L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS C. M. A is filed against the order of the learned Principal senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District dated 26-3-2004 in LA. No. 1909 of 2003 in o. S. No. 910 of 2003.

( 2 ) THE appellant filed O. S. No. 910 of 2003 against the respondents namely, Sri balaji Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Alwal, ranga Reddy District and the Assistant commissioner of Endowments, Ranga Reddy district, seeking the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was filed in the context of initiation of proceedings by the respondents before the deputy Commissioner of Endowments, hyderabad in O. A. No. 78 of 2002. In the said proceedings, the appellant was declared as an encroacher and she was directed to be evicted from the premises. The petitioner in a way challenged the findings of the deputy Commissioner of Endowments in o. A. No. 78 of 2002 in the present suit by availing remedy under Section 84 of the endowments Act (in short the Act ).

( 3 ) LA. No. 1909 of 2003 was filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Initially an order of status quo was granted. The respondents entered appearance. They pleaded that the appellant filed O. S. No. 379 of 1991 in the court of the Junior Civil Judge, East and north, Ranga Reddy District on an earlier occasion in respect of the same property and that the suit was dismissed on merits on 25-3-1997 after recording a finding that the property in question was a choultry constructed by one Dacha Rajaiah and that the claim of the appellant that she is the daughter of the donor is without any basis. They have also pleaded that A. S. No. 59 of 1997 filed by the appellant against the said decree was dismissed by the Court of learned District Judge on 3-12-2001 and second Appeal No. 1063 of 2002 filed before this Court was also dismissed on 20-1-2003.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court took the contentions of the appellant on one hand and respondents on the other into account and dismissed the LA.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the very fact that the Deputy commissioner of Endowments directed eviction of the appellant discloses that she is in possession of the property and as such she was entitled to be granted temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. He contends that the dismissal of the suit for perpetual injunction simpliciter cannot be treated as a bar for claiming temporary injunction in a suit filed for comprehensive relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. He submits that the appellant would be put to irreparable loss if she is dispossessed after continuous possession for over two generations.

( 6 ) THE respondents filed caveat. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that once the Trial Court, appellate court and the High Court declared in successive proceedings that the appellant is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction, no temporary injunction can be granted in her favour. He submits that appellant has been trying to squat on the property on one pretext or other, even after the Courts declared that she does not have semblance of right over the property.

( 7 ) THE appellant filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, faced with the orders passed by the Deputy commissioner of Endowments in O. A. No. 78 of 2002 declaring her as encroacher and directing her eviction. The appellant wanted protection of her possession through an order of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit.

( 8 ) THE fact that the petitioner was directed to be evicted suggests that she is in possession of the property. That being the case, normally there should not be any objection for granting temporary injunction to protect her possession, pending disposal of the suit. It was so held by this Court in B. Narsinga Raj v. Government of A. P. , 2004 (1) ALD 67.

( 9 ) IN the present case, however, the matter is not that simple. The appellant herself filed O.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document