Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Thinnaluri Hari Krishna vs Kcp Ltd on 8 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.120 of 2023
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred under Order 43 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, questioning an order of injunction, dated 15.03.2023, passed by the learned X Additional District Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District in I.A.No.16 of 2022 in O.S.No.02 of 2022, , is before this Court for adjudication.
2. Defendants 1 to 4 in the aforesaid suit are the appellants and the first respondent herein instituted the said suit for declaration of title and Permanent Injunction. The following is the schedule of the property mentioned in the plaint:
"Schedule Immovable property filed on behalf of the plaintiff:
Guntur District-Narasaraopet Regn.Dist-Macherla SRO- Macherla Town-In D.No.1008/16E (said to be converted as 1415)-An extent of Ac/2/10-Bounded on:
East : Government land in Sy.No.1008/16F
South : Plaintiff's land in Sy.No.1009.
West : Land of Gopu Mohanarao.
North : Government land".
2
AVSS,J & JS,J
C.M.A.No.120 of 2023
Along with the suit, plaintiff-first respondent herein filed I.A.No.16 of 2022 under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC, seeking temporary injunction to restrain the defendants-appellants herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Resisting the said application, third defendant filed a counter and the defendants 1, 2 and 4 adopted the same.
3. In order to substantiate its case, plaintiff-first respondent herein filed Exs.P1 to P12 and, on behalf of the defendants, Exs.R1 to R7 were filed.
4. The learned X Additional District Judge vide the impugned order, dated 15.03.2023, allowed the I.A., granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Hence, the present appeal under the provisions of Order 43 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, questioning the said order of interim injunction, dated 20.03.2023.
5. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants, and Sri K.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the plaintiff-first respondent herein, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.
3
AVSS,J & JS,J C.M.A.No.120 of 2023
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the order impugned in the present appeal is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the learned Additional District Judge grossly erred in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff-first respondent herein and against the defendants-appellants herein as the plaintiff- first respondent herein failed to establish the existence of the necessary ingredients i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favour and irreparable loss in the event of not granting the order of injunction; that the plaintiff did not file any document which shows its possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property; that, as the documents, on which the plaintiff-first respondent places reliance, do not contain the boundaries for the properties, the learned Additional District Judge grossly erred in granting injunction on the basis of such documents; that the reasons assigned by the learned Additional District Judge are neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law.
7. To bolster his submissions and contentions, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants places reliance on the following judgments:
1. (2006) 5 SCC 282.
2. (2002) 5 SCC 760.
3. (2020) 19 SCC 119.4
AVSS,J & JS,J C.M.A.No.120 of 2023
8. On the contrary, strongly resisting the appeal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-first respondent herein contends that there is no error nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned order and, in the absence of the same, the impugned order is not amenable for any correction by this Court; that the documents made available by the plaintiff-first respondent herein clearly and clinchingly demonstrate the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the subject property; that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Judge grossly erred in granting injunction, in the absence of boundaries in Exs.P1 and P2-documents, is neither sustainable nor tenable; that having regard to the valid and convincing reasons assigned by the learned Additional District Judge, the impugned order cannot be faulted; that the order of injunction has been in existence in favour of the plaintiff for quite a long time, as such, the same deserves to be continued pending the suit proceedings.
9. In the above background, now the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court in the present appeal are:
1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is sustainable and tenable? and
2. Whether the questioned order warrants any interference of this Court under the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC?5
AVSS,J & JS,J C.M.A.No.120 of 2023
10. According to the plaintiff-first respondent herein, the subject property originally belonged to one Sri Upputholla Kasaiah, S/o Venkaiah and he sold the said property and executed Ex.P1-Sale deed, dated 19.09.1958, in favour of one Sri Anumolu Krishna Vardhanarao, who was the then Plant Manager of the plaintiff-company, in his individual capacity, and, subsequently, Ex.P2-Registered Rectification deed, dated 05.12.1958, was executed, inserting the name of the plaintiff-company in the place of the said person in the vendee column of Ex.P1-Sale Deed, dated 19.09.1958. It is also the case of the plaintiff that its vendor-Sri Upputholla Kasaiah purchased the subject property from one Sri Upputholla Venkataiah vide Ex.P3-Registered Sale deed, dated 31.10.1924.
