Dismissed

Mr.a.C.Krishnaswamy v. Mr.C.Varadarajn

Telangana HC11 Nov 2011CRP/3363/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging orders maintaining status quo in a property dispute involving reconstruction of a common wall. Upholding concurrent findings, the court held that the petitioner lacked exclusive right and prima facie case, refusing interference under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed with no costs to any party.

Mr.a.C.Krishnaswamy Vs Mr.C.Varadarajn — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3363 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, dismissing the appeal in C.M.A. No. 12 of 2010, filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, in I.A. No.1058 of 2009 in O.S. No. 1212 of 2009, granting status quo instead of temporary injunction as sought for by the petitioner.

¶5

The petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court and pending disposal of the suit in O.S. No.1212 of 2009, he filed I.A. No. 1058 of 2009, seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondentsdefendants from interfering with the construction of wall to the western side of his house property. The respondents-defendants resisted the petition by filing counter. The trial Court, having considered the stand of the parties, refused to grant temporary injunction and instead directed both parties to maintain status quo. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal in C.M.A. No. 12 of 2010 before the appellate Court and the appellate Court, by the order under revision, dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the trial Court.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision.

¶7

A perusal of the orders of the Courts below would make it clear that both the Courts have concurrently found that the wall to the western side of the petitioner’s property, which the petitioner wants to re-construct, is a common wall over which the respondents also have a right. Since the petitioner and respondents have joint right over the compound wall, the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-construct the same without the consent of the respondents. As the petitioner did not have exclusive right over the compound wall, which he wants to reconstruct, the trial Court refused to grant temporary injunction, but however, directed both parties to maintain status quo, and the

¶8

appellate Court, having re-appreciated the matter, refused to interfere with the order of the trial Court, holding that the petitioner failed to make out prima facie case and balance of convenience is not in his favour, and that if injunction as prayed for by the petitioner is granted, there is every possibility of the petitioner defeating the rights of the respondents over the compound wall, and accordingly dismissed the appeal, by the order under revision.

¶9

The findings recorded by the Courts below, as noted above, being concurrent findings, based on the material on record, I see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision passed by the appellate Court, confirming the order of status quo passed by the trial Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

There is no merit in the civil revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶11

__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 11^th November, 2011 IBL

Mr.a.C.Krishnaswamy v. Mr.C.Varadarajn

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.a.C.Krishnaswamy v. Mr.C.Varadarajn

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

Ghattu Seetanna (died per L.Rs.) Vs Ghattu Vanajamma

Duguri Sivaramulu Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries

C. Kamakshi Vs M.Sarojini

T.B.Ayyappan Vs Smt D.N. Sharadha

M.Jaya Centenary Vs M.a.Praveen Kumar

M.Venkataramana Vs Sri Love Agarwal