Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 7758
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 294 OF 2023 Between:
1. SMT. KAVALA SURYA KUMARI W/o Venkata Sai Narasimham Aged 38 years, D.N0.17-5-54 H.P. Petrol Bunk Street, Road No.6 Opp NAD Colony, Rajamundry ...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. KAVALA SURYANARAYANA S/o Narasimhulu, Aged 67 yrs D.No.2-93 , Vedantapuram village Koyyalagudem Mandal, Janga Reddy Gudem
2. Kavala Dhana Lakshmi W/o Suryanarayana , Aged 61 yrs D.No.2-93 , Vedantapuram village Koyyalagudem Mandal, Janga Reddy Gudem
3. Pothana Sai Kumari W/o Lakshmi Srinivas, aged 39 yrs D.N0.7-1-14 , Jangareddigudem, West Godavari district.
4. Pothana Lakshmi Srinivas S/o Rama Krishna Rao Aged 48 yrs D.No.7-1-
114 , Jangareddigudem, West Godavari district.
5. Pagadala Chinna Venkata Ratnam @ chinna S/o Venkata Rao aged 38 yrs D.No.3-60 Ramanujapuram, Koyyalagudem , West Godavari Dist.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondents: Y V ANIL KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.294 of 2023 Between:
Smt Kavala Surya Kumari W/o Venkata Sai Narasimham Aged 38 years, D.No.17-5-54 H.P. Petrol Bunk Street, Road No.6 Opp NAD Colony, Rajamundry.
… Petitioner/Appellant/
Petitioner/Plaintiffs And
1. Kavala Suryanarayana S/o Narasimhulu, Aged 67 years D.No.2-93, Vedantapuram Village Koyyalagudem Mandal, Janga Reddy Gudem and four others.
… Respondents/Respondents/
Respondents/Defendants Counsel for the petitioner : Sri R. Siva Sai Swarup Counsel for respondents : Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar
ORDER:
Plaintiff in suit filed the above revision against the order dated 27.10.2022 in CMA.No.15 of 2018 on the file of the IX Additional District Judge at Kovvur confirming the order dated 14.08.2018 in I.A.No.300 of 2017 in O.S.No.55 of 2017 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddigudem.
2. Suit O.S.No.55 of 2017 was filed by the plaintiff for grant of perpetual injunction. Along with the plaint, I.A.No.300 of
2017 was filed seeking ad-interim injunction.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that plaint schedule property originally belonged to defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 offered to sell the schedule property under agreement of sale dated 10.04.2012 for consideration of Rs.10,72,500/-. Plaintiff paid Rs.10,00,000/- as advance. Defendant No.1 did not execute regular sale deed.
Plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 25.03.2013.
4. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.31 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Kovvur seeking specific performance.
The suit was decreed.
5. Plaintiff filed E.P.No.1 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Kovvur seeking enforcement of the decree. Regular sale deed was executed on 30.07.2014 in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed E.P.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Kovvur for delivery of the property and the property was delivered to the plaintiff through court Amin on 03.09.2014. Plaintiff has been in possession of the property and Revenue Authorities issued Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in favour of the plaintiff. When the defendants are interfering suit was filed and interlocutory application for grant of ad-interim injunction.
6. Defendant No.1 filed counter and opposed the application. In the counter it was contended inter alia that, defendant No.1 received summons in O.S.No.474 of 1999 filed by third party. Son got signatures of the defendant No.1. Son of defendant No.1 never cared. Subsequent to his marriage with the petitioner, he started threatening defendant No.1 with the signatures obtained in connection with O.S.No.474 of 1999. Son of defendant No.1 with active convenience of his wife, i.e., plaintiff, created litigation. Son of defendant No.1, cheated him. Petitioner filed claim petition E.A.No.290 of 2015 in E.P.No.28 of 2012 in suit O.S.No.474 of 1999. However, the said claim petition was dismissed on 25.07.2016. Petitioner filed appeal A.S.No.10/17. Appellant Court granted stay in E.P.No.28 of 2012 pending the disposal of the appeal. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the injunction application.
7. During enquiry Exs.P1 to P5 were marked on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff. Exs.R1 to R4 were marked on behalf respondent. Trial Court on appreciation of documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that petitioner came to the Court with unclean hands and hence, is not entitled to relief of injunction. Trial Court also pointed out that plaintiff failed to disclose dismissal of E.A.No.290 of 2015 filed by the plaintiff in E.P.No.28 of 2012 in O.S.No.474 of 1999. Eventually, I.A.No.300 of 2017 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed CMA.No.15 of 2018 on the file of the IX Additional District Judge at Kovvur. Appellate Court on careful consideration of the documentary evidence available on record dismissed the appeal by order dated 27.10.2022. Against the same, the above revision is filed.
8. Heard Sri R. Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that petitioner has been in possession over the schedule property. The suit is filed for perpetual injunction. Trial Court as well as Appellate Court failed to consider Exs P1 to P5 in a proper perspective.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that both the trial Court and Appellate Court considered the documentary evidence and recorded findings and dismissed the application.
