Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.
Dasari Laxmi
Versus
Bejjenki Sathi Reddy & Another
Civil Revision Petition No. 76 of 2014
Decided on : 21-10-2014
Civil Procedure Code - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Constitution of India,1950 -Article 227 - Balance of convenience - Seek injunction - land holders - unsocial elements obstructed - Revision petition is sought to be filed respondent questioning reversing order passed by lower appellate Court setting aside temporary injunction granted file of Principal Junior Civil Judges Court in favor o revision petitioner pending disposal of suit in application Order Rules - Plaint and petition schedule consists of lands - It is important to mention case of plaintiff in plaint running in hardly three pages that is owner and possessor of plaint schedule land by virtue of her purchase from registered sale deed registered sale deed to say she got title with possession for plaint schedule two sale deeds of supra from same vendor - Further averred that used to draw water from others bore well and by cultivating dry and wet crops enjoying the same with possession - Her further claim is that defendants of suit no other than father and son are neighbors and adjoining land owners and from the hike of land values they with some unsocial elements started trying to grab plaintiff’s land by disturbing and interrupting plaintiff’s agricultural operations - Held, Court held in Government that High Court in the writ petition when granted interim protection order though same was on facts found improper held due to afflux of time since said interim protection order granted of years proper course would be to operate said order till disposal by directing expeditious disposal of matter within three months - It was held that Court can while passing order give directions with reference to facts and circumstances and directed expeditious disposal of before trial Court - This Court thus could not venture to interfere with impugned order of the lower appellate Court but for giving following directions there is an expert injunction in favor of plaintiff at time of filing of suit obtained that continued by making it absolute and even after lower appellate Courts reversal order setting aside injunction order by filing petition Article of Constitution of India before this Court there is suspension of order - Petition dismissed(Paras 30 to 32)
The revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the lower appellate court's order dated 27.11.2013 in C.M.A. No.3 of 2013, which set aside the trial court's temporary injunction order dated 31.01.2013 in I.A. No.438 of 2011 in O.S. No.93 of 2011 (suit for permanent injunction). [2000459520001]: 1)
Plaint schedule property: Ac.2-03 1/3 guntas in Sy.No.1942 of Kallakunta Colony, Prashanthnagar, Siddipet Mandal, Medak District. [2000459520001]: 1)
Plaintiff's case: Owner and possessor via registered sale deeds No.334/94 (Ac.1-03 1/3 guntas) and No.3702/96 (Ac.1.00) from Vanga Narayana Reddy; cultivates dry and wet crops using others' borewell; defendants (father and son, neighboring owners) attempting to grab land due to rising values, interfering since January 2011. [2000459520001]: 2)
Suit filed on 13.05.2011 for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interference; notionally valued at Rs.5,000/-. [2000459520001]: 2)
Plaintiff's documents: Copies of sale deeds, pahanis (2006-07 to 2010-11), valuation certificate. [2000459520002]: 3)
Defendants' counter: Plaintiff has no title or possession; her husband (Dasari Kuntaiah) behind false claim; vendor Vanga Narayana Reddy (1/3 share in Sy.No.1942 total Ac.13-30 guntas) already alienated his entire share in four portions prior to plaintiff's sale deeds; detailed history of partitions, sales, exchanges, and prior suits (O.S. No.3/1981, O.S. No.36/1996). [2000459520003]: 4) (!) (!) (!) (!) [2000459520004]: 5) [2000459520005]: 6)
Defendants claim ownership of specific extents in Sy.No.1942 via partition, exchange, purchases; 1st defendant gifted Ac.4-27 guntas to 2nd defendant in 2009; plaintiff at best entitled to Ac.0-25 guntas surrounded by defendants' lands. [2000459520005]: 6) [2000459520006]: 7)
Prior litigation: O.S. No.36/1996 by plaintiff's husband (later added plaintiff) for specific performance/possession/declaration over part of suit land; trial court dismissed, first appeal allowed with possession direction, but no execution; second appeal pending. [2000459520006]: 7)
Cloud on title and possession; suit for bare injunction not maintainable without declaration. [2000459520007]: 8)
Lower appellate court set aside injunction due to title dispute, prior litigations, no possession established, discrepancies in revenue records. [2000459520008]: 9)
Plaintiff's revision arguments: Prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury; trial court correctly appreciated evidence. [2000459520009]: 10)
Defendants' response: Requires localization via Commissioner; no title/possession; limited scope under Art.227. [2000459520010]: 11)
Injunction is equitable discretionary relief to maintain status quo; requires clean hands, no suppression. [2000459520013]: 14) [2000459520014]: 15)
Plaintiff suppressed prior litigation over part of suit property; no pleading on possession thereunder despite first appeal success but no execution. [2000459520015]: 16)
Needs localization of Sy.No.1942, verification of vendor's share/alienations; cloud on title affects bare injunction suit. [2000459520015]: 16)
Prima facie case requires more than triable issue; serious question, bona fide claim; consider balance of convenience, irreparable injury. [2000459520016]: 17) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Relevant provisions of Specific Relief Act (Ss.36-39,41) apply to temporary injunctions under O.39 Rr.1,2 CPC. [2000459520017]: 18)
Appellate court can interfere if trial court ignored principles; no prima facie case here. [2000459520018]: 19)
All three ingredients (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury) required; even if satisfied, discretion allows refusal; security mandatory. [2000459520019]: 20) (!) (!) [2000459520020]: 21) [2000459520021]: 22)
Courts can impose terms/conditions, appoint receiver/commissioner pending suit instead of injunction. [2000459520023]: 24) [2000459520024]: 25) [2000459520025]: 26)
Limited scope of Art.227: No re-appreciation; only for jurisdictional error, patent perversity, gross injustice; sparingly exercised. [2000459520026]: 27) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
High Court declines interference with appellate order. (!) (!)
