Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 192 (AP)

Rama Bharathi v. Doodala Bharathi

2012-02-22

GODA RAGHURAM, N.RAVI SHANKAR

body2012
ORDER The Petitioners herein are the appellants in the substantive appeal CCCA No. 170 of 2011, preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30-5-2011 in O.S.No. 154 of 2004, whereat they are defendants 3 and 4. 2. The 1st respondent preferred the suit for cancellation of registered sale deeds dated 21-3-1986, 10-2-2000 and 29-4-2000 and for a consequent direction to respondents 7 and 8 (the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.6) to deliver possession of the suit schedule property together with structures therein to the plaintiff and for recovery of future mesne profits. 3. The suit was decreed with costs and the registered sale deeds enumerated above were cancelled by declaring them null and void; and defendants 5 to 8 were directed to deliver possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff together with structures and plots, within the stipulated time and to pay future mesne profits after ascertaining the same on the application if any filed by the plaintiff. 4. Aggrieved thereby defendants 5 to 8 preferred CCCA No. 152 of 2011 against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 154 of 2904, on 21-9-2011, an interim order was granted in CCCA No. 152 of 2011 directing interim stay to the extent of cancellation of the registered sale deeds and delivery of possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. This Court however ordered that on ascertaining mesne profits, the appellants (in CCCA No. 152 of 2011) shall deposit the same within a period of six weeks and future directed that pending further proceedings, those appellants shall not alienate, sell or encumber the suit schedule property. Eventually, by an order dated 18-11-2011, the interim order granted on 21-9-2011 and a further order passed on 28-10-2011 (directing the appellants therein not to make any further constructions, induct any third party into possession and not to commence any new business in the suit schedule property) were made absolute. 5. Eventually, by an order dated 18-11-2011, the interim order granted on 21-9-2011 and a further order passed on 28-10-2011 (directing the appellants therein not to make any further constructions, induct any third party into possession and not to commence any new business in the suit schedule property) were made absolute. 5. On the admitted factual scenario, the petitioners herein, who are defendants 3 and 4 in the suit, have already alienated the suit schedule property in favour of defendants 5 to 8, the appellants in CCCA No. 152 of 2011 and those appellants who were in current possession of the property have been safeguarded from the consequence of the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 154 of 2004, by virtue of the interim order passed in this appeal, which was made absolute on 18-11-2011. 6. Sri Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioners would however seeks suspension of the judgment of the court below on the ground that though as per the law declared in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras (1) AIR 1954 SC 397 and in Iqbal Singh Manvah v. Meenakshi Manvah (2) 2006 (1) ALT (Crl.) 9 (S.C.) = 2005 (5) SCJ 98 = AIR 2005 SC 2119 , the judgment of the civil Court is not binding nor conclusive in adjudication of the charges in C.C.Nos. 386 of 2007 and 294 of 2006 (in which the petitioners figure as accused (both in C.C.No. 386 of 2007; and the 1st petitioner herein in C.C.No. 294 of 2006), the court trying C.C.Nos. 386 of 2007 and C.C.No. 294 of 2006 notwithstanding the law declared by the Supreme Court (supra) is taking into consideration the judgment in O.S.No. 154 of 2004. 7. In view of the interim order granted in CCCA No. 152 of 2011 and made absolute on 18-11-2011, the petitioner suffer no adverse consequence qua the issues, which are the subject matter of this appeal, we are not inclined to grant suspension of the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 154 of 2004. 8. 7. In view of the interim order granted in CCCA No. 152 of 2011 and made absolute on 18-11-2011, the petitioner suffer no adverse consequence qua the issues, which are the subject matter of this appeal, we are not inclined to grant suspension of the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 154 of 2004. 8. Sri Kapoor would strenuously contend that in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Mool Chand Yadav v. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur (3) (1982) 2 SCC 484 and Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. (4) (2005) 1 SCC 705 , this Court inherent to its appellate Jurisdiction is authorized to grant all such interim reliefs and would effectuate justice and equity between the parties. 9. We are however not inclined to grant interim suspension of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.154 of 2004, since the petitioners suffer no adverse consequence from the judgment under appeal, in view of the interim order granted in CCCA No.154 of 2011, as already stated. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue appropriate forensic strategies or remedies to persuade the appropriate court of criminal jurisdiction as to the law declared by the Supreme Court. An advisory to the criminal court to follow the law, in this appeal, is outside the locus of this lis. 10. This application is accordingly dismissed.