Dismissed

BAthula Narsimha Reddy v. Ravoola Gopal Reddy

Telangana HC19 Apr 2010CRP/1389/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an appellate order that granted a temporary injunction over suit land. The Court found the appellate court's decision based on newly admitted evidence sound and refused interference under Article 227, while directing expeditious trial disposal.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within three months.

BAthula Narsimha Reddy Vs Ravoola Gopal Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1389 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This revision is directed against the order dated 14.12.2009 passed in C.M.A. No.16 of 2008 on the fie of the Principal District Judge at Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder, the learned Principal District Judge allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. assailing the order dated 10.7.2008 in I.A. No. 101 of 2008 in O.S. No. 64 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

¶5

The respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 64 of 2008. He filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of Ac. 1.14 guntas in Survey No. 1261/A situated at Pallepahad, H/o. Ammanabole village, Nalgonda District, out of which, he sold 0.16 guntas to Bathula Anandamma; 0.08 guntas to Sama Kondal Reddy and had given 0.10 guntas to Mallanna temple, retaining 0.20 guntas with him. The boundaries for the land retained by him are stated as:

¶6

East: Land of Bathula Anandamma West: Land of Kambampati Sathaiah North: Ramannapet to Ammanbole P.W.D. road and South: Land of Sama Kondal Reddy

¶7

According to the plaintiff, the defendants have no right over the suit land and they are attempting to interfere with his possession and therefore, he filed the suit seeking perpetual

¶8

injunction. He also moved I.A. No. 101 of 2008 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit.

¶9

The defendants filed counter resisting the application of the plaintiff. It is the plea of the defendants that the 4^th defendant purchased Ac.1.02 guntas in Survey No.1261 from Appidi Somi Reddy in the year 1990 through a sale deed bearing No. 949/1990, dated 27.8.1990 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then.

¶10

On behalf of the plaintiff, four documents were marked as Exs. P1 to P4. The defendants did not choose to mark any documents on their behalf. The trial Court, on considering the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to show of his retaining any land after selling the land to Sama Kondal Reddy, Bathula Anandamma etc. With these observations, the trial Court proceeded to dismiss the temporary injunction application by order dated 10.7.2008. The plaintiff filed C.M.A. No.16 of 2008, assailing the order dated 10.7.2009 passed in I.A. No. 101 of 2008 in O.S. No. 64 of 2008. The plaintiff also filed I.A No. 2282 of 2009 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. in the appellate Court to receive certified copies of sale deed bearing No. 10/08, dated 3.1.2008. The appellate Court allowed the application and received the document as additional evidence and marked the same as Ex.B5. The appellate Court, on considering Ex.P5-sale deed and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff

¶11

has satisfied all the essential ingredients for grant of temporary injunction and thereby, proceeded to allow the appeal by order dated 14.12.2009. Hence, this revision by the defendants.

¶12

When the revision came up for admission, the respondentplaintiff entered appearance through a counsel.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits that the appellate Court has failed to appreciate the material brought on record in right perspective and thereby erred in upsetting the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. A further contention has been made that the plaintiff has not filed any rejoinder after the counter has been filed by the defendants in the temporary injunction application and it constitutes that the plaintiff does not dispute the sale deed referred in the counter, under which the 4^th defendant purchased Ac.1.02 guntas in Survey No. 1261 from Appidi Somi Reddy.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff supported the order impugned in the revision.

¶16

The plaintiff filed the suit claiming that he retained 0.20 guntas of land after executing registered sale deeds in favour of Bathula Anandamma and Sama Kondal Reddy. The trial Court refused temporary injunction on the ground that the plaintiff has not placed any material on record that he retained 0.20 guntas of land.

¶17

In the appellate Court, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.2282 of 2009 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. The said application came to be allowed and the document came to be

¶18

marked as Ex.P5. The recitals in Ex.P5, document have been referred in para-13 of the judgment passed in C.M.A. No. 16 of 2008, which reads as hereunder:

¶19

“Ex.P5 is the C.C. of the registered sale deed bearing document No.10/08, dated 3.1.2008, which shows that one Jalla Narsaiah and five others sold Ac.1.26 guntas in Survey No.1261 to Sama Kondal Reddy, Dosapati Prasad, Annapally Sanjeeva Redy and Vempati Srinivasulu. The boundaries of the said land covered under Ex.P-5 are mentioned as North: Agricultural land of Vanam Shivaramulu and others, South: Agricultural land of R. Gopal Reddy and Mallanna Temple & others, East: Ammanabole to Narketpally Road and West: Agricultural land of Kammampati Yadaiah. Thus, southern boundary of the said land is shown as the land of the plaintiff herein and Mallanna Temple.”

¶20

The defendants having pleaded that the 4^th defendant got the property under registered sale deed did not choose to place on record any material to substantiate the same. The appellate Court has taken into consideration the material brought on record and proceeded to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The order passed by the appellate Court is based on sound reasons and it does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, the civil revision petition fails and it is dismissed at the admission stage.

¶21

Since the suit is of the year 2008, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

_________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

¶23

Dt. 19^th April, 2010

¶24

pnb

BAthula Narsimha Reddy v. Ravoola Gopal Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

BAthula Narsimha Reddy v. Ravoola Gopal Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S Vedagiri Raja Vs The Commercial Chits Corporation (In Liquidation)

Goldstone Infratech Limited Vs M/s Tf Solar Power Private Limted

Vadlapatla Venkata Raja Bhushana Prasad, Vs State rep by the Sub Inspector of Police

Koonamaneni Ravindra Babu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

S.Shahanai Basha Vs T H Nataraja Rao, S/o Bhaskar Rao

Koonamaneni Rama Krishna Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal