Back
2021 Supreme(SC) 826
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad)
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
P. Satyanarayana – Appellant
Versus
Nandyala Rama Krishna Reddy - Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11286 of 2021
Decided on : 16-12-2021
For the Petitioner(s):Somanadri Goud Katam, Sudipto Sircar, Ponnam Mahesh Babu, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):D. Ramakrishna Reddy, S. Arif Ali Zaidi, D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Previous proceeding will not be an impediment in way of plaintiff filing suit for injunction.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 – Interim Injunction – Grant of – Title declaratory suit – High Court took note of fact that under Pahani for year 2003-2004, there was a subdivision of land in Survey No.272 into Survey No. 272/A and 272/AA and that Pahanis of all subsequent years in respect of Survey no.272/A were in favour of predecessors-in-title of respondent-plaintiff – On the basis of these findings, High Court reversed Order of trial Court and granted an interim injunction in favour of respondent-plaintiff – This is not a case warranting interference under Article 136 of Constitution – Previous proceeding will not be an impediment in way of respondent-plaintiff filing present suit and seeking injunction – Dismissal of application for injunction in prior suit, was on account of fact that photographs showed land to be an open vacant land – Impugned order of High Court upheld. (Paras 13, 16 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Respondent herein filed a suit (i) for a declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; (ii) for a further declaration that the Gift Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1987 executed in favour of the petitioner herein was null and void; and (iii) for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment. Pending suit the respondent also moved an interlocutory application for an interim order of injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment and possession of the suit property. By an Order dated 11.02.2020, the trial Court dismissed the application for injunction. Challenging the said order of dismissal, respondent filed an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. By an Order dated 2.06.2021, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad allowed the appeal and granted an interim order of injunction in favour of the respondent, pending disposal of the suit. It is against the said order that the defendant in the suit has come up with the present special leave petition.
Findings of Court:
At the time when this Court ordered notice in the above special leave petition on 2.08.2021, this Court was impressed prima facie with the argument that the withdrawal of the prior suit by the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff would have a serious bearing upon the prayer for interim injunction in the present suit.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. The respondent herein filed a suit (i) for a declaration that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; (ii) for a further declaration that the Gift Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1987 executed in favour of the petitioner herein was null and void; and (iii) for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment.
2. Pending suit the respondent also moved an interlocutory application for an interim order of injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment and possession of the suit property. By an Order dated 11.02.2020, the trial Court dismissed the application for injunction.
3. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the respondent filed an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By an Order dated 2.06.2021, the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad allowed the appeal and granted an interim order of injunction in favour of the respondent, pending disposal of the suit. It is against the said order that the defendant in the suit has come up with the present special leave petition.
4. We have heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.
5. The suit schedule property is an agricultural dry land measuring acres 1.00 Gts, out of the total extent of acres 2.20 Gts, in Survey No.272/A, in Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. The case of the respondent-plaintiff in the suit was:
(i) that he purchased the suit schedule property under a registered Sale deed dated 09.12.2015 from one Mekala Ram Reddy;
(ii) that the said Mekala Ram Reddy had purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 25.11.2008 from one Pannala Ram Reddy and others;
(iii) that after the purchase, he got the revenue records mutated in his name;
(iv) that the vendor of the plaintiff held Patta bearing No.1159 and the respondent himself got a Pattadar passbook under Patta No.1464;
(v) that when he started construction of a compound wall and a room in the suit property in January, 2016, the defendant attempted to interfere, forcing the respondent-plaintiff to lodge a police complaint on 6.01.2016;
(vi) that since the police did not take any action, the petitioner defendant came to the spot on 08.01.2016 and tried to demolish the compound wall;
(vi) that the petitioner-defendant also lodged a police complaint, admitting the construction of the compound wall by the respondent plaintiff;
(v) that when he perused the police compliant, he came to know that the petitioner-defendant was claiming title by virtue of a Gift Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1987;
(vi) that however, the enquiries made with the office of the Tehsildar indicated that what was in possession of the petitioner-defendant was the land in Survey No.272/AA and not Survey No.272/A; and
(vii) that, therefore, he was constrained to file the suit.
6. In the written statement, the petitioner-defendant claimed:
(i) that the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff had earlier instituted a suit in O.S. No.603 of 2015 seeking a decree of permanent injunction;
(ii) that the application for interim injunction filed in the said suit was dismissed on 11.08.2015;
(iii) that thereafter, the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff sold the property to the plaintiff under a registered Sale Deed dated 9.12.2015;
(iv) that after such sale, the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff 16.12.1975 withdrew his suit as not pressed on 2.03.2016;
(v) that the petitioner-defendant got the suit scheduled property under a Gift Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1987;
(vi) that, therefore, all subsequent sale transactions are not valid;
(vii) that any mutation in revenue records and the issuance of Pattadar passbook are of no consequence; and
(viii) that, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
7. To subst
