PALLEPATI SHANTI Vs. PALLEPATI BALAKISHAN RAO AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.369 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, filed I.A.No.517 of 2012 therein seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. By order dated 18.03.2013, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A. In appeal in CMA No.79 of 2013, the learned II Additional District Judge, Warangal, by order dated 01.08.2014, confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is before this Court by way of this revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The suit schedule property comprised two items situated in various survey numbers of Chintha Nekkonda Village, Parvathagiri Mandal, Warangal District. The plaintiff claimed that she purchased the suit schedule property under a registered document less than two weeks prior to the institution of the suit. She therefore had no independent documents in her own name to substantiate her plea of possession over the suit schedule property, except the sale deed. She however relied upon Exs.P2 to P5 pahanies to substantiate that her vendors' names were recorded therein as pattadars and possessors of the suit schedule property. Despite this documentary evidence, the trial Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff had failed to establish the exact location of the suit schedule property which spilled over several survey numbers and that its boundaries were also not proved. The trial Court therefore opined that as an order of injunction could only be granted in respect of specific and identified land, it should be circumspect in granting a temporary injunction and accordingly dismissed the I.A. holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.

(3.) In appeal, the learned II Additional District Judge, Warangal, found that Exs.P2 to P5 pahanies not only showed the names of the vendors of the plaintiff but also the name of the first defendant in the column pertaining to possession. As it was for the plaintiff to prove the total extent of land in each survey number and the actual possession of the various named persons within identified boundaries, the appellate Court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge this burden and that a fullfledged trial was required to ascertain these aspects. Opining that the basic requirement of proving possession for grant of an injunction was not established, the appellate Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.