Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4) The defendants as respondents to the injunction application filed counter dated 03.02.2012 and before that even they filed their written statement on 04.11.2011 and the counter averments are part of the written statement averments. Thereby to avoid repetition it is apt to refer the sum and substance of the contest of the defendants in the suit as well as the application for temporary injunction with 20 documents enclosed viz., C.C of written statement, Judgment and decree in O.S. No.36 of 1996, C.C of written statement and decree in O.S. No.3 of 1981, zerox copy of 13(B) certificates dated 22.12.1993, attested copies of the pahanis of the years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1994-95, 2002-03, 2004-05 to 2010-11, C.C of Sethwar, copy of registered gift deed dated 29.10.2009, deposition of Vanga Narayana Reddy dated 22.01.2001 in O.S. No.36 of 1996 and mutation proceedings dated 28.01.2011. Referring to the documents, it is the contest that the plaintiff has no ownership over the plaint schedule property of Ac.2-03 1/3 guntas in S.No.1942 with possession as claimed and her husband who is a well known litigant by name Dasari Kuntaiah is behind her in filing the false claim in the suit with no basis by suppression of facts and in approach with unclean hands that the alleged purchase and taking of possession under the sale deeds of 1994 and 1996 as claimed is false, taking advantage of wrong entries in revenue records plaintiffs husband by playing fraud obtained false documents and claiming right thereunder with intent to interfere to the possession of others land and he also filed suits supra to harass the adjoining land holders and the alleged source of irrigation and cultivation by the plaintiff is nothing but false and she cannot even identify alleged suit land on ground. The plaintiff and her husband are no way concerned with suit schedule land for Ac.0-25 guntas in S.No.1942 and plaintiff suppressed the earlier litigation covered by O.S. No.3 of 1981 and 36 of 1996 and there is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in her favour muchless suffering of any irreparable injury and suit for bare injunction not maintainable and she is not entitled to the temporary injunction even under the guise of temporary injunction she and her husband want to grab the property by entering into possession and interfering with the defendants right and possession for the reasons:

5) It is accordingly the original owner Vanga Narayana Reddy who got 1/3rd share out of Ac.13-30 guntas in S.No.1942, to the extent of Ac.4-24 guntas in the 4 items supra, totally disposed of and left nothing in that survey No.1942 and as such, the present suit claim by plaintiff through Vanga Narayana Reddy for the suit land is nothing but a false claim with no land as referred supra and it is nothing but taking advantage of any revenue entries without mutation in the name of vendees or transferees from Vanga Narayana Reddy, the collusive sale deeds might have been obtained. It is further contended that though the total extent of S.No.1942 on record mentions as Ac.13.30 guntas, the extent is in fact Ac.17.14 guntas as per some of the Pahanis and are Ac.16.30 guntas supra as per some of the pahanis to say the revenue pahanis are also not genuine in this regard. It is further contended that the 1st defendant and his brother Linga Reddy partitioned their lands in which out of their total extent of Ac.9-06 guntas which is 2/3rd share of original person Bejjanki Chandraiah out of the total extent of Ac.13-30 guntas of S.No.1942, the 1st defendant got the half of Ac.9-06 guntas viz., 4-23 guntas and 1st defendants brother Linga Reddy got the remaining Ac.4-23 guntas of S.No.1942 apart from the 1st defendant and his brother got Ac.1-19 guntas in S.No.1942 from Vanga Narayana Reddy (with exchange of Ac.1-21 guntas in S.No.1943 of them vide un-registered document regularized by proceedings dated 22.12.1993 in 13(B) certificate file No.8707 and 8703 of 1993 in favour of the 1st defendant and his brother.

