Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, T. AMARNATH GOUD, JJ.
Kopalle Venu Gopal and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
P. Subrahmanya Prasad and Ors. - Respondents
CMA Nos. 289 and 291 of 2020
Decided On : 28-09-2020
For the Appellant : Ghantasala Udaya Bhaskar.
For the Respondents: S. Sridhar.
Point of law: It is well settled that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted
Headnote:
Specific Relief Act - Section 38 - Injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing possession - Registered release deed - Henchmen from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the schedule property by way of permanent injunction - Registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA vide Document directing the Sub-Registrar - respondent herein/plaintiff in suit that he is absolute owner of suit schedule property which he acquired through inheritance and also by virtue of a registered release deed - Property alongwith other properties originally belonged to his late father who died and on his father's death, himself, his mother and other siblings had inherited the same; and pursuant to release deed he became the exclusive owner thereof - He claimed to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of said property as an absolute owner - respondent claimed that he came to know that 2nd respondent herein/1st defendant in suit was also claiming rights over suit schedule property; that the 4th respondent was claiming falsely that his father one Sambaiah had an Agreement of Sale in his favour executed by the father of the 1st respondent and that he was given possession said Agreement of Sale was got validated - Alleged that none of these documents create any title or possessory rights in favour of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent or the 4th respondent –
Finding of the court : Order to obtain an order of injunction, party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favor and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. But it is equally well settled that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned would not be material at all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it is not open to Court to grant injunction in his favour even if, he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favor and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted - Orders of Court below cannot be sustained in view of fact that it did not give any finding on the aspects of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury and also did not give any reasons in the impugned orders for granting the interim reliefs in favor of 1st respondent –
Result :Appeals are allowed
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
1. Heard Sri G. Vijaya Bhaskar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Sridhar, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent in both the appeals.
2. These appeals arise out of the same suit OS No. 464 of 2018 pending on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar between the same parties and so they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The appellants in both these appeals are defendants 4 and 5 in the said suit.
4. The suit was initially filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff against respondents 2 to 4 herein for the following reliefs:
"(a) cancelling the Regd. Sale Deed vide Document bearing No. 126 of 2009 dated 14.10.2008.
(b) cancelling the Registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA vide Document bearing No. 1306/2018, dated 8.2.2018.
(c) directing the Sub-Registrar, Gandipet from deleting the entries in respect of Sale Deed bearing No. 126 of 2009, dated 14.10.2008 and Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA vide Document bearing No. 1306/2018, dated 8.2.2018, from their records.
(d) to restrain the defendant Nos. 1 & 2, their agents, servants, henchmen from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the schedule property by way of permanent injunction.
(e) to restrain the defendant Nos. 1 & 2, from alienating or creating any third party interest over the schedule property by way of permanent injunction.
(f) to award cost of suit.
(g) grant and other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
The case of the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the suit
5. It was the contention of the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff in the suit that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property which he acquired through inheritance and also by virtue of a registered release deed dated 14.3.2006 executed by his other family members, i.e., his mother, two brothers and a sister.
6. He contended that the said property alongwith other properties originally belonged to his late father who died on 28.11.2004 and on his father's death, himself, his mother and other siblings had inherited the same; and pursuant to the above release deed dated 14.3.2006, he became the exclusive owner thereof. He claimed to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property as an absolute owner.
7. The 1st respondent claimed that he came to know that the 2nd respondent herein/1st defendant in the suit was also claiming rights over the suit schedule property; that the 4th respondent was claiming falsely that his father one Sambaiah had an Agreement of Sale in his favour executed by the father of the 1st respondent and that he was given possession on 23.3.1967; that the said Agreement of Sale was got validated on 7.3.2007; that the 4th respondent was falsely claiming that there was an unregistered partition deed dated 12.3.1977, according to which, the 4th respondent became absolute owner of the said property alongwith his father; that his father had executed an unregistered Will dated 17.4.1984 and his father died on 17.1.1986.
8. The 1st respondent claimed that the 4th respondent entered into an Agreement of Sale with the 3rd respondent and got validated the Agreement of Sale he had with the 1st respondent's father; that a registered sale deed was executed by the 4th respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent; and the 3rd respondent executed a registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA dated 8.2.2018 in favour of the 2nd respondent.
9. The 1st respondent alleged that none of these documents create any title or possessory rights in favour of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent or the 4th respondent's father Sambaiah.
10. Thereafter, the 1st respondent impleaded the appellants herein in the suit contending that during the pendency of the suit, the 2nd and 3rd respondents sold the suit schedule property to the appellants under a registered sale deed dated 28.5.2018 and subsequently a registered release deed dated 24.5.2019 was executed by the 2nd appellant in favour of the 1st ap
