Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Namuduri Atchyutaramaiah vs Osuri Gangadharam (Died) By Lrs. And ... on 21 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(6)ALD713, 1998(6)ALT758, 1999 A I H C 1422, (1998) 2 LS 601, (1998) 6 ANDHLD 713, (1998) 6 ANDH LT 758
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-6-1987 passed in AS No.21 of 1981 on the file of Sub-Court, Ramachandrapuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 9-3-1981 passed in OS No.84 of 1977 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ramachandrapuram in East Godavari District.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit OS No.84 of 1977. The parties herein are being referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The respondent-plaintiff filed the said suit for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property consisting of coconut garden of Ac. 16.93-1/2 in RS No. 103 and a vacant Iand of 38 cts. in RSNo.107/1 of Serilanka, Hamlet of Maskapalli in Ramachandrapuram Taluq, E.G. District. The plaintiff filed the said suit on 21-2-1977. The defendant resisted the suit. The trial Court holding that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit, decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendant, the lower appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the date of filing of the suit and consequently dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by that judgment and decree, the defendant has come up with this second appeal.
3. For proper appreciation, it is necessary to narrate the relevant and admitted facts as revealed from the evidence on record and they are as under:
The respondent-plaintiff is the o\\ner of the suit property. He leased out the said lands to the defendant under an agreement dated 21-12-1967forapcriodoffiveyears. Towards the rent, the defendant had to deliver 35,000 coconuts per year in three equal instalments in the months of April, August and December and in default thereof, he had to pay the value of the coconuts at the prevailing market rates on the due dates with interest; There are other conditions also, but they are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. The plaintiff filed a petition ATP No. 21 of 1973 before the Tenancy Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram for eviction of the defendant alleging that the defendant-tenant committed default in payment of rents and, therefore, he was liable to be evicted. It appears that during the pendency of the said eviction petition, a Receiver was appointed and that Receiver took possession of the lands on 8-11-1973. The Eviction Petition ATP No.21 of 1973 was enquired into and eviction of the defendant-tenant was ordered for the reason that the minimum period of six years of tenancy provided under Section 10(i) of the Andhra Tenancy Act was over and, therefore, the tenant was liable to hand over possession of the lands to the landlord and accordingly the petition for eviction was ordered. Against the said order of eviction, this tenant-defendant preferred an appeal TA No.2 of 1974 before the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry. Meanwhile, the plaintiff-landlord filed an execution petition EP No.l of 1974 in ATP No.21 of 1973 before the Talisildar, Ramachandrapuram and obtained delivery of possession of the suit lands on 18-1-1974. Subsequently, the appeal TA No.2 of 1974 filed by the tenant before the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry was allowed on 7-6-1976 holding that eventhough the period of six years provided under Section 10(i) of the Andhra Tenancy Act was over, there was no bar in continuing the tenant for more than six years, that the Talisildar did not examine whether the tenant defaulted in payment of rent or committed any act for which he was liable to be evicted, and accordingly, set aside the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar and remanded the petition to him for disposal afresh. The Sub-Collector further ordered, while remanding the matter, that the possession of the land should be restored to the tenant. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Sub-Collector, the tenant filed a petition IA No.3 of 1976 in ATP No.21 of 1973 before the Tahsildar for re-delivery of possession and the Tahsildar by his order dated 4-10-1976 directed the Re\pcnue Inspector, Venkatayapalem to take possession of the lands and hand over the same to the tenant-defendant. The plaintiff-landlord filed the Writ Petition No.3288 of 1976 challenging the said order in IA No.3 of 1976 in ATP No.21 of!973ofthe Tahsildar directing re-delivery of the possession of the land to the tenant. He also filed WPNo.3881 of 1976 cliallenging the order passed by the Sub-Collector allowing the appeal TA No.2 of 1974 and remanding the petition for fresh disposal and ordering that the possession of the land shall be restored to the tenant. The plaintiff-landlord filed WPMP No.5254 of 1976 in WP No.3288 of 1976 and obtained interim stay of the order passed in IA No.3 of 1976 in ATP No 21 of 1973. But, subsequently, the said impugned stay was vacated by this Court on 30-11-1976. Then the plaintiff-landlord preferred writ appeal in WA No.640 of 1976 and this Court called for a report from the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram as to whether the plaintiff-landlord or the defendant-tenant was in actual possession of the coconut plantation in dispute. In accordance with the directions of mis Court, the Tahsildar submitted his report stating that the tenant was given possession on 5-10-1976 in pursuance of the orders of the Sub-Collector in the presence of mediators and also the Village Officers, but the defendant could not retain his possession