Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SAMBASIVA RAO, P.JAGMOHAN REDDY
Evuru Venkata Subbayya - Appellant
Versus
Srishti Veerayya - Respondent
Decided On : 04-28-67
INJUNCTION - MANDATORY AND PROHIBITORY - EXECUTION - ORDER 21, RULE 32 (5) AND SECTION 51 (E), CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, who was the 1st plaintiff, and 4 others, plaintiffs 2 to 5, took on lease from the respondents the tank bed area and cultivated virginia tobacco, which does not require much water. In the lease deed it was stated that the "lessees would be at liberty to let out water in tank bed area through sluices marked A and B in the plan attached to the plaint, which are no other than the two sluices through which the Gadi Vagu used to empty itself."
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Order 21, Rule 32 (5) applies only to mandatory injunctions and not to prohibitory injunctions. The court also held that Section 51 (e) read with Section 151, C. P. C. cannot be used to direct the respondents to remove the bund, as this would be giving a fresh cause of action to the decree-holder.
Issues: 1. Whether Order 21, Rule 32 (5) applies to both mandatory and prohibitory injunctions? 2. Whether Section 51 (e) read with Section 151, C. P. C. can be used to direct the respondents to remove the bund?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Order 21, Rule 32 (5) and held that it applies only to mandatory injunctions and not to prohibitory injunctions. The court reasoned that the word "injunction" in sub-rule (5) has been qualified by the words "has not been obeyed" and the rule days that in the even of disobedience of the injunction the Court may direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree-holder or some other person appointed by the Court. This could only be a mandatory direction. 2. The court held that Section 51 (e) read with Section 151, C. P. C. cannot be used to direct the respondents to remove the bund, as this would be giving a fresh cause of action to the decree-holder.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with costs.
( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal filed on the grant of leave by our learned brother Kumarayya, J. , involves the determination of the true scope and ambit of clause (5) of Rule 32 of Order 21 and Section 51 (e), Civil Procedure Code.
( 2 ) THE brief facts which give rise to the question posed before us are as follows: The tank in the shrotriem village of Annasamudram of which the respondents are the shrot riemdars, was in a state of disrepair and issue for several years past. The bund had breaches and the source of the tank, "gadi Vagu" would empty itself through two wide sluices. Because of these breaches water could not be trapped and it was not possible t have wet cultivation. The appellant who was the 1st plaintiff, and 4 others, plaintiffs 2 to 5, took on lease from the respondents the tank bed area and cultivated virginia tobacco, which does not require much water. In the lease deed it was stated that the "lessees would be at liberty to let out water in tank bed area through sluices marked A and B in the plan attached to the plaint, which are no other than the two sluices through which the Gadi Vagu used to empty itself. Thereafter the plaintiffs expended moneys and prepared the land fit for cultivation. But the villagers started interfering with its cultivation by raising large earthen bunds at the sluices A and B and trapping water, which made it impossible for the plaintiffs to cultivate tobacco. The plaintiffs took proceedings under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code and though they were successful to a certain extent, they could not get a permanent remedy, inasmuch as the two sluices had already been blocked by the earthen bunds. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a suit, O. S. No. 79/55, for the issue of a perpetual and a mandatory injunction in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool, against the respondents herein in a representative capacity, under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. as representing the entire body of villagers both of Patna Annasamudram and Kotha Annasamudram. The suit was eventually decreed on 16-1-1957. It may be stated that from paragraph 4 of the Judgment of the Subordinate Judge, it would appear that as a consequence of injunction orders passed in I. A. No. 675/55 Respondents 1 to 3 i. e. , defendants 1 t o3 in the suit who are the elders of the two villages. had removed the bund which they had put up in the lands. But notwithstanding the fact that there was no bund at the time of the passing of the decree in O. S. No. 79/55 on 16-1-1957, there were mandatory directions given under that decree, the executability of which is now the subject matter of this appeal. The terms of the decree passed on 16-1-1957 are as below:"1. That the defendants and other villagers of Patha and Kotha Annasamudrams be and hereby are restricted by means of a permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs enjoyment of the schedule mentioned properties: 2. That the defendants and the villagers of Patha and Kotha Annasamudrams be and hereby are directed by means of a mandatory injunction to remove the earthen bunds put up by them in the north and southern sluices marked A and B in the plaint plan attached hereto; 3. That in default of the defendants and others (set out in clause (2) supra) removing the sluices directed as per clause (2) above, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to get the said sluices removed through Court at the expense of the defendants and the said villagers. "after the passing of the decree no steps were taken to execute it, but later, as some disputes arose between the respondents and the plaintiffs in respect of the lease, the respondents filed a suit, O. S. No. 68/60 in the Court of the District Munsif, Markapur, for an injunction against the appellant herein and 4 others (plaintiffs in O. S. 79/55 ). By a separate application, they prayed for a temporary injunction restraining the appellant and others (plaintiffs in O. S. 79/55) from interfering with the rights of
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.