Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, B. KRISHNA MOHAN, JJ.
M.R.G. Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
N. Kesava Reddy – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 200 of 2021
Decided On : 06-01-2022
A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 - Seeking grant of permanent Injunction - Registered sale deeds - Suit for grant of permanent injunction - Grant of temporary injunction against respondents with respect to petition schedule properties/plaint schedule properties contending that wife of 1st respondent purchased the petition schedule properties and constructed (G+3) floors building and kept other Item as vacant sites of petition schedule properties, they have purchased said petition schedule properties from her under various registered sale deeds, she delivered possession of same to them and ever since they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties, daughter of the 1st appellant continued to run existing school situated in petition schedule properties under name and style of English Medium School, appellants have been enjoying said properties jointly and severally on mutation of properties - Whether plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed.
Finding of the Court;
Order under appeal and material available on record, it is clear that except the conveyance deeds in favour of appellants with reference to petition schedule properties, said property tax receipt and Mee Seva Copy of Name Change Certificate issued by Electricity Department just prior to institution of suit, there is no other material for appellants to establish possession over petition schedule properties as on date of institution of suit whereas respondents established prima facie running of school showing possession over said properties by paying continuously property tax and electricity charges etc. and recognition of school in said premises issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh establishing their possession over said properties - Whereas order of this Court in Criminal Appeal discloses only claim of appellants for non-issuance of notice under A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999, but not for establishing possession over petition schedule properties as on date of institution of the suit - Hence, there is no scope to interfere with the order of Court - However it is made clear that court below shall dispose of suit on its own merits as per law.
Result: Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises against the Order in I.A. No. 435 of 2021 in O.S. No. 9 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Nandyal dated 19.07.2021 dismissing the said interlocutory application with costs for grant of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the petition schedule properties pending disposal of the suit.
2. The appellants herein are the petitioners in the I.A. and the plaintiffs in the suit before the Court below. The respondents herein are the respondents in the I.A. and the defendants in the suit before the Court below.
3. Heard.
4. The appellants herein initiated an action in O.S. No. 9 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal against the respondents herein seeking grant of permanent injunction and costs of the suit with respect to the plaint schedule properties consisting of item Nos. 1 to 6. Pending the suit, the appellants filed an I.A. No. 435 of 2021 in the above said suit before the Court below for grant of temporary injunction against the respondents with respect to the petition schedule properties/plaint schedule properties contending that the wife of the 1st respondent purchased the petition schedule properties and constructed (G+3) floors building in Item Nos. 1 to 3 and kept the other Item Nos. 4 to 6 as vacant sites of the petition schedule properties, they have purchased the said petition schedule properties from her on 27.07.2015 under various registered sale deeds, she delivered the possession of the same to them and ever since they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties, the daughter of the 1st appellant by name Alekhya continued to run the existing school situated in petition schedule properties under the name and style of Keshava Reddy English Medium School, the appellants have been enjoying the said properties jointly and severally on mutation of the properties i.e., Item Nos. 1 to 3 in the municipal records in the name of the 1st appellant, while so, the respondents tried to trespass into the petition schedule properties and as such they filed the above said I.A. for temporary injunction.
5. Per contra, the respondents filed counter in the above said I.A. opposing the above said averments and pleaded that the 1st respondent is the founder and the 2nd respondent is the Secretary-cum-Correspondent of Kesava Reddy Educational Society and the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and they have been running the school in the name and style of Kesava Reddy English Medium School since the year 2003 and their society was recognized by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide R.C. No. 7911/B10/2014 for a period of ten years from the academic years 2014-2015 to 2023-2024, the 1st respondent is out of his residence to deal with certain criminal cases filed against him, taking advantage of his absence the 1st appellant fraudulently mislead the wife of the 1st respondent and got executed six sale deeds on 27.07.2015 with respect to the petition schedule properties assuring that they would be reconveyed after settlement of all the disputes without paying any consideration for the said conveyances and even after the said conveyances dated 27.07.2015 the respondents have been running the school till date without there being any interruption for possession of the same, the said petition schedule properties were mortgaged by way of collateral security upon borrowing a sum of Rs. 23.20 crores from the State Bank of India, Kurnool Branch, whereas the sale consideration was mentioned in the above said conveyances dated 27.07.2015 at Rs. 3.71 crores only much less than the amount borrowed from the bank by the appellants, no explanation was offered for not delivering the original title deeds of petition schedule properties, the entire staff of the school including teaching and non-teaching staff are working under the above said society of the respondents and there are about
The court emphasized that a party seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm, with a failure to do so justifying dismissa....
A party seeking a temporary injunction must establish lawful possession, a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
The appeal emphasizes that an appellate court should not override a trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless exercised arbitrarily, as seen in the established possession rights of the ....
The court upheld the grant of a temporary injunction, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in property disputes.
The plaintiff's claim for possession, sought 29 years after the date of the registered sale deed, is barred by limitation and cannot be permitted.
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
