HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY S.A.No.664 of 2011 Date: 29-7-2011 Between : Parankusham Laxmamma .. Appellant And Parankusham Kistaiah .. Respondent Counsel for appellant : Sri J.Suresh Babu Counsel for respondent : -- The court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and decree dated 17-2-2011 in A.S.No.15/2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir confirming the Judgment and decree dated 18-8-2006 in O.S.No.104/2002 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet. The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.104/2002 filed by the respondent for permanent injunction in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.2-29 guntas in Sy.No.463/2, Ac.0- 35 guntas in Sy.No.464/2, Ac.0-17 guntas in Survey No.No.465/2/1 and Ac.0-19 guntas in Sy.No.465/2/1. The said suit having been decreed in favour of the respondent, the appellant filed the appeal, A.S.No.15/2007, which was dismissed by the Judgment and decree dated 17-2-2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and that the defendant has no right or interest over the said property. When the defendant allegedly tried to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession of the property, he filed the suit for permanent injunction. The defendant in his written statement denied the title of the plaintiff. She relied upon the litigation before the revenue authorities and claimed that she was found to be in possession of the suit schedule property and that the revenue authorities directed the plaintiff to approach the civil court for declaration of title and recovery of possession. According to the defendant, the suit schedule property was originally owned by Sri Venkata Ramaiah who had three sons by names, Mangaiah, Venkata Narasaiah and Krishna Swamy, that the said Venkat Narsaiah died 22 years back and that Mangaiah has got one son by name Krishna Swamy, aged 62 years. It is her further case that Venkat Narsaiah had two sons by names Chakrapani and Yadagiri Swamy and the defendant is the wife of Chakrapani, who died 8 years back, that one Lakshmi Narsaiah who is the second son of Venkat Ramaiah had one son by name Kuchaiah who died about 20 years back, that the said Kuchaiah had one son by name Lakshmi Narsaiah, aged 62 years, that the third son of Venkat Ramaiah by name Kistaiah had one son by name Venkata Jiar and that he died about 10 years back. She further pleaded that all the lands in Velvarthy had fallen to the share of Nammaiah and Lakshmi Narsaiah, that the plaintiff is in no way concerned with the family properties of the defendant and that he was never in possession of the suit schedule property. Having regard to the respective pleadings of the parties, the trial court has framed the following Issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule lands as on the date of filing of the suit ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant perpetual injunction as prayed for ? 3. To what relief ? On behalf of the plaintiff, apart from examining himself as PW-1, he has examined PW-2 to PW-4 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-17 on his side. The defendant examined herself as DW-1 and though she has cited DW-2 to DW-4 as witnesses, they were eschewed. She has also examined DW-5 and DW-6 on her side and filed Exs.B-1 to B-8. The trial court held all the three issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The lower appellate court having confirmed the said Judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant filed the present Second Appeal. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that the reasons given by both the courts below cannot be sustained. He submitted that the appellant/defendant being a cognate of the respondent/plaintiff, no injunction can be granted against him. The courts below, on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Valigonda in his proceedings dated 15-3-2003, marked as Ex.A-14, found that the plaintiff is in possession of the various lands in the above mentioned survey numbers and he has accordingly ordered to delete the name of the defendant in the possession column and include the name of the plaintiff in the pahani patrik for the year 2001-02. A finding was also rendered that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of the land covered by the said proceedings. Thus, a categorical finding was rendered that on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was found in possession of the suit schedule property which was purchased by him from one Parankusham Venkata Jiar on 22-7-1968 and that possession was delivered four years prior to the sale deed. Even though the lower appellate court has observed that Exs.A-1 and A-2 sale deeds may be hit by Section 47 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in the absence of prior permission of the competent authority for alienation, the said aspect was not placed against the plaintiff on the ground that it is not the case of the defendant that she is one of the legal heirs of the executants under Exs.A-1 and A-2. Both the courts below also relied upon documents Exs.A-5 and A-6 – faisal patties for the years 1973-74 and 1982-83 respectively and Ex.A-8 and A-9 – pahanies for the years 1988-89 and 1999-2000 respectively, in order to arrive at the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the property at the time of filing of the suit. In a suit for permanent injunction, the main issue that requires adjudication is as to the possession of the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property. If the defendant seeks to assert her right and title over the property in question, she can file a suit for declaration of her title and recovery of possession. So long as the plaintiff is found in possession of the property and such possession is not shown to be illegal, he is entitled to protection of the court by way of an injunction. As noted above, both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. These findings having been arrived at on the basis of appreciation of the evidence, they do not give rise to any substantial questions of law requiring interference of this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. For the above mentioned reasons, the Second Appeal is dismissed. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 29-7-2011 AM