as he was thrown out from the land by force and the landlord had taken possession of the same. Based on tliat report of the Tahsildar this Court, while observing that the landlord got possession by whatever means and he was in actual possession as on 1-12-1976, allowed the writ appeal and set aside the earlier order of the single Judge relating to tl*c interim arrangement. The Division Bench while disposing of that appeal, viz., WA No. 640 of 1976, also directed the writ petition to be posted for final hearing as "there was a regular scramble for possession and it was not desirable td allow that state of affairs to continue any further". Thus the plaintiff-landlord was allowed to continue in possession of the suit land by virtue of the interim order of this Court in WA No.640 of 1976. The two writ petitions came up for final hearing before His Lordship Ramachandra Rao, J., and they were disposed of by a common order dated 25-1-1977. The learned Judge, while dismissing both the writ petitions, observed thus:
"It is common ground that the petitioner through deliver)' of possession of the land in execution of the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar in ATP No.21 of 1973 and that on setting aside the order and remanding the petition for eviction to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal, the 4th respondent (Tenant) was entitled to be restored to possession. Further, the Receiver ceased to be in possession after the disposal of the eviction petition by the Tahsildar and after the petitioner took possession of the same in execution of the order of eviction. There is therefore no illegality or irregularity committed by the appellate authority in directing restoration of possession to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent filed the petition IA No.3 of 1973 before the Tahsildar for re-delivery of possession pursuant to the order of the appellate authority and this petition was ordered and the 4th respondent took possession of the lands. Even in the absence of a direction by the appellate authority, the original authority, the Tahsildar was bound to restore possession of the land to the 4th respondent as the order of eviction being set aside by the appellate authority.'' Subsequent to the dismissal of these two writ petitions, the plaintiff-landlord filed the present suit OS No.84 of 1977 in the Court of Prl, Dist. Munsif, Ramachandrapuram for permanent injunction against the defendant-tenant for the relief of permanent injunction as stated supra.
4. It is alleged in the plaintiff that he took possession of the suit property on 18-1-1974 by the orders in EP No.l of 1974 in ATP No.21 of 1973 and that he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit land, tliat he constructed a shed on 'the suit land and planted coconut sapplings in the dry land of 38 cents, that he engaged one Kunche Narsimha Murthy (PW2) who is looking after the coconut garden and other trees existing in the suit land and that his possession has been accepted by this Court in WA No.640 of 1976 and that the defendant has no manner of right to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the suit land. Resisting the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant-tenant filed a written statement denying the truth of the allegations in the plaint. He further pleaded that he was restored to the possession of the suit land on 5-10-1976 as per the Sub-Collector's direction in TA No.2 of 1974 and that he gave reports to the police when the plaintiff made attempts to trespass into the suit land and that the plaintiff dispossessed him from the suit land under the guise of interim injunction ordered in the suit and that the plaintiff is a tresspasser who tresspassed into the suit land by illegal means and that the plaintiff has no equities and the equitable remedy of injunction cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant also claimed exemplary costs.
5. The trial Court settled the following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property ?
(2) Whether there is no cause of action to file the suit ?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any injunction prayed for ?
(4) Whether the defendant is entitled to the compensator}' costs claimed in the suit ?
(5) To what relief?
During the course of trial, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.Al to A3 were marked, on behalf of the plaintiff DW1 was examined and Exs.Bl to B4 were marked on behalf of the defendant- The plaintiff got himself examined as PW1, his farm servant was examined as PW2. PW3 is said to be the subsequent purchaser of the suit land from the plaintiff. Ex.Al is the order of the Tahsildar in EP No.l of 1974 in ATP No.21 of 1973 delivering the suit property to the plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the order dated 1-12-1976 in WAMP No.764 of 1976 on the file of this Court and Ex.A3 is the judgment dated 27-12-1976 in WA No.640 of 1976 on the file of this Court. The defendant got liimself examined as DW1. Ex.Bl is the certified copy of the order in IANo.3 of 1976 in ATP No.21 of 1973, dated 4-10-1976 ordering re-dclivcry of the suit property to the tenant, Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the report of the Revenue Inspector to the Tahsildar regarding taking over possession of the suit land in pursuance of the order in IA No.3 of 1976 in ATP No.21 of 1973, Ex.B3 is the certified copy of the delivery receipt dated 5-10-1976 issued by the defendant to the Revenue Inspector acknowledging the delivery of the suit property to him and Ex.B4 is the certified copy of the "torn torn" report regarding the delivery of the suit property to the defendant after taking possession from the plaintiff-landlord.
