Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1283 (AP)

M. Narayana Reddy v. M. Sudharshan Reddy

2022-11-15

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2022
ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the orders, dated 12.10.2018, allowing the appeal in C.M.A.No.6 of 2017 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, which was filed challenging the order, dated 31.08.2017, allowing the petition in I.A.No.1464 of 2016 in O.S.No.461 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their men, subordinates, servants and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the plaint schedule property. 2. Heard Sri B.S Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri Virupaksha Dattatryeya Goud, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant for convenience and clarity. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the plaint schedule agricultural land of Ac.2.19 cents in Sy.No.199/4, Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.199/3, Ac.0.84 cents in Sy.No.199/1 totally constituting a single plot of Ac.03.14 cents having purchased the same in the year 1988 from M. Pedda Venkata Rami Reddy who is his senior paternal uncle. Out of the same, the plaintiff sold Ac.0.66 cents in Sy.No.199/4, Ac.0.84 cents in Sy.No.199/1, totally Ac.1.50 cents to Kuruva Maddileti, vide registered sale deed, dated 02.05.2006, and the rest of the property in an extent of Ac.1.64 cents (i.e., Ac.1.53 cents in Sy.No.199/4 + Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.199/3) is in his peaceful possession and enjoyment. His name was mutated in all the revenue records. He was issued pattadar passbook and title deed and ROR for the year 2014, 2015 & 2016 and adangals for the plaint schedule property for the year 2014 to 2016 Fasli No.1424 to 1426 in his name. While the things stood thus, the defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiff and residing in Dupadu village having no manner of right over the plaint schedule property, is trying to trespass into the plaint schedule land. (b) The defendant filed counter affidavit denying the petition averments and further contending as follows: The plaintiff has suppressed the truth. While the things stood thus, the defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiff and residing in Dupadu village having no manner of right over the plaint schedule property, is trying to trespass into the plaint schedule land. (b) The defendant filed counter affidavit denying the petition averments and further contending as follows: The plaintiff has suppressed the truth. Originally, the plaint schedule property of Ac.1.64 cents belonged to Chinna Rami Reddy, the father of the parties herein, who got it, along with other properties situated in A.Gokulapdu and Ulchala villages, in a partition with his brother Pedda Rami Reddy long ago. Chinna Rami Reddy and his two sons constituted a Hindu Joint Family and owned and possessed several items of immovable properties situated at both A.Gokulapadu and Ulchala villages. Most of the joint family properties were sold even during the life time of Chinna Rami Reddy. On the death of Chinna Rami Reddy about 30 years back, his wife, Sivamma, managed the joint family properties. The remaining joint family properties were partitioned under an oral partition affected about 20 years back in which petition schedule property of Ac.1.64 cents fell to the share of the defendant while the land in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.199/1 and 199/4 of Ulchala village and some other properties fell to the share of the plaintiff. Since then, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. For the last 20 years, he has been residing in Dupadu village, the native place of his wife. Taking advantage of the absence of the defendant in the village, the plaintiff collusively obtained pattadar passbooks in his favour for his land and also for the land of the defendant. Notwithstanding the pattadar passbooks, the plaintiff and the defendant were in possession and enjoyment in their respective shares allotted in the partition. On 02.05.2006, the plaintiff sold his land to K. Maddileti, under the registered sale deed, and delivered possession. Thereupon, after due enquiry, the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the defendant in respect of the petition schedule land. The ROR extract and No.3 adangal extract confirms the title and possession of the defendant over the petition schedule land. The plaintiff, with an evil intention to grab the property, is laying a false claim over the petition schedule property. The ROR extract and No.3 adangal extract confirms the title and possession of the defendant over the petition schedule land. The plaintiff, with an evil intention to grab the property, is laying a false claim over the petition schedule property. The plaintiff did not purchase the petition schedule land from M. Pedda Venkata Rami Reddy in the year 1988 as alleged. When the plaintiff highhandedly tried to interfere with the possession of the defendant, the defendant sustained injuries and a complaint was also lodged against the plaintiff on 24.07.2016 vide Crime No.35 of 2016 of K. Nagalapuram Police Station. There is no standing crop in the petition schedule land as alleged. The defendant sought dismissal of the petition claiming prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. 