Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 840
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.H.NASIR
M.Samuel - Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Kumar - Respondent
Decided On : 11-20-95
A party who is aware that the title to a property is disputed and a decree for possession has been passed in favor of the opposing party is not entitled to an injunction simpliciter.
Headnote:
INJUNCTION - TITLE DISPUTE - POSSESSION DECREE - ENTITLEMENT: When a party is aware that the title to a property is disputed and a decree for possession has been passed in favor of the opposing party, they are not entitled to an injunction simpliciter.
Fact of the Case:
M. Samuel filed a suit for perpetual injunction against Ramesh Kumar, seeking to restrain him from interfering with his possession of the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and M. Samuel appealed. The appellate court also dismissed the appeal. M. Samuel then filed a second appeal in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that M. Samuel was not entitled to an injunction simpliciter because he was aware that the title to the property was disputed and a decree for possession had been passed in favor of Ramesh Kumar.
Issues: Whether a party is entitled to an injunction simpliciter when they are aware that the title to a property is disputed and a decree for possession has been passed in favor of the opposing party.
Ratio Decidendi: A party who is aware that the title to a property is disputed and a decree for possession has been passed in favor of the opposing party is not entitled to an injunction simpliciter. This is because the grant of an injunction is an equitable remedy, and a party who seeks equitable relief must come to court with clean hands. A party who has failed to assert their title to a property in a timely manner cannot be said to have come to court with clean hands.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the second appeal.
( 1 ) THIS case has a chequered history. The parties are divided in three groups (1) Ramesh Kumar, (2) m. Samuel, and (3) Swami Das and Devi das (sons of M. Samuel ). They locked horns as far back as in the year 1974. The dispute among them is with regard to the title and possession of the property bearing h. No. 5-9-177, 5-9-177/1 and 5-9-178 situated at Chapel Road, Hyderabad.
( 2 ) THE S. A. No. 546 of 1992 emanates from the proceedings, which commenced with the filing of O. S. No. 462 of 1984 by m. Samuel against Ramesh Kumar on the file of the VIII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, seeking perpetual Injunction, restraining the defendant (Ramesh Kumar) from interfering with the possession. O. S. No. 462 of 1984 was dismissed by judgment andorder dated 16-8-1988. Against the said order of dismissal, M Samuel filed an appeal a. S. No. 316 of 1988 on the file of the additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad. However, the same was dismissed with costs on 14-10-1992. Aggrieved by the said order, M. Samuel, the appellant herein has filed this second appeal seeking annulment of the order passed by the courts below.
( 3 ) C. RP. No. 3671 of 1992 emanates from the proceedings, which commenced with the filing of O. S. No. 3617 of 1979 by ramesh Kumar against Swami Das and devi Das for declaration of title and possession, on the file of the VIII Assistant judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The same was decreed in favour of plaintiff (Ramesh Kumar ). The defendants, Swami das and Devi Das, filed A. S. No. 47 of 1983 against the said decretal order. However, the same was dismissed and the decretal order of the trial Court was confirmed. Thereafter Ramesh Kumar filed E. P. No. 12 of 1984 for the execution of the decree passed in O. S. No. 3617of 1979. M Samuel, the father of Swami Das and Devi Das, obstructed the execution of the said decree. Ramesh Kumar then filed E. A. No. 80 of 1985 in EP. No. 12of 1984 in O. S. No. 3617 of 1979 for removal of obstruction the same washowever, dismissed on 16-8-1988 by the viii Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad. Against this order of dismissal, ramesh Kumar preferred an appeal cm. ANo. 227 of 1989 before the Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the same was allowed with costs on 14-10-1992. Aggrieved by the said judgment m. Samuel has filed this C. R. P.
( 4 ) IT appears from the record that ramesh Kumar filed R. C. No. 234 of 1974 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, hyderabad, and the same was allowed directing the tenants to vacate the suit schedule property. However, according to ramesh Kumar, the tenants, i. e. the sons of m. Samuel, again trespassed into the suit schedule property after eviction, and it was in this situation that he had to file O. S. No. 3617 of 1979 for declaration of title and possession.
( 5 ) AS the subject matter of both, the s. A. No. 546 and C. R. P. No. 3671 of 1992 is one and the same, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.
( 6 ) THE appellant, M. Samuel s case in short is that he purchased the suit schedule property from one Mir Khursheed Ali Baig for Rs. 82-8-0 ps. by registered sale deed in the year 1946 and raised kutcha construction thereon. He was residing with his family members in that property. His two sons were living separately after attainingmajority. They were not on good terms with him since long. The appellant was away for five years for developing his agricultural lands in kothulapuram village of Medak District. The respondent, Ramesh Kumar obtained a decree in O. S. No. 3617 of 1979 behind his back. The appellant came to know about the same when the Bailiff of Court went to the suit property and asked him to vacate, but the bailiff went away when he showed the documents of title. On making immediate enquiry, the appellant came to know that ramesh Kumar filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, to break open the lock and to deliver posse
