High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a civil revision dismissed the petition against an order confirming an injunction granted in a property suit. The Court held the defendants failed to prove title or possession post-court auction sale.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TWELVTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3575 of 2006
Between:
Vardhineni Srinivasulu
…Revision Petitioner
AND
Kota Krishna Reddy
…Respondent
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3575 of 2006
ORDER:
1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 20.12.2005 passed in C.M.A.No.5 of 2004 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, whereunder and whereby, the order of injunction granted by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali, dated 12.02.2004, in I.A.No.1999 of 2001 in O.S.No.359 of 2001, was confirmed.
2. The petitioner herein is the second defendant and the first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit.
3. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present revision, may be stated as follows.
4. The respondent herein filed the application stating that the suit schedule property was purchased by one Cheedella Nageswara Rao in the Court auction conducted on 19.12.1997, took possession of the property through Court on 30.08.1998 and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Thereafter, he sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 01.06.1999 for cash consideration of Rs.48,000/and the possession was also delivered to the plaintiff on the same day. As the respondents were trying to
interfere with the same and trying to dispossess the plaintiff, he filed the above application.
5. The first defendant filed counter stating that Cheedella Nageswara Rao has not taken possession of the property through Court; that he was not in possession and enjoyment of the property; that Cheedella Nageswara Rao has not sold the property for cash consideration to the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property and therefore, no injunction can be granted.
6. The second defendant also filed counter stating that he paid entire amount to the decree holder for whom the property was sought to be attached; that he is in continuous possession of the property and ultimately prays to dismiss the application.
7. No oral evidence was adduced by either side, except marking Exs.P.1 to P.5 on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.R.1 on behalf of the defendant.
8. The trial court, after considering the documentary evidence, granted injunction in favour of the petitioner / plaintiff. On appeal, the said injunction order was confirmed. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is filed.
9. Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is correct, legal and proper.
10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that entire amount due to the decree
holder has been paid, and hence question to put the property of JDR to sale does not arise.
11. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent contended that the said contention was not accepted by the executing Court.
12. For grant or refusal of temporary injunction, the prime consideration that has to be established by the plaintiff is whether there is a prima facie title or not. Secondly, balance of convenience must be looked into and thirdly, if injunction is not granted by the trial Court, injury would be caused to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
13. Insofar as prima facie title is concerned, the plaintiff filed Ex.P.1 dated 01.06.1999 which is the registered sale deed executed by Cheedella Nageswara Rao. Cheedella Nageswara Rao, in turn, purchased the suit schedule property through Court auction under Ex.P.2 order and the delivery of possession was given to the said Cheedella Nageswara Rao under Ex.P.4 orders.
14. In any view of the matter, as long as Exs.P.1 – Sale deed is found to be a correct one, prima facie, title of the suit schedule property may be inferred in favour of the plaintiff. Insofar as the possession of the suit schedule property is concerned, possession was delivered to Cheedella Nageswara Rao under Ex.P.4. Consequently, he sold the property, which was in his possession. Ex.P.5 is the Pattadar Pass Book, which would go to show that the plaintiff is has got prima facie title to the property. On the other hand,
defendants have not filed any document to show that they have right, title and interest over the suit schedule property after sale of the suit schedule property by the executing Court by conducting auction. Therefore, the defendants failed to establish that they were having title to the suit schedule property. However, they filed Ex.R.1 – Copy of 10(1) Account and Ex.R.2 – Copy of No.3 Adangal to show about their possession of the suit schedule property. The recitals in Exs.R.1 and R.2 cannot be accepted at this stage to show about this possession over schedule property and perhaps that is the reason why the trial Court has not placed any reliance on Exs.R.1 and R.2.
15. In view of the fact that the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property was effected pursuant to sale in favour of Cheedella Nageswara Rao by the executing Court by way of auction, it cannot be presumed that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property.
16. Hence, this Court does not find any valid ground to interfere with the order dated 20.12.2005 passed in C.M.A.No.5 of 2004 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali.
17. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
April 12, 2010 Bvv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order confirming the injunction is correct, legal and proper.
Whether the defendants established that they had title or possession over the suit schedule property post-auction.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vardhineni Srinivasulu
Kota Krishna Reddy
K.C. Bhanu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
