Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 231
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T.VINOD KUMAR, P.SREE SUDHA, JJ.
Manthena Ravi Varma Raju - Appellant
Versus
M/s Srinath Spinners Pvt. Ltd - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.88 Of 2022
Decided On : 02-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S LAKSHMI KANTH
For the Respondent: SUNIL B GANU
Court confirmed that a temporary injunction requires evidence of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, ruling that the trial court did not err in its decision.
Headnote:(A) A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Section 48-A(1) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 - Temporary injunction against unlawful interference with possession - The trial court granted a temporary injunction in favor of respondents based on established possession since 2001 and the balancing of convenience and irreparable harm. (Paras 24, 30)
(B) Interim Relief - Grant of temporary injunction requires establishment of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and proof of irreparable loss - Appellants contended that existing injunction order was overlooked; however, the court found no subsisting order at the time of trial court's decision. (Paras 15, 26)
Facts of the case:
This appeal challenges a trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction favoring respondents to prevent appellants from interfering with the possession of property. The dispute originated over the lawful title and possession dating back to various sale deeds executed beginning in 1991.
Findings of Court:
Court upheld the trial court's order, confirming the respondents' prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, and found no legal bar to granting the injunction.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the trial court erred in granting the injunction amidst a subsisting order and the legal standing of the parties concerning property title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction, properly applying legal principles for granting temporary injunctions based on evidence of possession and ongoing litigation.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for injunction dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 12) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding property rights. (Para 3 , 7) |
| 3. issues of title and legal standing (Para 4 , 5 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. claims of possession and interference (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. criteria for granting temporary injunctions (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 6. judicial clarifications on concurrent injunctions. (Para 20 , 27) |
| 7. court’s rationale for granting injunction. (Para 23) |
| 8. court's assessment of prima facie case and balance of convenience (Para 24 , 29) |
| 9. decision to dismiss the appeal (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
T. Vinod Kumar, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated. 21.12.2021 in I.A. No. 758 of 2021 in O.S. No. 158 of 2021 on the file of XVI Additional district and sessions judge cum Addl. Family Court Ranga Reddy district at Malkajgiri.
2. The Appellants herein are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the underlying Interlocutory Application and defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the O.S. No. 158 of 2021 filed by the respondent no.1 to 3 herein as plaintiff for perpetual injunction.
3. In the aforesaid suit, the respondent No.1 to 3/plaintiffs have filed the underlying Interlocutory Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. to grant interim relief of injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petition schedule ‘B’ property.
4. The case of the appellants is that, one Hari Kuvar Pershad executed three registered sale deeds, one in favour of E. Sandeep Raj to an extent of Ac. 0-38 guntas in Sy. No. 859 vide document dated 29.12.1998 and two documents dated. 29.12.1998 & 23.11.1998 to an extent of Ac. 2-00 guntas in Sy.No. 859 in favour of M/s. Nava Durga Puleers Earth Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Chairman E. Sambaiah, in all admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-38 guntas in Survey No.859. These lands were subsequently conveyed to appellants.
5. The appellants contend that, the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had purchased the petition schedule ‘B’ property from their respective vendors and the vendors in turn purchased from Smt. Balamani. The alienation of the subject lands by Smt. Balamani (legal heir of deceased Veerana) to the vendors of the respondents 1 to 3 is in violation of Section 48 -A (1) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (in short ‘Act’) as the transfers were affected within eight years from the date of issuance of the ownership certificate under Section 38 -E of the Act. The Civil Revision Petitions filed by both Smt. Balamani and Kum. Hari Kuvar Pershad against the orders of the Joint Collector; declaring Smt. Balamani as a protected tenant in respect of Survey No.859 are still pending before the Hon’ble High Court, and thus, the matter is sub judice.
6. The appellants contend that, they had filed suit for perpetual injunction against the respondent No. 2 & 3 vide O.S. No. 533 of 2021 and I.A. No. 1502 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Medchal. The trial Court had granted an ad- interim injunction in favour of appellants in the above said I.A. The respondents on the other hand obtained an order of temporary injunction from the Court of XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Addl. Family Court Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri in I.A. No. 758 of 2021 in O.S. No. 158 of 2021 is directly in conflict with the order passed by Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal in I.A. No.1507 of 2021 and thus the order dated. 21.12.2021 is in violation to the doctrine of amity and comity.
7. Per contra, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 contend that respondent No.1 purchased Item No. I which is part of Suit ‘schedule property A’ from one Dr. K. Narsimha Rao vide registered sale deed dated 25.04.2001, Respondent No.2 had purchased Item No.II from Dr. K. Ratna Kumari vide a registered sale deed dated 24.01.2001 and Respondent No.3 had purchased Item No.III from P. Mythili Sundarshwar vide a registered sale deed dated 25.04.
