The court affirmed that plaintiffs seeking equitable relief must demonstrate 'clean hands'; unauthorized constructions cannot be protected by injunction.

JUDGMENT:

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 14.06.2023, passed by the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad, in A.S.No.22 of 2020 whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree, dated 31.12.2019, passed by the XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad, in O.S.No.105 of 2013 was confirmed.

2. The appellants herein are plaintiffs and respondents herein are defendants, before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the plaint are that plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2013, seeking perpetual injunction. In the plaint is averred that the plaintiffs are owners of Flat No.002, stilt ground floor, with undivided share of the land admeasuring 20 Sq.yds of 16.72 Sq.mts out of 532 Sq.yds along with built up area of 950 sft, house bearing No.3-1-69, known as Sree Baba Aashirwada Sadan, situated at Mandabad Basti, Lothkunta, Secunderabad Cantonment (hereinafter, referred to as ‘schedule A property’) and Flat No.001, stilt ground floor, with undivided share of the land admeasuring 22 Sq.yds of 18.39 Sq.mts out of 532 Sq.yds along with built up area of 1260 sft, house bearing No.3-19-69, known as Sree Baba Aashirwada Sadan, situated at Mandabad Basti, Lothkunta, Secunderabad Cantonment (hereinafter, referred to as ‘schedule B property’) having purchased the same in open auction conducted by the Bank of India, Vasavi Nagar Branch, Secunderabad, vide sale certificate, dated 10.10.2012 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002; that the builder constructed complex by duly obtaining permission from Secunderabad cantonment dated 30.07.1999, which included 20 flats in upper floor and two flats in ground floor; that on 24.10.2012, plaintiffs started cleaning and repairing the walls for whitewash defendant No.4 along with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 trespassed into plaintiffs property without any authority, stopped the work and threatened them that the property is meant for parking and the same will be demolished; that the plaintiff reported the matter to Trimulghery Police Station and the police did not take any action and again on 13.02.2013, defendants once again trespassed into the schedule property and forcefully locked and sealed the said property; that the plaintiffs approached Trimulghery Police Station once again and the police directed defendants to remove locks and seal; that the defendants are threatening the plaintiffs and interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule A & B properties. Hence, the suit.

4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement, (which was adopted by defendant Nos. 2 and 3), denying the allegation made in the plaint, that the plaintiffs approached the Court by suppressing the material facts and further averred that father of plaintiff No.1 acted as President of association and having knowledge about the illegal structures in the cellar portion and defendants also made efforts to remove the said structures during his tenure as a president of the association; that the plaintiffs have filed present suit with false allegation and at no point of time physical possession was delivered to the plaintiffs either by the bank or by the builder. Therefore, suit filed by the plaintiffs is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that de