Disposed

M.Venkataramana Reddy v. Gajula Satyanarayana

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jul 2024CMA/104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil miscellaneous appeal against the rejection of a temporary injunction application. The High Court summarized the litigation history involving previous writ petitions and construction permissions. Upon the consensus of counsel, the Court disposed of the appeal by imposing specific directions on the trial court and responding parties regarding the suit execution and construction status.

What did the court decide?

The CMA was disposed of. Respondents restrained from alienating property or raising further constructions but allowed to complete finishing work. Trial court directed to decide suit within 10 months.

M.Venkataramana Reddy Vs Gajula Satyanarayana — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

-■ \j
i-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

MONDAY. THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶8

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 104 OF 2023

¶9

Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C, aggrieved by^theOrderand Decree dated 27.02.2023 and passed in temporary injunction petition in LA.No.243/2022 in O.S.No. 102/2022 filed by the Appellant /petitioner/ plaintiff on the file of the Hon’ble X-Additional District Judge's Court, Tirupati, Tirupati District.

¶10

Between:

¶11

M.Venkataramana Reddy, S/o Reddeppa Reddy, Hindu, aged 60 years, employee, R/at D.No.18-4-104-H, Railway Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶12

...Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶13

AND

¶14

Gajula Satyanarayana, S/o Gajula Subanna, Hindu, aged about 64 years, R/o D.No.2-214, Jayaramarao Street, Srikalahasthi Town and Post, Srikalahasthi, Tirupati District.

¶15

(Description of No.1 amended as per orders in lA.No.251/2022, Dated 05.01.2023)

¶16

R.Komala,W/o Jaganmohan Reddy, Hindu, aged about 38 years 'House wife, R/at D.No.1-88, Yeguru Village, Gangadhar^Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶17

R.Jaganmohan Reddy,S/o R.Ramakrishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 48 years. Business, R/at D.No.1-88, Yeguru Village, Gangadhar Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶18

...Respondents/ Respondents

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Section 151 CPC praying^that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their men or successors from in any way proceeding with further construction in the plaint schedule property pending disposal of this CMA.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶22

Between:

¶23

Gajula Satyanarayana, S/o Gajula Subanna, Hindu, aged about 64 years, R/o D.No.2-214, Jayaramarao Street, Srikalahasthi Town and Post, Srikalahasthi, Tirupati District.

¶24

(Description of No.1 amended as per orders in IA.No.251/2022,^Dated 05.01.2023)

¶25

R.Komala,W/o Jaganmohan Reddy, Hindu, aged about 38 years. House wife, R/at D.No.1-88, Yeguru Village, Gangadhar^Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶26

R.Jaganmohan Reddy,S/o R.Ramakrishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 48 years. Business, R/at D.No.1-88, Yeguru Village, Gangadhar Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶27

...Petitioners/Respondents/ Respondents

¶28

and

¶29

M.Venkataramana Reddy, S/o Reddeppa Reddy, Hindu, aged 60 years, employee, R/at D.No.18-4-104-H, Railway Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶30

...Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim injunction passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in CMA No. 104/2023 by order dated 13-04-2023 and dismiss the CMA.

¶32

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri C Raghu, Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. V Sesha Kumari

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3 : Sri P Veera Reddy Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V Eswaraiah Chowdary

¶34

The Court made the following;

¶35

APHC010127692023

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶37

[3470]

¶38

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶41

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 104/2023

¶42

Between:

¶43

M.venkataramana Reddy

¶44

...APPELLANT

¶45

AND

¶46

Gajula Satyanarayana and Others

¶47

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶48

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶49

1.VSESHA KUMARI

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶51

1 .V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY

¶52

The Court made the following:

¶53

RNT. .1 & VN. J 2 CMA No. 104 of 2023

¶54

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HON'BL SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶55

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 104 nf 707^

¶56

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

¶57

Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. V. Sesha Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri V. Es\A/araiah Chowdary, learned counsel for respondents No.l to 3.

¶58

This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.102 of 2022 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati challenging the Order dated 27.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.243 of 2022, which application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel, for the appellant submits that the rejection of temporary injunction is without recording findings on the necessary points, viz., pr/ma facie case, balance of convenience and causing irreparable loss, which are all in favour of the plaintiff. He submits that previously the present respondents No.2 and 3 filed W.P.No. 15418 of 2022 to declare the action of the respondents No.2 & 3 therein i.e., Tirupati Municipal Corporation and the Assistant City Planner, Tirupati Municipal Corporation in interfering with the proposed construction being raised by the present respondents No.2 & 3 to the extent specified in that petition with respect to the property in suit, in spite of

¶59

RNT, J & VN, J CMA No. 104 of 2023

¶60

¶61

there being building permit. In the said writ petition, interim order dated 26.05.2022 was passed, which reads as under:

¶62

“This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with the proposed constructions made by the petitioners in an extent of 229.22 sq.yards in Plot No.28 in Survey No.64/2 of No.9 of Akkarampalli village accounts, Ward No.22 of Gollavanigunta extension residential area, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati City,^{ChittoorDistrictinview} of building permit No.l012/0219/B/TIR/G/2022 dated 22.04.2022 at the instance of the 4^'’ respondent herein without having any cogent reasons as illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to^{whathasbeenstated} in the affidavit, has contended that the petitioner has applied for the building permission. Accordingly the 2"‘* respondent has given permission vide permission No.l012/0219/B/TIR/G/2022 dated 22.04.2022 which is placed on record as Ex.Pl.