4. Exhibits P1 to P12 on behalf of the petitioners and exhibits R1 and R2 were marked on the side of the respondent. This Court, vide order, dated 23.01.2020, allowed I.A.Nos.2 of 2019 and 3 of 2019 and marked the certified copy of gift deed, dated 13.07.2016 (Document No.1947 of 2016), certified copy of judgment, dated 06.06.2019, in C.C.No.1093 of 2016 as exhibits P13 & P14 and certified copy of the sale deed, as exhibit R11 in I.A.No.1464 of 2016, respectively as additional evidence. 5. On merits, the trial Court allowed the petition and made absolute the ad-interim injunction granted earlier holding that if injunction is not granted in favour of the petitioner, there is every chance that the acts of the respondent may cause irreparable loss to the petitioner, and that therefore, it is a fit case to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner till disposal of the suit. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred appeal in C.M.A.No.6 of 2017 before the lower appellate Court. The appeal was allowed holding that the trial Court erred in considering the documents filed by the plaintiff marked as exhibits P3 to P12 which are not supporting the case of the plaintiff and not taking into consideration exhibits R1 and R2 which support of the version of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is held not entitled to temporary injunction and the orders of the trial Court were set aside. 7. Therefore, the plaintiff is held not entitled to temporary injunction and the orders of the trial Court were set aside. 7. The aggrieved plaintiff preferred this revision petition mainly contending that the appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper perspective and see that the petitioner established his possession and enjoyment over the property. 8. In view of the rival contentions, before proceeding further, it is apropos to mention the principles which govern the grant of relief of interim injunction as mentioned in the decision of the Supreme Court in Kashi Math Samsthan and others v. Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and others, AIR 2010 SC 296 wherein at paragraph No.13, it was held as follows: “13. It is well settled that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. But it is equally well settled that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned would not be material at all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it is not open to the Court to grant injunction in his favour even if, he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted… ….” 9. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh, AIR 2014 SC 3708 # (2014) 9 SCC 78 , at para 13, the Supreme Court referred the decision in M/s. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and Ors. v. Rangaswamy Chettiar [(1980) 4 SCC 259], wherein the 2-Judge Bench of this Court while considering the scope of Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act followed Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval [ (1975) 2 SCC 246 ] and while doing so, the Court also articulated the distinction between "appellate jurisdiction" and "revisional jurisdiction". In paragraph 2 (page 261 of the Report), the Court stated as follows: “2. In paragraph 2 (page 261 of the Report), the Court stated as follows: “2. 'Appeal' and 'revision' are expressions of common usage in Indian statute and the distinction between 'appellate jurisdiction' and 'revisional jurisdiction' is well known though not well defined. Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing, as it were, on law as well as fact and is invoked by an aggrieved person. Such jurisdiction may, however, be limited in some way as, for instance has been done in the case of second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, and under some Rent Acts in some States. Ordinarily, again, revisional jurisdiction is analogous to a power of superintendence and may sometimes be exercised even without its being invoked by a party. The extent of revisional jurisdiction is defined by the statute conferring such jurisdiction. The conferment of revisional jurisdiction is generally for the purpose of keeping tribunals subordinate to the revising Tribunal within the bounds of their authority to make them act according to law, according to the procedure established by law and according to well defined principles of justice. Revisional jurisdiction as ordinarily understood with reference to our statutes is always included in appellate jurisdiction but not vice versa. These are general observations. The question of the extent of appellate or revisional jurisdiction has to be considered in each case with reference to the language employed by the statute.” Keeping the above principles in view, the case on hand is to be examined now. 10. When the interlocutory application was heard by the trial Court, the petitioner/plaintiff filed exhibits P1 to P12 whereas the respondent filed exhibits R1 and R2 raising a serious dispute about the right and possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and set up title and possession in himself in the written statement as well as counter. However, the trial Court, placing heavy reliance on the documents filed by the petitioner, granted interim injunction ignoring the relevance of exhibits R1 and R2, except making a reference of them in the order. 