P a g e | 1 APHC010404112026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 426 OF 2026 Between: 1. Pichukala Nalini Devi, Pichukala Nalini Devi, W/o. Narendra, Aged about 32 years, R/o.D.No.2-121/1, Near Durgamma Temple, Gandi Centre, Konala, Tanuku Mandal. 2. Pichukala Abhiram, S/o. Narendra, Aged about 19 years, R/o.D.No.2-121/1, Near Durgamma Temple, Gandi Centre, Konala, Tanuku Mandal. ...Petitioners AND 1. Burugupalli Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged about 43 years, R/o. D.No.1-6, Ravindra Vidya Nagar, Denduluru Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Burugupalli Nageswar Rao, S/o. Venkata Krishna Rao, Aged about 65 years, R/o. D.No.1-6, Ravindra Vidya Nagar, Denduluru Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondents Appeal Under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against orders dt.22.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.337 of 2026 in A.S.No.29 of 2026 on the file of the court of the IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari P a g e | 2 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 to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents, from ever interfering with the schedule property in A.S.No.29 of 2026 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari, including ad interim injunction, pending disposal of the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, as otherwise, the Petitioners herein will suffer irreparable loss and injury Counsel for the Petitioners : M R S SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents : DAMARAJU MADHUSUDHAN VIJAY KUMAR The Court made the following order: P a g e | 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 426/2026 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 22.07.2026 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District (hereinafter referred to as “the 1st Appellate Court”), in I.A.No.337 of 2026 in A.S.No.29 of 2026. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the 1st Appellate Court in I.A.No.337 of 2026 in A.S.No.29 of 2026. 3. The brief facts of the case are that items Nos.1 and 2 of the petition schedule properties originally belonged to one B. Rama Rao and his wife, Smt. Satyavathi. As they had no issues, upon the death of B. Rama Rao on 25.09.2009, the said properties devolved upon his wife, Smt. Satyavathi. The petitioners have been looking after the welfare of Smt. Satyavathi, as the 1st petitioner is the granddaughter of the sister of Smt. Satyavathi. Out of love and affection towards the petitioners, Smt. Satyavathi executed two settlement deeds dated 24.12.2018 in favour of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner, who is none other than the son of the 1st petitioner. The said settlement deeds were marked as Exs.A1 and A2, respectively. Though the properties were conveyed in favour of the petitioners, the respondents interfered with their peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof. Consequently, the petitioners P a g e | 4 instituted O.S.No.37 of 2019 before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”), seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants. 4. The respondents/defendants filed their written statement, but did not choose to enter the witness box. 5. On behalf of the petitioners / appellants / plaintiffs before the Trial Court, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. The Trial Court, however, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their lawful and settled possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The Trial Court further observed that the documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs to establish their possession was subsequent to the institution of the suit, and therefore, did not conclusively establish their possession as on the relevant date. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2026 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.37 of 2018, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred A.S.No.29 of 2026 before the 1st Appellate Court. Along with the appeal, they also filed I.A.No.337 of 2026 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The learned Judge observed that, except for the settlement deeds covered by Exs.A1 and A2, the petitioners had not P a g e | 5 placed on record any documents pertaining to the relevant period to establish their possession over the suit schedule property. The learned Judge further observed that the respondents were asserting possession over the petition schedule property and that, if an injunction were granted in favour of the petitioners / appellants, the respondents would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Accordingly, the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners / appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners placed on record the settlement deeds executed in their favour by the original owner/settler, namely, Smt. Satyavathi, which were marked as Exs.A1 and A2, respectively. The petitioners also relied upon Exs.A4 to A10, comprising house tax receipts, property tax receipts, adangals, crop loan documents, and other revenue records. In addition, the petitioners relied upon the sale deed dated 05.05.1994 standing in the name of the settler and another sale deed dated 26.06.1979 standing in the name of the husband of the settler. It is submitted that the learned Judge, however, observed that the documents relied upon by the petitioner / appellants either stood in the name of the settler or her husband, whereas the revenue records relied upon by the petitioners were subsequent to the institution of the suit and, therefore, did not establish their possession as on the relevant date. