2005 Supreme(SC) 302

2005(2) Supreme 257
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
B.P. Singh & Arun Kumar, JJ.
Kanchusthabam Satyanarayana and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Namuduri Atchutaramayya and Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6892-6893 of 1999
With
C.A.Nos. 6894-6895 of 1999
Decided on 22-2-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.B. Sanyal, Sr. Advocate, Chava Badri Nath Babu, C.M. Angadi and Satish Vig, Advoctes.
For the Respondents : A.S. Nambiar, Sr. Advocate,­ Sewa Ram, Mrs. Shanta Vasudevan and P.K. Manohar, Advocates.

Important point
Grant of discretionary relief such as injunction being in nature of equitable relief must be granted inter-alia on consideration of equity and justice and where plaintiff himself is guilty of inequitable conduct cannot claim such ­relief.

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 38—Permanent injunction suit—An equitable remedy—Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956—Sections 16 and 18—Respondent-defendant was tenant in suit property consisting of coconut garden and vacant land under appellant-plaintiff—Eviction order passed by Tenancy Tehsildar in the eviction petition filed by appellant and in execution of that eviction order appellant ­obtained possession—Eviction order was set aside in appeal and order was confirmed by High Court in writ as well in writ appeal and appellate Court ­ordered restitution of possession—Suit for injunction by plaintiff-appellant on plea that suit land being coconut grove, Tenancy Act was inapplicable—Suit decreed by trial Court and decree was confirmed in 1st appeal—High Court set aside the decree in second appeal holding that injunction being equitable relief, plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to—Appeal—Equitable relief asked for in suit in question should not have been granted to appellant so as to ­defeat order of restitution—Appellant could not be permitted to retain possession by challenging the order as being without jurisdiction when jurisdiction was invoked by appellant himself—Impugned judgment suffered no illegality.

       Held : Having heard the parties, we are satisfied that no interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is called for. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the Appellant himself invoked the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act to seek eviction of the tenant. He succeeded before the original authority and in execution of the order obtained possession of the land, but lost before the appellate authority. The appellate authority directed restitution and therefore, an order was passed for putting the respondent in possession of the suit land pursuant to the appellate authority’s order dismissing the application for eviction of the respondent. The Appellant sought to challenge the orders by filing Writ Petitions before the High Court. Those Writ Petitions, and thereafter the Writ Appeals, were dismissed. It was only thereafter that the Appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondent-tenant from interfering with his possession, which he had secured pursuant to an order of eviction which was set aside in appeal. (Para 10)

       In fact the suit for injunction was filed with a view to defeat the process of restitution which followed the Appellate authority’s order. It is now sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the tenancy courts had no jurisdiction and therefore, the order of restitution also has no force. If we accept the contention of the appellant that the order passed by the tenancy courts at his instance are without jurisdiction and void then in equity the respondent should be put back in possession of the land in question so as to obtain status quo ante, because the appellant himself obtained possession of the land by executing the order of eviction passed under the Act at his instance. We are satisfied that equitable relief of the nature asked for in the suit in question should not have been granted in favour of the Appellant so as to defeat the order of restitution passed by the revenue authorities under the Tenancy Act whose jurisdiction under the Tenancy Act was invoked by the Appellant himself. The appellant cannot be permitted to retain possession by challenging the order as being without jurisdiction particularly when the jurisdiction was invoked by the appellant himself, only because the ultimate order has gone against him. The grant of discretionary relief such as injunction being in the nature of equitable relief must be granted inter-alia on considerations of equity and justice, and the Appellant who is himself guilty of inequitable conduct cannot claim such relief. Therefore, we find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, assuming for the sake of argument that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and even going to the extent of assuming that the tenancy courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition filed by appellant himself, this was an appropriate case in which injunction ought not to have been granted. Having obtained an advantage by invoking the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Tenancy Act, the Appellant cannot be allowed to retain that advantage by turning around and challenging the jurisdiction of the same authorities under the Tenancy Act. Even under the Code of Civil Procedure an order of Restitution is stayed only in exceptional circumstances. We, therefore, concur with the view of the High Court and dismiss these appeals. (Para 11)