Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 550 (AP)

Nalluri Anjaneyulu v. Nalluri Pedda Anjaneyulu

2009-08-12

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2009
Judgment :- The respondents herein filed O.S.No.102 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, against the petitioner herein for the relief of declaration of their right to use the passage shown with the markings of X, X1, X2 and X3 in the plaint sketch. They have also prayed for mandatory injunction requiring the petitioner to remove obstructions marked as Y and Y1 placed in X, X1, X2 and X3 passage. The respondents filed I.A.No.694 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC with a prayer to restrain the petitioner from alienating any portion of Y and Y1 property shown in the plaint schedule. The order of temporary injunction was passed on 08.05.2007. Alleging that in violation of the order of ad interim injunction passed in I.A.No.694 of 2007, the petitioner executed a sale deed on 11.05.2007 covering the portion of Y and Y1 in the plaint sketch, the respondents filed I.A.No.709 of 2007 under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC with a prayer to punish the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the I.A. by pleading certain excuses. Through its order, dated 24.10.2007, the trial Court allowed the I.A. and directed that the petitioner be sent to civil prison for a period of five (5) days. The petitioner filed CMA.No.18 of 2007 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, against the said order. The CMA was dismissed on 18.09.2008. Hence, this civil revision petition. Heard Sri P.Keshava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rama Rao Ghanta, learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents initiated proceedings under Rule 2-A of Order 39 CPC against the petitioner alleging that he has violated the order of ad interim injunction passed in I.A.No.694 of 2007. The petitioner, no doubt, admitted the execution of the sale deed marked as Ex.A.3. However, he pleaded that he was under some tremendous pressure to sell the property covered by it, and it became inevitable that a portion marked as Y and Y1 in the plaint sketch was included. The trial Court took note of these facts and directed that the petitioner be sent for civil prison for five (5) days. This Court would have certainly taken note of the implication of the sale deed, Ex.A.3, had it been a case where the respondents claimed any title or parallel right vis-à-vis the property. The trial Court took note of these facts and directed that the petitioner be sent for civil prison for five (5) days. This Court would have certainly taken note of the implication of the sale deed, Ex.A.3, had it been a case where the respondents claimed any title or parallel right vis-à-vis the property. The suit itself was in relation to the declaration of right to use passage. The relief of mandatory injunction was also sought. Till the suit itself is disposed of, no right as such accrues to the respondents. The mere fact that the portion of the property is sold hardly makes any difference. The only change would be that instead of the petitioner, the purchasers under Ex.A.3, to the extent it covers the suit schedule property, would be under obligation to respect the decree, in the event of suit being decreed. Sending of the petitioner to civil prison would not serve any purpose. The interests of the respondents will be protected by directing that no construction shall be brought into existence over the property sold under Ex.A.3, insofar as it covers any portion of Y and Y1 property marked in the plaint schedule. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside subject to the condition that the purchasers of Ex.A.3 shall not undertake any construction over the property indicated insofar as it covers the portion marked as Y and Y1 in the plaint schedule. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.