GADUDULA MAHENDRA Vs. GOWDUKULAM P. VANNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the orders, dtd. 17/7/2018, allowing the appeal in C.M.A.No.34 of 2015 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, which was filed challenging the order, dtd. 30/9/2015, allowing the petition in I.A.No.81 of 2015 in O.S.No.54 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the plaint schedule property of Ac.4.00 cents in government dry Sy.No.13 (Ac.2.75 cents + Ac.125 cents), Ac.0.70 cents in government dry Sy.No.17-1 and Ac.2.00 cents in government dry Sy.No.10, all within the specified boundaries mentioned in the schedule.

(2.) Heard Sri Karibasaiah, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri V.D.Gowda, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 3.

(3.) The case of the petitioner/plaintiff, in brief, is that Sande Vannappa @ Senigala Vannappa S/o Beerappa was the absolute owner and in possession of 1/8th share in Ac.19.06 cents in government dry Sy.No.17 (Ac.2.38 cents), 1/8th share in Ac.31.04 cents in government dry Sy.No.13 (Ac.3.88 cents) and 1/10th share in Ac.22.08 cents in government dry Sy.No.10 (i.e., Ac.2.20 cents) of Gurrambylu revenue village and some other property. He gifted away the said property to (i) Poteri Gurappa, (ii) Poteri Gangappa, both sons of Poteri Tatappa and (iii) Venkatamma W/o Potteri Gangappa and daughter of Sande Vannappa @ Senigala Vanappa, under a registered sale deed, dtd. 23/1/1998, and delivered possession of the property to them. They accepted the gift and took possession of the property and were in possession and enjoyment. Though joint extents were shown in the gift deed, Sande Vannappa and other co-owners of the said survey numbers divided the properties and enjoying their respective properties for long time. Later on, Poteri Gurappa died unmarried. Poteri Gangappa also died leaving behind him his wife, Poteri Venkatamma and daughter Gadudala Beeramma W/o Ramappa of Yaraguntapalle as his legal representative to succeed his estate and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. Poteri Venkatamma and her daughter, Gadudala Beeramma, divided the properties by mutual consent long back. In the division, Poteri Venkatamma was enjoying the petition schedule property while the other property was enjoyed by G.Beeramma. Thereafter, Poteri Venkatamma gifted away the plaint schedule property to her daughter, Beeramma out of love and affection under a registered gift deed, dtd. 9/1/1974, bearing document No.18/1974 and delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to her. The gift was accepted by Gadudala Beeramma. She took possession of the property and since then, she was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. Gadudala Beeramma executed a Will, dtd. 26/3/2013, in a sound and disposing state of mind and with her own Will and volition bequeathing the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff who is one of her sons out of her love and affection. Gadudala Beeramma died on 17/6/2013 on which day her Will took effect and the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The revenue authorities effected mutation of the name of the plaintiff in adangal/pahani and 1-B (ROR) register. The Tahasildar, Tanakal, granted pattadar passbook and title deed to the plaintiff regarding the petition schedule property, on due enquiry. The defendants, who have no manner of right to and possession of any part of the plaint schedule property at any point of time are trying to interfere with the right and possession of the plaintiff over the plant schedule property and taking advantage of the weakness of the plaintiff and due to the differences that arose recently between the plaintiff and defendants on account of village politics and steep rise in the market value of the landed properties. Therefore, it necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for permanent injunction and also interim petition seeking the relief of temporary injunction pending the suit.