11. On the other hand, the case of the defendants-appellants herein is that once Smt.Boya Venkamma and her husband-Sri Boya Konda Reddy purchased the subject property of Ac.2.04 cents in Sy.No.1415 by way of Ex.P6-Registered Sale deed, dated 20.09.1988, from the wife and children of Sri Upputholla Kasaiah @ Kasi gadu and, thereafter, the defendants 1 and 2, who are the legal representatives of Sri Upputholla Venkataiah, sold an extent of Ac.1.04 cents vide Exs.R1 and R2-Registered Sale deeds, dated 24.11.2021, in favour of the defendants 3 and 4, who are the appellant Nos.3 and 4 herein. Apart from the above said documents, in order to show their 6 AVSS,J & JS,J C.M.A.No.120 of 2023 possession in respect of the subject property, defendants-appellants herein filed Exs.R3 to R7-documents. Exs.R3 and R4-documents are the Certified Copies of 1B Namuna (ROR) obtained from Mee Seva. Ex.R5 is the certified copy of Pattadar Adangal-Pahani copy obtained from Mee Seva. The fact remains that the said Exs.R3 to R5 were obtained by the defendants on 05.01.2022 and the reality remains that the suit came to be instituted on 06.01.2022. The basic fact remains that both the parties are tracing out their respective title and right over the property from a common source i.e., Sri Upputholla Kasaiah.
12. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the link document i.e., Ex.P3-Registered Sale Deed, dated 31.10.1924, through which Sri Upputholla Kasaiah purchased the subject property from one Sri Upputholla Venkataiah. A copy of the aforesaid document is placed on record. The said document, dated 31.10.1924, executed in favour of Sri Upputholla Kasaiah also does not contain any boundaries. It is required to be noted that, except the aforesaid property covered by Ex.P3, Sri Upputholla Kasaiah did not have any other property in the subject Survey Number. Yet another objection, taken by the defendants, is that they are absolute owners of the land in Sy.No.1415 and the document sought to be pressed into service by the plaintiff shows Sy.No.1008/16 only but not Sy.No.1415. In this 7 AVSS,J & JS,J C.M.A.No.120 of 2023 context, it may be appropriate to refer to the documents available on record.
13. Even according to the proceedings of the Collector & District Magistrate bearing D.D.No.330/2020 E5, which was an enclosure to Exs.R1 and R2, Sy.No.1008/16E would correspond to Sy.No.1415. Ex.P9-document, dated 30.12.2021, also demonstrates the said aspect. Ex.P10-Adangal shows the existence of the land of the plaintiff-first respondent herein. In fact, the learned Additional District Judge, after extensively and elaborately considering all the above documents and the material available on record and while recording a finding that the revenue records do not confer any title and the same cannot be treated as documents of title and also while observing that the photographs filed by the plaintiff show the old poles and the Board wherein the name of the plaintiff company has been inscribed, granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants-appellants herein. It is also required to be noted that the documents filed by the plaintiff prima facie show the right of the plaintiff over the subject property. It is also required to be noted that there is no denial, in fact, in the written statement or in the counter filed in Interlocutory Application about the purchase of the subject property by the plaintiff. It is also significant to note that, in the instant case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-first 8 AVSS,J & JS,J C.M.A.No.120 of 2023 respondent, ex parte status quo order was initially granted in favour of the plaintiff-first respondent herein on 11.02.2022 and the same continued till the disposal of the I.A. and the passing of the order under challenge.
14. In view of the above reasons and having regard to the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to meddle with the well- articulated order passed by the learned Judge.
15. Having regard to the above reasons; the reasons assigned by the learned Additional District Judge and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case of the present case, the judgments on which the learned counsel for the appellants seeks to place reliance would not render any assistance to the case of the appellants herein.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI,J ________________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J 08th January, 2024.
Tsy