Directions: Continue ex-parte injunction (suspended appellate reversal) till suit disposal; trial court to expedite disposal within 3 months, day-to-day trial; consider receiver/commissioner/terms if needed without delaying trial. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
1) This revision petition is sought to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Plaintiff/respondent questioning reversing order passed by the lower appellate Court dated 27.11.2013 in C.M.A. No.3 of 2013 setting aside temporary injunction granted in I.A. No.438 of 2011 in O.S. No.93 of 2011 (suit for bare injunction) dated 31.01.2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Siddipet in favour of the revision petitioner herein pending disposal of the suit in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The plaint and petition schedule consists of lands Ac.1-03 1/3 guntas and Ac.1.00 (total Ac.2-03 1/3 guntas) in Sy.No.1942 of Kallakunta Colony, Prashanthnagar, Siddipet Mandal, Medak District.
2) It is important to mention the case of the plaintiff in the plaint running in hardly three pages that she is owner and possessor of the plaint schedule land by virtue of her purchase from Vanga Narayana Reddy viz., Ac.1-03 1/3 guntas vide registered sale deed No.334/94 and Ac.1-00 under registered sale deed No.3702/96 to say she got title with possession for the plaint schedule under the two sale deeds of 1994 and 1996 supra, from same vendor. She further averred that she used to draw water from others’ bore well and by cultivating dry and wet crops, enjoying the same with possession. Her further claim is that the defendants 1 and 2 of the suit no other than father and son are the neighbours and adjoining land owners and from the hike of land values they with some unsocial elements started trying to grab the plaintiff’s land by disturbing and interrupting the plaintiff’s agricultural operations and in that way in January, 2011 they entered into the suit land and caused interference with her agricultural work and she could protect her possession with the help of surrounding land holders and latter on 01.05.2011 when the plaintiff is cutting her paddy crop, the defendants with unsocial elements obstructed the plaintiff and threatened to dispossess and again on 10.05.2011 obstructed the plaintiff while she was ploughing the suit land and when she questioned, they left by threatening that they would come with larger force and dispossess and she approached orally Siddipet I Town P.S, since they stated it is a civil lis to seek injunction, she filed the suit being the owner with possession having prima facie case and balance of convenience and will be put to irreparable loss unless the relief granted from the cause of action supra of the Court having jurisdiction by notionally valued plaint relief for Rs.5,000/-in seeking decree and judgment in her favour against the defendants granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the suit land and for costs and other reliefs.
3) Along with the plaint, she filed the temporary injunction application with her affidavit with self same averments of the plaint with no little improvement, the application seeking to grant exparte ad-interim injunction pending disposal of the suit in I.A. No.438 of 2011. The suit and the temporary injunction were filed on 13.05.2011. The enclosures with the plaint are C.C of the registered sale deed No.334/94, C.C of registered sale deed No.3702/96, C.C of the pahanis of the year 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and valuation certificate.
4) The defendants as respondents to the injunction application filed counter dated 03.02.2012 and before that even they filed their written statement on 04.11.2011 and the counter averments are part of the written statement averments. Thereby to avoid repetition it is apt to refer the sum and substance of the contest of the defendants in the suit as well as the application for temporary injunction with 20 documents enclosed viz., C.C of written statement, Judgment and decree in O.S. No.36 of 1996, C.C of written statement and decree in O.S. No.3 of 1981, xerox copy of 13 (B) certificates dated 22.12.1993, attested copies of the pahan
gpt-4
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