6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the learned District Munsif believed the-plaintiffs version that he was put in possession of the suit property on 18-1-1974 as per orders in ATP No.21 of 1973, tliat subsequently he was not dispossessed on 5-10-1976 as contended by the defendant. Therefore the trial Court held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit i.e., 21-2-1977 and as such the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for in the suit. The other issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Consequently the trial Court decreed the suit, but without costs. Aggrieved by that judgment and decree, the defendant preferred the appeal AS No.21 of 1981. The lower Appellate Court also disbelieved the version of the defendant that he was put back into possession of the suit property on 5-10-1976 and held that it was only a symbolic delivery and that the plaintiff continued to be in actual physical possession of the suit property on the date of suit. Therefore the appellate Court dismissed the appeal, but without costs. As against that judgment and decree of the appellate Court, the defendant lias come up \vith this second appeal.
7. Heard the learned Counsel on either side. The learned Counsel Sri N.V. Siiryanarayana Murthy, appearing for the appellant took me through the impugned judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and also that of the trial Court and also the oral and documentary evidence on record. The learned Counsel for the appellate submitted the following contentions:
(1) In view of the admitted relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant injunction in favour of the landlord in view of Section 16 of Andhra Tenancy Act.
(2) In view of the dismissal of the \vrit petition WP No.3288 of 1976 filed by the plaintiff challenging the order in IA No.3 of 1976 in ATP No.21 of 1973 on the file of the Tahsildar directing re-delivcry of the suit property to the defendant-tenant, the plaintiff is not entitled to retain his possession over the suit land and he is not entitled for injunction, as it will amount to enabling the plaintiff to circumvent the orders oftliis Court which binds both the parties.
(3) The defendant \vho is entitled for re-delivery of the suit property as per the orders of the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry in TA No.2 of 1974, cannot be injuncted from recovering possession by an order from civil Court.
(4) The plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction as his possession is not lawful and as he is bound to rc-dcliver possession to the defendant after his failure in the writ petition.
8. The learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff on the other hand submits that both the Courts below concurrently held that the respondent-plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property on the date of suit and subsequently and therefore his possession should be safeguarded by granting permanent injunction and this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere on findings of fact under Section 100 CPC.
9. The substantial questions of law involved in this appeal are as under:
1. Whether the civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the circumstances of this case and to grant permanent injunction ?
2. Whether both the Courts below have committed error of judgment in granting permanent injunction circumventing the orders of this Court in WP No.3288 of 1976 and also the orders of the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry in TANo.2 of 1976 on his file?
10. Question No.l : Admittedly there was jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant even by the date of filing of the suit. The facts narrated supra are also admitted facts. The defendant is a tenant with respect to the suit land belonging to the plaintiff and that tenancy had commenced for a period of five years under the agreement dated 21-12-1967. The plaintiff filed ATP No.21 of 1973 for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rents and that petition was allowed. The plaintiff also took possession of the suit land on 18-1-1974 in execution of the orders in ATP No.21 of 1973. But, the appeal TA No.2 of 1974 preferred by the defendant-tenant against the eviction order passed in ATP No.21 of 1973 was allowed by the Sub-Collector, Rajalimundry and the eviction order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal and the Sub-Collector also directed re-delivery of the suit property to the tenant defendant. For execution of that order of the Sub-Collector, the defendant-tenant filed IA No.2 of 1976 before the Tahsildar for re-delivery of the suit property to him. As seen from Exs.Bl to B4, the Tahsildar directed the Revenue Inspector to take possession of the suit property from the plaintiff and deliver the same to the tenant-defendant and accordingly the delivery was effected on 5-10-1976. There is controversy with regard to mis re-delivery to the defendant. The plaintiff contends that he was never dispossessed from the suit property either on 5-10-1976 or subsequently and that he continues to be in possession and enjoyment since 18-1-1974 when he was in possession of the same. On the other hand the defendant contends that the plaintiff was dispossessed and he (defendant) was put in possession on 5-10-1976 and since then he continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same till he was dispossessed by virtue of the interim injunction obtained in the suit. Both the fact finding Courts below held that there was no actual physical re-delivery of the property to the defendant-tenant on 5-10-1976 under Exs.Bl to B4 and that it was only a symbolical delivery and that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. This is a concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below and it is well settled that a finding of tact cannot be interfered by this Court in the second appeal. It may also be noted in this context that the Tahsildar in his report