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, though the respondents filed their written statement before the Trial Court, they did not enter the witness box or subject themselves to cross-examination. He submits P a g e | 6 that the documents of title, namely, Exs.A1 and A2, contain clear recitals to the effect that possession of the subject property was handed over to the petitioners. No evidence has been placed on record by the respondents to rebut the evidence adduced by the petitioners. Therefore, the respondents having failed to enter into the witness box and offer themselves for cross- examination, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. He further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao1, wherein it held that: 17. Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness-box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross- examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh [AIR 1927 PC 230 : 32 CWN 119] . This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh [AIR 1930 Lah 1 : ILR 11 Lah 142] and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh [AIR 1931 Bom 97 : 32 Bom LR 924] . The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat [AIR 1970 MP 225 : 1970 MPLJ 586] also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh case [AIR 1927 PC 230 : 32 CWN 119] . The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virendra Nath [AIR 1971 All 29] held that if a party abstains from entering the witness-box, it would give rise to an adverse inference against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand [AIR 1974 P&H 7] drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 against a party who did not enter the witness- box. 1 (1999) 3 SCC 573 P a g e | 7 9. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that where a party abstains from entering the witness box and fails to offer himself/herself for cross-examination, an adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, is liable to be drawn against such party. He further submits that it is well settled, beginning with the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh2 and followed in several subsequent decisions, that such abstention raises a presumption that the case set up by such party is not correct and, therefore, the untested assertions of such party cannot safely be relied upon. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, except for producing Exs.A1 and A2, which are the alleged settlement deeds, the petitioners have not placed any other material on record to establish their possession over the petition schedule property. Learned counsel further submits that, during cross-examination, the petitioners admitted that Ex.A4 comprises revenue records containing entries made subsequent to the institution of the suit. Therefore, the said document cannot be relied upon to establish the possession of the petitioners as on the date of institution of the suit. 11. The respondents/defendants have neither adduced any evidence nor placed any material on record to establish their possession over the petition schedule property. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, the material produced by the petitioners, namely, the settlement deeds executed in 2 AIR 1927 PC 230 P a g e | 8 favour of petitioners/plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 and the subsequent revenue records, remained unrebutted. When considered along with the recitals in the settlement deeds regarding delivery of possession, the petitioners’ possession could reasonably be inferred, particularly in view of the failure of the respondents/defendants to enter the witness box. The 1st Appellate Court, while considering the application for interim injunction, ought to have taken these circumstances into consideration while assessing the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury. In the absence of any material to establish possession on the part of the respondents/ defendants, the finding that they would suffer irreparable loss and injury if an interim injunction is granted in favour of the petitioners cannot be sustained. 12. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, although the Trial Court has already recorded a finding against the petitioners/plaintiffs, the learned 1st Appellate Court, while considering the application for interim injunction, failed to properly appreciate the material available on record and proceeded to accept the claim of possession set up by the respondents without any supporting material. The finding that the respondents would suffer irreparable loss or injury if an interim protection is granted in favour of the petitioners is, therefore, unsustainable. This Court is of the considered opinion that, in order to preserve the subject matter of the appeal during its pendency, it would be just and appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the petition schedule property. Accordingly, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the petition schedule property P a g e | 9 during the pendency of the appeal. 13. The observations and findings recorded in this order are confined solely to the adjudication of the aforesaid miscellaneous application and shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main appeal. The learned 1st Appellate Court shall independently adjudicate the main appeal on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and other material available on record, without being influenced by any observation or finding contained in this order. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. The learned 1st Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the main appeal as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 11.08.2026 SAK P a g e | 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 29 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 426/2026 Dt: 11.08.2026 Sak