IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SECOND APPEAL NO.118 OF 2010 Between: Koppula Shanthamma, W/o.Mallesh, Aged 68 Years, Household, R/o.H.No.5-4-98, Kapuwada, Karimnagar Town and District - - - Appellant/ Appellant/ Defendant No.1. AND 1. Bairi Padma. 2. Smt. Varna Rama Devi. 3. Haleema Sultana. 4. Narahari Jagga Reddy. 5. Smt. Methuku Lalitha. 6. Vemula Hanmaiah. - - - Respondents/ Respondents/ Plaintiffs 1 to 6. 7. Koppula Venkateshwar Rao. 8. Mohd. Yusufuddin (Died through his LRs). 9. Syed Reshma Begum. 10. Syed Ameeruddin. 11. Syed Yushiraf. 12. Syed Ashuvaddin. - - - Respondents/ (Respondents No.10 to 12 are minors, Rep. by Respondents/ their mother and Natural Guardian Syed Defendants 2 to 7. Reshma Begum). The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU SECOND APPEAL NO.118 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), is directed against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.62 of 2007, dated 28-07-2009, on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.424 of 2001, dated 02-04-2007, by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, were confirmed. 2. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 3. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Second Appeal, may be stated as follows : One Hameed Shah Khan is the owner of the suit schedule property and he sold Ac.0-34 guntas of land under Ex.A10 in favour of one Chinthakindi Venkatesham, who in turn sold it under Ex.A11 in favour of Jangam Bapu Rao and Akbar Shah Khan. The said Jangam Bapu Rao and Akbar Shah Khan sold an extent of 507-93 sq. yards under Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff No.1, an extent of 879-40 sq. yards and 363 sq. yards under Exs.A2 and A3 in favour of the plaintiff No.2, an extent of 701-44 sq. yards under Ex.A4 in favour of the plaintiff No.3, an extent of 520-33 sq. yards under Ex.A5 in favour of the plaintiff No.4, an extent of 135 sq. yards under Ex.A6 in favour of the plaintiff No.5 and an extent of 559-42 sq. yards under Ex.A7 in favour of the Plaintiff No.6. The plaintiffs obtained permission under Exs.A12 to A18 from the Gram Panchayath for raising constructions. While they were making constructions the defendants Nos. 1 to 3, who are strangers to the suit land, have interfered with the same. Hence, the suit was filed for perpetual injunction. 4. Defendants filed the written statement stating that the sale deeds Exs.A1 to A7 in favour of the plaintiffs are fictitious in as much as Hameed Shah Khan was neither the owner nor the possessor of the suit land at any point of time and therefore selling the same to Chinthakindi Venkatesham and the said Chinthakindi Venkatesham selling to Jangam Bapu Rao and Akbar Shah Khan, was without any right. As a matter of fact, the land in Survey No.679/5 belongs to Hameed Shah Khan who is the pensioner and he died on 16-05-1981 and that land was acquired by the Government for formation of ring road under award proceedings dated 08-07-1986 wherein it was mentioned that Hameed Shah Khan had no legal heirs and therefore the defendants No.1 to 3 felt that the said statement being true, had taken the said stand in I.A. No.1868/2001, but as a matter of fact the said Hameed Shah Khan has a wife, daughter and three sons. The matter was referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land acquired by the Government belonging to Hameed Shah Khan is different from the suit schedule land and the legal heirs of Hameed Shah Khan have no right to sell the suit property to Chinthakindi Venkatesham for the reason that the entitlement of Hameed Shah Khan in Survey No.679/5 is only Ac.0-31 guntas and the same was already acquired by the Government. The sale deed executed by Mahamooda Begum and another for Ac.0-34 guntas in suit Survey number in favour of Chinthakindi Venkatesham is invalid one. Originally the land belongs to Mahaboob Shah Khan and after his death, Sharfuddin Shah Khan had inherited the suit schedule property. The said Sharfuddin Shah Khan appointed D-2 as Power of Attorney under Ex.B1. D-2 sold Ac.1-20 guntas in Survey No.679/5 to D-1 and executed a sale deed dated 11-08-1994 and therefore, they pray to dismiss the suit. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the trial Court for trial : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of perpetual injunction as prayed for? 2. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the Plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-26 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B.22 were marked. 7. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have got a prima-facie title and also the possession and therefore injunction was granted restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the said injunction was confirmed challenging the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. 8. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, the substantial questions of law involved in this Appeal are : 1) Whether a suit hit by non-accrual of causes of action and suffering from misjoinder of causes of actions and from misjoinder of plaintiff-parties is maintainable? 2) Whether injunction simplicitor could be granted without establishing lawful title to the concerned property? 3) Whether several unrelated persons can bring in a single suit without resorting to independent suits against the defendants for the remedies sought for? 4) Whether in a suit for injunction simplicitor, the plaintiffs are not bound to establish identity of suit land with that as exists on ground, more so when the defendants plead that the land so purchased by the plaintiffs was acquired even before such purchase by the Government for laying down ring road? 9. Heard both sides. 10. Under Order I Rule 1 of C.P.C., all persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where – (a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative ; and (b) If such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise. Therefore, from the above provision, it is made clear that any person can be joined in one suit as plaintiff to the common question of transaction where all the persons purchased the property under valid separate sale deeds from Jangam Bapu Rao and Akbar Shah Khan. Therefore, the contention that non accrual of causes of action and the sale of land to all the plaintiffs is concerned, it can not be said to be a substantial question of law. 11. The second substantial question of law with regard to the injunction simplicitor is concerned, the plaintiffs filed Ex.A-1 to A-7 to show about their title having purchased their respective extents of land as mentioned therein from Jangam Bapu Rao and Akbar Shah Khan. Therefore, these documents show their prima-facie title. But, however it is not a suit for declaration to establish the title by the Plaintiffs. 12. With regard to the third substantial question of law, though a plea has been taken that the land was purchased by the plaintiffs even before it is purchased by the Government for laying of the ring road, but no relevant document has been filed to show that the suit schedule land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of formation of laying ring road. When specific plea has been taken by the defendants that the land in possession was acquired by the Government, it is for them to establish the same. But, there is no evidence adduced to prove the same. This can not be said to be the other substantial question of law involved in this Appeal. 13. Both the Courts below after considering the evidence on record, granted injunction basing on the well established principles, i.e. prima- facie title, balance of convenience and that if the injunction is not granted to the plaintiff, he would suffer serious irreparable loss. Exs.A-1 to A-7 would clearly go to show about the prima-facie title of the plaintiffs. Similarly, Exs.A-10 and A-11, registered sale deeds would clearly go to show about the right of the vendors of the plaintiffs and Exs.A-8 and A-9 pahanies would go to show that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Grama Sarpanch also granted permission to the plaintiffs for construction of houses as seen from Exs.A-12 to A-18. Therefore, these documents prima-facie show about the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of their respective extents of land. On the other, the defendants have not filed any document to show about their title. The pahanies relating to 1952- 1970 are not shown to be related to the suit schedule lands. The first defendant claimed that she purchased the property from the General Power of Attorney holder under a registered sale deed, but that General Power of Attorney has been cancelled long prior to execution of sale deed in favour of the first defendant. Therefore, she failed to establish her prima-facie title. On the other hand, the plaintiffs proved that they are in possession of the property. Both the Courts below rightly granted injunction and indeed there are no substantial questions of law involved in this Appeal and as such the question of admitting this Appeal does not arise. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: 03-03-2010 DSH.