Disamcharla @ Bodeiahgari Narasimhulu Vs Disamcharla Ramesh

¶1

APHC010263032025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3327] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1258/2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

DISAMCHARLA @ BODEIAHGARI NARASIMHULU, S/O PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O VENNAWADA (VIL), ATMAKUR MANDAL S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶8

CHALLAGUNDLA KIRAN KUMAR,, S/O RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O VENNAWADA (VIL), ATMAKUR MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT

¶9

...PETITIONER(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

DISAMCHARLA RAMESH, S/O PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O VENNAWADA (VIL), ATMAKUR MANDAL S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT

¶12

CHALLAGUNDLA RAGHAVULU, S/O VEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O VENNAWADA (VIL), ATMAKUR MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased toaggrieved by the Decree and order in C.M.A. No. 7 of 2019 dated 21.03.2025 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Atmakur, S.P.S.R.Nellore District where

¶15

Page 2 of 12

¶16

SRK, J CRP No.1258 of 2025

¶17

under the Decree and order in I.A.No. 182 of 2015 in O.S.No.84 of 2015 dated 26.12.2017 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, S.P.S.R.Nellore District is set aside for the following among other

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to Suspend the operation of the Decree and order in C.M.A.No.7 of 2019 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Senior Atmakur, S.P.S.R.Nellore District, pending disposal of the C.R.P. Division), and pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶21

1.CH C KRISHNA REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.K PALLAVI

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

Page 3 of 12

¶26

SRK, J CRP No.1258 of 2025

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The petitioners/defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed the present Revision Petition, challenging the Order, dated 21.03.2025 passed in C.M.A.No.7 of 2019 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Appellate Court’), whereby and whereunder, temporary injunction was granted in favour of 1^st respondent/plaintiff against the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3/ defendant No.3, restraining them from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property, by setting-aside the Order, dated 26.12.2017 passed in I.A.No.182 of 2015 in O.S.No.84 of 2015, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’), by the

¶29

learned Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the trial Court’).

¶30

Appellants in the present Revision are defendant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff and respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.3 before the Trial court. Parties in the present Revision Petition are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

¶31

Page 4 of 12

¶32

SRK, J CRP No.1258 of 2025

¶33

Plaintiff filed O.S.No.84 of 2015 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur against defendant Nos.1 to 3 seeking for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining them, their men and assignees from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of schedule property, i.e. an extent of Ac.3.38 cents of dry land out of total extent Ac.7.58 cents in Survey No.41, situated in Atmakur Sub-Registration District, Atmakur Mandal, Vennawada village, H/o.Padakandla, SPSR Nellore District.

¶34

(b) It is the contention of plaintiff that the schedule property was joint family property; that originally the schedule property was in the name of one Penchalaiah, father of the plaintiff; that the father of plaintiff, his sons i.e. one Narasimha Rao, plaintiff and his younger brother viz. Rajesh got partitioned the joint family properties under a Registered Partition Deed, dated 29.10.2007; that out of Ac.7.58 cents in Survey No.41, an extent of Ac.3.38 cents of immovable property fell towards the share of plaintiff and since then, he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption.

¶35

(c) The plaintiff was issued Pattadar Pass Book in respect of the schedule property; that the plaintiff spent

¶36

Page 5 of 12

¶37

SRK, J CRP No.1258 of 2025

¶38

Rs.10,000/- for clearing bushes and got ploughed the said land with JCB to raise Bengal Gram, Blackgram crops; that the defendants, who are adjacent owners of the schedule property to the southern side, interfered and threatened the plaintiff not to plough the land and caused obstruction to the plaintiff in proceeding with the agricultural operations. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit along with a petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for temporary injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 3.

¶39

Defendants filed counter denying the contentions of the plaintiff. It is contended that one Challagundla Venkata Subbaiah was the owner of schedule land an extent of Ac.2.89 cents; that he died leaving behind him his five daughters; that Challagundla Venkata Subbaiah was the maternal uncle of 1^st defendant’s father and as the daughters of Subbaiah are away from the village where the schedule property is situated, 1^st defendant was entrusted to look after the schedule property long back; that the plaintiff and his father got managed and created revenue record with a view to grab the schedule land and the alleged partition among the plaintiff and his father is not genuine; that neither the plaintiff nor his father was the owner of the

¶40

Page 6 of 12

¶41

SRK, J CRP No.1258 of 2025

¶42

schedule property and they were not in possession of the same at any point of time. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶43

Having heard the contentions and rival contentions of both parties, the Trial Court, vide Order, dated 26.12.2017 dismissed the I.A.No.182 of 2015 in O.S.No.84 of 2015 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, holding that so far no witnesses were examined on either side and it is pending for examination of witnesses and it is premature stage to grant any injunction in favour of either party. The trial Court further held that unless the trial Court examines witnesses on both sides and peruses the documents to be marked on both sides, the trial Court could not come to right decision. Aggrieved by the said Order, the plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.7 of 2019 before the Appellate Court.

¶44

The Appellate Court vide Order, dated 21.03.2025 allowed C.M.A.No.7 of 2019, granting temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants and thereby, Order, dated 26.12.2017 passed in I.A.No.182 of 2015 in O.S.No.84 of 2015 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur was set-aside.

