Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 8120
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1503 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shyam S. Agarwal
For the Respondents: Mr. Ch.Ravinder
The court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the injunction application, emphasizing the need to consider prima facie title and possession before full trial.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Injunction - Plaintiff sought ad-interim injunction against defendant's interference with property possession - Trial Court dismissed application citing prior decrees and judgments - Appellate Court set aside the order, finding plaintiff's possession established - Court emphasized the need for full trial to resolve triable issues regarding the relinquishment deed. (Paras 34, 35)
(B) Jurisdictional error - High Court's power under Article 227 - Limited to correcting serious derelictions of duty or fundamental legal principles - Not to substitute judgments of subordinate courts. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff filed suit for injunction against defendant's interference with property, claiming established possession through a series of registered deeds. Defendant disputed the plaintiff's title and prior relinquishment.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court determined that the plaintiff demonstrated prima facie title and possession, warranting the injunction.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the relinquishment deed and the plaintiff's right to possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the injunction application without considering the plaintiff's prima facie case and the triable nature of the issues.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed, upholding the appellate court's order for injunction.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims ownership and possession of the property through a series of registered deeds. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 2. defendant disputes the validity of the relinquishment deed and claims title through familial relations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court emphasizes the need for a full trial to resolve triable issues regarding possession and title. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. appellate court's ruling to grant injunction is upheld based on established prima facie title and possession. (Para 34) |
| 5. civil revision petition is dismissed, confirming the appellate court's decision. (Para 35) |
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.08.2023 passed in CMA No.18 of 2021 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.
(For sake of convenience, the petitioner herein is referred to as ‘defendant’ and respondent as ‘plaintiff ’)
FACTS:-
3. Plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S.No.171 of 2021 against the defendant seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with her possession over the suit schedule property i.e. land admeasuring Ac.0.35 ½ guntas in Sy.No.388/A situated Vedira Village, Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District (for short, ‘subject property’) contending as follows:-
i. Originally, in the revenue records, the entries were made in the name of Dulimitta Lachi Reddy s/o Rajaiah in respect of the subject property. The said Dulimitta Lachi Reddy, sold the subject property to one Bejjanki Yellaiah under a registered sale deed bearing document No.337 of 1982 dated 02.06.1982. The said Bejjanki Yellaiah sold the subject property to one Thodeti Bapu s/o Ashaiah, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.3524 of 2009, dated 04.11.2009. The said Thodeti Bapu, in turn, sold the subject property to Mohammed Abdul Nayeem under a registered sale deed bearing document No.3335 of 2011 dated 25.07.2011. The said Mohammed Abdul Nayeem sold the subject property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1281 of 2015 dated 30.04.2015. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, she is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property.
ii. While so, when the defendant tried to interfere with her possession over the subject property lastly on 02.02.2021, she filed the aforesaid suit against the defendant for perpetual injunction restraining him from interfering with her possession over the subject property.
iii. Plaintiff further contended that the defendant herein created registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.918 of 2003, dated 31.10.2003 from Kummari Santosh Kumar, his brother’s son.
iv. The said gift settlement deed was not entered in the revenue record and he has not handed over the possession of the same to the defendant.
v. When the defendant came to know that the plaintiff is in possession of the subject property, he got executed a registered dispute relinquishment deed in favour of plaintiff bearing document No.6613 of 2016 dated 23.06.2016 by receiving an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh and thus, the defendant relinquished his rights over the subject property stating that he will never dispute at any time and cancel the said registered gift settlement deed and that the plaintiff is in possession of the subject property since long time.
vi. The defendant has not entered into the suit land. As such his title and rights were relinquished over the suit schedule property.
vii. The defendant filed written statement contending that one Kummari Santhosh Kumar, is the original owner and possessor of the subject property.
viii. In fact, subject property was purchased by father of the said Kummari Santhosh Kumar, in the name of Kummari Santhosh Kumar from Bejjanki Yellaiah under a simple sale deed long back.
ix. Kummari Santhosh Kumar, filed a suit O.S.No.10
