DASARI LAXMI Vs. BEJJENKI SATHI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is sought to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Plaintiff/respondent questioning reversing order passed by the lower appellate Court dated 27.11.2013 in C.M.A. No. 3 of 2013 setting aside temporary injunction granted in I.A. No. 438 of 2011 in O.S. No. 93 of 2011 (suit for bare injunction) dated 31.01.2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judges Court, Siddipet in favour of the revision petitioner herein pending disposal of the suit in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The plaint and petition schedule consists of lands Ac. 1 -03 1/3 guntas and Ac. 1.00 (total Ac. 2 -03 1/3 guntas) in Sy. No. 1942 of Kallakunta Colony, Prashanthnagar, Siddipet Mandal, Medak District.

(2.) IT is important to mention the case of the plaintiff in the plaint running in hardly three pages that she is owner and possessor of the plaint schedule land by virtue of her purchase from Vanga Narayana Reddy viz., Ac. 1 -03 1/3 guntas vide registered sale deed No. 334/94 and Ac. 1 -00 under registered sale deed No. 3702/96 to say she got title with possession for the plaint schedule under the two sale deeds of 1994 and 1996 supra, from same vendor. She further averred that she used to draw water from others bore well and by cultivating dry and wet crops, enjoying the same with possession. Her further claim is that the defendants 1 and 2 of the suit no other than father and son are the neighbours and adjoining land owners and from the hike of land values they with some unsocial elements started trying to grab the plaintiffs land by disturbing and interrupting the plaintiffs agricultural operations and in that way in January, 2011 they entered into the suit land and caused interference with her agricultural work and she could protect her possession with the help of surrounding land holders and latter on 01.05.2011 when the plaintiff is cutting her paddy crop, the defendants with unsocial elements obstructed the plaintiff and threatened to dispossess and again on 10.05.2011 obstructed the plaintiff while she was ploughing the suit land and when she questioned, they left by threatening that they would come with larger force and dispossess and she approached orally Siddipet I Town P.S., since they stated it is a civil lis to seek injunction, she filed the suit being the owner with possession having prima facie case and balance of convenience and will be put to irreparable loss unless the relief granted from the cause of action supra of the Court having jurisdiction by notionally valued plaint relief for Rs. 5,000/ - in seeking decree and judgment in her favour against the defendants granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the suit land and for costs and other reliefs.

(3.) THE defendants as respondents to the injunction application filed counter dated 03.02.2012 and before that even they filed their written statement on 04.11.2011 and the counter averments are part of the written statement averments. Thereby to avoid repetition it is apt to refer the sum and substance of the contest of the defendants in the suit as well as the application for temporary injunction with 20 documents enclosed viz., C.C. of written statement, Judgment and decree in O.S. No. 36 of 1996, C.C. of written statement and decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1981, zerox copy of 13(B) certificates dated 22.12.1993, attested copies of the pahanis of the years 1989 -90, 1990 -91, 1994 -95, 2002 -03, 2004 -05 to 2010 -11, C.C. of Sethwar, copy of registered gift deed dated 29.10.2009, deposition of Vanga Narayana Reddy dated 22.01.2001 in O.S. No. 36 of 1996 and mutation proceedings dated 28.01.2011. Referring to the documents, it is the contest that the plaintiff has no ownership over the plaint schedule property of Ac. 2 -03 1/3 guntas in S.No. 1942 with possession as claimed and her husband who is a well known litigant by name Dasari Kuntaiah is behind her in filing the false claim in the suit with no basis by suppression of facts and in approach with unclean hands that the alleged purchase and taking of possession under the sale deeds of 1994 and 1996 as claimed is false, taking advantage of wrong entries in revenue records plaintiffs husband by playing fraud obtained false documents and claiming right thereunder with intent to interfere to the possession of others land and he also filed suits supra to harass the adjoining land holders and the alleged source of irrigation and cultivation by the plaintiff is nothing but false and she cannot even identify alleged suit land on ground. The plaintiff and her husband are no way concerned with suit schedule land for Ac. 0 -25 guntas in S.No. 1942 and plaintiff suppressed the earlier litigation covered by O.S. No. 3 of 1981 and 36 of 1996 and there is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in her favour muchless suffering of any irreparable injury and suit for bare injunction not maintainable and she is not entitled to the temporary injunction even under the guise of temporary injunction she and her husband want to grab the property by entering into possession and interfering with the defendants right and possession for the reasons: