Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J.
Puvvadi Subramanyam and Ors - Appellant
Versus
Jangam Jayalakshmi and Ors - Respondent
CMA No. 1269 of 2018
Decided On : 12-06-2019
CMA filed against order passed in IA and OS by IV Additional District Judge – Suit in OS filed for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaints A and B schedule properties parties are described as arrayed in suit in lower Court – Whether lower Court was right in refusing injunction as prayed for – Held, Lower Court committed serious error in failing to discuss all these documents – If oral and documentary evidence is examined in its totality it will be clear that necessary ingredients for grant of injunction exist in favour of plaintiffs – Sale deeds, Record of Rights Books, Oppudala Patram/consent letter show that plaintiffs are having prima facie case in their favour – Possession also follows title Revenue records, which are issued by competent authorities are counter signed by Revenue Divisional Officer, also have evidentiary value in matter of possession cannot ignored – Plaintiffs purchased property under two sale deeds of year 2013 link documents are of year 2001 – Got their names mutated in revenue records by following procedure under law – Greater harm will be caused to them if an injunction not granted defendants-respondents only filed some revenue records pertaining to years 2015 to 2017 – Therefore balance of convenience in favour of plaintiffs alone Irreparable loss will be caused to plaintiffs, if property that is purchased under valid sale deeds not allowed to be enjoyed and possession is claimed by defendants loss cannot actually compensated in terms of money – CMA allowed. (Paras: 19 to 21)
Facts of the case:
CMA filed against order passed in IA and OS by IV Additional District Judge – Suit in OS filed for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaints A and B schedule properties parties are described as arrayed in suit in lower Court – Whether lower Court was right in refusing injunction as prayed for.
Findings of the court:
Lower Court committed serious error in failing to discuss all these documents – If oral and documentary evidence is examined in its totality it will be clear that necessary ingredients for grant of injunction exist in favour of plaintiffs – Sale deeds, Record of Rights Books, Oppudala Patram/consent letter show that plaintiffs are having prima facie case in their favour – Possession also follows title Revenue records, which are issued by competent authorities are counter signed by Revenue Divisional Officer, also have evidentiary value in matter of possession cannot ignored – Plaintiffs purchased property under two sale deeds of year 2013 link documents are of year 2001 – Got their names mutated in revenue records by following procedure under law – Greater harm will be caused to them if an injunction not granted defendants-respondents only filed some revenue records pertaining to years 2015 to 2017 – Therefore balance of convenience in favour of plaintiffs alone Irreparable loss will be caused to plaintiffs, if property that is purchased under valid sale deeds not allowed to be enjoyed and possession is claimed by defendants loss cannot actually compensated in terms of money.
Result: CMA allowed
ORDER :
D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J.
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal itself is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellants. Despite service, respondents did not appear. This Court held that there is deemed service to respondents 3, 4 and 5. Service was effected on respondents 1 and 2. The 1st and 2nd respondents did not appear.
2. The record was reconstructed with the permission of the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.
3. The CMA is filed against the order, dated 3.10.2018, passed in IA No. 194 of 2017 in OS No. 68 of 2017 by the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The suit in OS No. 68 of 2017 is filed by Sri Puvvadi Subramanyam and his wife Puvvadi Lakshmi against Jangam Jayalakshmi and four others for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaints A and B schedule properties. The parties are described as arrayed in the suit in the lower Court.
4. The case of the appellants-plaintiffs is that the plaint A-Schedule property has been purchased by the 1st plaintiff from the 1st defendant. The plaint B-Schedule property was purchased by the 2nd plaintiff from the 2nd defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiffs mutated their names in the revenue records and are enjoying the property. It is also mentioned that defendants have executed a consent letter, dated 18.11.2013, agreeing that they have no objection for conveyance of the property of defendants 1 and 2. The plaint was filed alongwith all these documents. Alongwith the plaint, IA No. 194 of 2017 was also filed for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.
5. The defendants-respondents entered appearance and filed their counters. Counters were essentially filed by defendants 2 and 3 (respondents 2 and 3 herein), which were adopted by the other defendants-respondents. On merits the matter was heard. Exs. P1 to P19 were marked by the plaintiffs and Exs. R1 to R6 were marked for the defendants. Two witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 were summoned by the Court and examined. Ultimately the application came to be dismissed. Questioning the same, the present CMA is filed.
6. This Court has heard Sri Raghavan K. Thalapaka, learned Counsel for the appellants, who submits that the overwhelming documentary evidence was totally overlooked by the Court below. He submits that the registered sale deed and the link sale deeds for the property were filed by plaintiffs 1 and 2. The revenue records, which are in favour of the plaintiffs, were also overlooked as per the learned Counsel. He submits that the registered sale deeds carry a certain presumption of correctness and that the Court below completely overlooked the fact that the sale deed and the link sale deed which in the name of defendants 1 and 2 clearly go against the current case that is set up by them. He also points out that the oral evidence of the witnesses summoned was also not correctly considered by the Court below. According to the learned Counsel the lower Court also committed an error in holding that a bare suit for injunction does not lie. It is his contention that when the plaintiffs are basing their case on a duly executed sale deeds, every denial does not warrant the filing of a suit for a declaration. He also relies upon Ramji Rai and another v. Jagdish Mallah (Dead) thr. LRs. and another, (2007) 14 SCC 200 and Mandali Ranganna and others v. T. Ramachandra and others, APR 2008 SC 2291, to support his contention that the lower Court committed a fundamental error in negativing the prayer for injunction. Learned Counsel submits that the intrinsic worth of Exs. A1-A18 vis-a-vis Exs. R1 to R6 was totally overlooked by the Court below. He, therefore, prays that the CMA should be allowed and that the injunction should be granted as prayed for.
7. This Court after hearing the learned Counsel and perusing the record notices that the
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
