2020 Supreme(AP) 639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Venkata Ramana, J.
Nethinti Appanna and Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
ECE Industries Limited Company and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 302 of 2018
Decided On: 18.12.2020

The burden is on the party seeking temporary injunction to establish its claim for grant of temporary injunction making out a prima facie case in its favour as well as balance of convenience.

Headnote:

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - POSSESSION - PRIMA FACIE CASE - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE LOSS - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 110 - ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 CPC - Prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the 1st respondent - Temporary injunction granted - 1st respondent directed to preserve the status of the property without altering its physical status and nature in any manner.

Fact of the Case:

The 1st respondent, an incorporated company, claimed to be the absolute owner of the suit property, an extent of Ac. 10-30 2/3 cents situated in Marripalem & Kapparada villages of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. It claimed to have acquired a total extent of Ac. 21-27 2/3 cents at Marripalem & Kapparada villages of Visakhapatnam under different sale deeds from the original owners in between the years 1962 and 1965 while Ac. 2-30 cents was held by it initially as a lessee, which was later sold to it under four sale deeds of the years 2009 and 2011. The appellants and the 7th defendant claimed to be in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of a total extent of Ac. 22-27 cents in 10 items of the property, setting out source of title through four individuals. They claimed that the respondents 5 to 7 and Sri. Bagadhi Lakshminarayana (7th defendant) have acquired the above extent. They further contended that for the purpose of proper management the respondents 5 to 7 and Sri. Bagadhi Lakshminarayana had executed four GPAs in question in favour of the appellants 1 to 4.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the 1st respondent made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience in its favour against the appellants and 7th defendant. The Court also held that the 1st respondent would suffer irreparable loss and injury in the event of refusal to grant temporary injunction as sought. The Court further held that the learned trial Judge was justified in granting temporary injunction as prayed against the appellants and 7th defendant.

Issues: 1. Whether the 1st respondent made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience in its favour against the appellants and 7th defendant? 2. Whether the 1st respondent would suffer irreparable loss and injury in the event of refusal to grant temporary injunction as sought? 3. Whether the learned trial Judge is justified in granting temporary injunction as prayed against the appellants and 7th defendant? 4. To what relief?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden is on the 1st respondent to establish its claim for grant of temporary injunction making out a prima facie case in its favour as well as balance of convenience. 2. For this purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the 1st respondent to prove its lawful possession of the property and thereupon the burden shifts to the appellants to make out that the claim of the 1st respondent is not correct while asserting that they have been in rightful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 3. In the given facts and circumstances, in as much as enquiry under Order-39, Rules Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC in terms of Section 94 CPC is summary in nature, pleadings assume any amount of importance. 4. The material on record has to be considered in this matter. 5. The claim of the 1st respondent is that it has been in peaceful and lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property upon acquisition of various extents under the sale deeds covered by Ex. P25 to Ex. P42 (Ex. P43 is Ex. P36 and Ex. P44 is Ex. B34). 6. The 1st respondent also produced Ex. P23-Electricity Bill with receipt and Ex. P24-telephone bill, in an attempt to establish that they relate to a part of the structures in the suit property like sheds etc. 7. The appellants strenuously contended that by virtue of the originals of Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 sale deeds dated 30.03.1963, 10 different extents as set out in para-13 of the written statement were purchased by Sri. Sanapala jagannaikulu, Son of Sri. late Kamayya, Sri. Bagadhi Neelayya, Son of Sri. late Krishnamma, Sri. Nethinti Appanna, Son of Sri. late Chenchaiah and Sri. Gandi Appala Naidu, Son of Sri. late Simhachalam from erstwhile owners Sri. Bandi Lakshmi Naidu and 6 others for valuable consideration. 8. Thus, they contended that the 1st respondent never had any right, title or interest including possession of any extent out of Ac. 22-27 cents belonging to them and that for management of these different extents, the appellants 5 to 7, Sri. Bagadhi Lakshminarayana executed powers of attorney in Ex. P4 to Ex. P7 (They are also Ex. R11 to Ex. R14).

Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous appeal was dismissed without costs, subject to terms recorded in point No. 2. The temporary injunction granted by the learned trial Judge in I.A. No. 1942 of 2015 in O.S. No. 804 of 2015 by order dated 21.11.2017 was maintained. The 1st respondent was directed not to alter the physical status/features of the suit property, preserving the same as it is, till disposal of the suit.