Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 511 (AP)

Muddireddi Lakshumma v. Chennuboyina Narayana

2020-08-09

M.GANGA RAO

body2020
ORDER : 1. The petitioner, 2nd defendant in the suit, filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 28.3.2019 passed in C.M.A. No. 11 of 2017 by the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, wherein and whereby the order passed in I.A. No. 750 of 2015 in O.S. No. 556 of 2015 passed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, granting temporary injunction restraining the revision petitioner/2nd defendant and other respondents/defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1st respondent/plaintiff over the petition schedule property till disposal of the main suit, was confirmed. 2. The 1st respondent herein filed O.S. No. 556 of 2015 before III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, against the petitioner herein/2nd defendant and the 2nd respondent/1st defendant, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and their associates from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule by the plaintiff. Later, on the death of 2nd respondent/1st defendant, his legal heirs - the respondents 3 to 6 were added as defendants 3 to 6 as per order passed in IA No. 940 of 2016 dated 22.7.2016. The 1st respondent/plaintiff also filed I.A. No. 750 of 2015 in the said suit under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying the Court to grant temporary injunction till disposal of the suit. 3. The case of the 1st respondent/plaintiff is that his father by name Chennuboina Nagaiah and his paternal grandfather Chinna Pullaiah jointly purchased the land extent Ac. 0.50 cents out of Ac. 1.87 cents in Circar Punji D. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village alongwith some other lands under a registered sale deed dated 9.6.1965 vide Document No. 2168 of 1965 and the land was in their possession and enjoyment. In the oral partition, the land fell to the share of his father. His father also purchased the land extent Ac. 0.94 cents out of Ac. 1.87 cents in Circar Punji D. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village under registered sale deed dated 16.12.1967 vide Document No. 4412 of 1967. His father also purchased the land extent Ac. 0.43 cents out of Ac. 0.94 cents out of Ac. 1.87 cents in Circar Punji D. No. 67/1 under registered sale deed dated 3.1.1985 vide Document No. 23 of 1985. His father also purchased the land extent Ac. 0.43 cents out of Ac. 0.94 cents out of Ac. 1.87 cents in Circar Punji D. No. 67/1 under registered sale deed dated 3.1.1985 vide Document No. 23 of 1985. Since then, his father had been in possession and enjoyment of the said land and his father also mortgaged the said property to PACS, Vallur and obtained loan. In the family arrangement between himself and his father in the year 1995, the entire extent of land i.e. Ac. 1.87 cents in Survey No. 67/1 was fell to his share. Since then, he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said land without objection from anybody. He dug a borewell in the piece of land i.e. Ac. 0.50 cents and got electricity connection to the said borewell and cultivating the land extent Ac. 1.87 cents by raising seasonal crops in the petition schedule property. He also obtained crop loan to the said land. In the month of September, 2015, the revision petitioner alongwith respondents 3 to 6 herein, without having any right and interest, highhandedly trying to encroach upon the petition schedule land extent Ac. 0.22 cents, which is part and parcel of total extent Ac. 1.87 cents, situated in D. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village. 4. The revision petitioner/2nd defendant filed her counter denying the averments of the affidavit filed in support of the injunction petition, stating that the 1st respondent/plaintiff is making a false claim over the suit schedule land extent Ac. 0.22 cents in Sy. No. 67/1 with false survey numbers and boundaries. The Sy. No. 67/1 was sub-divided into three sub-divisions i.e. 67/1A with an extent of Ac. 0.66 cents; 67/1B with an extent of Ac. 0.22 cents and 67/1C with an extent of Ac. 0.99 cents. As per the sub-division proceedings, the property covered by 67/1A is in the name of Chennuboina Pullaiah; 67/1B is in the name of Iraganaboina Subbarayudu and 67/1C is in the name of Munaiah. She purchased the land extent Ac. 0.22 cents in Sy. No. 67/1B from the 2nd respondent/1st defendant by name Iraganaboina Mallesu who succeeded the said Subbarayudu under a registered Sale deed dated 29.8.2001 for lawful consideration. Since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property without any obstruction from anybody including the 1st respondent/plaintiff. She purchased the land extent Ac. 0.22 cents in Sy. No. 67/1B from the 2nd respondent/1st defendant by name Iraganaboina Mallesu who succeeded the said Subbarayudu under a registered Sale deed dated 29.8.2001 for lawful consideration. Since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property without any obstruction from anybody including the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The 1st respondent/plaintiff has not filed a single document to show his possession over the petition schedule property at any point of time. There is no borewell in the property covered in Sy. No. 67/1B to an extent of Ac. 0.22 cents and the pattadar passbook and title deed were issued to her. The suit for mere injunction does not lie. The 1st respondent/plaintiff failed to show prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to grant injunction order and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Before the Trial Court, both sides had not adduced any oral evidence, but got marked Exs.P1 to P7 on behalf of 1st respondent/plaintiff and Exs.R1 to R5 on behalf of the revision petitioner/2nd defendant and other respondents/defendants with consent. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of registered Sale deed dated 9.6.1965; Ex.P2 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 16.12.1967; Ex.P3 is the certified copy of registered Sale deed dated 3.1.1985; Ex.P4 is the Electricity charge receipt; Ex.P5 is the Enjoyment sketch issued by Mandal Surveyor, Vallur; Ex.P6 is the Encumbrance Certificate and Ex.P7 is the attested copy of FMB alongwith covering letter. Ex.R1 is the original registered Sale deed dated 29.8.2001; Ex.R2 is the Passbook issued to revision petitioner/2nd defendant; Ex.R3 is the copy of Encumbrance certificate; Ex.R4 is the 1-B extract and Ex.R5 is the Adangals for fasli 1425 (two in number). 