Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.S.NARAYANA
Movva Rama Krishna - Appellant
Versus
D. Venkayyanayudu - Respondent
Decided On : 03/15/2007
Case No : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.530 of 2005
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 145 – Order 39 Rule 1 – Relief of temporary injunction - Peaceful possession - Schedule land - interim injunction - learned Counsel representing appellant had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded by the learned Judge and had specifically pointed out to Certified copy and would contend that in light of said documents, well supported by other documents as well appellant had established a prima facie case and refusal to grant temporary injunction in facts and circumstances cannot be sustained – Learned Counsel also would contend that when it is the specific case of the respondents-defendants that they are interested in only an extent of refusing temporary injunction to the total extent also cannot be sustained learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of the documents referred to supra and also would comment that the learned Judge failed to appreciate source of title of respondents in proper perspective since the same had originated from G.P.A. holder – Counsel also would contend that the learned Judge failed to note that vendors of respondents had claimed that they had purchased the lands from the G.P.A. holder who had not made any application to any competent authorities for mutation of their names in revenue records learned Counsel also would point out that G.P.A. Holder of respondents vendor also had not obtained any mutation of names in revenue records to establish alleged possession – Held, Contents of the developmental agreement if carefully examined, it appears possession had been delivered but however it was contended by the Counsel representing the appellant that the possession of such GPA to be taken as the possession of the real owner only and this would not alter the situation. It is needless to say that these aspects may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage but suffice to state that the documentary evidence may have to be appreciated to arrive at a conclusion whether a prima facie case had been established by the appellant-petitioner-plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of present case. Strong reliance was placed – It is true that contents of these documents would lend support in a way to the stand taken by the appellants – But however it is also pertinent to note that certain of the other important aspects documentary evidence placed by the respondents – the release deed sale deeds and MRO proceedings these documents would clearly go to show that in a way, prima facie these transactions were acted upon and hence at this stage, it cannot be said that these documents were never acted upon at all – There appears to be some confusion as can be seen from the rival contentions advanced by parties relating to origin of title – It appears several other sharers also are there apart from petitioner-plaintiff – When that being so all these aspects may have to be gone into while deciding suit and further factual controversies between parties may have to be decided on appreciation of other oral evidence which may be let-in by both parties and hence it may be just and proper to express further opinion relating to these controversial questions at this stage – It is needless to say that these findings which had been recorded by Court of first instance and documentary evidence which is being appreciated by this Court is for limited extent of appreciating whether it is a case where order impugned in C.M.A. either to be confirmed or to be disturbed in any way – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal being devoid of merit shall stand dismissed.
1. Heard Smt.Dyumani, the learned Counsel representing appellant/petitioner/plaintiff and Sri V.V.Ramana Rao, the learned Counsel representing respondents/respondents/defendants.
2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by an order made in I.A.No.1985/2005 in O.S.No.1062/2004 on the file of I-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The appellant herein-petitioner-plaintiff filed the said application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, in short, referred to as ‘Code’ for the purpose of convenience) praying for the relief of temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule lands admeasuring Ac.33.17 gts., comprising in Sy.Nos.109/1, 112/3.114/3, 115/3, 116/3, 117/3, 121/3, 122/3, 126 and part of 134 at Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, R. R.District.
3. The learned I-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District on appreciation of the documentary evidence placed before him, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.13, recorded certain findings and came to the conclusion that the appellant-petitioner-plaintiff was unable to establish prima facie case or balance of convenience or irreparable loss and ultimately dismissed the application vacating interim injunction granted on 12-8-2004. Hence the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal had been preferred by the appellant.
4. The appellant filed C.M.A.M.P.No.462/2007 praying for permission to file additional affidavit and certain additional documents to be marked as Ex.A.16 to Ex.A.23 – the agreement of sale dated 6-2-1996, Memorandum of Understanding dt.9-6-1996, pahanies for the year 2001-2002 and Electricity Bills for the months of July and August 2005. Certain reasons had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the said C.M.A.M.P.No.462/2007. It may also be stated that in C.M.P.No.1166/2005 in other C.M.A., C.M.A.No.530/2005, by Order dated 27-9-2005, this Court had observed as hereunder:-
“Ad-interim injunction granted earlier has been vacated by the trial Court by the impugned orders dt.6-4-2005 in I.A.No.1985/2004 in O.S.No.1062/2004 holding that the plaintiff suppressed the material facts; respondents 1 and 2 are said to have entered into a developmental agreement with regard to S.No.109/1 covering Ac.9-36 gts., and in the absence of any specific plea by the petitioner-plaintiff that respondents-defendants are interfering with other petition schedule property other than S.No.109/1 and in the absence of any prima facie case and balance of convenience and no loss would be caused to the petitioner-plaintiff if injunction is refused. The said finding arrived at by the trial Court is the subject matter of appeal. Unless the appeal is heard and disposed of, no temporary injunction can be granted in favour of the petitioner.
In view of the same, CMP is dismissed.
Post the CMA itself for final hearing on 7-11-2005.”
5. Smt.Dyumani, the learned Counsel representing appellant had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded by the learned Judge and had specifically pointed out to Ex.A.8 – Certified copy of Panchanama, Ex.A.9 and Ex.A.15 and would contend that in the light of the said documents, well supported by the other documents, Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7, Ex.A.10 and Ex.A.14 as well, the appellant had established a prima facie case and refusal to grant temporary injunction in the facts and circumstances cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would contend that when it is the specific case of the respondents-defendants that they are interested in only an extent of Ac.9.36 guntas in S.No.109/1, refusing temporary injunction to the total extent also cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of the documents referred to supra and also would comment that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the source of title of the res
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