¶45

The Appellate Court in its Order, dated 21.03.2025 held that the plaintiff acquired the schedule property by virtue of Ex.P11-Partition Deed, dated 29.10.2007 and the revenue

¶46

Page 7 of 12

¶47

SRK, J CRP No.1258 of 2025

¶48

authorities mutated his name in the revenue records, and Exs.P1 to 9 documents prove the possession of plaintiff over the schedule property. It was further held by the Appellate Court that the genuineness of the documents exhibited by the plaintiff can only be decided only after trial is completed and as such, considering the documents exhibited in favour of plaintiff, granted temporary injunction against the defendants. Challenging the said order, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 preferred the present Revision Petition, and defendant No.3 was shown as formal party in the present Revision Petition.

¶49

Learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 2 would contend that the schedule property is to an extent of Ac.2.89 cents but not Ac.3.38 cents and the boundaries of the schedule property are incorrect. It was further contended that the documents, on which the Appellate Court placed much reliance, are created and fabricated by the plaintiff, only to grab the schedule property and to claim right and possession over the schedule property. Learned counsel would further contend that neither the plaintiff nor his father was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as they are no way connected to the schedule property. Hence, it is prayed to allow the Revision Petition.

¶50

Page 8 of 12

¶51

SRK, J CRP No.1258 of 2025

¶52

Learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that

¶53

the documents that were exhibited before the Appellate Court prima facie prove possession and title over the schedule property and there is no document exhibited by the defendants to rebut the contention of the plaintiff and the order of the Appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition.

¶54

Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners/defendants and learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff. Perused the entire material on record coupled with documents exhibited before the Appellate Court.

¶55

The point that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is “Whether the impugned Order, dated 21.03.2025 in C.M.A.No.7 of 2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur suffers from any perversity, illegality, irregularity or impropriety of law requiring any interference of this Court?

¶56

The Legal Maxim ‘ Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium’, i.e. ‘Where there is a right, there is a remedy’ is one of the most important sources for derivation of various legal principles. There are various kinds of remedies attached to a legal proceeding

¶57

Page 9 of 12

¶58

SRK, J CRP No.1258 of 2025

¶59

Injunction is one of these remedies, mainly based on the principles of equity and good conscience. It is a relief provided by the Court, either requiring the party to do something or refraining from doing something. The underlying principles of a temporary injunction revolve around ensuring fairness and preventing irreparable harm during the course of litigation. To grant such an injunction, the factors that are to be considered are existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and the potential for harm that cannot be remedied through monetary compensation.

¶60

A perusal of Order, dated 21.03.205 passed in C.M.A.No.7 of 2019 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmaku, goes to show that the plaintiff got exhibited Exs.P1 to P11 documents. The Appellate Court in its Order observed that the plaintiff had already filed those documents before the trial Court, but as those documents were not marked, the plaintiff, by filing an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC before the Appellate Court, got marked them as Exs.P1 to P11 on his behalf.

¶61

A perusal of contentions and rival contentions goes to show that, it is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff got the schedule property by virtue of a Registered Partition Deed, dated 29.10.2007 executed among the father of plaintiff, plaintiff and his

¶62

Page 10 of 12

¶63

SRK, J CRP No.1258 of 2025

¶64

brothers. It is the contention of defendant Nos.1 and 2 that the schedule property does not at all belong to plaintiff and it belonged to one Challagundla Venkata Subbaiah, and subsequent to his demise, his five daughters viz. Guthikonda Adivamma @ Thulasamma, Surineni Seethamma, Thallapalli Mangamma, Palkumpalli Venkamma and Ponukanti Venkatamma entitled to the said property.

¶65

Learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 2 would contend that Challagundla Venkata Subbaiah was maternal uncle of 1^st defendant and as the daughters of deceased Subbaiah were residing away from the village, where the schedule property is situated, 1^st defendant was entrusted to look after the schedule property and the plaintiff and his father having an evil eye over the schedule property, created and got fabricated the documents in order to grab the schedule property.

¶66

A perusal of Ex.P1-Ryot Pass Book and Ex.P2Pattadar Pass Book would disclose that the schedule property, along with other properties, was in the name of father of the plaintiff viz. Disamcharla Penchalaiah. Further, Ex.P4-Pattadar Pass Book issued in favour of plaintiff goes to show that by virtue of Registered Partition Deed, dated 29.10.2007, the schedule

¶67

Page 11 of 12

¶68

SRK, J CRP No.1258 of 2025

¶69

property fell to the share of plaintiff and it was mentioned in the pass book that the plaintiff inherited the schedule property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and even his name was mutated in revenue records. Though, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that the plaintiff got fabricated the documents in his favour to grab the schedule property, whether they are genuine or fabricated documents, would only come into light during full-fledged trial, but not in a petition filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

¶70

The Appellate Court, having elaborately discussed about Exs.P1 to P11 documents, allowed the CMA No.7 of 2019, by granting temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff. If the plaintiff is not protected by way of granting temporary injunction, it would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated in terms of money, as the plaintiff is able to prove his prima facie possession and balance of convenience in his favour. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the Appellate Court rightly allowed C.M.A.No.7 of 2019 by granting temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff and there is no infirmity. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and force and it deserves to be dismissed.

¶71

Page 12 of 12

¶72

SRK, J CRP No.1258 of 2025

¶73