Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P.Jaya Kumar vs M.Indira on 7 January, 2026
APHC010005082026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Wednesday, the Seventh day of January, Two Thousand and Twenty Six
Present
The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi
Civil Revision Petition No. 27 of 2026
Between:
1. P.Jaya Kumar, S/o.P.Siva Narayana Reddy, aged about 32 years,
Hindu, R/o.D.No.9-3-317/1, Indira Nagar, Uravakonda Village & Mandal,
Anantapuramu District - 515812.
...Petitioner / Plaintiff
and
1. R.Janardhana, S/o.G.Bakthavachala, aged 48 years, Hindu.
2. Kurupati Krishna Murthy, S/o.Rangaiah, aged 45 years, Hindu.
3. M.Sudhakar, S/o.Somanath, aged 43 years, Hindu.
4. Mupparaju Pandu Ranga, S/o.M.Pedda Yerrappa, aged 62 years,
Hindu.
All are residents of Janardanapalli village, Vidapanakal Mandal,
Anantapuramu-515812.
...Respondents / Defendants
Counsel for the petitioner :
1. P.Madhukar Reddy Counsel for the respondents :
1. M.Karibasaiah 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No.27 of 2026 The Court made the following order:
This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.01.2026 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.438 of 2025 in I.A.No.241 of 2025 in O.S.No.117 of 2025 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Anantapur filed under section 151 C.P.C. to grant police aid by directing the Station House Officer, Vidapanakal Police Station to protect the possession of the petitioner and assist him in cultivating the suit schedule land.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of three items of property to total extent of Ac.21.05 cents.
3. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that a land to an extent of Ac.42.21 cents in S.No.141 of Velpumadugu village originally belongs to the ancestors of Kasibatla Gundu Rao Sarma and out of the same, he sold a portion of land to an extent of Ac.10.55 ½ cents to Sri P.Bala Kondanna under a registered sale deed dated 29.04.1954 and put the vendee in possession and that K.G.R.Sarma and his wife Annapurnamma are no more and they left behind them three sons and two daughters and thus their children were in possession and enjoyment of the rest of the property unsold and later, partitioned it under a registered partition deed dated 23.07.2019 and from them, the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule three items of property, total of Ac.21.05 cents, under three separate registered sale deeds dated 24.06.2023, vide documents Nos.3430/2023, 3431/2023 and 3432/2023 and got pattadar pass books as well and secured loan from the State Bank of India, Uravakonda in respect of the said land. Alleging interference by the defendants, the suit was filed.
3BSB,J C.R.P.No.27 of 2026 Plaint schedule Item No.1:
Property situated in the R.D. of Anantapur and S.R.D. of Uravakonda within Velpumadugu Village polam and within the same panchayat area limits:
Babu S.No. Ac.
Govt.Dry 141 42.21 eepura No.palki Ac.7.02 or H.S.2.843
Bounded by :
East: In the same S.No.palki land purchased from K.Venkatesha Sarma (Item No.3) West: Land of M.Chandra Mouli and others North: Land of K.Rajanna South: Land of R.Narasimhappa Item No.2:
Property situated in the R.D. of Anantapur and S.R.D. of Uravakonda within Velpumadugu Village polam and within the same panchayat area limits:
Babu S.No. Ac.
Govt. Dry 141 42.21 eepura No.palki Ac.7.01 or H.S.2.839
Bounded by:
East : Land of Konanki Venkata Ramudu and others
West: In the same S.No.palki land purchased from K.Venkatesha Sarma (Item No.3) North : Land of K.Rajanna South : Land of R.Narasimhappa Item No.3:
Property situated in the R.D. of Anantapur and S.R.D. of Uravakonda within Velpumadugu village polam and within the same panchayat area limits Babu S.No. Ac.
Govt.Dry 141 42.21 eepura No.palki Ac.7.02 or H.S.2.843 4 BSB,J C.R.P.No.27 of 2026 Bounded by:
East: In the same S.No.palki land purchased from K.Sai Prasad (Item No.2) West:In the same S.No.palki land purchased from K.Bhanu Prakash Rao (Item No.1) North: Land of K.Rajanna South: Land of R.Narasimhappa.
