APHC010043622026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Friday the tenth day of April The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: Between: Sri Kotha Bhaskar Reddy and others and Sri Ganta Anand and others Counsel for the petitioner K.Srinivas Counsel for the respondent Chakravarthy P.V.S.K. The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday the tenth day of April two thousand and twenty Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 426 of 2026 Sri Kotha Bhaskar Reddy and others ... Sri Ganta Anand and others ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: respondents: Chakravarthy P.V.S.K. The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] two thousand and twenty six ...Petitioners ..Respondents 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.426 of 2026 O R D E R: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and the decree, dated 19.01.2026, in C.M.A.No.3 of 2023 on the file of the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kadiri, Ananthapuram District allowing the appeal and granting interim injunction by setting aside the order and the decree, dated 09.11.2023, dismissing I.A.No.310 of 2023 in O.S.No.209 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadiri filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents / defendants from interfering with the possession of the petitioners / plaintiffs over the petition schedule property of Ac.1.01 cents in S.No.198-4 of Thippepalli Revenue village, O.D.Cheruvu Mandal, Sree Sathyasai District within the following boundaries: East : Land of Kotha Bhaskar Reddy and Narayana Reddy and well; West: Land of Ganta Venkataramana; North: Land of Ganta Venkataramana and another; South: Voni Rasta. The plaintiffs Ganta Anand and Ganta Sreenivasulu filed suit against the defendants Kotha Bhaskar Reddy, Kotha Bhargava Reddy, Kotha Narapa Reddy, Kotha Jagadeep Reddy and Untla Thirupal Reddy. 2. The case of the plaintiffs, is briefly, as follows: a. Originally, the plaint schedule property is the joint family property of Yeddula Narappa @ Narapa Reddy and his brother Yeddula Narasimhulu @ Narasimha Reddy. Both the brothers and their wives 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.426 of 2026 died. The Ac.0.50 ½ cents share of Yeddula Narappa devolved on his son Yeddula Narayana Reddy. The other half share of the property of Ac.0.50 ½ cents of Yeddula Narasimhulu was devolved on his two daughters Aswarthamma and Lakshminarasamma. Their half share and other properties were sold to the plaintiffs and their brother Ganta Venkataramana under a registered sale deed dated 29.01.1997. Y.Narayana Reddy and his sons Y.Ramaswamy Reddy and Y.Narasimha Reddy, both being minors represented by their father, sold their land of Ac.0.50 ½ cents and other properties to the plaintiffs and their brother Ganta Venkataramana under a registered sale deed dated 29.01.1997. Thus, the whole plaint schedule property was purchased by them and they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till they got divided it orally about 15 years ago. In the said partition, the plaintiffs are the plaint schedule properties and other properties, whereas their brother got the other properties. Later, entries in the revenue records were mutated in the names of the plaintiffs. Pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued to the plaintiffs. The Government also sanctioned input subsidy and crop insurance and supplied subsidy seeds to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No.1 obtained crop loan from Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, O.D.Cheruvu by depositing relevant records. Similarly, the plaintiff No.2 also obtained crop loan from the State Bank of India, O.D.Cheruvu by depositing relevant records. They spent huge amount and hard labour to make the suit schedule property fertile land. They also dug a bore land and installed electrical pump set and also submersible motor in the well and doing cultivation with such water resource. The defendants are neighbours. They developed evil eye against the plaintiffs. The defendants are trying to create several troubles and cause damage to the crop of the plaintiffs. They are also creating false, nominal, sham and collusive 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.426 of 2026 documents in their names without having any right over the property. There are some misunderstandings between the plaintiffs and the defendants for the past several years. Taking advantage of the weakness of the plaintiffs, the defendants are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. The defendants are powerful and influential in the village. They often lodge false complaints before the police against the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants. b. The defendant No.1 filed a written statement with the averments briefly, as follows: The case pleaded by the plaintiffs is incorrect. At the most, the plaintiffs may have ½ share out of the total extent of the plaint schedule property. In fact, Yeddula Vemanna had two sons by names Yeddula Pedda Rangappa and Yeddula Narappa. Thus, they have half share each in the suit schedule property. Yeddula Narappa has two sons