Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 672 (TS)

Mirza Mujahid Baig v. Mohammad Amjad Ali Khan

2024-09-06

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2024
ORDER : Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant to set aside the order and decree dated 14.08.2020 in I.A.No.176 of 2019 in O.S.No.116 of 2019 (O.S.No.266 of 2022) passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Manthani and as confirmed by the Principal District Judge at Jayashankar Bhupalpalli by Common Order, dated 27.03.2023 in CMA No.42 of 2022 (CMA No.1/of 2020 old). 2. Heard Sri Mirza Aijaz Ali Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Puli Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent. 3. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.116 of 2019 for perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas, Ac.0.20 guntas and Ac.0.14 guntas in Sy.Nos.91/1A/A, 91/2B/2/2 and 91/2A/2/2, respectively, situated at Kataram village, Kataram Mandal of Jayashankar Bhupalpally district (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’). It is averred that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the same by way of sale deed bearing document No.4554/2019 dated 24.07.2019; that defendant tried to interfere and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property on 03.11.2019 along with his henchmen. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction vide O.S.No.116 of 2019. 5. Along with the suit, petitioner also filed I.A.No.176 of 2019 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC praying the Court to grant ad-interim injunction. Initially, the trial Court, vide order dated 08.11.2019, granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Defendant entered appearance and filed counter in the said application denying the claim of plaintiff and further contended that plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property and in fact, defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Acs.2.39 guntas in Sy.No.91/1 and Ac.1.29 guntas in Sy.No.91/2, total admeasuring Acs.4.28 guntas, having purchased the same through sale deed bearing document no.2254/2015 dated 03.08.2015 and finally, prayed to vacate the interim order granted earlier. 7. 7. The trial Court, on due consideration of the material and documents placed on record, vide order dated 14.08.2020, dismissed the I.A.No.176 of 2019 and vacated the ad-interim injunction granted on 08.11.2019. However, the trial Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property and further directed the Tahsildar, Kataram not to mutate any further transfers/transactions and also directed the Sub-Registrar, Manthani and the Sub-Registrar, Mulugu not to register any further transfers/ transactions made either by plaintiff of defendant in respect of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the main suit. 8. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2020, defendant filed CMA No.42 of 2022 (old CMA No.1/2020) before the Principal District Judge at Jayashankar Bhupalpally and the Principal District Judge vide common order dated 27.03.2023 dismissed the said CMA by confirming the order dated 14.08.2020 passed in I.A.No.176 of 2019. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2023, the defendant preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant submitted that the trial Court committed error in granting status quo and also further directions to the Tahsildar, Kataram not to mutate any further transfers/transactions made by either parties in respect of the suit schedule property and also to the Sub-Registrar, Manthani and the Sub-Registrar, Mulugu not to register any further transfers/transactions made either by plaintiff of defendant in respect of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the main suit and that the said directions are beyond the scope of the application. Learned counsel further submitted that defendant is, in fact, owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under sale deed bearing document Nos.2254/2015 dated 03.08.2015 and its registered rectification deed bearing document No.2614/2015 dated 26.08.2015 from the lawful owner. He further submitted that the appellate Court also erred in confirming the order passed by the trial Court without properly appreciating the facts of the issue as well as grounds raised by the petitioner in the CMA. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant further contended that trial Court as well as appellate Court passed orders without considering the statutory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, Specific Relief Act and the authoritative pronouncements passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as High Courts. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant further contended that trial Court as well as appellate Court passed orders without considering the statutory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, Specific Relief Act and the authoritative pronouncements passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as High Courts. It is further contended that trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while issuing directions to the Tahsildar, Kataram as well as the Sub-Registrars beyond its jurisdiction and beyond the scope of application i.e., I.A.No.176 of 2019. Learned counsel further submitted that the sale deed bearing document No.2254/2015, dated 03.08.2015, under which the defendant purchased the same, is much prior to the sale deed bearing document No.4554/2019, dated 24.07.2019 purchased by the plaintiff in respect of the same property and the same is collusive sale deed. He further contended that both the Courts have failed to consider the fact that the sale deed bearing document No.4554/2019 was brought into existence by the plaintiff after a period of four years from the date of execution of registered sale deed in his favour. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant relied upon the following decisions : (i) S. Prakash Rao and others vs. S. Shyam Rao, 2001 SCC Online AP 1147; (ii) West Bengal Housing Board vs. Pramila Sanfui and others, (2016) 1 SCC 743 ; (iii) Union of India vs. Ibrahimuddin and another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the same vide document No.4554/2019 and the name of the plaintiff was also mutated in the revenue records. That the defendant challenged the said mutation before the Joint Collector, Jayashankar District and the Joint Collector passed orders in favour of the defendant. Aggrieved by the said orders, the plaintiff filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.2215 of 2020 and this Court was pleased to grant interim stay and the writ petition is still pending. It is further contended that the vendor of the defendant Mohammad Mazar Ullah Khan was not the title holder and possessor of the suit schedule property as on the date of execution of sale deed vide document Nos.2254/2015 and 2614/2015. Therefore, claim of the defendant is not sustainable in the eye of law and that the defendant did not approach this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and finally, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 13. Therefore, claim of the defendant is not sustainable in the eye of law and that the defendant did not approach this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and finally, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 13. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff placed on record the order dated 24.01.2024 passed in CRP No.3199 of 2023, in which this Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and directed both the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. It is contended that petitioner in CRP No.3199 of 2023 and present CRP are one and the same, however, the respondent in both the CRPs are different. 14. Perusal of the record would show that petitioner/ defendant is claiming that he purchased the suit schedule property vide sale deed bearing document Nos.2254/2015 dated 03.08.2015 and rectification deed bearing document No.2614/2015 dated 26.08.2015, whereas the respondent/ plaintiff is claiming that he purchased the suit schedule property under sale deed bearing document No.4554/2019 dated 24.07.2019. It is also evident from the record that mutation affected in favour of the respondent/plaintiff was set aside by the Joint Collector on challenge by petitioner/defendant and against which, the respondent/plaintiff filed Writ Petition No.2215 of 2000, wherein this Court granted stay of operation of the order of the Joint Collector, which mean that the mutation affected in favour of the plaintiff is subsisting and the said writ petition is pending adjudication. 15. It is evident that the trial Court initially granted interim injunction in favour of respondent/defendant. The petitioner/ plaintiff entered appearance and filed vacate petition and the trial Court, on detailed examination of the material placed before it, had vacated the interim order granted earlier and directed both the parties to maintain status quo and also further directed the Sub-Registrar not to entertain the transfers/ transactions and also directed the Tahsildar, Kataram not to affect any mutation in respect of the suit schedule property to preserve the property intact and to avoid further multiplicity of litigation in respect of the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff filed suit simpliciter for perpetual injunction along with application for ad-interim injunction and did not seek any further reliefs in the said application. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff filed suit simpliciter for perpetual injunction along with application for ad-interim injunction and did not seek any further reliefs in the said application. Therefore grant of further directions to the Sub-Registrars of Manthani and Mulugu and the Tahsildar, Kataram are beyond scope of application filed by the respondent/plaintiff and also beyond powers conferred under Section 151 of CPC. Therefore, the said directions are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. However, the status quo granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court shall continue. 16. Perusal of the record would also show that the suit was filed in the year 2019 and it appears that the pleadings have already been completed and entire material is also placed on record. At this juncture, it is not appropriate for this Court to undertake detailed examination and adjudication of the rival claims of both the parties in this Revision and rival contentions can be decided only after full-fledged trial. 17. The issue involved in West Bengal Hosing Board (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is with regard to grant of temporary injunction and police protection. In the said suit, the trial Court granted temporary injunction and police protection against the persons, who are not parties to the suit. The facts and the issue involved in the above judgment are completely different and therefore, said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 18. The issues and facts involved in S. Prakash Rao (supra) and Union of India (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner, are also completely different and therefore, the said judgments have no application to the facts of the present case. 19. In the light of above discussion, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of and the directions issued to the Sub-Registrars of Manthani and Mulgu not to register any further transfers/ transactions and to the Tahsildar, Kataram not to mutate any further transfers/transactions in respect of the suit schedule property by the trial Court in I.A.No.176 of 2019 in O.S.No.116 of 2019 and confirmed by the appellate Court vide order dated 27.03.2022 in CMA No.42 of 2022, are set aside. However, the order of status quo granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court shall continue till the disposal of the suit. However, the order of status quo granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court shall continue till the disposal of the suit. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit-O.S.No.116 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.