Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Yaragorla Yedukondalu S/o Ramaiah – Petitioner
Versus
Ravella Sivaiah S/o Peda Venkateswarlu – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1177 of 2018
Decided On : 16-06-2023
Order XLIII Rule 1(u) - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal - Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 - [Order XLIII Rule 1(u) C.P.C.] - [Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971] - The court discussed the possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the validity of documents, and the relevance of revenue records in determining the rightful owner and possessor of the property. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and the need for the appellate court to comply with the principles of law in remanding suits.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, but the first appellate court set aside the judgment and remanded the suit to the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that they were in possession of the property, while the first appellate court remanded the suit citing various factors, including discrepancies in evidence and failure to offer reasons for believing or disbelieving the evidence presented by both parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the first appellate court remanded the suit in violation of the principles of law, causing injustice to the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The first appellate court failed to comply with the principles of law in remanding the suit, as it did not record its disagreement with the findings of the trial court and did not indicate any specific reason or direction for retrial by the trial court.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and restoring the appeal before the learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur.
JUDGMENT :
R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
1. In terms of Order XLIII Rule 1(u) C.P.C. plaintiffs in the suit preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the correctness of judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018 of learned VI Additional District Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District in A.S.No. 1 of 2015. Respondent in this appeal is the defendant in the suit.
2. Despite valid service of notice, none has entered appearance for respondent.
3. For appellants, learned counsel submitted arguments.
4. O.S.No. 199 of 2009 before learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property, namely, Ac.2.42 cents situate in Patha Annasamudram Gram Panchayat, Tripuranthakam Mandal of Prakasam District. The appellants herein two in number filed the said suit as against the defendant. Plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the said property and alleged that defendant had no semblance of rights or claims over the said property, but he indulged in interfering with their peaceful possession and therefore, they were forced to file the suit. As against that, the defendant pleaded in his written statement that he is in possession of the property and not the plaintiffs and the claim made by the plaintiffs is based on forged documents and sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. Pleadings on both sides indicate that the parties claimed their rights from different sources. A brief mention of them is needed here. Plaintiffs state that originally the property belonged to Smt. S.Saraswathamma and her son Sri S.Prasad. Under an agreement for sale dated 07.06.1992 they alienated this property and delivered possession of the same to Sri Y.Pedda Galaiah. Since then the purchaser under the agreement for sale held possession of the property. He obtained a ryotwari patta. Subsequently, a partition took place among family members. In that partition western portion to an extent of Ac.1.30 cents fell to the share of 1st plaintiff and eastern portion to an extent of Ac.1.10 cents fell to the share of 2nd plaintiff. Both plaintiffs are grandsons of the above referred Sri Y.Pedda Galaiah. These plaintiffs claim to have possession of their respective shares. Entries in revenue records were mutated in their favour. Pattadar and title deed passbooks were given to them and they have been in continuous possession of this property.
6. The case set out by the defendant is that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Sri S.Ramanjaneya Prasad. On 06.02.2008 under a registered sale deed he sold out the property to Sri V.Parameswara Rao and possession was obtained by the purchaser. Subsequently, Sri V.Parameswara Rao under a registered sale deed dated 21.02.2009 sold out the plaint schedule property to the defendant for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,21,000/-. Defendant obtained possession of the property under that registered sale deed. He is the rightful owner and possessor of this property. The agreement for sale dated 07.06.1992 referred in the plaint is a forged document. The ryotwari patta claimed in the plaint does not contain the proceedings number of Special Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Markapur and signatures of the officers concerned are not available on it. The documents asserted in the plaint were fabricated.
7. On those rival pleadings, learned trial Court framed the following issues:
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
3. To what relief?
8. During trial, for plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 3 testified and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked. For defendant, DWs.1 to 3 testified and Exs.B.1 to B.9 were marked.
9. After hearing arguments on both sides and after considering the material on record, learned trial Court agreed with the case of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit in favour
Possession on the date of filing a suit is essential for granting a permanent injunction; the First Appellate Court findings on possession were upheld as correct.
In actions for injunctions, plaintiffs must demonstrate lawful possession and seek a declaration of title when ownership is disputed; failure to do so renders the suit unmaintainable.
Point of law: Rule 23- A it is evident when the suit is decreed otherwise than on a preliminary issue and retrial is considered necessary, it is only then that the case has to be remanded. In other w....
Possession established through admissions is sufficient for granting permanent injunction against unlawful interference.
A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when the defendant raises a genuine dispute regarding the plaintiff's title, and the plaintiff fails to prove lawful possession.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence of possession and title in a suit for permanent injunction, the principles of granting preventive relief and perpetual i....
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
