1976 Supreme(AP) 143
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : J.R.VIMADALAL
Ganapathi Reddy, Rami Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Duvvuri Chinnapa Reddy - Respondent
Decided On : 08-12-76
The court has jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage in extraordinary cases, and there is no limitation on its power to grant a mandatory injunction to restore the status quo prior to the suit.
Headnote:
Injunction - Property Dispute - The court granted a mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage, considering the extraordinary nature of the case and the immense inconvenience to the plaintiff's family. The defendants failed to prove exclusive ownership of the disputed lane, and the court found no limitation on its power to grant a mandatory injunction to restore the status quo prior to the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff and the defendants are owners of properties separated by a lane. The plaintiff claimed common ownership of the lane and alleged that the defendants unlawfully closed a sluice through which he discharged water. The lower court granted a mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage, with conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower appellate court had jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage, considering the extraordinary nature of the case. It concluded that immense inconvenience would be caused to the plaintiff's family if the injunction was refused, and there would be hardly any inconvenience to the defendants if the sluice was ordered to be opened pending the suit's disposal.
Issues: The main issue was the ownership of the disputed lane and the right to discharge water into it. The defendants made it an issue of prestige, failing to prove exclusive ownership. The court also addressed the limitation on granting a mandatory injunction to restore the status quo prior to the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court had jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage in extraordinary cases. The defendants' failure to prove exclusive ownership and the immense inconvenience to the plaintiff's family influenced the court's decision to grant the injunction. The court found no limitation on its power to grant a mandatory injunction to restore the status quo prior to the suit.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the order passed by the lower appellate court was upheld. The court found no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision, considering all matters properly.
( 2 ) IT is true that ordinarily a Court does not grant a mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage, but that is not because it has no jurisdiction to do so. In a proper case which must be rare, the Court certainly has jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage. If on the facts before it, the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has exercised that jurisdiction, considering the present case to be of an extraordinary nature, i fail to see how this Court can interfere in revision with that order, which is of a discretionary nature. In my opinion, the present revision application is not maintainable on that ground.
( 3 ) EVEN on facts, the defendants seem to have made this more an issue of prestige than anything else. As the learned judge of the lower Court has pointed out, they have not placed any material whatsoever to show that the lane is in their exclusive ownership. What is more, the sketch shows that they have a direct entrance from the main road and that they have their own bath rooms on the side of the lane. Considering all these factors and several other circumstances, pointed out to him, as well as the report of the Commissioner, the learned Judge of the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that immense inconvenience would be caused to the womenfolk of the plaintiff s family by refusing to grant the mandatory injunction that was sought at an interlocutory stage, and that there would be hardly any inconvenience to the defendants if the sluice is ordered to be opened pending the disposal of the suit. The main grievance of the learned advocate for the petitioners was that a mandatory injunction cannot be granted so as to restore the status quo prior to the institution of the suit, but there is no such limitation on the court s power to grant a mandatory injunction of that nature in an appropriate case, particularly when the status quoar. tehas been altered shortly prior to the suit and that act itself was the direct and proximate cause as a result of which the suit came to be filed. Reliance was sought to be placed upon a decision of a single Judge of the Madras High court in the case of Gopayya v. Sobhanadri, but I do not read the judgment as laying down any such proposition. What is stated therein is :"it is often a predominant necessity to maintain the status quo at the time of the institution of the