Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 779
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
M. Munemma, W/o. Late Kandaswamy – Appellant
Versus
M. Bhsakar, S/o. M. Munaswamy – Respondent
C.M.A.No. 180of 2021 and C.R.P.No.775 of 2021
Decided On : 07-05-2026
For the Petitioner: Sodum Anvesha
For the Respondent: M. Chalapati Rao
An appellate court will not grant interim injunctions that contradict the status quo established by an subsisting interim order or final decree in favour of the respondent, particularly when the appellant fails to demonstrate prima facie possession or irreparable injury.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Order XLI Rule 5 - Section 151 - Temporary injunction and stay of decree - Appellate court's power - Refusal of injunction based on prior decreed status - Appropriateness.
(B) Appeals - Scope - Appellate court must consider interim relief based on its own merits and establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. However, grant of interim injunction during appeal inconsistent with protection granted throughout the suit period is impermissible.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed appeals against common orders dismissing applications for temporary injunction and stay of operation of a decree in a suit involving conflicting claims of title and possession over the same property. The trial court had previously decreed the respondent’s suit and dismissed the appellant’s suit. The respondents had been protected by an interim injunction during the trial.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the appellant failed to prove prima facie possession and that granting an injunction would be inconsistent with the long-standing protection already enjoyed by the respondents, which had not been vacated.
Issues: Whether the appellate court can grant interim injunction/stay of decree when the suit itself was dismissed and the respondents had been operating under an existing interim injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court cannot grant interim injunctions in a manner inconsistent with the position that prevailed throughout the trial, especially when the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents and the evidence submitted by the appellant did not establish prima facie possession.
Result: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Civil Revision Petition dismissed with directions to dispose of the main appeals within nine months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding possession and the scope of interim relief in appeals. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. discussion on existing injunctions and prior judgment precedents. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. conclusion upholding the lower court's refusal of interim relief. (Para 12 , 13) |
COMMON JUDGMENT :
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
The present CMA No.180 of 2021 is filed by the plaintiff/appellant herein aggrieved by the common order dated 15.06.2021 in I.A.No.28 of 2020 in A.S.No.50 of 2020 in O.S.No.394 of 2012 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Chittoor, wherein the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to grant temporary injunction against the respondents herein was dismissed.
2. C.R.P.No.775 of 2021 is filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein aggrieved by the common order dated 15.06.2021 in I.A.No.26 of 2020 in A.S.No.51 of 2020 in O.S.No.377/2012 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Chittoor wherein the application filed under Order LX1, Rule 5 and under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 to stay the operation of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.377 of 2012 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor was dismissed.
3. Both petitions were heard together since the challenge in these two petitions is against the common order dated 15.06.2021 passed in I.A.No.28/2020 in A.S.No.50/2020 in O.S.No.394/2012 and I.A.No.26/2020 in A.S.No.51/2020 in O.S.No.377/2012 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Chittoor and the issue as well as relief sought by the appellant/petitioner is one and the same. Therefore, it is appropriate to pass the following common order.
4. The petitioner/appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are defendants in the suit O.S.No.394/2012. For convenience of this Court the parties are referred as they were arrayed in the suit O.S.No.394/2012.
5. Brief facts of the case:
The defendants filed suit O.S.No.377/2012 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor for perpetual injunction. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.394/2012 for declaration of their rights and title and for grant of permanent injunction. Both the suits were disposed of by a common judgment. The suit in O.S.No.377/2012 was decreed. The suit in O.S.No.394/2012 was dismissed. Taking advantage of the said judgment, the defendants/respondents herein are trying to interfere into the plaintiff’s /appellant’s lawful possession and enjoyment pertaining to the appeal schedule property and there is likelihood of threat of dispossession of the plaintiffs. Ex.B2 to B7 documents filed on behalf of the plaintiffs clearly proves their possession and enjoyment over the appeal schedule property even prior to the litigation before the trial Court. The plaintiff was unable to resist the high handed activities of the defendants, being aged. Except cultivation of the appeal schedule property, the plaintiffs have no other avocation. There is lot of urgency as the defendants are powerful persons and may go to any extent to dispossess them. Therefore, they pray to grant exparte temporary injunction in I.A.No.28 of 2020 in A.S.No.50 of 2020 and stay of the execution of the judgment in I.A.No.26 of 2020 in A.S.No.51 of 2020, which pertains to O.S.No.377 of 2012 by filing this present CMA No.180 of 2021 and CRP No.775 of 2021 respectively.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that the Court below erred in recording the evidence in O.S. No.377/2012 instead of in O.S.No.394/2012, since the O.S.No.394/2012 is a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. Whereas O.S.No.377/2012 is filed by the defendants/respondents herein only for bear injunction. Learned counsel further submits that even though the plaintiff/appellant filed revenue record and marked Ex.B2 to B7, in which the mother of the plaintiff/appellant was shown as possessor of the subj
