Telangana High Court
Palem Chandra Shekar vs Palem Bikshpathy on 1 February, 2019
Author: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.18 of 2019
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan) The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by them, inter alia, on the ground that the physical location of the property in dispute is unclear.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants had filed a suit for declaration and for consequential injunction against the respondents with regard to schedule 'A' and schedule 'B' properties. While schedule A property consisted of land to an extent of Ac.1.35 guntas in Sy.Nos.172/A1, 172/A2 and 172/A of Srinagar Village, schedule B property was to an extent of Ac.1.26 guntas in Sy.No.171/E in the same village. The appellants-plaintiffs further pleaded that they are joint owners of land in Sy.Nos.172/A1, 172/A2 and 172/A, admeasuring Ac.6.27 guntas, and in Sy.No.171/E, admeasuring Ac.1.26 guntas, in total admeasuring Ac.8.13 guntas situated in Srinagar village. They further pleaded that their father, Katamaiah, had purchased the said properties through a registered sale deed dated 29.06.1992, from one Mahmood Hussain and others. After the death of their father on 13.07.2007, the said property devolved on to them. They further pleaded that on the basis of their inheritance, the revenue authorities have mutated the names of the appellants- plaintiffs in respect of the said property by proceedings No.2557/2008, 2 dated 14.07.2008. The revenue authorities have equally issued pattas, pass books and title deeds in the name of the appellants-plaintiffs. Furthermore, according to them, the said land is located on two sides of ZP road. While the land to an extent of Ac.4.32 guntas in Sy.No.171 is located towards west of the ZP road, the land to an extent of Ac.1.35 guntas in Sy.No.172, and land to an extent of Ac.1.26 guntas in Sy.No.171 are located towards east of ZP road. According to them, the eastern portion of the land to an extent of Ac.1.35 guntas, and Ac.1.36 guntas is the subject matter of the suit. The said extents were shown in the plaint as 'A' and 'B' schedule properties.
3. The appellants-plaintiffs further pleaded that the respondent No.1, Palem Bikshapathi, who is the owner in Sy.No.172 part, which is located towards the west side, filed a civil suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in O.S.No.38 of 2017, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Maheshwaram. In the said suit, the respondent No.1 claimed that he is having 40 feet area within the property of the appellants-plaintiffs, herein, to reach his purchased property in Sy.No.172. However, the petition in I.A.No.165 of 2017, seeking a right of encumbrance, was dismissed on 03.01.2018.
4. The appellants-plaintiffs also claimed that by registered sale deed dated 29.06.1992, the respondent No.1 had purchased land to an extent of Ac.8.13 guntas in Sy.No.172, which is located towards west of the land in Sy.No.172 and also located towards west and north of land in Sy.No.172. Subsequently, by gift deed, the respondent No.1 gifted Ac.4.00 guntas of the said land in favour of his wife, Sukanya. 3 The respondent No.1 also alienated 0.22 guntas of land in Sy.No.172 in favour of one G. Praveen Kumar.
5. The appellants-plaintiffs further pleaded that without having any right over schedule 'A' and 'B' properties, the respondent No.1, in collusion with the respondent No.2, created a sale deed in the name of the respondent No.3, namely, M/s. J.P. Constructions. According to the appellants-plaintiffs, the respondent No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent No.3 in respect of Ac.2.36 guntas of land in Sy.No.172 under a sale deed dated 27.09.2017 by including the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. The respondent No.1 also obtained a registered General Power of Attorney from the respondent No.2, Palem Srikanth Goud, with respect to the land falling in Sy.No.171 to an extent of Ac.0.31 guntas. Relying on the G.P.A, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly executed another sale deed in favour of the respondent No.3, on 07.12.2017, with respect to Ac.0.31 guntas of land in Sy.No.171 and Ac.0.5 guntas in Sy.No.172. However, the lands shown in the sale deed were part of the suit schedule property.
