VENISHETTY KAVITHA Vs. CHINTAL RAMCHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. R. Madhavi Latha, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. Perused the record.

(2.) The second appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge at Medak confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 25/4/2023 in O.S.No.73 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Medak, wherein, the suit filed by the appellant herein seeking perpetual injunction is dismissed.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein is claiming to be owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.248/4 to an extent of Ac.2.06 1/2 Gts., bounded by East: Residential School, West: Agricultural land of K. Tirupathi, North: Road, South: Agricultural land of K. Anantha Ramireddi, situated near Residential School, Medak Municipality, Medak Town and District. With respect to title, the appellant submitted that originally M. Janardhan Reddy owned the suit schedule property and then sold it to T. Satish and another through registered sale deed document No.9 of 1995, dtd. 3/1/1995. Thereafter, said T. Satish and another sold the suit schedule property to the appellant vide registered sale deed document No.1023 of 1999, dtd. 25/10/1999. Ever since, the appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. She also availed agricultural loan from Indian Bank, Medak by keeping the title deed as collateral security. The respondents are in real estate business. The said respondents without any right or interest have interfered with the appellant's possession over the suit schedule land taking advantage of her absence near the suit schedule property. The appellant is living in Hyderabad for her childrens' education and therefore, not residing locally. The respondents approached the appellant demanding to sell the land, failing which, they would grab the same. The suit schedule property is located in a prime place in the centre of Medak. On 2/10/2018, the respondents with antisocial elements tried to dispossess the appellant and she resisted the same with great difficulty and filed the suit to protect herself from being dispossessed from the suit land.