¶63

After affording such permission, the petitioner commenced the construction only by digging pits and to show the same, he filed photographs as Ex.P6. Immediately, after digging the pits, the respondent authorities are interfering and obstructing the petitioners’ construction without any reasons and without any prior notice.

¶64

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is^filed.

¶65

On the other hand, Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned Standing Counsel for the 2"'* respondent seeks time for getting^{instructions.}

¶66

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in^the meantime^the respondent authorities may be directed to allow the petitioner to proceed with the construction. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to proceed with the construction as per buildings plan and if any deviations are found, the respondents are at liberty to take action as per law.”

¶67

RNT. J & VN. .1 CMA No. 104or2023

¶68

¶69

The said writ petition was later on got dismissed as withdrawn by Order dated 07.11.2022, the order of which reads as under:

¶70

“No representation for the petitioners.

¶71

Learned counsel for the petitioners, filed a memo for withdrawal of .he Wr„ Petition, on behalf of the petitioners, vie USR No.80577 of 2022 which is on record.

¶72

Learned counsel representing 4"’ respondent is present, 4. Learned Standing Counsel representing 2"" and respondents is also present. They have no objection, if the petition is being withdrawn on request of the petitioners. 5. Recording the same, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.”

¶73

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the fact of withdrawal of the writ petition was brought to the notice of the learned trial Court by filing affidavit, but the same was not considered. The effect of dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn on the interim order, and the act of building constructions, taken by the present respondents 2 and 3, pursuant to the interim order. was also not considered by the learned trial Court. On the contrary, the learned trial Court being impressed by grant of interim order in the earlier writ petition, rejected the application for temporary injunction,^also observing that Therefore, there was an Order of Hon'ble High Court of A.P.in favour of R2 and R3 for making constructions. As such constructions cannot be treated as itiegai constructions when there was an Order of Hon'hie High Court ofA..P...".

¶74

RNT, J & VN, J CM A No.'104 of 2023

¶75

¶76

Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior advocate, submits^{thatthelearned} trial Court though has not recorded the findings on^{primafaciecase,balanceof} convenience and irreparable loss, but from reading^{ofthejudgment,} it can be inferred that those considerations were, there and were against the plaintiff/appellant and for that reason, the application^was dismissed, He further submits that an advocate-commissioner was appointed^{byOrder dated} 20.03.2023 in the present case and also submitted the^{report,fromwhich} it is reflected that most of the work has been completed.

¶77

In the present Appeal, on 20.03.2023, a coordinate^{Benchpassedthe} following Order:

¶78

“After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant,^{thisCourtnotices} that of all the points made, one issue deserves consideration.^{ThetrialCourt} relied upon the order passed in W.P.No.l5418 of 2022 to hold that constructions being made are not illegal constructions,^{sincethereisanorderby} this Court. However in the affidavit filed in support^ofthe interlocutory application, it is clearly avoid that this writ petition^{hasbeenwithdrawnbutthe} construction was continued. This aspect is not noticed by the Trial Court. The suit also contains a prayer for mandatory injunction for removal ot the construction already made. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that construction is not completed and that when the suit is filed, construction^{wasatapreliminary} stage. To ascertain this issue, this court is ot the opinion^{thatanAdvocate} Commissioner is to be appointed to inspect the suit^{schedulepropertyandalso} the current stage of construction. Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned Advocate is appointed^asanadvocate commissioner and his fee is fixed tentatively at Rs.20,000/-. 1 le is directed to inspect the suit schedule property and file a detailed report along with

¶79

RNT. .1 & VN, J CM A No. 104 of 2023

¶80

¶81

photographs. I'he inspection should be confined to the constructions that are made in the plaint schedule property.

¶82

List on 31.03.2023.

¶83

In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent Nos.l to 3 by RPAD and file proof of service in the Registry.

¶84

Advocate commissioner is also given liberty to serve notice on respondent Nos.l to 3 before execution of warrant.” 8. Order dated 13.04.2023, passed in I.A.No.l of 2023 in the present

¶85

appeal, reads as under:

¶86

“Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the respondents, seeks time to file counter.

¶87

In view of Advocate Commissioner’s report, it shows that the construction is progress substantially, there shall be an interim order as prayed for restraining the respondents, their men and agents from in any way proceeding with further construction in the schedule property.

¶88

Learned counsel for the respondents is permitted to file his objections, if

¶89

he so desires, on the Advocate Commissioner report.

¶90

List the matter on 26.04.2023, for counter.”

¶91

Advocate Commissioner submitted the report which^isonrecord.

¶92

Having raised the aforesaid submissions, during arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that by giving the^{directiontothelearnedtrial} Court to expeditiously decide the suit and till such decision, the respondents may not alienate the subject properb/, the writ petition may be disposed of finally.

