In a Conservation Revenue Petition under Article 227, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against an appellate order confirming a temporary injunction that barred respondents from interfering with possession while acknowledging their equitable right of residence in the suit property.
C.R.P. No. 1480 of 2011 dismissed; no costs awarded to petitioner.
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.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
C.R.P. No. 1480 of 2011
Oral order:
This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 23.02.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District, dismissing the appeal in C.M.A. NO. 8 of 2009 filed by the petitioner questioning the order dated 23.03.2009 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District, allowing the application in I.A. No. 82 of 2008 in O.S. No. 29 of 2008, filed by her praying to grant temporary injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 to 7 from dispossessing her from the petition schedule property.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision.
Respondent No.1-defendant No.7 is her daughter-in-law. Respondent No.7 appears to have filed criminal cases against the petitioner and her son. Alleging that respondents-defendant Nos. 1 to 7, are trying to dispossess her and frame her in false cases, the petitioner filed the suit accompanied by the present I.A. for temporary injunction.
Even though the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge allowed the I.A. filed by the petitioner, but while allowing the same, observed that the petitioner also has no right whatsoever to restrain respondent No.1-defendant No.7 from entering into the suit schedule property. It is this observation, which the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged in appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, and is now questioning the same in this C.R.P. as being contrary to law.
Though the petitioner contends that if respondent No.1defendant No.7 is allowed to stay in the petition schedule property, there is every possibility of her framing the petitioner and her son in false cases and also dispossess them from the suit schedule property, the fact remains, both the Courts below have concurrently found that the husband of respondent No.1-defendant No.7 is residing in the suit schedule property, and as respondent No.1-defendant No.7 has a right of residence in the house where her husband is residing, she is entitled to stay in the house.
As the petitioner being the owner of the suit schedule property,
cannot be dispossessed from the suit schedule property, the trial Court injuncted the respondents-defendant Nos.1 to 7 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. At the same time, as respondent No.1-defendant No.7 has a right of residence in the house where her husband is residing, and as the husband of respondent No.1-defendant No.7 is said to be residing in the suit schedule property, the trial Court observed that the petitioner also has no right whatsoever to restrain respondent No.1-defendant No.7 from entering into the suit schedule property. , because she is entitled to right of residence in the house (suit schedule property) where her husband is said to be residing.
The above order passed by the Court below being an equitable order, the appellate Court has rightly confirmed the same by the order under revision, and I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the same in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
N.V. RAMANA, J.
Dated: 1st July, 2010 KSR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in an equitable order confirming a temporary injunction recognising a spouse's right of residence.
Whether a temporary injunction restraining respondents from entering property is defective as it contravenes the respondent's right of residence.
Petitioner
Respondent No. 1
Appellant
Respondents 1 to 7
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