11. Before the appellate Court, the appellant/respondent/ defendant filed evidence vide exhibits R3 to R10. Having considered the evidence placed by both the parties, the lower appellate Court found that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and dismissed the petition and set aside the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. 12. 11. Before the appellate Court, the appellant/respondent/ defendant filed evidence vide exhibits R3 to R10. Having considered the evidence placed by both the parties, the lower appellate Court found that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and dismissed the petition and set aside the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. 12. Since revision before this Court is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of revision is limited only to the extent of any material irregularity or illegality committed by the appellate Court or its failure to exercise jurisdiction or erroneously exercising it, unlike in case of an appeal before this Court. 13. The plaintiff filed pattadar passbook under exhibit P1 showing his property of Ac.0.84 cents in Survey No.199/1, Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.199/3 and Ac.2.19 cents in Sy.No.199/4 of Ulchala village, a total extent of Ac.3.14 cents and the said pattadar passbook further indicates alienation of the said property in part to an extent of Ac.0.84 cents in Sy.No.199/1 and all the property of Ac.0.66 cents in Sy.No.199/4 vide document No.842 of 2006. It bears patta No.968. The respondent/defendant was also issued another pattadar passbook under Ex.R1 with the same patta number and for the same extent exactly as in Ex.P1, including the part sold and the balance remained. Exhibit R1 also depicts original extents of Ac.0.84 cents, Ac.0.11 cents, Ac.2.19 cents in Sy.No.199/1, 199/3 and 199/4 and also for Ac.1.53 cents by rounding Ac.2.19 cents in Sy.No.199/4. Thus, in substance, the pattadar passbooks filed by the petitioner and also the pattadar passbooks filed by the respondent are the same. Ex.R2 is the title deed in the name of the respondent/defendant by striking out the name of the plaintiff and incorporating the name of the defendant. Therefore, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner lost his pattadar passbook as reported to the police as certified in Ex.P2 by the Station House Officer of K. Nagulapuram PS, dated 31.05.2011 and the respondent managed to obtain the pattadar passbook and the same is evident from the manner in which it was issued and if at all, the respondent is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property for long time having got it in the partition as he pleaded, a fresh pattadar passbook without any of these defects or corrections would have been issued. 14. 14. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as the respondent is away from the suit schedule property, the petitioner fraudulently obtained passbook under exhibit P1 and if at all he lost the pattadar passbook, he would not have waited for so long time to complain the loss of the material document and further that he would not have kept silent against the officials who issued exhibits R1 and R2 to the respondent, and therefore, the silence on the part of the petitioner nullify the version of the petitioner. 15. Nextly, it is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that copies of the adangals showing title and possession of the petitioner for the Fasli 1462 and 1464 have been filed by the petitioner and they clearly indicate that the suit schedule property is in possession of the petitioner and they are enough to establish prima facie case in favour of the petitioner to grant interim injunction. He further submitted that similar documents filed by the respondent are manipulated and fabricated and otherwise, they would have been filed by him before the trial Court itself, and therefore, no evidentiary value can be attached to them. 16. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the documents were filed before the appellate Court, they were obtained long back and since they were already received in evidence, the delay loses significance. He further submitted that the revenue record filed by both parties relate to the same property for the same period, and therefore, without considering the documentary evidence field by the respondent, the case of the plaintiff cannot be unilaterally upheld. Further, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if at all, the version of the petitioner that he has petition schedule property of Ac.1.64 cents after the sale of Ac.1.50 cents, the entries in adangal and ROR must reflect only Ac.1.53 cents in Sy.No.199/4 but not Ac.1.64 cents as shown in Ex.P3, P5 (ROR for the years 2014 & 2015) and adangals vide Exs.P6, P8 for the years 2014 & 2015. To clarify it, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the names might not have been mutated in the revenue record even after the sale and the blame cannot be thrown on the petitioner. To clarify it, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the names might not have been mutated in the revenue record even after the sale and the blame cannot be thrown on the petitioner. Answering the same, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in such a case, the total extent of Ac.2.19 cents must be reflected in Sy.No.199/4, but not Ac.1.64 cents. 