Allowed

Anumula Sunitha Reddy v. Badrinarayana

Telangana HC20 Sept 2010CRP/3776/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application for police protection. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the lower order, and directed the trial Court to provide police protection to implement the existing injunction order while directing a speedy disposal of the suit.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the revision, set aside the order of 30-07-2010, directed the lower Court to provide police protection, and ordered disposal of the suit within four months.

Anumula Sunitha Reddy Vs Badrinarayana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3776 of 2010

¶3

DATED: 20-09-2010

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 30-07-2010, in I.A.No.295 of 2009 in O.S.No.48 of 2008 on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby the learned Judge refused to provide police protection to the petitioners herein.

¶6

2. The case in brief is that the petitioners filed O.S.No.48 of 2008 against the respondents for grant of perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment over an extent of Ac.52.37 guntas in Sy.Nos.81 to 87, 89, 90, 91, 94, 96, 98, 99 and 100 situate at Kothapally village, Midjil mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Along with the said suit, they also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC seeking temporary injunction.

¶7

3. The Court below held a detailed enquiry and the parties though were not examined exhibited Exs.A1 to A14 and Exs.B1 to B23.

¶8

4. On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and taking the said documentary evidence into consideration, the trial Court allowed the said application and accordingly granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners herein restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession over the plaint schedule property until further orders of the

¶9

Court. The said order was questioned before this Court by filing C.M.A.No.1319 of 2008 and a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 21-08-2009, dismissed the said appeal holding that there are no merits in the said appeal. Further, the Division Bench observed that as the said suit is for injunction simplicitor, the same may be decided at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thus, the said order of injunction has become absolute. Despite the said order of injunction, as there was interference, petitioners filed I.A.No.295 of 2009 requesting the Court below to provide police protection to the petitioners enabling them to protect and safeguard the plaint schedule property. The trial Court, however, dismissed the said application by its order, dated 30-07-2010. The same is questioned in this revision.

¶10

5. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 6. In my considered view, the Court below ought not to have dismissed the said application. When once there is an order of injunction and the said order is not implemented properly and when the petitioners approached the Court below seeking police protection, in my considered view, the Court below should provide the required protection.

¶11

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the reason for the Court below in not providing the required police protection to the petitioners is that the petitioners have not established the suit schedule property by mentioning the boundaries and there is no identification of the property.

¶12

8. In the light of the said submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court looked into the record. The documents exhibited in the Court below are all registered sale deeds and pahanis. Further, in I.A.No.409 of 2008, the suit schedule property is mentioned as under:

¶13

“Sy.No.81 to 100 except the survey numbers i.e. 88, 92, 93, 95 and 97 extents Ac.2.39 gts,s Ac.1.13 gts, Ac.0.33 gts, Ac.1.03 gts, Ac.1.04 gts, Ac.2.13 gts, Ac.2.21 gts, Ac.0.36 gts, Ac.0.38 gts, Ac.2.35 gts, Ac.2.21 gts, Ac.0.09 gts, Ac.2.39 gts and Ac.1.05 dry respectively, total extent Ac.23.29 gts purchased by the plaintiff No.1 and Ac.1.39 gts, Ac.0.35 gts, Ac.0.22 gts, Ac.5.15 gts, Ac.0.28 gts, Ac.0.28 gts, Ac.1.21 gts, Ac.1.27 gts, Ac.0.24 gts, Ac.0.26 gts,s Ac.1.38 gts, Ac.1.27 gts, Ac.0.05 gyts, Ac.2.00 gts and Ac.0.31 gts dry respectively, total extent Ac.21.06 gts purchased by son of plaintiff No.2 and land Sy.No.84 extent Ac.8.02 gts dry purchasaed by plaintiff No.2, total extent Ac.52.37 gts dry situate in the limits of Kothapalli ( village) Midjil mandal, Mahabubnagar District commonly bounded by: EAST : Land of Kasi Viswanatham

¶14

(Sy.No.84,86 & 100) WEST : Village Sivar of Nasarullabad NORTH : Vagu-Dindi

¶15

SOUTH : Lands of Avancha village Sivar &

¶16

Chendru Naik.

¶17

9. From the above, it cannot be said that the petitioners have not mentioned the suit schedule property with boundaries. When the Court below as well as this Court have gone into all these aspects and

¶18

passed an order, restraining the respondents herein from interfering with the plaint schedule property, it cannot be said that they are not entitled for police protection when there is interference by the respondents.

¶19

10. Accordingly, while setting aside the order, dated 30-07-2010, in I.A.No.295 of 2009 in O.S.No.48 of 2008 on the file learned VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, this revision is allowed and the Court below is hereby directed to provide the required police protection to the petitioners to ensure that the order of injunction, dated 27-09-2010, is implemented strictly. However, it is made clear that under the guise of the said injunction order and this order of police protection, the petitioners shall not interfere with any of the lands belonging to the respondents. Having regard to the fact that the suit is one for injunction simplicitor, the trial Court is hereby directed to decide the suit at the earliest, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J

¶21

20^th September, 2010. Tsy

Anumula Sunitha Reddy v. Badrinarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anumula Sunitha Reddy v. Badrinarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch. Venkateswarlu Vs Sri Guru Vara Kumar

P.R.Srinivasulu, Vs State of Andhra pradesh through P.p. High Court of A.P.

Mr.N.Ashok Kumar Vs Damodar Financial Services,4-B,Mayfair Apartments

E. Mahender Reddy, Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Proh. and Excise

N.a.Raghu, Vs The State of A.P.

B.v.Subba Rao, Vs Gem Granites Pvt. Limited,78