Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 14850
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
P. Sree Sudha, J
Pulyala Damodar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Abdul Kareem – Respondent
Second Appeal Nos.538, 539 & 540 OF 2007
In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish prima facie title and possession; if the plaintiff fails to prove their own case and does not object to a court-appointed Commissioner's report identifying the property boundaries, the suit for injunction is liable to be dismissed.
Headnote:(A) Suit for permanent injunction - Burden of proof - In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must prove prima facie title and possession over the suit schedule property - Plaintiff cannot succeed based on the weakness of the defendant's case.
(B) Commissioner's Report - Failure to file objections - If a party fails to file objections to an Advocate Commissioner's report, they are precluded from challenging the findings of the report in later stages of the litigation.
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed suits for permanent injunction against the defendants, claiming ownership and possession of plots in Survey No. 1045 through registered sale deeds. Defendants contended that the plots claimed by the plaintiffs actually fall within Survey No. 1048, which is owned and possessed by the defendants. A court-appointed Advocate Commissioner, assisted by the Deputy Director of Survey, conducted a survey and found that the plaintiffs' plots were indeed located in Survey No. 1048. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, shifting the burden of proof to the defendants, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision upon examining the evidence and the Commissioner's report.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the plaintiffs failed to establish their possession over the specific plots in Survey No. 1045. Since the plaintiffs did not verify the location of the plots prior to purchase, nor did they challenge the Advocate Commissioner's report during the trial, the evidence supported the defendants' contention that the property fell within Survey No. 1048.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs proved their possession over the suit schedule property and whether the lower appellate court correctly relied upon the Advocate Commissioner's report in reversing the trial court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: In an injunction suit, the plaintiff must stand on their own evidence to prove actual possession. Failure to cross-examine or object to a court-appointed Commissioner's survey report creates a rebuttable presumption that the report is accurate.
Result: Second appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of suits for injunction involving common defendants and land disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. evaluation of documentary evidence and boundary disputes in property litigation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. plaintiff's burden to prove possession independently without relying on defendant's weaknesses. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. finality of findings based on accepted commissioner reports in the absence of objections. (Para 11 , 12) |
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Second Appeal No.539 of 2007 is filed against the judgment and decree of the V Additional District Judge, Warangal passed in A.S.No.98 of 2006 dated 22.12.2006 in reversing the judgment and decree of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal passed in O.S.No.1364 of 2001 dated 31.07.2006.
2. Second Appeal No.538 of 2007 is filed against the judgment and decree of the V Additional District Judge, Warangal passed in A.S.No.97 of 2006 dated 22.12.2006 in reversing the judgment and decree of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal passed in O.S.No.1331 of 2001 dated 31.07.2006.
3. Second Appeal No.540 of 2007 is filed against the judgment and decree of the V Additional District Judge, Warangal passed in A.S.No.99 of 2006 dated 22.12.2006 in reversing the judgment and decree of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal passed in O.S.No.1363 of 2001 dated 31.07.2006.
4. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 filed five different suits in O.S.Nos.1364 of 2001, 1331 of 2001 and 1363 of 2001 they sought for permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with physical and peaceful possession and enjoyment from their respective plots as they filed suits against common defendant Nos.1 to 5 regarding the same relief. All the suits were clubbed together and evidence is recorded in O.S.No.1331 of 2001 and a common judgment was passed in which the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with physical and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs with respect to their individual suit plots but the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and set aside the order of the trial Court. Against the said order, plaintiffs filed these second appeals with the following substantial questions of law:
i. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court and in dismissing the suit for injunction is legally sustainable and is supported by evidence on record?
ii. Having regard to the recitals in Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Exs.B.16, B.17 coupled with oral evidence, whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove possession of the property is legally sustainable?
iii. Whether the lower appellate Court is not in error in relying on the report of the Advocate Commissioner on the ground that the appellant has not filed any objections to the report of the Commissioner even though in the cross examination it has been admitted that the entire land has not been measured?
iv. Whether the lower Court is not in error in relying on the report of the Commissioner even though the plaintiff had no opportunity the cross examine the Deputy Director as he was dead?
v. Whether non filing of the memo of objections with regard to the measurements taken by the Commissioner to hold that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property?
vi. Whether the reasoning of the lower Appellate Court for reversing the judgment of the trial Court is legally sustainable?
5. Pulyala Damodar Reddy (plaintiff in O.S.No.1331 of 2001), G.Bikshma Reddy (Plaintiff in O.S.No.1343 of 2001), Chakilam Janardhan Rao (Plaintiff in O.S.No.1344 of 2000), G.Veeraswamy (Plaintiff in O.S.No.1363 of 2001) and K.Venkataiah (Plaintiff in O.S.No.1354 of 2001) have filed separate suits against common defendants Mohd. Abdul Kareem (Defendant No.1), Mohd. Ankoos (Defendant No.2), Yousuf Shareef (Defendant No.3), Mohd. Nizamudding (Defendant No
