Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 431 (AP)

M. Anjaneyulu Naidu v. Umapathl Naidu

2001-04-17

B.S.A.SWAMY

body2001
B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the orders of the learned I additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, dated 30-3-2001 in I. A. No, 212 of 2001 in o. S. No. 207 of 2001 appointing Advocate- commissioner for auctioning the sugarcane crop on the plaint schedule land, the petitioners (defendants) filed this civil revision petition. ( 2 ) HEARD both sides. ( 3 ) THE factual background of this case is that there is one temple of Lord Vinayaka swamy in the village Battuvandlavooru and the said temple has got some immovable properties. As per the version of parties, the said temple is a private temple and that the poojari was looking after the affairs of the said temple. As per the version of the respondents herein, one Perumal Reddy was the tenant of these lands. When the poojari sold the lands to the petitioners who are husband and wife to each other, the said perumal Reddy filed A. T. C. No. 4 of 2000 on 4-9-2000 along with I. A. No. 1236 of 2000. To prove his possession, the said Perumal reddy filed third party affidavit given by t. Prabhakar Naidu, one of the plaintiffs in o. S. No. 207 of 2001 and the Court seemed to have passed the order of status quo. What happened in the said A. T. C. is not known at this stage as both the Counsel are unable to give correct position. On 11-3-2000, the said perumal Reddy filed O. S. No. 891 of 2000 seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners herein on the file of the Junior civil Judge, Chittoor for the very same properties. The said Perumal Reddy filed i. A. No. 1288 of 2000 with third party affidavit given by Umapathy Naidu, the first plaintiff in the said O. S. No. 891 of 2000 seeking temporary injunction. Though the court below passed the order of interim injunction, it later vacated that order on 27-9-2000 directing both parties to maintain status quo. Thereafter, the said Perumal reddy filed I. A. No. 414 of 2001 in O. S. No. 891 of 2000 for restraining the petitioners from harvesting the sugarcane crop but the Court below dismissed that application on 21-3-2001. Thereafter, the said Perumal reddy filed I. A. No. 414 of 2001 in O. S. No. 891 of 2000 for restraining the petitioners from harvesting the sugarcane crop but the Court below dismissed that application on 21-3-2001. Once again, the said Perumal Reddy filed another application, I. A. No. 306 of 2001, in O. S. No. 891 of 2000 against the petitioners on 21-3-2001 seeking appointment of advocate-Commissioner for auctioning the sugarcane crop, and the same seems to be pending. In the meantime, both the individuals who gave third party affidavits in the said A. T. C. and O. S. No. 891 of 2000 filed by the said Perumal Reddy, filed a representative suit, O. S. No. 207 of 2001, on behalf of the villagers against the petitioners on the file of the learned I Additional Junior civil Judge, Chittoor seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from harvesting the sugarcane crop. Along with the said O. S. No, 207 of 2001, they also filed two interlocutory applications, one (I. A. No. 207 of 2001) for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from harvesting the sugarcane crop and another (I. A. No. 212 of 2001) for appointment of Receiver to auction the sugarcane crop. The petitioners perhaps having received the order of injunction in I. A. No. 207 of 2001, filed counters in the said I. As on 23-3-2001 duly bringing to the notice of the Court about the pendency of the said A. T. C. No. 4 of 2000 as well as O. S. No. 891 of 2000 filed by the said perumal Reddy. The said learned I additional Junior Civil Judge without applying his mind to the factual background of the case, by order, dated 30-3-2001, converted the order of injunction into the order of status quo and appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to auction the sugarcane crop. The presiding officer without knowing what orders he was passing, passed two conflicting orders which run counter to each other. ( 4 ) FURTHER I feel that the respondents have no locus standi to file the suit. I have gone through the plaint filed by these two individuals. Prima facie I am of the opinion that the suit is not maintainable for the simple reason that they have not made any whisper in the plaint as to who constructed the said temple and who donated property to the said temple. I have gone through the plaint filed by these two individuals. Prima facie I am of the opinion that the suit is not maintainable for the simple reason that they have not made any whisper in the plaint as to who constructed the said temple and who donated property to the said temple. What they said was that about 1 1/2 years back all the villagers had taken a decision to renovate the temple. Except this, they have no interest in the said temple and its property. It is not known how such individuals can maintain a suit of this nature. The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that the said perumal Reddy is a tenant for over 40 years, and the poojari, without any authority under law, sold the property of the said temple to the petitioners. It is true that there is some vagueness in the matter. Whether the said temple is a private temple or a public temple no information is available. Likewise, who have been managing the temple, is also nowhere stated. In the plaint filed by these two individuals they categorically stated that the poojari was authorised to perform pooja out of the income derived from the plaint schedule property. That means the poojari is in effective control of the property. But, at the same time, I have my own doubts about his capacity to alienate the property. Those two issues have to be gone into in the said a. T. C. and O. S. No. 891 of 2000 filed by the said Perumal Reddy. ( 5 ) FROM the arguments across the bar, it is seen that these two individuals gave 3rd party affidavits stating that Perumal Reddy is in possession of the property in both the a-T. CNo. 4 of 2000 and O. S. No. 891 of 2000 filed by him. As the tenant had already taken necessary steps to safeguard his interest, these individuals has no cause to file this suit more so having given third party affidavits to show that the said perumal Reddy was in possession of the property. ( 6 ) ANOTHER interesting feature of this case is that the Counsel appearing for the said perumal Reddy and these two individuals are one and the same. ( 6 ) ANOTHER interesting feature of this case is that the Counsel appearing for the said perumal Reddy and these two individuals are one and the same. From this it is seen that these two individuals are well aware of the facts of the litigation initiated by the perumal Reddy, the tenant. The respondents cannot invent a new case to show that some others other than the petitioners - are in possession of the property. If the poojari had no authority to sell the property to the petitioners, that matter will be decided in the litigation initiated by Perumal Reddy. I have no manner of doubt to observe that it is nothing but abuse of process of Court to file suits one after the other to prevent the real person from enjoying the property. ( 7 ) IT is not the case of the respondents that they are in possession of the property. Without decreeing the suit, how the Court could restrain a person who was legally in possession of the property, from enjoying the same. If the suit is ultimately decreed, the parties will work out the remedies open to them. This is not the case where injunction can be granted more so when there is no evidence to show that these respondents are in possession of the property. In the circumstances, the order of the Court below appointing Advocate-Commissioner in I. A. No. 212 of 2001 is set aside as illegal. ( 8 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed with exemplary costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 2,000. 00.