Partly allowed

Kuruba Neelappa v. Kuruba Devendrappa

Telangana HC1 Oct 2010CRP/556/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified a trial court's temporary injunction order. While noting the main suit requires a full trial to decide rival title claims, the court directed a status quo maintaining current possession until the suit's disposal within six months.

What did the court decide?

Order under revision set aside; Trial Court order modified to direct status quo on land possession pending suit disposal within six months.

Kuruba Neelappa Vs Kuruba Devendrappa — Partition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.556 OF 2010

¶3

DATED: 01.10.2010

¶4

Between :

¶5

1. Kuruba Neelappa and 2 others. … Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

Kuruba Devendrappa … Respondent

¶8

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶9

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.556 OF 2010

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.63 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg. The suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/respondent herein from interfering with the suit schedule property situated in Sy.No.101/A of Rayadurg. By order dated 4.8.2009 in I.A.No.253 of 2009 the trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. However, CMA.No.18 of 2009 preferred by the defendant in the Family Court-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anantapur was allowed by judgment dated 10.12.2009 thereby setting aside the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court in I.A.No.253 of 2009 in O.S.No.63 of 2009. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiffs.

¶12

The case of the plaintiffs is as under:

¶13

The 1^st plaintiff’s father by name Siddappa and the defendant’s paternal grandfather Devappa are brothers. They constituted Hindu Joint Family and the joint family purchased the suit schedule properties. There was an oral partition between them, in which the property in Sy.No.101-A fell to the share of Siddappa and the property

¶14

in Sy.No.105-A fell to the share of Devappa. Subsequently the suit schedule properties were partitioned among the family members of the 1^st plaintiff under a Registered Partition Deed, dated 22.3.2001. It is claimed that the mutation was effected in the revenue records and pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of their respective shares. Alleging that the defendant, who did not have any manner of right or interest in respect of the suit schedule properties, situated in Sy.No.101-A, started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs with the assistance of unsocial elements, the main suit was filed.

¶15

In the written statement filed by the defendant, the partition deed dated 22.3.2001 has been disputed and it is pleaded that his grandfather Devappa had purchased Ac.18.3 ½ cents of land situated in Sy.No.101 along with one Hanumanthappa under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 22.11.1923. It is alleged that pattadar pass books and title deeds were obtained by the plaintiffs in collusion with the revenue authorities. Subsequently the 1^st plaintiff’s father Siddappa purchased half share (Ac.9.02 cents) of Hanumantappa in Sy.No.101 under Registered Sale Deed, dated 11.5.1925. Thus it is contended that the 1^st plaintiff’s father got right only to an extent of Ac.9.02 cents in Sy.No.101.

¶16

In I.A.No.253 of 2009 the plaintiffs got marked Exs.A1 to A9 documents and Exs.B1 to B8 were marked on behalf of the defendant. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the plaintiffs were marked as Exs.A2 to A6 to show their possession. They also filed Exs.A7 to A9 to substantiate their uninterrupted possession and enjoyment. On behalf of the defendant, Registered Sale Deed dated 22.11.1923 was marked as Ex.B1 and Registered Sale Deed dated 11.5.1925 was marked as Ex.B4. The gift deed dated 30.12.2008 under which the property was gifted to him was marked as Ex.B2. The adangals for the faslis 1397 to 1400 were marked as Exs.B5 to B8. On appreciation of the said

¶17

evidence, the trial Court, while holding that the plaintiffs could establish prima facie possession over the plaint schedule property and that the balance of convenience was also in their favour, granted temporary injunction.

¶18

The said order was set aside by the lower Appellate Court observing that the petitioners failed to place any prima facie material with regard to their origin of title.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶20

The rival claims in respect of the suit schedule property can be decided only after full-fledged trial in the main suit. For the purpose of temporary injunction, the plaintiffs relied upon Exs.A2 to A6 to establish their possession. On the other hand, the defendant had relied upon adangals for the Faslis 1397 to 1400 which were marked as Exs.B6 to B8 to show that he is in possession of Ac.9.01 cent in Sy.No.105-A. Even assuming that the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the origin of their title is correct, the material produced by the plaintiffs to establish their possession as on the date of the suit cannot be brushed aside so far as the petition for temporary injunction is concerned. Since both parties are asserting possession and produced documents to substantiate their rival claims, I deem it appropriate to direct both parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on today with regard to the possession of the land in question till the disposal of the suit.

¶21

Accordingly, the order under Revision is set aside and the Trial Court’s order in I.A.No.253 of 2009, dated 4.8.2009 is hereby modified directing that status quo obtaining as on today with regard to the possession of the suit schedule property shall be maintained till the disposal of the suit. There shall also be a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit following due process of law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶22

Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶23

G. ROHINI, J.

¶24

Dt. 01.10.2010 gbs

Kuruba Neelappa v. Kuruba Devendrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuruba Neelappa v. Kuruba Devendrappa

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

Fishermen Co-Op.Society, Kannala, Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries

Uttara Visakha Sarvodaya Sahayaka Samithi, Rep. by its Vs Khadi and Village Industries Comission

C.Yellamma Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

R.Narasimha Reddy Medak Dist Vs Collector Medak Dist and 2 Others

P.Hanmantha Rao Vs The Collector

Ravindra Chowdary, Vs Dabbara Madhava Naidu