6. The Trial Court, considering the averments of the injunction petition and the documents filed in support of both the parties, came to the conclusion that the father of the 1st respondent/plaintiff purchased the land extent Ac. 1.87 cents in Sy. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village and Ex.P5 - Enjoyment sketch dated 19.1.2015 issued by the Mandal Surveyor, Vallur shows that the 1st respondent/plaintiff is enjoying the land extent Ac. 1.87 cents in Sy. No. 67/1. 1.87 cents in Sy. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village and Ex.P5 - Enjoyment sketch dated 19.1.2015 issued by the Mandal Surveyor, Vallur shows that the 1st respondent/plaintiff is enjoying the land extent Ac. 1.87 cents in Sy. No. 67/1. The documents Exs.P1 to P3 and P5 showed prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff, while rejecting the plea of the revision petitioner/2nd defendant stating that all the documents Exs.R1 to R5 are pertaining to the Sy. No. 67/1B but not Sy. No. 67/1 and the revision petitioner/2nd respondent failed to prove the sub-division of the land in Sy. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village. Giving such reasons, the Trial Court allowed I.A. No. 750 of 2015 by order dated 31.3.2017 granting injunction in favour of 1st respondent/plaintiff. 7. Against the order of the Trial Court dated 31.3.2017 passed in I.A. No. 750 of 2015, the revision petitioner/2nd defendant filed C.M.A. No. 11 of 2017 before the Principal District Judge, Kadapa and the same was dismissed by order dated 28.3.2019 confirming the order passed by the Trial Court on same and similar lines, without objectively considering the grounds of appeal. Being aggrieved by the order passed in C.M.A. No. 11 of 2017 dated 28.3.2019 by the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, the present civil revision petition is filed. 8. Sri. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would contend that both the Courts below committed grave error in granting injunction based on Exs.P1 to P7 filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in support of the injunction petition, which are not relevant to prove the possession of the 1st respondent/plaintiff as on the date of filing of the petition, while rejecting the documents Exs.R1 to R5 filed by the revision petitioner in support of her claim, which proves her possession and enjoyment of the land extent Ac. 0.22 cents in Sy. No. 67/1B of Vallur Village, stating that the documents are pertaining to the land in Sy. No. 67/1B but not for the land extent Ac. 0.22 cents in Sy. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village and no documentary proof is filed in support of the contention of sub-division of land extent Ac. 1.87 cents in Sy. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village. He further contend that it is for the 1st respondent/plaintiff to prove possession and enjoyment of the land extent Ac. 0.22 cents in Sy. 0.22 cents in Sy. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village and no documentary proof is filed in support of the contention of sub-division of land extent Ac. 1.87 cents in Sy. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village. He further contend that it is for the 1st respondent/plaintiff to prove possession and enjoyment of the land extent Ac. 0.22 cents in Sy. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village and that both the Courts below failed to see that the revision petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land extent Ac. 0.22 cents in Sy. No. 67/1B being part of Sy. No. 67/1, which is sub-divided into Sy. Nos. 67/1A, 67/1B and 67/1C and that the documents Exs.R2, R4 and R5 - Pattadar Passbook, Form 1-B and Adangals clearly prove the revision petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the subject land. 9. Per contra, Smt. M. Siva Jyothi, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff, would contend that all the documents marked in support of the revision petitioner to show her possession and enjoyment are pertaining to the land extent Ac. 0.22 cents in Sy. No. 67/1B of Vallur Village, whereas the 1st respondent/plaintiff's claim is against the petition schedule land extent Ac. 0.22 cents in Sy. No. 67/1 only. When the revision petitioner/2nd defendant failed to show the sub-division of the land extent Ac. 1.87 cents in Sy. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village, both the Courts below rightly held that the 1st respondent/plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule land extent Ac. 0.22 cents in Sy. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village by considering the documents Exs.P1 to P7 filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned Counsel, and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the 1st respondent/plaintiff proved that he is in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule land extent Ac. 1.87 cents in Sy. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village and in the land fell to his share, he dug borewell and raising the crops, whereas the documents filed by the revision petitioner/2nd defendant pertains to the land in Sy. No. 67/1B, but not to the land in Sy. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village. The revision petitioner failed to produce any records pertaining to sub-division of land in Sy. No. 67/1B, but not to the land in Sy. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village. The revision petitioner failed to produce any records pertaining to sub-division of land in Sy. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village, whereas the Trial Court granted injunction in respect of petition schedule agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 0.22 cents out of Ac. 1.87 cents in Circar Punji D. No. 67/1 of Vallur Village fields, Vallur Mandal, Kadapa District. The petitioner failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record and error of law, which calls for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the above foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of both the Courts below and consequently the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. As sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.