submitted to this Court in WA No.640 of 1976 has categorically stated that the defendant was put in possession of the property on 5-10-1976, but he could not retain the said possession as he was dispossessed by ' the plaintiff forcibly. As earlier stated, die order of the Sub-Collector in TA No.2 of 1974 setting aside the eviction order passed in ATP No-21 of 1973 was challenged in WP No.3881 of 1976 and the order passed in IA No.3 of 1976 of the Tahsildar ordering for re-delivery of the property to the defendant-tenant was also cliallenged by the plaintiff in WP No.3288 of 1976 and as earlier slated, both the writ petitions were dismissed by a common order and the learned Judge while dismissing the said writ petitions observed, as quoted supra, that' 'even in the absence of a direction by the appellate authority, the original authority - the Tahsildar was bound to restore possession of the land to the tenant as the order of eviction is set aside by the appellate authority". Therefore, it is obvious that as the eviction order passed by the Tenancy Talisildar was set aside by the appellate authority and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, the jural relationship of landlord and tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant continued and as per the observation of the learned Judge in the writ petition, the plaintiff is bound to restore the possession to the defendant who is his tenant. Section 16(1) of Andhra Tenancy Act provides tliat any dispute arising under the Tenancy Act between a landlord and a cultivating tenant shall, on an application made by the landlord or the tenant, be decided by the Tahsildar after making an enquiry in the manner prescribed. Thus, the Tenancy Act itself lias provided a special forum for settlement of the disputes between the landlord and the cultivating tenant or for enforcing their rights under the said Act. It is now well settled that where a statute provides a special forum for the enforcement of the rights created under the statute or for settlement of disputes, the jurisdiction of the civil Court to deal with such complaints is barred. The eminent Judge P.A. Chowdhary, J., in B. Viswanalhatn and others v. Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Van Temple, Kommaravallipadu by Executive Officer, 1981 (1) APLJ 357, relying on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Appanna v. Srirama Murthy, 1958 (1) AWR 420, Ireld that "where special rights have been created by a statute and tliat statute provides a special forum for the enforcement of those rights, the jurisdiction of the civil Court to deal with the complaints based upon the infringement of those rights is barred. His Lordship repelling the contention raised before him that a revenue Court had no power to grant perpetual injunction, categorically held basing on the earlier judgment of tliis Court in Adinarayana v. Sivaramakrishnaiah, \ 963 (2) AWR 478, that Rule 13 of Andhra Tenancy Rules, 1957 and provisions of Section 16 of Andhra Tenancy Act would enable the Revenue Court to grant not merely a declaration, but also an order which can enforce that decision and whether such a decision or order is called an injunction or not can hardly make any difference. Therefore, in view of the jural relationship between the plaintiff and defendant with respect to the suit land, I have no hesitation to say that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit OS No. 84 of 1977 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
11. Question No.2 : On a careful consideration of (he facts and circumstances of this case, I have no hesitation to say that both the Courts below have committed error of judgment in granting permanent injunction against the defendant-tenant as prayed for. As earlier discussed, the plaintiff is bound to deliver possession of the suit property to the defendant who is his cultivating tenant by virtue of the orders of the Sub-Collector in TA No.2 of 1974 which was confirmed by this Court in WP No.3288 of 1976. The plaintiff filed the suit only after dismissal of the writ petitions and on coming to know of the observation of this Court in the writ order quoted supra that the Tahsildar is bound to re-deliver the suit property to the tenant. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit and sought for permanent injunction to circumvent the ordeis of the lawful authority i.e., Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry as confirmed by this Court in the writ petition. The orders of the Sub-Collector as confirmed by this Court could never be implemented in view of the injunction granted against the defendant. Both the Courts below seem to have been carried away by the fact that the plaintiff was put in possession on 18-1-1974 and continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the date of filing of the suit. But both the Courts foiled to comprehend that the plaintiffs continued possession is not lawful and on the other hand it amounts to wrongful possession as he retained the same in disregard of the la\\"ful order of the Sub-Collector and confirmed by this Court. The Court should not extend its helping hand to such persons in retaining their unlawful possession. A person in wrongful possession is not entitled to seek injunction against the person who is entitled for possession of that property under law or as per the orders of a lawful authority and the suit of such a person for permanent injunction is not maintainable. The learned author Rasum\as treatise "Text Book of Law of Injunction" has observed that for granting injunction the possession alone is insufficient but there must be an entitlement to possession. In the instant case, there is no entitlement to possession by the plaintiff. Ontheotfierhand, it is the defendant-tenant that is entitled for possession. Further, this is a case where the plaintiff has taken law into his liands as per the report of the Tahsildar and thereafter tried to obtain the equitable relief of injunction from the Court.