¶93

Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and also Sri V.Eswaraih Chowdary,^{learnedcounselforthe}

¶94

RNT, J & VN, J 7 CMA No.l04of2023

¶95

respondent as well, submit that they have no objection^{tosuchprayerbeing} made by the learned senior counsel Sri C.Raghu, for the appellant. However, they further submit that pursuant to the interim order passed in the writ petition No. 15418 of 2022, almost 90% of work has^{alreadybeencompletedby} the respondents 2 & 3 herein. Only 10% remains, and they may be permitted to complete the remaining work without raising any^{furtherconstructions,and} at their own risk, subject to the decision in the pending suit. They submit that the respondents shall not alienate the subject property during the pendency of the suit. They submit that the suit was filed after filing of the previous writ petition No.15418 of 2022 in which the interim order was granted permitting the respondents 2 & 3 herein to carry out construction^{workandlateronthe} writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn

¶96

Sri V. Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel, adopts^{thesubmissions} of Sri P. Veera Reddy, for the 1^^ respondent as well.

¶97

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the respondents have already completed most of the work, the appellant has no objection, if they are permitted to complete the finishing work without raising any further construction in the appurtenant area, but subject to the outcome of the^suit. which is also for mandatory injunction for demolition.

¶98

In view of the submissions raised as in paragraphs-10, 11, 12 & 13, supra, there is no question to enter into the merits^{oftheothersubmissions.}

¶99

RNT. J & VN. J 8 CM A No. 104 0(2023

¶100

¶101

With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, this civil miscellaneous appeal is being disposed of, finally, in view the consensus arrived during arguments in the following terms:

¶102

i. The learned trial Court shall decide the suit O.S.No.l02 of 2022, pending on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of 10 (ten) months from the date, the copy of this judgment is placed before it;

¶103

The respondents shall not alienate the subject property till disposal of the suit; The respondents shall also not raise any further construction^over the constructed area nor in the appurtenant area;

¶104

IV.

¶105

The respondents are at liberty to complete the remaining finishing work at their own risk and also subject to the result of the pending suit;

¶106

V. The constructions raised up till now under the interim order dated 26.05.2022 passed in W.P.No. 15418 of 2022 or the work to be completed now, which is at the liberty of the respondents, as aforesaid, shall also be subject to conditions of the building permit and the relevant building rules;

¶107

We clarify that;

¶108

a) merely because the respondents were permitted to raise construction, vide interim order dated 26.05.2022 in

¶109

RNT, J & VN, J CMA No,104of2023 9

¶110

W.P.No. 15418 of 2022 or have been granted liberty to complete the finishing work, it shall not be taken neither by^{thetrialCourt} nor by the concerned municipal authorities, that any^legalityhas been attached to such construction or finishing work by this Court, if it is otherwise not legal. The findings/observations of the learned trial Court while rejecting the application therefore, there was an order of the Hon'b/e High Court of A.P.^infavourof the respondents 2 & 3 for making constructions. As^such constrtuctions cannot be treated as iHegai constructions^when there was an Order of Hon'bie High Court of A.P." are^struckof not being the correct understanding of the interim^orderofthis Court. The same shall not be considered while deciding^thesuit finally. The suit shall be decided independently, on^itsownmerit. b) The respondents shall not alienate/transfer the subject property by any mode of transfer, nor under agreement of sale or/and power of attorney;

¶111

c) The respondents shall not be entitled to claim any equity because of the constructions raised pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.15418 of 2022 or liberty granted to complete the finishing work.

¶112

We further provide for the interest of the general public that the respondents shall at the site fix notice at a conspicuous place, to the effect that the property is subject to litigation in O.S.No.l02 of 2022, pending on the file of

¶113

RNT, J & VN. J CMA No. 104 of 2023

¶114

¶115

the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and if in some other case as well, giving particulars of that case as well.

¶116

With the aforesaid observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

¶117

stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶118

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed i n

¶119

consequence.

¶120

SDI- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶121

//TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER

¶122

To,

¶123

'I The X-Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Tirupati^District.

¶124

One CC to Ms. V. Sesha Kumari, Advocate [OPUC]

¶125

One CC to Sri V. Eswaraiah Chowdary, Advocate [OPUC]

¶126

Three CD Copies.

stu ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:22/07/2024

ORDER

CMA.No.104 of 2023

'V
ov.
Ho^ 1 3 AUG 20?^ m !
Current Section

¶133

DISPOSING OF THE C.M.A

M.Venkataramana Reddy v. Gajula Satyanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Venkataramana Reddy v. Gajula Satyanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Ins Com. Ltd., Nellore Dist Vs v Vijaya Lakshmi, Chittoor Dist and 5 Others

Kum. C. Prathyusha and Another Vs Govindaraju Venkatasesha Sri Kumar and 17 Others

A.John Zerard,Prakasham Dist Vs Union of India,Div.Railway Mg,and 2

Valluri Veeravenkata Satyanarayana Vs Valluri Deepthi and Another

K. Rama Raju, West Godavari District, Vs the Prl.Secretary to Govt. of A.P. Revenue and Another

P. Palani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh