Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 112
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, A. ABHISHEK REDDY, JJ.
G. Madhusudhan Reddy and others - Appellants
Versus
Sardar Surender Singh And others - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.249 of 2019
Decided On : 08-06-2020
For the Appellants : Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel for Sri Shyam S. Agarwal.
For the Respondents: M/s.Bharadwaj Associates, Sri M.D. Mohapatra, Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy.
Point of Law :
It is a well settled proposition of law that in order to decide an interlocutory application filed in a suit, the Court has to see whether the party approaching the Court has a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and whether any irreparable loss will be sustained by the party, if temporary injunction is not granted or not
Headnote:
Civil Law - Suit filed seeking perpetual injunction - Present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants against the Order, passed in I.A. whereby the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judgehas dismissed the Interlocutory Application filed by the appellants herein seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit schedule property -
Finding of the Court:
Photos filed by the plaintiffs and the observations made by the learned trial Judge clearly shows that the physical possession is with the plaintiffs; they have also started the construction work and laid the necessary foundation. Having found that the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the land, the trial court, for reasons best known, has termed it as permissive and on the observations of the High Court. The trial court has simply picked up the isolated words and sentences from the judgment without reading the judgment holistically in a proper perspective. If injunction is not granted, it is the plaintiffs who will suffer irreparable loss as they have spent huge money in obtaining the necessary building permission from the concerned authorities, and also in procuring the manpower and material. The commercial interest of the plaintiffs far outweighs the interest of the defendants. As seen from the record, it is clear that the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the land in question, and they are having a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour, and they will be put to irreparable loss if injunction is not granted by the Court -Commercial interest of the plaintiffs far outweighs the interest of the defendants. As seen from the record, it is clear that the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the land in question, and they are having a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour, and they will be put to irreparable loss if injunction is not granted by the Court -
Result: Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed
JUDGMENT :
A. Abhishek Reddy, J.
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants against the Order, dated 11.03.2019, passed in I.A.No.740 of 2018 in O.S.No.569 of 2018, whereby the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, has dismissed the Interlocutory Application filed by the appellants herein seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.
2. The appellants, eight in number, are the plaintiffs in the suit filed seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents Nos.1 to 7 herein, who were arrayed as defendants Nos.1 to 7 in the suit. The suit is in respect of the land bearing survey No.2 (Peradu) in Attapur Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distict (hereinafter called as ‘the suit schedule land’).
3. The parties in the appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.
4. This case has a rather interesting and a chequered history. Interestingly, all the parties to the litigation are claiming through a person by the name of Smt.Moti Bai. Four sets of litigants are claiming through a single individual named Smt.Moti Bai, but having different identities. One set of litigants i.e. the plaintiffs and their vendors are claiming through one Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Jhanda Singh, who died prior to 1967. On the other hand, the other three sets of litigants are claiming through Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Gopal Singh. Out of the three sets, only two sets are before this Court i.e. R.1 to R.6 as one set of persons, and R.7 as second set; the third set, namely Narpath Singh has given up his claim. Both R.1 to R.6 on one hand, and R.7, on the other hand, claim that Moti Bai, W/o.Gopal Singh died on 05.08.1992.
5. The claim of the plaintiffs is that originally one Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Jhanda Singh, was the pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule land. Smt.Moti Bai died intestate prior to 1967, leaving behind her only daughter namely Smt.Raju Bai, W/o.Sardar Gurmukh Singh. When the revenue authorities had wrongly entered the suit schedule land as “Lawaris” in the revenue records, a writ petition was filed before this Court in W.P.No.5553 of 1980, and this Court vide order, dated 30.07.1987, had set aside the order declaring the property as Lawaris.
6. Subsequently, the grandson of Smt.Moti Bai i.e. son of Smt.Raju Bai, by name Sardar Deva Singh, filed an application, dated 13.04.1994, before the Revenue Divisional Officer (in short ‘the RDO’), Chevella, for succession and for mutating his name in the revenue records. The RDO, Chevella, vide proceedings No.D/4554/94, dated 16.12.1995, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer (in short ‘MRO’) to take necessary action for mutating the name of Sardar Deva Singh in the revenue records. However, when the MRO failed to pass any orders on the application to mutate his name, Sardar Deva Singh approached the High Court by way of writ petition being W.P.No.24701 of 1998. The High Court disposed of the said writ petition on 02.09.1998 directing the MRO to consider and dispose of the application for grant of succession. Thereafter, the revenue authorities, after conducting due enquiry, issued proceedings No.B/3235/98, dated 18.09.1999, declaring that the Sardar Deva Singh was entitled to the succession of late Smt.Moti Bai. The necessary amendments were carried out in the revenue record, and Sardar Deva Singh was issued pattedar passbook and title deed.
7. Meanwhile, another person, namely Sardar Narpat Singh claiming to be the son of Smt.Moti Bai, W/o.Gopal Singh filed two revision petitions before the Joint Collector: one against the orders of the MRO mutating the name of Sardar Deva Singh in the revenue records; another seeking succession in his favour i.e. Narpath Singh. By order, dated 11.12.2000, the Joint Collector, while setting aside the order of the MRO, dated 18.09.1999, declared the suit schedule land as ‘Lawaris’.
8. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, dated 11.12.2000, Sardar Dev
