2021 Supreme(AP) 102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
Katuri Veerraju and others - Petitioners
Versus
Taniki Satyanarayana and others - Respondents
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1224 and 2839 of 2019
Decided On : 03-03-2021

Point of law: Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction – (1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both

Headnote:

Tamilnadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 – Section 16A – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI Rule 32 – Possession of the schedule property – Both the C.R.Ps. are filed by JDRs 9 to 13; while C.R.P. is filed against the order in E.A. in E.P. dismissing the application to stay the executing proceedings, the other C.R.P. is filed against the order allowing the E.P. and issuing warrant against JDRs 9 to 13 to commit them to civil prison for violation of injunction decree in O.S. – O.S. was filed by respondent/DHR/plaintiff on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, initially against defendants 1 and 2, who are his father and elder sister, seeking perpetual injunction decree in respect of plaint schedule tiled house and its appurtenant site. Pending suit, as the 1st defendant died, his L.Rs. were brought on record as defendants 3 to 8. – Defendants 2 to 8 filed written statement and contested the suit. – The trial Court in para 13 of its judgment, while categorically holding that the plaintiff was in continuous lawful possession of the schedule property, granted the decree in his favour. – It observed that the rights of the defendants, if any, in respect of the plaint schedule property are concerned, they have to be worked out in a separate suit. – Aggrieved, the defendants filed A.S. on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. Since the 2nd defendant in the suit died, her L.Rs. were brought on record. – The appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the lower Court.

Finding of court: Two jurisprudential points would emerge. – The JDR’s claim of possession in spite of the injunction decree is itself a proof positive of wilful disobedience of the decree. – Nextly, till the JDR ultimately succeeds in his own proceedings, which is sub-judice, he has to oblige the injunction decree. – If he ultimately succeeds, he can seek for restitution. – Thus on a conspectus of facts and law, what surfaces is that the execution Court was right in upholding the E.P. and dismissing the stay application filed by the JDRs. – In the normal circumstances, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. – However, considering the fact that some of the JDRs are women and their detention in civil prison cause much embarrassment to them and their family members, this Court considers fit to give an opportunity to them to oblige the decree. – Perpetual injunction decree was passed against the defendant. – The plaintiff sought to execute the decree complaining that despite the decree, the JDR was interfering with his possession and thus wilfully disobeyed the Court’s injunction and prayed to commit the JDR to civil prison. – The JDR in turn objected the execution on the score that he was entitled to the possession of the land. – His case was that under Section 16A of the Tamilnadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969, the Record Officer recorded the judgment debtor as a cultivating tenant of the suit land which is sufficient to resist the execution of the decree. – On the other hand, the contention of the DHR was that after the perpetual injunction decree was confirmed by the appellate Court, only subsequently the JDR approached the Record Officer and obtained a declaration that he was a cultivating tenant. – Hence, the execution Court cannot go behind the decree. – It was observed that as against the entries made by the Record Officer holding the JDR as cultivating tenant, divergent proceedings including the writ proceedings were taken up by both parties and ultimately decree holder’s appeal against the latest order was pending in the appeal.

Result: Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of