7) It is there from the contest of the defendants 1 and 2 is that the plaintiff and her husband in all got only Ac.0-25 guntas in S.No.1942 for which on three boundaries there is land of the defendants referred supra and on eastern side there is land of 1st defendants brother B.Linga Reddy and that plaintiff has no land muchless to claim any right over the suit land under the so called sale deeds of 1994 and 1996. It is further averred in the written statement that, plaintiffs husband earlier filed O.S. No.36 of 1996 for specific performance and for permanent injunction in respect of Ac.1-00 of land in S.No.1942 against Vanga Narayana Reddy and 1st defendants brother B.Linga Reddy and latter he amended the plaint by converting into one of suit for possession and it is pending that suit having colluded with Vanga Narayana Reddy obtained the so called sale deed No.3702/96 in the name of plaintiff for no even any land to purchase and deliver possession to claim ownership and the suit was again converted as declaration of title by amending the plaintiff herein as 2nd plaintiff and the trial Court dismissed the suit O.S. No.36 of 1992. Though the appeal was allowed, it is still pending in the second appellate stage before the High Court and even it was a suit for declaration and possession apart from second appeal pending against the 1st appellate Court judgment setting aside the trial Courts dismissal decree and judgment, there was no possession with plaintiff and her husband for the land covered by O.S. No.36 of 1996 and there is no even any E.P filed for recovery of possession pursuant to it and in the absence of even possession muchless title in dispute, the plaintiff has no locus standi even to claim that property in filing the suit and thereby it is a false litigation with baseless claim to harass and deserves dismissal with exemplary costs.

9) The sum and substance of which read from paras 9 to 13 that when the defendants-appellants contend with reference to their documents that the plaintiffs Exs.A-1 and A-2 so called sale deeds of 1994 and 1996 are created with no title or right even to vendor to alienate there is a title dispute therefrom and even from the Ex.B-3 so called consent decree in O.S. No.3 of 1981, the suit land of O.S. No.3 of 1981 situate in two places for Ac.2-07 guntas viz., 1-10 guntas at one place and Ac.0-37 guntas in another place and as per the 1st defendant and his brother Linga Reddy, they partitioned. However, the revenue authorities did not mutate the same as per which, Dasari Kuntaiah husband of the plaintiff obtained fresh sale deeds from Vanga Narayana Reddy in the name of his wife-the plaintiff, covered by Ex.A-1 document No.334/1994 and the said document not even executed by B.Linga Reddy is party to the suit and joint owner even as per the consent decree and in the absence of which there is substance to the title dispute. Further for his saying purchased Ac.0-18 guntas share of Kuntaiah out of Ac.0-27 guntas by defence and cause regularized by R.O.R proceedings, the plaintiffs husband went unsuccessful in challenge before the Joint Collector and even so far as O.S. No.36 of 1996 dismissal decree claimed allowed in appeal i.e., subject matter of second appeal and there was observation even in the judgment by the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet in the appeal suit which is at page 22 of the Ex.B-26 that it is just to knock away the extent of Ac.0-25 guntas in Ac.1-10 guntas in S.No.1942 plaintiff brought registered sale deed and the present suit filed pursuant to it in claiming over it and to deprive of the rights of the plaintiffs by approaching the Court with false plea and even in the suit Vanga Narayana Reddy deposed in his evidence which is also important regarding the sale transaction in favour of the suit 1st defendant B.Sathi Reddy and his brother Linga Reddy. Even from his deposition of his execution of Ex.A-1 and A-2 sale deeds of 1994 and 1996 in favour of plaintiff, the plaintiff must show possession and title which are in dispute thereunder and in fact plaintiffs husband filed O.S. No.8 of 1981 against Vanga Narayana Reddy and the 1st defendants brother Bejjanki Linga Reddy was that he purchased Ac.1-00 of land under sale deed dated 08.06.1972 and his vendor not executing sale deed and interfering in his possession, for specific performance originally and the common written statement of Vanga Narayana Reddy and Linga Reddy contention was he did not sell the land and the suit claim a false one and it appears pending suit there was collusion between husband of the plaintiff herein and Vanga Narayana Reddy in executing 1996 sale deed Ex.A-2 and there was observation including in the appeal judgment A.S. No.28 of 2001, Ex.A-6 that Linga Reddy, 2nd defendant failed to establish the land fallen to his share in the partition or he purchased and thereby he is liable to be evicted and as such plaintiffs entitled to seek recovery of possession and when such is the case mere execution of sale deed does not confer right to possession in the absence of execution to say plaintiff not in possession to the relief of injunction and from the previous litigations and from the cloud on the title also apart from no possession, the plaintiffs claim for bare injunction not tenable, that to the second appeal is pending even the first appeal allowed in favour of the plaintiff and her husband and there is no even in execution and taking delivery of possession thereunder to the claim of possession for any extent of the suit land and the trial Court did not consider even exhibits filed by the defendants and there is serious dispute regarding entries in the revenue records also that does not serve any purpose to claim possession thereunder and therefrom the C.M.A is allowed setting aside the temporary injunction order.