BAMMIDI RAMANAMMA Vs. NAMBARU SRIRAMMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dtd. 14/7/2022 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2021 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam reversing the order and decree dtd. 25/11/2020 in I.A.No.138 of 2020 in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narsannapeta.

(2.) Suit O.S.No.22 of 2020 was filed by plaintiff against the defendants seeking perpetual injunction. Along with the plaint, plaintiff filed I.A.No.138 of 2020 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction.

(3.) In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that plaintiff being owner, has been in possession and enjoyment of wet and dry land of an extent of Ac.1.09 cents. Plaint schedule property, originally, belonged to Namburu Lakshminarayanamma, W/o late Narasimhulu. The said Lakshminarayanamma leased out the schedule property along with other property to the plaintiff's father-in- law, Bammidi Apparao on 28/4/1985 under 'Ambaram Muchilika' and he used to give Ambaram of 21 bags of paddy to Lakshminarayanamma per year. Lakshminarayanamma sold the schedule property to her tenant i.e. father-in-law of plaintiff on 25/2/1992 under an unregistered sale deed for Rs.87,200.00. Since then plaintiff's father-in-law enjoyed the schedule property and he got the name of plaintiff mutated in respect of schedule property in revenue records. The revenue authorities updated the revenue records and issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of plaintiff. Defendants are trying to trespass into the schedule property since the second week of July, 2020 and they are also proclaiming in the village. Defendants have no right over the schedule property. Hence, the suit was filed and also application for grant of ad- interim injunction.