4.. The defendant No.3 filed a written statement on 12.11.2025, mainly contending that originally a land of Ac.41.21cents of Velpumadugu village belongs to the ancestors of K.G.R.Sarma and he became owner only to an extent of Ac.21.11 cents and other half of the said property was owned by one Sankaraiah @ Chandrasekhara Rao and that K.G.R.Sarma sold his property in equal halves i.e., 10.55 ½ cents each to Konanki Venkata Ramanna under registered sale deed dated 29.04.1954 and to Pappuru Balakondanna under sale deed dated 29.04.1954 and thereby K.G.R.Sarma did not retain any land in this survey number to himself. Thus, no boundary of the property sold by him under those sale deeds referred to his name. It is further pleaded that the vendors of the plaintiff, therefore, are not entitled to any land to be partitioned amongst themselves under the registered partition deed dated 23.07.2019 and that the revenue cultivation accounts recorded the name of Sankaraiah @ Chandrasekhara Rao in column showing possession of the property to an extent of Ac.21.11 cents and therefore, the plaintiff has no prima facie case or balance of convenience and the suit is liable to be dismissed. They further pleaded that the suit was filed only to harass the defendants and the cause of action pleaded is false.
5. Along with the suit, I.A.No.241 of 2025 was filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. to grant ad-interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. On 13.08.2025, the trial Court ordered interim injunction in favour of the petitioner / plaintiff restraining the respondents / defendants from interfering 5 BSB,J C.R.P.No.27 of 2026 with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the petition schedule property pending disposal of I.A.No.241 of 2025 and adjourned the case to 15.09.2025.
6. The operative portion of the ad-interim order dated 13.08.2025 is as follows:
"...Considering the material available on record, issue interim injunction in favour of the petitioner, restraining the respondents, their henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner over the petition schedule property pending disposal of this petition. Meanwhile issue urgent notice to respondents on payment of process and compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. Call on 15.09.2025."
7. Though pleadings are filed, I.A.No.241 of 2025 is still pending for enquiry. While so, the petitioner / plaintiff filed I.A.No.438 of 2025 seeking police aid to protect his possession and assist him in cultivation of the land. Meanwhile, as the red gram crop is ripe, the petitioner requested for the relief in the petition.
8. The petition was opposed by filing the counter of the respondents. The title, possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property was denied and further they claimed that they raised the crop, but, the plaintiff obtained interim injunction order. They further resisted the petition on the ground that till the suit is finally decided, the plaintiff cannot seek police protection.
9. The petition in I.A.No.438 of 2025 in I.A.No.241 of 2025 was adjourned to 23.01.2026. As such, in view of the standing crop ripe for harvesting, the petitioner approached this Court in C.R.P.No.3794 of 2025. It was disposed by this Court at the admission stage on 30.12.2025 directing the trial Court to 6 BSB,J C.R.P.No.27 of 2026 expeditiously dispose of I.A.No.438 of 2025 on or before 02.01.2026 after hearing both the parties.
10. Accordingly, the trial Court passed the impugned order on 02.01.2026 after hearing both the parties. It is mainly contended by the respondents / defendants that since ad-interim injunction in I.A.No.241 of 2025 was granted in the absence of the respondents, no police aid can be granted to enforce the said order as the respondents resisted the suit as well as the petition in I.A.No.241 of 2025. In this regard, the respondents referred to decisions of this High Court in Yeddula Rami Reddy Vs.M.Indira, 1 and also in Rai Naramma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2 .
11. The trial Court recorded that neither party had filed any evidence. It further recorded that the pleading of the petitioner is only that the respondents are proclaiming to interfere with his peaceful possession inspite of the Court's order, but, there is no specific pleading, nor do the averments in the petition disclose that the defendants interfered in possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property and that the relief sought is only to assist him in cultivating the land and protecting his possession over the suit schedule property. It is further held that, agreeing with the respondents submission that police aid cannot be granted pending adjudication of the interlocutory application or to grant police aid only for the enforcement of the decree for permanent injunction, the petition was dismissed.
12. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, this revision petition was filed, along with photographs of the standing crop and also a copy of the complaint. Further a copy of F.I.R.No.79 of 2025 by the S.H.O., of Vidapanakal police station along with the complaint dated 26.12.2025 was placed before this Court to substantiate the contention that there is threat of interference.