17. In addition thereto, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner, though claimed to have purchased the property from his paternal uncle, failed to file any proof that he purchased the said property, on the other hand, the respondent could file document under exhibit R3, dated 25.05.1922, which shows that the schedule property is the ancestral property of the grandfather, and therefore, without showing primarily the title of the vendor of the petitioner, i.e., his paternal uncle, and also subsequent acquisition of title by the petitioner by virtue of the alleged sale, there exists no title as claimed by the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner utterly failed to establish his prima facie case. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a petition seeking temporary injunction, proof of possession alone is material and the question of title is only incidental and that evidence would be placed during the course of trial in this regard. If available it ought to have been filed in view of defence. The trial Court regarded the entries of sale shown in RORs in exhibits P3 to P5 as sufficient proof of title. But it has not noticed the significance of absence of source of title to land in S.No.199-4 which is large extent in the plaint schedule. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent further pointed out that RORs vide Ex.P3, P5 filed by the petitioner shows acquisition of title by purchase in respect of two items of land in S.Nos.199-1 and 199-3, whereas the relevant column is kept blank in relation to the land in Sy.No.199/4. Therefore, it is vehemently contended that the case set up by the petitioner is feeble and in the light of the case pleaded and evidence placed by the respondent, the petitioner could not establish prima facie case as observed by the appellate Court, and therefore, the order of the appellate Court need not be interfered with in the revision. 20. Therefore, it is vehemently contended that the case set up by the petitioner is feeble and in the light of the case pleaded and evidence placed by the respondent, the petitioner could not establish prima facie case as observed by the appellate Court, and therefore, the order of the appellate Court need not be interfered with in the revision. 20. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner has enjoyed the interim order of injunction throughout since it was initially granted and the trial Court made it absolute by allowing the petition and even before the lower appellate Court, there was no stay of the order of the trial Court and even before this court, the appellate Court’s order has not been stayed. Therefore, he submitted that the interim order in favour of the petitioner may be allowed to continue till disposal of the suit and a direction may be given to the trial Court for early disposal and the interim order may not be disrupted. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that when there is no right to have the relief and if the Court also comes to the same conclusion, it is not valid to allow the petitioner to enjoy the interim order which is otherwise unsustainable, more particularly, on the alleged ground of enjoying the interim order during the course of pendency of the proceedings. 21. By going through the pleadings and the material placed by both parties and the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both sides, this Court finds that there is correctness in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner could not place any prima facie material to show that his vendor has right in the suit schedule property and that he has purchased it. With regard to possession also, there is no clear proof of possession by the petitioner in view of discrepancies in the revenue record filed by both parties. Two sets of the same documents were issued by the revenue authorities in favour of both parties favouring both parties, like RORs and adangal for the same lands and for the same periods, faslis 1424, 1426. Two sets of the same documents were issued by the revenue authorities in favour of both parties favouring both parties, like RORs and adangal for the same lands and for the same periods, faslis 1424, 1426. Further , for the year 2016, even for the petitioner the extent is noted as Ac.1.53 cents in SY.No.199-4 in adangals without any reason noted, but it is shown as Ac.1.64 cents for years 2014 & 2015. 22. On a cumulative reading of the documents filed by both parties, this Court finds that the petitioner has not made out prima facie case, as against the case pleaded and established by the respondent. When the petitioner could not establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss cannot be inferred to justify granting of interim injunction. 23. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the order of the lower appellate Court does not suffer from any kind of illegality or irregularity warranting interference in this revision by this Court. Further, existence of interim order does not justify its continuance to the detriment of the case of the respondent. Thus, this Court finds that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit without in any way being influenced by the observations of this Court. 24. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court hereinabove, while passing the judgment in the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.