Dismissed

Dandu Appala Raju v. Mylapalli Tata Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Aug 2019CRP/605/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice T. Rajani dismissed a civil revision petition assailing an interim injunction. The High Court held that the trial court correctly balanced convenience by considering respondent documentation showing possession till 2011, noting that possession after such a date must be probablised unless disproved. The order found no perversity in granting the injunction.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; miscellaneous applications pending shall stand closed.

Dandu Appala Raju Vs Mylapalli Tata Rao — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.605 2018

¶3

% 07.8.2019

¶4

Dandu Appala Raju and others

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

$ Mylapalli Tatarao and another

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

! Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Sarvabhouma Rao

¶10

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.S.C. Bose

¶11

<Gist :

¶12

Head Note:

¶13

? Cases referred:

¶14

2006 (6) ALT 170

¶15

2014 (4) ALT 570

¶16

¶17

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶18

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.605 of 2018

¶19

Between:

¶20

Dandu Appala Raju and others … Petitioners Vs. Mylapalli Tatarao and another

¶21

…. Respondents

¶22

Date of Judgment Pronounced: 07.8.2019

¶23

Submitted for Approval:

¶24

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶25

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the judgments ?

¶26

Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

¶27

Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment ?

¶28

¶29

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.605 of 2018

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 22.8.2017 by virtue of which the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, allowed C.M.A.No.4 of 2014, which was preferred by the plaintiffs, against the order dated 05.3.2014 dismissing in I.A.No.601 of 2012 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in O.S.No.125 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili.

¶32

Heard the counsel for the petitioners-defendants and the counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs.

¶33

The counsel for the petitioners submits that the lower Court, having observed that the documents, which are filed by the respondents in order to prima facie prove their possession over the suit schedule property are not trustworthy, granted injunction, against the said observation. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the lower Court, though, observed that there are certain corrections in the documents filed by the respondents, felt that prima facie possession of the respondents herein over the suit schedule property is proved and granted injunction only in the interest of justice.

¶34

¶35

The order of the lower Court shows that the documents, which are filed, are issued by the Village Revenue Officer (VRO). The competency of the VRO to issue such documents is decided by the Court below at paragraph No.8 of the impugned order, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, needs no interference. There is no argument extended by the counsel for the petitioners in that regard. But, as regards the documents, the counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that they do not inspire confidence and the observations of the Court below that there are corrections in respect of the entries in the documents would not entitle the respondents herein for injunction. But a perusal of the discussion made by the lower Court would show that the Court has very rightly balanced the convenience of the parties by looking into the documents filed by both sides. The documents filed by the respondents, though, consisted of certain errors and corrections, showed the possession of the respondents over the suit schedule property, whereas the documents, which were filed by the petitioners herein, did not show their possession over the suit schedule property. When there is no contra evidence with regard to the possession that is evidenced by the documents, there cannot be any fault found on the part of the Court, which granted injunction in favour of the respondents herein.

¶36

The counsel for the petitioners assails Ex.P.3 True copy of No.3 adangal for the Fasli 1419 (year 2010) on the ground

¶37

¶38

that it contains the word ‘ KONUGOLU’ , which means ‘sale’, which is never the case of the respondents. The lower Court held that an opportunity need be given to the petitioners as to why the word came to be mentioned in Ex.P.3. But, however, since the document evidenced the possession of the respondents, it held that the said document can be considered to hold that the respondents are in possession of the suit schedule property. The approach of the lower Court is free from any perversity.

¶39

The other contention is that the respondents failed to prove that they were in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and that the documents filed by them pertain only upto the year 2011. In answer to the said contention, the counsel for the respondents submits that the documents pertaining to the year 2012 would not be available, as it is the current year, but the respondents could however prove that they were in possession in the year 2011 and hence, it can be assumed that the respondents continued their possession in the year 2012, unless it is proved or probablised by the petitioners that they were dispossessed from the suit schedule property. The said contention of the counsel for the respondents is based on sound reasoning.

¶40

The counsel for the respondents relies upon the following two judgments:

¶41

¶42

(i) Ganta Chinna Shankaraiah vs. Nadunoori Swamy¹ , wherein the Court observed that there are certain suspicious circumstances pointed out in the unexhibited document. But the Court held that it is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the said document since it is an unexhibited document. It also observed that the said question, with regard to the suspicious circumstances of the documents, has to be agitated at the appropriate stage i.e., at the time of final disposal of the suit. In the said case, the lower Court also observed that on the strength of such documents mutation has been obtained.

¶43

(ii) J.Balakrishna Raju vs. J.Radhakrishna Raju² , Wherein the Court held that the copies of the pattedar pass book and the title deed book and also the copy of the ROR proceedings have more probative value and they have to be given due weight. The case of the defendants therein was that the plaintiff colluded with Revenue Authorities and created false documents. The Court met the said contention by observing that no steps are taken by the defendants for cancellation of the entries in the Revenue Records, which is the same position in the case before this Court.

¶44

By virtue of proving prima facie possession till 2011, the respondents probablised the possession as on the date of filing of the suit, which would suffice to grant injunction.

¶45