Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 1456
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
G.RADHA RANI, J
Smt. Parvathamma – Appellant
Versus
Dr. G.Ramakrishna Reddy – Respondent
SA/1160/2006
The court affirmed that a suit for mandatory injunction can proceed without a prior claim for possession, emphasizing the plaintiffs' established title and continuous possession despite the defendants' claims.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 11 - Second Appeal - The appellants challenged the lower courts' decisions regarding the title and possession of land in Survey No.280, asserting that the plaintiffs lacked a valid title and that the earlier judgment in O.S.No.19 of 1981 operated as res judicata. The trial court found the plaintiffs had established ownership through registered sale deeds and were entitled to a mandatory injunction. The appellate court upheld this, emphasizing the plaintiffs' continuous possession and the defendants' failure to prove their claim. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 28, 41)
(B) Res Judicata - The principle of res judicata requires the same matter in issue between the same parties, which was not satisfied as the subject matter of the current suit differed from O.S.No.19 of 1981. (Paras 29, 30)
(C) Burden of Proof - The burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish their title, which they did through evidence and documentation. (Paras 19, 21)
(D) Mandatory Injunction - The court ruled that a suit for mandatory injunction could be maintained even without a prior claim for possession, considering the long duration of litigation and the interests of justice. (Paras 34, 40)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed for a permanent injunction regarding land in Survey No.280, claiming ownership through various sale deeds. The defendants contested this, asserting their ownership based on a prior judgment.
Findings of Court:
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, confirming their ownership and possession, which was upheld by the appellate court.
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the suit for mandatory injunction without a claim for possession and the applicability of res judicata from O.S.No.19 of 1981.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiffs had established their title and possession, and the earlier judgment did not bar their current claim.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs filed suit for injunction (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. defendants contested ownership (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. trial court's findings (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. court's reasoning on title (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 5. second appeal dismissed (Para 41) |
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants – appellants – defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2006 passed in A.S.No.3 of 2005 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2005 passed in O.S.No.29 of 1991 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet.
2. The respondents are the plaintiffs. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court as plaintiffs and defendants.
3. The plaintiffs initially filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-24 guntas of dry land in Survey No.280 situated at Makthal Village with specific boundaries. The plaintiff No.1 is the husband of plaintiff No.2 and father of plaintiffs 3 and 4 and he is the General Power of Attorney (for short “GPA”) holder of plaintiffs 2 to 4.
4. The case of the plaintiffs was that the plaintiff No.2 purchased an extent of 300 square yards and 150 square yards vide registered sale deed Nos.1019 of 1984 and 1020 of 1984 dated 27.06.1984 respectively out of the land in Survey No.280. The plaintiff No.3 purchased an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas on 15.05.1984 and the plaintiff No.4 purchased an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas on 14.05.1984 in Survey No.280 of Makthal Village. All the plots were adjoining each other and form a compact block of Ac.0-24 guntas. The lands so purchased were mutated in the names of plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the revenue records. The defendants were strangers to the suit land and were trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land under a false claim that the suit land was pertaining to Survey No.4. Police Makthal registered a criminal case and initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The suit land i.e. Ac.0-24 guntas out of Survey No.280 was taken into custody by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet vide File No. C/487/87 dated 21.03.1987. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet rendered a decision on 20.10.1990 declaring the plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit land and ordered restoration of possession of the suit land in favor of the plaintiffs. In compliance of the above order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet, the Mandal Revenue Officer (for short “MRO”), Makthal restored the possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs on 28.01.1991 under a panchanama. The plaintiff No.2 obtained construction permission from Gram Panchayat, Makthal on 08.01.1987 in File No.255/86, which was subsequently renewed upto 07.01.1989. Later on, the Gram Panchayat renewed permission upto 04.07.1991 and approved the plan.
Inspite of all the above documents and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narayanpet, the defendants on 07.04.1991 again tried to interfere unlawfully into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. As their possession was endangered, the plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction.
5. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.132 of 1995 seeking amendment of the plaint for including the relief of declaration of title and the same was allowed on 20.11.1998. Thereafter, they filed I.A.No.26 of 2002 seeking the relief of mandatory injunction also and the same was allowed on 03.06.2002.
6. The defendants 1 to 5 filed a common written statement denying that the plaint schedule property was situated in Survey No.280. They specifically pleaded that the suit schedule property was part and parcel of the land in Survey No.4. The husband of defendant No.1 purchased Ac.0-26 guntas of land in Survey No.4 from one Sri Prabhakar Rao by means of re
