APHC010489492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 242/2026 Between: 1. GATTAMANENI ADILAKSHMI, W/O. NARASIMHA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O GRANDHASIRI VILLAGE, ATCHEMPET MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT, SATTENAPALLI J.C.J.C. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GATTAMANENI NARESH, S/O. YEDUKONDALU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. PRIVATE JOB, R/O. GRANDHASIRI VILLAGE, ATCHEMPET MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT, SATTENAPALLI J.C.J.C. 2. GATTAMANENI VIMALAMMA, W/O. YEDUKONDALU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS HOUSEWIFE, R/O.GRANDHASIRI VILLAGE, ATCHEMPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, SATTENAPALLI J.C.J.C. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toMay be pleased to set aside the impugned order order dt.20.06.2025 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge Guntur in C.M.A No. 08 of 2022 the confirming the order in I.A. No. 409/2018 in O.S.No.102/2018, dt. 19.08.2019 of Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli and thereby grant temporary injunction in favor of the petitioner restraining Respondents, their men etc., from in any way interfering with the peaceful 2 possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the Petitioner till disposal of O.S. No. 102/2018 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 114 days in representing the Civil Revision Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to stay the order dt. 20.06.2025 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge Guntur in C.M.A No. 08 of 2022 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents, their men, agents or anyone claiming through them from in any manner interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T V SRI DEVI 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. T. V. Sri Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.102 of 2018 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with her possession of Ac.0.90 cents of land, in D.No.330-A of Orvakallu Village, Atchempet Mandal. The case of the petitioner was that this property had devolved upon her husband, who had subsequently executed a registered deed of gift bearing Doc.No.1771/2008, dated 08.10.2008, transferring the property in her name. Subsequently, a rectification deed was also said to have been executed on 19.03.2015. The petitioner further contended that she had been in possession of the said land from the date of the gift and that the respondents are trying to create collusive documents and are also seeking to interfere with her possession over the said land. 3. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.409 of 2018 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her possession. 4. The respondents resisted this application by tracing the title to the land to late G. Ramaiah, who was the father-in-law of the petitioner herein. It is the case of the respondents that the father-in-law of the petitioner has four sons and a daughter and that the said property had fallen to the share of Sri 4 Yedukondalu and subsequently the respondents had obtained title over the said land and possession of the land. 5. The petitioner, in order to demonstrate her title over the said land had marked the pattadhar pass book said to have been issued to the petitioner on 22.03.2013 as Ex.P3, the title deed issued by the revenue department, in favour of the petitioner, as Ex.P4, the Adangal Pahani for Fasli 1427, corresponding to the year 2017, as Ex.P5 and the I-B form dated 18.04.2018 as Ex.P6. Apart from this, the petitioner had also marked a land cist receipt dated 09.03.2015 as Ex.P8. The Trial Court after considering the respective contentions of both sides, had held that the petitioner had been unable to demonstrate her prima facie possession over the property and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this Order, dated 19.08.2019, the petitioner moved C.M.A.No.8 of 2022, before the II Additional District Judge, Guntur. This appeal also came to be dismissed on 20.06.2025. Aggrieved by the said Order of dismissal, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 6. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in W.P.Nos.32757 & 36323 of 2017, dated 05.10.2017, would effectively set aside the revenue records on which the petitioner was relying. 5 7. Ms. Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the view taken by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court is incorrect inasmuch as, the documents which they sought to disregard did not relate to the survey number of the land being claimed by the petitioner as these documents relate to survey No.330/A-1 whereas the petitioner is claiming in survey No.330-A. 8. A perusal of the common order of the erstwhile Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.Nos.32757 & 36323 of 2017, dated 05.10.2017, reveals the following facts: “The land in question was shown to be in the name of Late G. Ramaiah till 19.03.2015. On that date mutation of the land in survey No.330/A was carried out in favour of the petitioner. This was done without hearing the Smt. G. Varalakshmi, who claimed ownership over the said land. Thereafter, the land was mutated in favour of Smt. G. Varalakshmi, without hearing the petitioner. On account of this lacuna, both the petitioner as well as Smt. G. Varalakshmi approached the Court by way of the aforesaid Writ Petitions. A Learned Single Judge of the erstwhile Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh after hearing both sides and having found fault with the fact that the mutation proceedings had been carried out without hearing the effected parties had set aside the entire record and directed the record to reflect the name of Sri G. Ramaiah till proper proceedings were initiated and the name of the person who was actually entitle to the property was reflected in the revenue records. Pursuant to this Order of the Learned Single Judge, the 6 Tahsildar passed the proceedings dated 01.12.2017 incorporating the name of Smt. G. Varalakshmi as the owner of the land.” 9. The petitioner, without mentioning the filing of these Writ Petitions or the Order of the Learned Single Judge or the consequent proceedings of the Tahsildar, has produced the revenue records in the form of the adangal pahani as well as the land cist receipts showing her name as the occupier in 2015 & 2017. This suppression of fact came to light when the respondents produced and marked the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the erstwhile Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh as Ex. R5 and the proceedings of the Tahsildar, dated 01.12.2017, as Ex. R-4. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the proceedings of the Tahsildar, dated 01.12.2017 was subsequently set aside by a Learned Single Judge of this Court by an Order dated 07.03.2022 in W.P.No.4457 of 2018 and as such, the claim of the petitioner cannot be disputed. 11. The proceedings before the Trial Court culminated in the Order of the Trial Court dated 19.08.2019. On that date, the proceedings of the Tahsildar were valid and had not been set aside. Further, the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge, dated 05.10.2017, remains untouched till today. In the circumstances, the production of these exhibits by the petitioner, after suppressing the fact that these exhibits could not have been accepted as 7 proof of possession of the property by the petitioner, is sufficient to non-suit the petitioner. 12. It is settled law that the grant of an injunction is an equitable relief and such equitable relief cannot be given to a person who approaches the Court with unclean hands. 13. In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Dated: 27.02.2026 BSM 8 THE HON’ABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.242 of 2026 27.02.2026 BSM