Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Reddy Rajya Lakshmi - Petitioner
Versus
Jalathari Parvathi - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 343 of 2022
Decided On : 14-09-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Court framed – For the sake of convenience – Plaintiff in O.S. on file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, is appellant herein – Above second appeal is filed aggrieved by judgment and decree in A.S. on file of Principal District Judge, , confirming judgment and decree in O.S. on file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge – Held, Courts discussed evidence both oral and documentary evidence on record elaborately and recorded findings – Plaintiff having pleaded possessory agreement of sale failed to prove same – Thus, plaintiff came to Court with unclean hand – Equitable relief of injunction will not be granted in favour of person approached with Court with unclean hands – Court dealt with aspect as to whether a plaintiff comes to Court with unclean hands is entitled to equitable relief of injunction in Second Appeal – By relying upon various judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as other high courts Court concluded that plaintiff who came to Court with unclean hands is not entitled to equitable relief of injunction – Second appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The court held that a plaintiff who came to court with unclean hands is not entitled to equitable relief of injunction. (!) - The trial court and appellate courts found that the plaintiff failed to prove the possessory agreement of sale and possession, justifying dismissal of the injunction claim. (!) (!) (!) - The High Court dismissed the second appeal at admission stage, holding no substantial questions of law arise, and that findings of fact do not warrant interference under Section 100 CPC. (!)
JUDGMENT :
The plaintiff in O.S.No.10 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, is the appellant herein. The above second appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2021 in A.S.No.261 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Guntur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2016 in O.S.No.10 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this judgment are referred to as they were arrayed in the plaint.
3. Suit O.S.No.12 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.
4. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are that, the plaintiff and defendants are sisters and daughters of late Kagga Varamma; that said Kagga Varamma executed a possessory agreement in favour of plaintiff on 08.12.2006 and delivered possession of the plaint schedule property after receiving the sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-; that said Varamma died prior to filing of suit; that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from the date of purchase; that the name of plaintiff was mutated in the Municipal records and she has been paying property taxes since 2007; that defendants are trying to disturb the possession of plaintiff; that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice and filed the suit the relief stated supra.
5. 2nd Defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by 1st defendant. In the written statement, it was contended inter alia that originally the plaint schedule property is a Government poramboke land, which was occupied by their father by name Subbarao; that said Subbarao constructed a thatched house and after his death, while the plaintiff, defendants and their mother Varamma constructed a pucca house with four portions with an understanding that one portion is for Varamma and remaining three portions are for plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2; that after death of Varamma her portion shall be shared equally between the plaintiff and defendants and accordingly, Varamma settled schedule property including her portion in favour of plaintiff and defendants on 31.10.2009 i.e. Varamma settled 50 square yards to plaintiff, 60 square yards to 1st defendant and 50 square yards to 2nd defendant and rest of the site was left for joint nadava; that 2nd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of her share by paying taxes under the assessment No.11598-B; that plaintiff has been residing in one portion by paying house taxes separately under assessment No.11598-A; that Varamma portion was assessed bearing No.11598; that Varamma never executed possessory agreement in favour of plaintiff and eventually, prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :
(2) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property?
(4) To what relief?
7. During the trial, plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined P.Ws.2 to 4. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of defendants, 1st defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and got examined D.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. Pending suit, 2nd defendant died.
8. Trial Court on consideration of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 08.07.2016 by holding that plaintiff having pleaded possessory agreement of sale dated 08.12.2006 failed to mark the same as one of
In a suit for injunction, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish possession, and the question of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration when possession has to be e....
In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff must prove that he was in possession of the property on the date the suit was filed. Tax receipts, electricity bills, and commissioner's reports can be used to....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of lawful possession in property disputes and the ineligibility for the relief of injunction in the absence of such possession.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must demonstrate lawful possession of the property at the time of filing; mere tax receipts are insufficient without additional evidence of possessio....
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must prove possession of the property on the date of filing the suit; both lower Courts' findings supporting possession were affirmed.
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
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
