Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 315 (TS)

Aces Promoters And Builders v. B. Padma

2023-04-21

SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the respondents/defendants in O.S.No.1366 of 2018 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy. They have filed these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against the Order passed by the trial Court in two different interlocutory applications in the same suit. C.M.A.No.493 of 2022 has been filed against the orders of the trial Court in I.A.No.1104 of 2018 and C.M.A.No.497 of 2022 has been filed against the order in I.A.No.1103 of 2018. In fact, the Court below disposed both the interlocutory applications by way of a common order dtd. 18/6/2021. As could be seen from the orders in the above referred interlocutory applications, the trial Court allowed the applications filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and restrained respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and also restraining the respondents/defendants from changing the nature of the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the above said common order, the petitioners who are respondent Nos.16 to 18 in the above petition filed these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, but on the same grounds. Since the trial Court disposed both interlocutory applications under a common order and as the petitioners moved the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals on the same grounds, it is proposed to dispose both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by a common order. 2. The appellants have filed the appeals on the following grounds: The order and decree of the trial Court is illegal, contrary to law and facts, Court ought to have dismissed both the interlocutory applications, but erroneously allowed the petitions without considering the material submitted by the appellants herein. The trial Court failed to see that the requirements of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for grant of interim injunction was not established by the respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs. The trial Court failed to see that respondent Nos.1 and 2 approached the trial Court without any possession on the suit schedule property. They could not produce any documents to substantiate their ownership and legal position and that the trial Court ought to have seen that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have shown different boundaries in the schedule and tried to change the extent of the property. They could not produce any documents to substantiate their ownership and legal position and that the trial Court ought to have seen that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have shown different boundaries in the schedule and tried to change the extent of the property. The appellants have further pleaded that though the respondents/plaintiffs have claimed that they are owners of Ac.4-23 gts., having acquired the same under a registered gift deed and that their donors have purchased the property under a Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.1092 of 1999, failed to produce the documents before the trial Court. The trial Court passed the impugned order restraining the appellants herein from changing the nature of the property. But, in fact, the appellants herein are the rightful owners and possessors of the property, thereby they sought for setting aside the order. 3. While the counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents were submitting the arguments, they brought it to the notice of this Court that earlier two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals vide C.M.A.No.405 of 2021 and C.M.A.No.411 of 2021 filed by defendant Nos.14 and 15 against the same order in the above referred suit were dismissed by a common order dtd. 21/9/2022. The respondents have filed a copy of the order of this Court in the above referred Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. As per the above referred order, this Court came to the conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs made out a case for injunction to restrain all the respondents/defendants in the suit and having held that the trial Court correctly granted temporary injunction in both the interlocutory application dismissed the above referred Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 4. Heard both parties. 5. Now the point for consideration is: 6. Whether the orders impugned in the present appeals are liable to be set aside? 7. POINT The present appeals are filed by the defendants with a prayer to set aside the order, which in fact was confirmed by this Court in similar applications as stated above. As per the order impugned in the present appeals, it is very clear that the respondents/plaintiffs have claimed the absolute title and possession on the suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.P1 gift deed executed by their mother who purchased the property from her sons under Ex.P2 sale deed dtd. 27/10/1999. As per the order impugned in the present appeals, it is very clear that the respondents/plaintiffs have claimed the absolute title and possession on the suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.P1 gift deed executed by their mother who purchased the property from her sons under Ex.P2 sale deed dtd. 27/10/1999. As per Ex.P2 the mother of the plaintiffs purchased Ac.4-23 gts., of land from Sy.No.40/Aa/2 and Sy.No.42/A/2 with the following boundaries: North: Vendor's land, South: Neighbors, East: Neighbors land and West : Himayat Sagar. 8. The respondents/plaintiffs have claimed right on the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.P1. As per Ex.P1 document the property is bounded by neighbors land on North, South and East, and by Himayat Sagar on the western side. The Court below having considered the same and in view of the admissions made by the appellants, came to the conclusion that the western boundaries of Himayat Sagar i.e., lake Himayat Sagar, there is no dispute about the relationship of the parties. The documents and maps filed by the respondents/plaintiffs clearly show that Himayat Sagar is on the west of the suit schedule property. The land in Sy.No.33 is covered by Himayat Sagar. Therefore, the claim of respondents/plaintiffs that the land on the western side property is in the catchment area of Himayat Sagar cannot be decided based on the documents unless the parties produced their respective oral evidence. The same cannot be decided at the interlocutory stage without the parties produce their oral and documentary evidence. However, the document filed by the respondents/plaintiffs clearly show that they gout title and possession on the suit schedule property. The photographs filed by the respondents shows the dumping of some construction material on the suit land and the progress in the construction activity. The respondents have claimed in the above referred interlocutory applications that the respondents/defendants made attempt to raise structures by encroaching into the suit schedule property. Therefore, they are able to show prima facie case and balance of convenience is in their favour. 9. With the same observations the previously instituted Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were disposed by this Court confirming the injunction granted in favour of defendant Nos.14 and 15. In the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals also the same order need to be passed. Therefore, they are able to show prima facie case and balance of convenience is in their favour. 9. With the same observations the previously instituted Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were disposed by this Court confirming the injunction granted in favour of defendant Nos.14 and 15. In the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals also the same order need to be passed. The appellants herein are not able to show any material to take a different view that was taken in the previous Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. Therefore, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.