Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.
M/s. Hilltop Developers and others - Petitioners
Versus
Billa Naveen Reddy and others - Respondents
CMA No. 191 of 2020
Decided On : 14-03-2022
Temporary Injunction - Civil Procedure Code - Order-39, Rules-1 & 2 - Ex.R.1 and Ex.P.1 - The Court held that the trial Court erred in granting temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants as the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land with precise boundaries as shown in Ex.P.1 and schedule of property is highly doubtful. The Court directed both parties to maintain status quo and not to make any physical changes in the suit schedule property until the disposal of the Original Suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed for temporary injunction alleging ownership of certain properties and seeking protection from interference by the defendants. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' claims, stating that the partition deed was fabricated and there were discrepancies in the boundaries of the properties. The trial Court granted temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, which was challenged by the defendants in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land with precise boundaries as shown in Ex.P.1 and schedule of property is highly doubtful. It held that the trial Court erred in granting temporary injunction and directed both parties to maintain status quo until the disposal of the Original Suit.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial Court's order granting temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs was sustainable, considering the disputed boundaries and possession of the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary remedy and must be based on a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. It held that the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land with precise boundaries as shown in Ex.P.1 was highly doubtful, and therefore, the trial Court erred in granting temporary injunction.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, and the impugned order granting temporary injunction was set aside. Both parties were directed to maintain status quo and not make any physical changes in the suit schedule property until the disposal of the Original Suit. The trial Court was directed to dispose of the original suit within nine months from the date of receipt of the order.
JUDGMENT :
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/defendants assailing the order dated 06.03.2020 in IA No.35 of 2020 in OS No.8 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Warangal.
2. The plaintiffs have filed the Original Suit No.8 of 2020 for perpetual injunction along with IA No.35 of 2020 for temporary injunction under Order-39, Rules-1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) restraining the respondents/defendants and their men from interfering and dispossessing the petitioners/ plaintiffs from items 1 to 5 of suit schedule properties.
3. The trial Court after considering the facts of the case, material available on record including Exs.P.1 to P.22 on behalf of petitioners/plaintiffs and Exs.R.1 to R.7 on behalf of respondents/defendants allowed the application granting temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the plaint schedule items 1 to 5 properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the original suit.
5. During the pendency of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, following IAs are allowed :
(a) IA No.3 of 2020 filed by the defendants to receive revocation deed document No.25023 of 2019, dated 01.10.2019 and development agreement and other additional documents was partially allowed as per the orders dated 01.09.2020 and only certified copy of revocation deed dated 01.10.2019 is ordered to be received as additional evidence on behalf of respondents in IA No.35 of 2020 who are the petitioners herein. Accordingly, the same is received as additional evidence and marked as Ex.R.8.
(b) IA No.4 of 2020 filed by the defendants under Order-41, Rule-27 CPC to receive additional evidence was also allowed in part on 01.09.2020 and photocopy of affidavit in Writ Petition No.637 of 2020 is ordered to be received in evidence on behalf of respondents in IA No.35 of 2020, accordingly the same is received as additional evidence and marked as Ex.R.9.
(c) Similarly, the defendants have filed an application in IA No.5 of 2020 under Section 151 of CPC to receive Exs.P.6 to P.15 along with true translated copies into English, since other side has reported no objection, the said application was allowed on 20.08.2020 and the translated version of Exs.P.6 to P.15 are made part of the record.
6. Thus, as per the orders in IA No.3 of 2020 certified copy of rectification deed is received in evidence on behalf of defendants, who are the respondents in IA No.35 of 2020 and marked as Ex.R.8. Photocopy of affidavit in Writ Petition No.637 of 2020 is received as additional evidence, marked as Ex.R.9, also received translated copies of Exs.P.6 to P.15.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and for the respondents/plaintiffs. The learned counsels on both sides have also made written submissions. The detailed submissions made are more or less on pleaded lines, therefore, it may not be necessary to refer in detail to such submissions, however, they are received due consideration of this Court.
8. (a) The plaintiffs have filed this application in IA No.35 of 2020 under Order-39, Rules-1 & 2 of CPC for relief of temporary injunction alleging that they are the owners to an extent of Ac.31.00 guntas, out of Survey No.120/A of Chinthagattu Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District and it is their joint family property, the same was divided among as per the partition deed dated 01.10.2019. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are brothers and plaintiff No.3 is their sister. As per the said partition, plaintiffs 1 & 2 got Ac.13.00 guntas each and plaintiff No.3 got Ac.5.00 guntas, out of Ac.31.00 guntas of land in Survey No.120/A, which are referred as ite
The grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary remedy and must be based on a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lan....
A simple suit for injunction is not maintainable when there is a dispute over title, and the plaintiffs must prove possession within the claimed boundaries.
Proper identification of properties based on respective title deeds supported by old survey plan and new survey plan is necessary to grant reliefs sought in a suit for injunction and counter claim fo....
Grant or refusal of interim relief/temporary injunction - Usually, prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of legal right asserted by plaintiff and its allege....
The court emphasized that a party seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm, with a failure to do so justifying dismissa....
The grant of temporary injunction is based on the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss and injury. Failure to establish a prima facie case and the defendant's ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession follows title, and in cases of vacant property, the person able to establish title is considered to be in possession. The court....
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