6. The appellants-plaintiffs further claimed that the respondent No.1 executed another G.P.A. in favour of the respondent No.2 on 10.01.2017, with respect to land to an extent of Ac.0.26 guntas in Sy.No.172, by showing the northern boundary as ZP road and by showing part of the property falling under 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. However, according to the appellants-plaintiffs, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no land in Sy.No.172, towards the eastern side of the ZP road. Lastly, the appellants-plaintiffs pleaded that on 10.02.2018 the respondents intruded into their property and 4 dug a bore-well. Hence, the need to file a suit for declaration, and perpetual injunction against the respondents.
7. Along with the plaint, the appellants-plaintiffs also filed a temporary injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, by the impugned order dated 01.11.2018, the learned trial Court has dismissed the said application. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to three different maps, in order to buttress his plea that the respondents have played mischief. The three maps are shown on page Nos.39, 232 and 243 of the paper book. He has further pleaded that the earlier suit, namely, O.S.No.38 of 2017 filed by the respondent No.1 shows the actual location of his land, while trying to claim the right of encumbrance over the land of the appellants- plaintiffs. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned trial Court was unjustified in concluding that "the exact location of the suit property is unclear. Hence, temporary injunction cannot be granted in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs".
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. D. Madhava Rao, submits that the three maps shown by the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs cannot be reconciled to each other. For, there are glaring differences between the three maps. According to the learned counsel, a temporary injunction cannot be granted when the very existence of the location of the property is ambiguous. Therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in 5 concluding that the exact physical location of the property in the suit is unclear. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order.
10. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order as well as the three maps shown by the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs.
11. The first map shown by the learned counsel consists of an irregular pentagon containing within it a quadrangle with the ZP road bisecting the pentagon in the north eastern and south western direction.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants has pleaded that the land that falls and belongs to the respondent No.1 is shown in this particular map as falling in Sy.No.172/P to an extent of Ac.4.24 guntas, and another parcel of land falling in Sy.No.172/P to an extent of Ac.3.06 guntas, and a strip of land north of the quadrangle to an extent of Ac.0.38 guntas.
13. However, in the map shown at page No.232, the ZP road is in another direction, namely, in the north western to sought eastern direction. Curiously, the strip of land shown in the north of the quadrangle does not even exist in this particular map. This particular map merely shows Sy.No.172/P to an extent of Ac.4.13 guntas, which is intersected by a 30 feet wide road. Therefore, the strip of land lying to the north of the quadrangle is conspicuously missing in this map. In fact, this map does not even show the 6 existence of the quadrangle as it exists in the map shown at page No.39.
14. Interestingly, the map on page No.243 is totally different from the previous two maps mentioned hereinabove. For, the map on page No.243 shows a rectangular parcel of land, which is equally divided into Sy.No.172/1 (a highlighted part of the map) and another part of the land shown falling in Sy.No.172/1/P (in the non-highlighted part of the map). According to these maps, the un-highlighted part belongs to the respondent No.1. However, the other coordinates mentioned hereinabove are again conspicuously missing from this map. Despite the glaring differences between the three maps, the learned counsel for the appellants wants this Court to believe that the physical location of schedule 'A' and schedule 'B' properties is apparent. To say the least, the existence of schedule 'A' and schedule 'B' properties cannot be deciphered by looking at the three maps. Therefore, the learned trial Court was absolutely justified in concluding that since the physical location of the property in dispute is unclear, a temporary injunction cannot be granted in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs.
15. It is indeed trite to state that an interim order cannot be passed by a Court in thin air. It necessarily has to be passed in relation to a particular identifiable parcel of land. In case, the order does not relate to an identifiable parcel of land, the order itself would be meaningless. It is certainly not expected of a Judicial Officer to pass meaningless orders. Therefore, the learned trial Court was well justified in refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the appellants, considering 7 the fact that the very physical location of schedule 'A' and 'B' properties is unclear from the documents submitted by the parties.
16. Much as the learned counsel for the appellants has tried to rely upon these documents, obviously these documents cannot be accepted, at this stage, as a gospel truth. The issue with regard to the factual existence of schedule 'A' and 'B' properties, the issue with regard to the factum whether the respondents have intruded into the property belonging to the appellants, the issue whether the appellants are the original owners of schedule 'A' and 'B' properties are issues that can be decided only after a full and fair trial.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merit and it is hereby dismissed. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________________ RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J ___________________ T. AMARNATH GOUD, J February 1, 2019 DSK