CHANDAN KHANDEWAL Vs. G. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners herein/defendant Nos.1 to 3, challenging the order, dtd. 19/10/2023, passed in I.A.No.344 of 2023 in O.S.No.1 of 2023, by the learned Principal District Judge, at Narayanpet, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners herein/defendant Nos.1 to 3 under Order VII Rule 11(a)&(d) r/w Sec. 151 of CPC, seeking to reject the plaint, was dismissed by the Court below.

(2.) The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein are the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 in the suit. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred as they were arrayed in the suit.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs filed the suit vide O.S.No.1 of 2023 on the file of Principal District Judge, at Narayanpet, seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff No.2 claims to have purchased land admeasuring Ac.0.10 gts equivalent to 0.10 Hectares in Sy.No.280 situated at Makthal Town, under a registered sale deed dtd. 15/5/1984 bearing document No.648/1984. Plaintiff No.3 claims to have purchased land admeasuring Ac.0.10 Gts equivalent to 0.10 Hectares in Sy.No.280 situated at Makthal Town, under a registered Sale deed dtd. 14/5/1984 bearing document No.632/1984. Smt.G.Anasuya, wife of plaintiff No.1 claims to have purchased Plot No.3 admeasuring 300 Sq.yds in Sy.No.280 situated at Makthal town, under a registered sale deed dtd. 27/6/1984 bearing document No.1019/1984. Smt.G.Anasuya also claims to have purchased Plot No.2 admeasuring 150 Sq.yds land in Sy.No.280 situated at Makthal Town, under a registered sale deed dtd. 27/6/1984 vide document No.1020/1984. It is stated that Smt.G.Anasuya expired on 24/12/2019 leaving behind the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 as her legal heirs and the plaintiffs succeeded the properties acquired by late Smt G.Anasuya and are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that while the things stood thus, one Smt.Parvathamma and her sons namely Laxmikantha Reddy, Madhusudan Reddy, Virat Reddy and Bhaskar Reddy claiming to be legal heirs of Nagi Reddy, started interfering with the possession of plaintiffs alleging that the plaintiffs had claimed land admeasuring Ac.0.26 Gts in Sy.No.4 as that of land admeasuring Ac.0.24 Gts in Sy.No.280. It is further case of plaintiffs that pursuant to the said rival claims, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed a case before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet requesting to initiate proceedings under Sec.145 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) against the plaintiffs as well as legal heirs of Nagi Reddy namely Smt.Parvathamma Madhusudhan Reddy and Bhaskar Reddy and in view of apprehension of breach of peace and disturbance to the public tranquillity in the village, the property was taken into the custody with the standing crops as required under Sec 146(1) of Cr.P.C and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Makthal, was appointed as "Receiver". Thereafter, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet, having been satisfied that the proceedings issued under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C are no longer required, passed an order dtd. 20/10/1990 revoking the earlier proceedings No.C/487/87 dtd. 21/3/1987. In view of the same, the M.R.O, Makthal vide Memo No.A/2783/90 dtd. 24/1/1991 delivered possession of land admeasuring Ac.0-24gts in Sy.No.280 to the plaintiff No.1. It is further case of the plaintiffs that inspite of the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet, the legal heirs of Nagi Reddy namely Parvathamma, Laxmikantha Reddy Virat Reddy and Bhaskar Reddy again started interfering with the possession of plaintiffs, which compelled the plaintiffs to file a suit vide O.S.No.29 of 1991 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Narayanpet. After contest, the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dtd. 31/1/2005 upholding the right, title and possession of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, Smt Parvathamma and her sons preferred appeal vide A.S.No.3 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet and the same was dismissed vide judgment dtd. 3/6/2006. Challenging the same, the defendants therein filed Second Appeal No.1160 of 2006 on the file of this Court and the same is pending for adjudication. It is further case of the plaintiffs that while the things stood thus, they have received copy of caveat applications filed by the defendants herein, wherein it was stated that they purchased lands admeasuring Ac.0.15 Gts in Sy.No.280/A/A and Ac.0.20 Gts in Sy.No.280/A/A situated at Makthal Village and Mandal and that they were in possession and enjoyment of the said lands and also stated that they have obtained permission under the provisions of NALA Act. Thereafter, the plaintiffs got verified with Tahsildar-cum-Joint Sub-Registrar and came to know that defendant No.1 purchased an extent of Ac.0-20 Gts in Sy.No.280/A/A vide document No.1987/2022 dtd. 27/10/2022 and defendant No.2 purchased an extent of Ac.0.15 Gts in Sy.No.280/A/A vide document No.1984/2022 dtd. 27/10/2022, the defendant No.2 also purchased an extent of Ac.0-06gts in Sy.No.280/A/A vide document No.1990/2022 dtd. 9/11/2022. The case of the plaintiffs is that said sale deeds are fabricated, sham and bogus documents and they were created only for the purpose of making false claim over the suit schedule property and the said sale deeds do not create any right or interest and the defendants were never in possession of the said lands basing on those sale deeds and therefore, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit for injunction.