Telangana High Court
Gangupanthula Ranga Rao vs Bathula Laxmaiah on 22 October, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
****
Civil Revision Petition No.4337 of 2018
Between:
Gangupanthula Ranga Rao .... Petitioner
AND
Bathula Laxmaiah
and others. .... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 22.10.2018
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes / No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes / No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes / No
_________________________
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
+ C.R.P No.4337 of 2018
% 22.10.2018
Between:
Gangupanthula Ranga Rao .... Petitioner
AND
Bathula Laxmaiah
and others. .... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Karanam Ramesh
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri B. Seshu Kumar
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) 2017(1) ALT 553
2) 2004(3) ALD 815
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Civil Revision Petition No.4337 of 2018
ORDER:
This CRP is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 06.02.2018 in I.A.No.391/2016 in I.A.No.78/2016 in O.S.No.53/2016 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge at Ramannapet, Nalgonda, refusing to grant police-aid to the petitioner/plaintiff pursuant to the ad-interim order dated 21.03.2016 on the ground that order in I.A.No.78/2016 was only an ad-interim injunction and no order on merits was passed yet and thereby the right of either party is not crystallized in the suit property.
2) Heard arguments of Sri Karanam Ramesh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.Seshu Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.
3) Severely fulminating the order impugned, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the impugned order is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the Trial Court was under an erroneous opinion that an ad-interim injunction order cannot be implemented and that it is only the final order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC can be implemented. Relying upon the decision in Syed Sadullah Hussaini and another v. Syed Waliullah and another1, wherein it was held that Court cannot deny the relief of police-aid for implementation of ad-interim order, learned counsel prayed to allow the CRP.
1 2017(1) ALT 553 4
4) Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/defendants would submit that suit--O.S.No.53/2016 is filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.1-37gts of dry land in Sy.No.264/E on the plea that plaintiff purchased the said land and some other lands under registered Memorandum of Partition Deed dated 23.06.1971 and he alienated some lands and retained the suit land, which he is possession and enjoyment and the defendants without having any semblance of right or title tried to meddle with the suit property. Learned counsel would submit that the defendants vehemently opposed the suit and their case is that the plaintiff's father late Gangupanthula Kishan Rao, was the Patwari of the village and he was holding the land to a total extent of Ac.14-37 gts in the suit Survey Number. He sold Ac.11-37 gts in favour of 3rd defendant's husband Late Rama Swamy about 70 years ago and placed him in possession of the same. Plaintiff's father sold the remaining Ac.3-00gts in favour of one Pakeer Rangaiah, who in turn sold the same in favour of one Bhutham Mallaiah. Learned counsel would further submit that out of Ac.11-37 gts, Ac.10-00gts was transferred in favour of Rama Swamy under 50-B proceedings and plaintiff who was the-then Patwari of the village, promised that he would get the patta for the remaining Ac.1-37 gts and transfer in his favour later. Thus Rama Swamy was in possession and enjoyment of entire Ac.11-37 gts purchased by him. Subsequently Rama Swamy during his lifetime allotted 1/4th share each out of Ac.11-37 gts in favour of his three younger brothers namely Galaiah, Laxmaiah and Muthyalu. 5 Galaiah sold his share of land in favour of his three brothers namely Rama Swamy, Laxmaiah and Muthyalu. Accordingly, the said three brothers were conjointly cultivating the total extent of Ac.11-37 gts. After demise of Rama Swamy, the land held by him was transferred in favour of 3rd defendant. Similarly, after the demise of Bathula Muthyalu, his land was transferred in favour of his wife i.e., 2nd defendant, who subsequently transferred the same in favour of her Son Jangaiah. Thus the defendants 1 to 3 are in actual possession of entire Ac.11-37 gts of land, of which, the plaint schedule land of Ac.1-37 gts is a part.
a) Learned counsel would further submit that plaintiff and his younger brother Sudarshan Rao, worked as village Patwaris and taking advantage of their post, plaintiff got patta in his favour for Ac.1-37 gts and basing on the false records he filed the suit. Learned counsel would submit that immediately after receiving summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement and also counter in I.A.No.78/2016 and they were always ready for enquiry and therefore, it is preposterous for the plaintiff to contend that the defendants without any iota of right have tried to meddle with the suit land. Considering these facts, the Trial Court rightly rejected police-aid and directed parties to get ready for enquiry in I.A.No.78/2016. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Vanga Buchi Reddy and others v. Vanga Madhusudhan Reddy2 and prayed to dismiss the CRP.
2 2004(3) ALD 815 6 5) The point for determination is: "Whether there are merits in the CRP to allow?" 6) POINT: As has been held by this Court in Syed Sadullah
Hussaini's case (1 supra), there is no denial of the legal position that the Court cannot deny the relief of police-aid for implementation of an ad- interim order and in the matter of implementation, there is no difference between an ad-interim order and an injunction order passed after enquiry. If the Court finds that the respondent tried to meddle with the property inspite of ad-interim order, it can as well grant police-aid and to that extent there is no demur. However, as rightly held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Vanga Buchi Reddy's case (2 supra), it would not be proper for the Court to order police-aid to implement the ex parte order of injunction. When the defendants appeared and filed counter and seek to set aside the ex parte order.
a) So from a conjunctive study of both the judgments of this Court, the conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no hurdle for a Court to implement an ad-interim injunction order when it finds that the respondent has intentionally violated the said order. At the same time, the Trial Court shall be circumspective before ordering police-aid. It shall take into consideration the other factors also. If the respondents already filed their counter in interim injunction petition and claimed title and possession over the suit property as on the date of suit, then it will be just and trite for the Trial Court to first conduct enquiry in interim 7 injunction petition to decide the merits in the case of each party. If it finds that the plaintiff was having prima facie title and possession as on the date of suit and defendant meddled with the suit property in spite of ad-interim order, certainly it can make absolute the ex parte order on one hand and order police-aid on the other. In contrast, if the Trial Court finds the prima facie title and possession as on the date of suit in favour of defendant, it can dismiss the interim injunction petition as well as police-aid petition. So logically speaking, it is always desirable for the Court to conduct enquiry at first in interim injunction petition followed by the police-aid petition. This procedure can be followed only when, by the date of hearing the police-aid petition, the respondent/defendant has come up with counter in interim injunction petition and he is ready for enquiry. On the other hand, if he has not filed counter in interim injunction petition and only gets ready in police- aid petition or takes adjournment in the said petition as well as other petitions, then the Court will be at liberty to dispose of the police-aid petition on merits.
b) In the instant case, the contention of respondents/defendants is that they have already filed their written statement as well as counter in I.A.No.78/2016 and they are always ready for enquiry. Besides, in the written statement, a copy of which is filed along with the material papers, their emphatic contention is that they are the owners and possessors of the suit land and some other lands. That being the case, 8 the Trial Court was perfectly right in not granting police-aid at the moment.
7) In the result, this CRP is partly allowed and I.A.No.391/2016 is restored to file and consequently, the Trial Court is directed to conduct enquiry in I.A.No.78/2016 in O.S.No.53/2016 and pass an order on merits within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and basing on the result in the said petition, it shall pass orders in I.A.No.391/2016. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 22.10.2018 scs