Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. Chandra Kumar, J.
Sri Durga Kala Mandir – Appellant
Vs.
S. Pulla Rao – Respondent
SA No. 288 of 2004
Decided On : 27-10-2014
Seeking for injunction - This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment passed in AS No. 39 of 2002 by the IE Additional District Judge, (FTC-II), Khammam, whereby and whereunder the appellate Judge has confirmed the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 60 of 1996 by the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. The appeal is admitted on the following question of law. Whether the plaintiff can maintain a suit seeking for injunction against the real owner asserting the possession and seeking protection from the Court – Held, the plaintiff that Subba Rao who was the original owner of the property when the plaintiff purchased the property permitted them to make some constructions in his land. Though, it appears that the plaintiff was in possession of the property on the date of filing of the suit, but it is not entitled for injunction and no injunction can be issued against the true owner – Petition dismissed
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The plaintiff, M/s. Durga Kala Mandir, claims to be the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property since 1976, having made constructions such as bore wells, pipelines, a cycle stand, and other structures for the purpose of operating a theatre (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The plaintiff's case is that the property was purchased from the original owner, and the plaintiff has been enjoying possession openly and paying property taxes since 1976. The plaintiff also alleges that the original owner permitted construction and use of the vacant space to the north of the property (!) .
The defendant claims to have title to a specific portion of the property (1994 square yards) on the northern side, supported by title deeds and municipal records. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff does not have possession of the entire extent claimed and that the northern boundary includes the property of the defendant (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts below found that the plaintiff failed to prove possession of the disputed northern area and that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to establish exclusive possession or ownership over the entire property. The courts also noted discrepancies in the boundary descriptions and the absence of concrete proof of possession of the disputed site (!) (!) .
It was determined that the defendant holds prima facie title to the disputed site, and the plaintiff's claim for injunction against the true owner is not sustainable. The law supports that an injunction cannot be issued against the owner of the property when the plaintiff lacks clear title or possession (!) (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that possession is linked to title and that a person claiming possession must provide detailed pleadings, including the basis of possession, ownership details, and conduct over the years. The plaintiff's failure to establish such detailed possession weakens its claim (!) (!) .
The courts also noted that the plaintiff had knowledge of the defendant's ownership and had admitted to the defendant's title in certain documents. The plaintiff's attempt to seek injunction against the defendant, who is the owner, was therefore unfounded (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the appellate and trial courts dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction against the defendant, who is the true owner of the disputed property, and that the plaintiff's claim was based on insufficient and suppressed facts (!) (!) (!) .
The judgment underscores that in cases involving property rights, the primary consideration is the title, and possession alone does not suffice to obtain an injunction against the owner. It also highlights the importance of full disclosure of facts and documents by the party claiming possession (!) (!) .
The appeal was dismissed, and the courts confirmed that the defendant's title and possession negate the plaintiff's claim for injunction, emphasizing that no injunction can be granted against the true owner when the plaintiff has not established a clear and lawful right to possession (!) (!) .
These points summarize the court's reasoning, findings on possession and title, and the legal principles applied regarding injunctions against the true owner.
B. Chandra Kumar, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 23.2.2004 passed in AS No. 39 of 2002 by the IE Additional District Judge, (FTC-II), Khammam, whereby and whereunder the appellate Judge has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1998 passed in OS No. 60 of 1996 by the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. The appeal is admitted on the following question of law. Whether the plaintiff can maintain a suit seeking for injunction against the real owner asserting the possession and seeking protection from the Court.
2. The learned Senior Counsel Sri B.V. Subbaiah on behalf of Sri G.S. Sanghi, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy on behalf of Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents elaborate arguments and cited several decisions.
3. Before dealing with the substantial question of law raised in this appeal, it is necessary to refer to the basic facts.
4. The plaintiff filed the suit with following averments:
The plaintiff is a firm in the name and style of M/s. Durga Kala Mandir, Kothagudem represented by its managing partner K. Krishna Murthy. The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. It has been carrying out the exhibition of films in the theatre under the name and style of Durga Kala Mandir. It has been in possession of the suit schedule property since 1976. The said property is covered by a compound wall and two gates are fixed to the said property. The plaintiff got erected three bore wells for the supply of the water and fixed a motor for drawing the water in the vacant site situated in the northern part of the said theatre. The plaintiff also constructed a cycle stand, septic tank and erected the water supply pipelines besides the water supply pipeline sanctioned by the Notified Area, Kothagudem. The entire place situated to the north of the theatre is under the enjoyment and possession of the plaintiff since 1976 and the plaintiff has been enjoying it openly to the knowledge of one and all and nobody has objected the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been paying property tax to the Municipality since 1976. Originally one of the partners of the plaintiff, Chippa Muthilingam purchased the site of the theatre through a registered sale deed from its original owner Smt. Chitti Butchi Narsamma and had kept some place vacant to the north of the property purchased by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been using the said vacant place as part and parcel of its property since 1976 by erecting pipelines, drain lines, water bore wells, cycle stand and power supply etc. Though the said fact was known to Muthilingam, he never raised any objection and as such the plaintiff acquired title to said property by being in possession and enjoyment of the said property for more than twenty years. The plaintiff's further case is that the defendant made the plaintiff to believe that he purchased a site at M.G. Road, Kothagudem and made the partners of the plaintiff firm to enter into a partnership firm in the name and style of Durga Enterprises for construction of theatre. Under the guise of it, the defendant intended to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant is no way concerned to the suit schedule property, but he tried to dismantle the compound wall on 9.6.1996 with his hired unsocial elements and the partners of the plaintiff obstructed the action of the defendant. The defendant is economically sound and having political influence and may cause damage to the property of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction.
5. The suit schedule property has been described as follows:
"M/s. Sri Durga Kalamandir, Cinema Theatre bearing H. No. 6-13-82 (Old Numbers 69/6-13-68; 6-2-387) along with its other properties viz., Canteen, Pan Shop, Cool Drink Shop, 3 Bore Wells, Cycle Stand, Septic Tank, Power Supply
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