by names Y. Narasimhulu and Y.Narayana Reddy. Yeddula Pedda Rangappa sold his half share to Untla Ramanna, S/o. Nagappa under a registered sale deed dated 16.08.1937. Untla Ramanna died leaving behind his only son, Nagi Reddy, and one daughter Naga Lakshmamma, W/o. Kotha Bayapa Reddy. Untla Nagi Reddy was survived by his four sons 1) Sankar Reddy, 2) Ravindra Reddy, 3) Subbi Reddy, 4) Rami Reddy. They sold half share of the plaint schedule property to the defendants Nos.1 and 3 herein under a registered sale deed dated 05.02.1992. The defendant No.2 and the defendant No.4 are the sons of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3 respectively. Thus, the defendant No.1 has 1/4th share of property in the plaint schedule property. Similarly, the defendant No.3 has 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property. They mortgaged their share of property and 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.426 of 2026 borrowed amount from ING Vysya Bank, Kondakamarla under a registered mortgage deed dated 27.10.1998. The defendants Nos.1 and 3 filed a caveat petition asserting their half share in the suit schedule property and also asserting that the plaintiffs do not have right over such half share of the property of these defendants. The defendants Nos.1 to 4 are co-owners of the suit schedule property to the extent of their half share. Therefore, the defendants are not strangers. With an intention to knock away the half share of the defendants, the plaintiffs filed the false suit. The suit for injunction against the co-owners is not maintainable. The plaintiffs knew very well that their vendors had only half extent of the plaint schedule property, however, filed the suit to unjustly enrich themselves. The suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 3. Along with the suit, I.A.No.310 of 2023 was filed with the same averments as in the plaint. The petition was also opposed by filing the counter of the respondents with the averments same as in the written statement. 4. On behalf of the petitioners / plaintiffs, Exs.P.1 Sale deed dated 29.01.1997, Ex.P.2 sale deed dated 26.03.1997, Ex.P.3 pattadar pass book, Ex.P.4 pattadar pass book, Ex.P.5 1-B (ROR), Ex.P.6 1-B (ROR), Ex.P.7 adangal / pahani and Ex.P.8 bank statement were marked. 5. On behalf of the respondents / defendants, Ex.R.1 sale deed dated 25.08.1937, Ex.R.2 sale deed dated 05.02.1992 and Ex.R.3 letter in R.C.No.35/2023/B dated 30.05.2023 were marked. 6. The respondent No.5 remained ex parte. 7. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that as per Ex.R.3, the petitioners and the respondents are co-owners and that at the stage of interlocutory application, it is 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.426 of 2026 impossible to decide the shares of the vendors of both the parties and that no injunction can be granted against the co-owners. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners / plaintiffs preferred appeal in C.M.A.No.3 of 2023. The appeal was allowed and interim injunction was granted against the respondents holding that the assertions and denials of the parties disclose that there exists a serious triable issue i.e. a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioners as to documentary evidence under Exs.P1 to P.7 are supporting the case of the petitioners, whereas the respondents could not establish their possession and enjoyment through the documents filed by them under Exs.R.1 and R.2 and that Ex.R.3 came into existence subsequent to the suit and lacks consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petition was filed by the respondents / defendants. 9. As can be seen from the record, the contention of the respondents is based on right to property, but not based on possession established through proper evidence. It is well settled principle that in a petition for grant of interim injunction, the main criterion is possession. The petitioners could place evidence enough to satisfy prima facie case in their favour with regard to possession. The trial Court, on an erroneous application of principles of law, without considering the actual physical possession, declined to grant the relief. If at all, the respondents have better title set up by the petitioners on the ground that the vendors of the petitioners had no right over the total property sold, it is a dispute of title and proper steps are required to be taken to challenge the same. In view of the limited scope of the relief of interim injunction, keeping in view the evidence placed by both the parties, the decision taken by the appellate Court is sustainable and does not require any interference in the revision. 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.426 of 2026 10. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed. The observations in this order are confined only to the proceedings in the interlocutory application, since both the parties have opportunity of leading evidence in trial. Therefore, it is made once again clear that the suit shall be disposed of basing on the evidence before the Court, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. 11. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.10.04.2026 PNV / RAR