SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(AP) 365

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : T.V.NARAYANA
Mayuri Granites - Appellant
Versus
Venkateswara Granites - Respondent
Decided On : 07-20-95

The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of the lease and the equitable circumstances of the case.

Headnote:

lease - injunction - The court considered the lease granted to the respondent and passed an order directing status quo to be maintained, allowing mining operations for the plaintiff in a portion of the land, and permitting the respondent to carry out mining operations in another portion.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction for a piece of land, claiming to be the tenant under a lease agreement. The trial court granted temporary injunction for a portion of the land, and the plaintiff appealed seeking injunction for the entire land.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the lower appellate court's consideration of the lease and its order was proper, just, and equitable, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues: Dispute over lease existence, grant of temporary injunction, and legality of the interim injunction order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the lower appellate court's decision based on the consideration of the lease and the equitable circumstances of the case.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the lower appellate court was directed to hear and dispose of the case in accordance with the law.

T. V. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 21 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate judge, Warangal filed this Appeal against the order dated 16-5-1995 made in la. No. 294 of 1995 in C. M. A. No. 2 of 1995 by the learned Vacation Civil Judge (Addl. District Judge), Warangal.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as under: The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of Ac. 12-00 in S. No. 132 of Keshavapur village, Duggondi Mandal, Warangal District. The plaintiff claims to be the tenant of the respondent under lease agreement dated 21-11-1992 in respect of the said land. The respondent denied about the existing of the lease in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the said land. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, granted temporary injunction in respect of Ac. 3-00 only out of Ac. 12-00 and refused to grant injunction in respect of remaining Ac. 9-00. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal. In appeal CMA No. 2 /95, the plaintiff filed LA. No. 294/95 seeking temporary injunction in respect of the remaining Ac. 9-00 also. According to the plaintiff, the trial Court erred in considering the lease only in respect of Ac. 3-00; that the lease in question cannot be split up under law; as such the trial Court ought to have granted injunction in respect of total Ac. 12-00 of land. The respondent opposed that application by contending that there is no lease existing in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Ac. 12-00; that basing on the alleged licence granted by the Mining Department, the injunction was considered to that extent and as such it should be suspended. The lower appellate Court, after hearing the Counsel for both sides and after perusing the entire record, passed order directing status quo obtaining as on 16-5-1995 to be maintained and further directed the plaintiff to carry out mining operations in respect of Ac. 3-00 by haying ingress and agress to the said land from the road-side and the respondent shall not cause interference to the plaintiff to that extent. The lower appellate Court also directed the respondent not to disturb the machinery and material belonging to the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court also permitted the respondent to carry out mining operations in respect of 2l/2 acres of land as shown in the plan annexed to the licence proceedings.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the plaintiff preferred this appeal, assailing the same as contrary to law and opposed to facts and circumstances of the case.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate Court is not right in taking into consideration the lease granted in favour of the respondent on 15-5-1995 arid passing the impugned order. It is further contended that the appellant is granted lease in respect of the entire extent of Ac. 12-00 of land in S. No. 132; that the owners of the land received the lease amount also and that the appellant filed the receipts passed by the owners. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the order of interim injunction granted by this Court on 31-5-1995 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 148-A of C. P. C. He also contended that the appellant failed to furnish the copies of the application filed by him. He further contended that sub-section (3) of Section 148-A of CPC enjoins on the Court duty to serve notice of the application filed by the appellant on the respondent, who filed caveat. In support of his contention he relied upon a Bench decision of this Court reported in C. Seetaiah vs. Govt. of A. P. and another decision reported in M. G. Housing Colony Dev. Society vs. Devangapuri Gram Panchayat.

( 5 ) THE intention of the Legislature is that the caveator must be furnished with copies of petitions and documents filed by the other side and must be heard before any orders are passed and for this purpose imposes duty on both the Court and the applicant under sub-sections (



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top