12023 0 Supreme (AP) 1221 2 C.R.P.No.202 of 2022 dt.30.10.2023 7 BSB,J C.R.P.No.27 of 2026
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time when the affidavit seeking police aid was filed, the crop was in cultivation, whereas, as the time passed, there was change in the crop and for the past few days, the crop was ripe for cutting, but due to the interference of the respondents, the petitioner is unable to harvest the yield. He further submitted that unless police aid is granted, it would become very difficult for the petitioner to harvest the yield. It is further his contention that the respondents have not claimed any right or possession over the suit schedule properties and filed written statement claiming that the property belongs to third party Sankaraiah and the same was given for the purpose of rituals in the temple, but no such evidence was filed. He further submitted that if at all the property belongs to any temple, the authorities regarding to the temple or the endowments department would take action against the petitioner, but it is not for the respondents to raise any objection.
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is unnecessarily interfering with the possession of the respondents and in fact the crop was raised by the respondents. He supported the observation made by the trial Court in the impugned order and reiterated the stand of the respondents that no police aid can be granted at this juncture, without hearing and disposing I.A.No.241 of 2025.
15. There is no dispute about the existence of red gram crop standing in the suit schedule properties. It is common knowledge that red gram is short duration crop and it becomes ripe for harvesting during the current period. Instead of hearing only the petition in I.A.No.438 of 2025, just because there is an order of this Court for disposal, the trial Court ought to have disposed I.A.No.241 of 2025 as well, because the substantial dispute is one and the same, and it is only the additional point in I.A.No.438 of 2025 that no aid can be granted before deciding the real dispute on contest. The trial Court ought to 8 BSB,J C.R.P.No.27 of 2026 have taken cognizance of the fact that the standing crop of red gram would be destroyed unless the petition in I.A.No.241 of 2025 is also decided.
16. Normally, because ad-interim order is passed only by hearing one party in the absence of the respondents, granting aid of police would result in harness, sometimes causing prejudice to the interest of the respondents who also have claimed some right, title or possession or any other kind of interest in the subject matter property of dispute. In such a case, if police aid is granted only based on ad-interim relief, even before hearing the respondents who have serious claim over the disputed property, it may lead to prejudice to the interests of the respondents in such case. Therefore in those cases, the Court should be slow in granting such harsh relief of police aid for enforcement of ad-interim order. Whereas in the present case, opportunity was given to the defendants to file pleadings by way of written statement and also to file counter. Even though the petition for grant of police aid, a counter was filed stating that the crop was raised by the respondents, as can be seen from the record, no pleading was taken in the written statement claiming any kind of interest, like, right, title, possession or enjoyment or any other kind of interest over the suit schedule properties in any form by the defendants. It was pleaded only resisting the claim of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has no right in the property because the vendors of the plaintiff has no title or possession to pass the same to the plaintiff. In the document of endorsement, issued by the Tahsildar filed by the defendants, there is a mention that the enquiry revealed that the disputed property belongs to Sankaraiah and his wife donated the property to temple for performance of doopa, deepa, nyvedyam rituals. All these aspects are not supported by any other evidence. It is all to be considered in the trial or in the further proceedings. Even as on date, it is not the case of the respondents or the contents of the report of the Tahsildar that any person other than the petitioner has raised the crop in the suit schedule property. If at all, there is any dispute of title, the same can be adjudicated later on. For the present, this Court has limited its enquiry to the extent of 9 BSB,J C.R.P.No.27 of 2026 necessity to grant police aid to enforce the order which is in force in favour of the petitioner, keeping in view the standing crop which would be destroyed, if not harvested soon.
17. Under the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that grant of police aid would not cause any prejudice or harm to the respondents. On the other hand, if the police aid is not granted, the petitioner is likely to get loss.
18. At this juncture, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that instead of granting police aid to the petitioner, this Court may direct the Commissioner to take possession of the standing crop before deciding the petition in I.A.No.241 of 2025.
19. This Court is not inclined to accept the request for the reasons already noted above, in the absence of any claim of interest of the respondents over the disputed property or the standing crop in their initial pleadings, no order which is likely to cause damage to the petitioner would be passed.
20. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed. The order in I.A.No.438 of 2025 in I.A.No.241 of 2025 in O.S.No.117 of 2025 is set aside. I.A.No.438 of 2025 is allowed. The Station House Officer,Vedapanakal police station is directed to provide assistance to the petitioner to implement the interim order in I.A.No.241 of 2025 for one (01) week from the date of this order. The trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.241 of 2025 as well, without any delay.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.
___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated. 07.01.2026 Note:
CC by 08.01.2026 GRL 10 BSB,J C.R.P.No.27 of 2026 80 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi C.R.P. No.27 of 2026 Dated. 07.01.2026 Note:
CC by 08.01.2026 GRL