HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.M.A.No.559 of 2014 Date : 3-7-2014 Between :
Panyala Narasimha Goud ..
Appellant And Bathula Prabhudas and another .. Respondents Counsel for appellant : Sri P. Radhive Reddy for Sri S. Abhay Kumar Sagar Counsel for respondent : Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthi for Sri M.V. Durga Prasad The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of order dated 18-3-2014 in I.A.No.901 of 2013 in O.S.No.155 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
The appellant filed the above mentioned suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property and for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession over the property. The appellant also sought for a further decree for deletion of the names of the respondents from the pattadar column of the pahanies and substitute his name. Along with the suit, the appellant filed I.A.No.901/2013 for temporary injunction. The case of the appellant is that respondent No.1 is his teacher and that when he was in need of money, the latter has lent some money in connection with which a usufructory mortgage was executed by the appellant. The appellant further pleaded that under the bonafide impression that he was executing the usufructory mortgage, he has signed a document in the office of the Sub-Registrar and that respondent No.1 later on fraudulently claimed that the appellant has sold the suit schedule property to him.
Respondent No.1 resisted the application filed by the appellant by pleading that the appellant has executed registered sale deed dated 11-4-1985 conveying the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration; that the property was mutated in the name of respondent No.1 on 29-8-2008 and that the original pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued on 29-8-2005 in his favour. Respondent No.1 also filed Ex.P-5 to P-11 and Exs.P-17 to P-19 – pahanies for the years 2005-06 to 2013 and Exs.P-14 to P-16 - mutation orders dated 4-2-2013. Though the appellant also filed pahanies – Exs.R-1 to R-25, the lower Court has carefully weighed the documentary evidence and found that respondent No.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 11-4-1985.
Having carefully analysed the reasons assigned by the lower Court and having regard to the fact that respondent No.1 is claiming his title through the registered sale deed and possession under various revenue records such as orders of mutation and pattadar passbooks, I am of the opinion that the lower Court has rightly granted injunction in favour of the respondents. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court. However, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
Subject to the above direction, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, CMAMP No.794 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 3-7-2014 AM