, title and possession. It is further pleaded that after purchase of Ac.1.78 cents by R. Sai Lochan Reddy and Y. Sai Ritheswara Reddy, when there was an interference with the possession of the property, they filed suit in O.S. No. 36 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda and the suit ended in compromise before the Lok Adalat. The defendants in the suit agreed the title of the plaintiff. The defendants further pleaded that 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.136 of 2026 R. Sai Lochan Reddy and Y. Sai Ritheswara Reddy have been residing in U.S. and their parents have been residing in Mumbai and therefore, taking advantage of their absence, the plaintiff started creating false documents and trying to interfere with the property of these parties. 5. Along with the suit, I.A. No. 128 of 2025 was filed seeking interim injunction. The petition was resisted by filing a counter. 6. On behalf of the petitioner, Exs. P1 to P8 were marked. Ex. P1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed, dated 05.01.2022; Ex.P2 is the registered sale deed, dated 16.01.2025; Ex. P3 is the digital copy of 1-B namoona, dated 16.04.2025; Ex. P4 is the digital copy of pattadaruni Adangal, dated 16.04.2025; Ex. P5 is the digital copy of 1-B namoona, dated 03.05.2025; Ex. P6 is the digital copy of pattadaruni Adangal, dated 03.05.2025; Ex. P7 is the proceedings of the Grama Panchayat Secretary, Gorantla, dated 29.04.2025; Ex. P8 is the blue print of the proposed plan of house construction in B.A. No. 08/2025-26. On behalf of the respondents, Exs. R1 to R7 were marked. Ex. R1 is the registered sale deed, dated 01.08.2002; Ex.R2 is the registered sale deed, dated 01.10.2002, Exs. R3 to R6 are the pattadar pass books; and Ex.R7 is the decree in O.S.No.36 of 2006, dated 30.08.2006, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda and compromise petition. 7. No oral evidence was adduced. 8. After hearing both the parties, the petition was allowed by the trial Court granting interim injunction. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred an appeal, vide C.M.A. No. 01 of 2025. 10. The appeal was dismissed. 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.136 of 2026 11. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition was filed. 12. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the award said to be passed before the Lok Adalat was allegedly signed by Kamalamma who is the vendor of the plaintiff but she had not signed the award and such an important fact was not noticed by the trial Court and the appellate Court. In this regard, he further submitted that a special vakalat holder is said to have been signed on behalf of the defendants Nos. 2 to 5, as can be seen from the Lok Adalat award. Therefore, he vehemently contended that without proving that Kamalamma signed the award or the person duly representing her signed the award, it has no sanctity in law so as to bind it on the plaintiff. He further submitted that already three floors were laid and unless the interim injunction granted is set aside, the construction of the entire building would be completed leading to multiplicity of proceedings. 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is the concurrent finding of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and in the absence of the material irregularity, this Court cannot interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. As can be seen from the contentions of both the parties, the crux of the dispute is rested on the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Both parties have placed on record evidence necessary to prove or disprove the sanctity of the award by placing special vakalat said to be executed by Kamalamma and others. So far, no step has been taken to challenge the award which is still valid and subsisting against Kamalamma and therefore, there is conflict regarding the title of Kamalamma when the award is compared with the sale deed, dated 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.136 of 2026 05.01.2022. When there is a serious dispute of title, though the suit is for perpetual injunction, the incidental question of title also assumes great importance. As it is a vacant site before starting construction of a house and as the defendants are not residing in the village, unless the plaintiff starts construction, there was no occasion for the defendants to know the sale in favour of the plaintiff or the permission secured from the Gram Panchayat. Under these circumstances, if the house is allowed to continue to be constructed, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings, because a positive order of interim injunction against the respondents / defendants would prevent them from questioning the activity of construction. Both the Courts have not dealt with the issue of the award said to be passed before the Lok Adalat. As such, the interim order of injunction passed by the trial Court and the order passed in the appeal are liable to be interfered with in the revision. To balance the interests of both the parties, it is better to maintain status quo of the property under construction as on today. 15. In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the impugned orders, dated 13.11.2025, of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) in C.M.A. No. 1 of 2025 and the order, dated 20.06.2025, in I.A. No. 128 of 2025 in O.S. No. 142 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda and both the parties are directed to maintain status quo of the property as it stands today pending disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.04.05.2026 RAR