12. Further an injunction, as is well known, is an equitable remedy and accordingly the maxim of equity that he who seeks equity must do equity is applicable to a case in which such an equitable remedy is prayed for. Moreover, the plaintiff who is seeking for such a relief should be able to show that he has come to the Court with'clean hands'. The law for issue of injunction as provided in the Specific Relief Act is governed by the aforesaid equitable principles. In the above view of the matter, the plaintiff who asked for an injunction must be able to satisfy' the Court that his own acts and dealings in the matter have been fair, honest and free from any taint or fraud or illegality and that if, in his dealings with the person against whom he seeks the relief, has acted in an unfair or unequitable manner, he cannot have the equitable relief of injunction. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has not come to Court with clean hands. There are no equities in favour of the plaintiff. He disobeyed the orders of the Sub-Collector in TA No.2/74 and to circumvent that order he filed the writ petitions and thereafter the suit. He persistently disobeyed the order of the Sub-Collxtor, which has been confirmed by this Court in the writ petition. He is not fair in his dealings with the defendant in this matter.
13. Apart from this, the plaintiff, in disregard of the provisions of Andhra Tenancy Act, alienated the suit land of which the defendant is a cultivating tenant to third party (PW3 and others). Under the provisions of Andhra Tenancy Act a landlord is under an obligation to offer the lands in die first instance to the cultivating tenants if he intends to alienate the same. Obviously, the plaintiff-landlord made no such offer to sell the same to the defendant in this case before he alienated the same to PW3 and others. That itself is proof positive of the mala fide intention of the plaintiff to have wrongful gain even by flouting the statutory obligation. The subsequent purchasers also are not entitled to retain the possession of the suit land as they are governed by the 'Doctrine of Lis Pendensi'. It is obvious from the record that the plaintiff has no respect cither to the law or to the orders passed by a lawfu! authority which has been confirmed by this Court. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the equitable relief of permanent injunction. Both the Courts below failed to apply their mind to the feels and circumstances of this case and granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and thereby enabling the plaintiff to retain his unlawful possession and thereby prevented the defendant from executing the lawful order of the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry. Thus both the Courts below committed error of judgment in granting injunction against the defendant. Therefore, there is every justification for this Court to interfere with the orders of the lower appellate Court as well as the trial Court eventhough they arc concurrent. Hence, the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below arc liable to be set aside.
14. By playing fraud and mischief and by abuse of the process of the Court, the plaintiff has in all these years, flouted the orders passed by the lawful authority and thereby denied the defendant-tenant the possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than two decades. He has successfully prevented that order being implemented by abuse of the process of the Court by filing the writ petitions and after their dismissal the present suit and by obtaining injunction order and thereby continued to be in possession for which he is not entitled under the order of the Court. The defendant-tenant is entitled to be in possession of the suit land till ATP No.21 of 1973 is disposscd of afresh by the Tenancy Tahsildar. The mischievous mind of the respondent-plaintiff is also crystal clear from the statement of his Counsel across the bar that nothing will happen even if the second appeal is allowed by this Court, meaning thereby that (lie plaintiff is not going to implement the orders of the Sub-Collector and that the possession of the suit land will not be delivered to the defendant-tenant so easily. Hence, to avoid another round of litigation and also to meet the ends of justice in the matter, 1 am of the opinion that it is just and reasonable to issue suitable directions to the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer who is also the statutory authority under AndJira Tenancy Act to implement the order of the Sub-Coilector, Rajahmundry passed in TA No.2/74.
15. In the result, this second appeal is allowed. The judgments and the decrees of both the Courts below arc set aside. The suit OS No.84 of 1977 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The permanent injunction granted in that suit is vacated. The trial Court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff tor presentation before a proper forum. The plaintiff is directed to reimburse the costs incurred by the defendant in defending both in the trial Court the lower appellate Court as well as in this Court. The plaintiff is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards exemplary costs to the defendant as he has set up a vexatious claim in the suit.
16. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram, who is the statutory authority under the Andhra Tenancy Act is directed to dispose of ATP No.21 of 1973 which is remanded to him by the appellate authority for fresh disposal as per die order in TA No.2/74 within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
17. The Mandal Revenue Officer Ramachandrapuram. is further directed to deliver possession of the suit land to the defendant-tenant in implementing the order of the appellate authority i.e., the Sub-Collector, Rajalunundry in TA No.2/74 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and he is at liberty to seek the assistance of the police if necessary in removing any obstruction that may be caused either by the respondent-plaintiff or his subsequent purchasers or from any other quarter in implementing the above-said direction and intimate the compliance to this Court.