Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
C. Praveen Kumar and B. Krishna Mohan, JJ.
Gowram Thippa Reddy and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Vuchala Sudarshan Reddy – Respondent
Review I.A. Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2021 in
C.M.A. No. 71 of 2021
Review I.A. Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2021 in
C.M.A. No. 73 of 2021
Review I.A. Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2021 in
C.M.A. No. 86 of 2021
Decided on 6.5.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:O Manoher Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sodum Anvesha, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In a Suit for injunction, burden is on person who approaches Court to prove that he is in possession of property as on date of filing of suit.
(2) Mere error on merits may not be a ground to review order and that error must be apparent on face of record.

Headnote:
(A) Injunction – Grant of – In a Suit for injunction, burden is on person who approaches Court to prove that he is in possession of property as on date of filing of suit – While considering application for injunction, Courts would pass an order thereupon having regard to prima facie case; balance of convenience; and irreparable injury – A finding on prima facie case would be a finding of fact – However, while arriving at such a finding of fact, court not only must arrive at a conclusion that a case for trial has been made out but also other factors requisite for grant of injunction exist. (Paras 14 and 15)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 – Review Applications – Mere error on merits may not be a ground to review order and that error must be apparent on face of record – An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on face of record justifying court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC – Error must be such that which may strike one on a mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning. (Para 28)
Result: Review I.As. allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

Burden of Proof in Injunction Suit: The party approaching the court for an injunction must prove that they are in possession of the property as on the date of filing the suit. The court considers factors such as a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury when deciding whether to grant an injunction (!) (!) .
Scope of Review: A review of an order or judgment is permissible only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Such an error must be self-evident and recognizable without detailed reasoning or extensive analysis. Mere errors on merits that require reasoning to detect are not sufficient grounds for review (!) (!) .
Limitations of Review Power: The power of review is limited and cannot be exercised as an appellate remedy. It is restricted to correcting patent errors or mistakes that are obvious upon a mere glance at the record. Discovery of new evidence or important matters not available earlier can also constitute grounds for review, provided due diligence was exercised (!) (!) .
Nature of Error for Review: An error that is not self-evident and requires reasoning to identify does not qualify as an error apparent on record. The error must be such that it can be detected instantly and without elaborate analysis, otherwise, the review cannot be justified (!) .
Evidence and Possession: In cases involving possession, the court emphasizes that the initial burden is on the party claiming possession to prove it as of the filing date. The court examines documentary evidence, such as sale deeds, electricity connections, and other possession-related documents, to determine possession status (!) (!) (!) .
Appellate Court's Approach: When the appellate court agrees with the trial court's findings based on appreciation of evidence, it need not restate all the evidence or reasons but can generally concur with the reasoning. However, if the appellate order is cryptic or fails to consider relevant evidence, it may be in violation of legal requirements, potentially justifying a review (!) (!) (!) .
Specific Findings on Possession: In the case at hand, the evidence indicates conflicting claims of possession and ownership. The trial court's findings on possession were not definitive, and the review court identified that the original order lacked clarity on who was in possession as of the filing date. This ambiguity was deemed an error apparent on the record, justifying the review and setting aside the previous orders (!) (!) (!) .
Effect of Non-Consideration of Evidence: Failure to consider relevant documents or evidence, especially when such evidence directly impacts the question of possession, can be grounds for review. The court highlighted that the absence of a clear finding on possession, despite the available evidence, constitutes an error apparent on the record (!) (!) .
Preservation of Status Quo: Upon allowing the review, the court directed both parties to maintain the current status quo regarding the property until the completion of the trial, emphasizing the importance of preserving the existing position during the proceedings (!) .
Trial Court Directions: The court instructed the trial court to dispose of the main suit within a specified period, ensuring timely justice and resolution of the substantive issues (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.

“BY ORDER OF THE COURT”

Since, all these Review Applications are interconnected, they are disposed of by this Common Order.

2. The present Review Applications are filed under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to review the Common Judgment, dated 21.09.2021, passed in C.M.A. Nos. 86, 71 and 73 of 2021.

3. I.A. No. 2 of 2021 is filed to set-aside the Judgment in C.M.A. No. 86 of 2021; I.A. No. 3 of 2021 is filed to dispense with filing of certified copy of the Judgment; I.A. No.4 of 2021 to suspend the Order and Decree passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge in I.A. No. 35 of 2021 in O.S. No. 9 of 2021 on 26.02.2021; and I.A. No. 5 of 2021 seeking Stay of the Order passed in the C.M.A.

4. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 3 of 2021 filed for dispensing with filing of certified copy of the Judgment under appeal, is allowed. Since, main case itself is disposed of, it may not be necessary for us to pass orders in I.A. No. 4 and 5 of 2021.

5. The facts, in issue, are as under:—

(i) Originally, the Plaintiff filed O.S. No. 9 of 2021 before the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu, seeking declaration of right and title over the Plaint Schedule Property with consequential permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1 to 5, who are the Review Petitioners herein.

(ii) The Plaint Schedule Property is a land admeasuring Ac. 1.53 cents in Sy. No. 3-B1 in Kakkalapalli Village, Anantapuram Rural Mandal and District. Along with the Suit, the Plaintiff filed I.A. No. 35 of 2021 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction against the Defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Initially, the trial Court grated ad-interim injunction till 17.02.2021. Subsequently, the Defendants filed counter stating that they have obtained permission for construction of nine [09] shops in subject property and accordingly started construction of the same. At that point of time, the Plaintiff filed I.A. No.63 of 2021 in I.A. No. 35 of 2021 seeking temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from making further constructions in the said property. The Plaintiff also filed I.A. No. 64 of 2021 in I.A. No. 35 of 2021 seeking injunction to restrain Defendant No. 3 from alienating Petition Schedule Property. Vide separate orders, dated 26.02.2021, the trial Court allowed all the applications filed by the Plaintiff, namely, restraining the Defendants from proceeding further with the construction, restraining the Defendants from selling away the property and also an injunction.

(iii) Aggrieved by the same, the Defendants filed C.M.A. No. 71 of 2021 against the Order passed in I.A. No.63 of 2021; C.M.A. No. 86 of 2021 against the Order passed in I.A. No. 35 of 2021; while Defendant No. 3 alone preferred C.M.A. No. 73 of 2021 against the Order passed in I.A. No. 64 of 2021. All these three C.M.As are heard and by a Common Judgment, dated 21.09.2021, this Court dismissed the Appeals filed by the Defendants. Challenging the same, the present Review Applications came to be filed.

6. Before dealing with the contentions raised in the Review, it is to be noted that, in the Appeals filed, the case of the Plaintiff is that, subject property initially belongs to the joint family of one Narayana Reddy and his brothers. One Pedda Musali Reddy, who is the brother of Narayana Reddy, sold his share to one G. Nallamma by way of registered Sale Deed, dated 19.03.1948 [Ex.P1]. After the death of G.Nallamma, her son, namely, G. Chinna Konda Reddy [died] and, as such, his legal heirs divided the said land into plots and sold plot Nos. 1 to 9 admeasuring Ac. 0.15 cents in favor of the Plaintiff by way of 10 separate registered Sale Deeds, dated 24.06.2016 [Ex.P4]. It is said that, since the date of purchase, the Plaintiff became the owner of the property and constructed a shed bearing H. No. 1