Remanded

Saireddy Jayamma v. Payam Krishna

Telangana HC1 Jul 2011CRP/5235/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Civil Revision Petition challenged an ex parte interim injunction granted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhadrachalam. The court held that upon the filing of a counter affidavit raising boundary and jurisdiction disputes nearly ten months prior, the lower court should reconsider the interim order. It directed the lower court to take up the application for consideration on merits within thr

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhadrachalam, to take up IA No. 3 of 2010 for consideration on merits and pass orders within three months.

Saireddy Jayamma Vs Payam Krishna — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

CRP No. 5235 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an ex parte interim injunction granted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhandrachalam in IA No. 3 of 2010 moved in OS No. 3 of 2010. The two defendants in the said suit are the petitioners herein. The plaintiff has filed suit seeking for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the land of five acres owned by him situate in Sy. No. 126, Pandurangapuram village, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District. He also filed interlocutory application No. 3 of 2010 seeking for ad interim injunction. It is asserted by the plaintiff – petitioner that he was the true owner of the land of an extent of five acres and on the ground that the respondents/defendants are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, he sought for refraining them from doing so. Finding prima facie case in favour of the petitioner – plaintiff, the ex parte injunction order was granted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 19.2.2010, which order is challenged now in this revision.

¶5

Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners and none appears for the respondent – plaintiff.

¶6

Though several contentions have been canvassed but nonetheless learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that at the earliest point of time, the petitioners herein have filed their counter affidavit in the matter on 6.8.2010 raising importantly, grounds relating to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit as it lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to do so and also on the ground that Sy. No. 126 of Pandurangapuram village comprises of vast extents of land of more than 2000 acres and without mentioning subdivision, in which the land of an extent of five acres said to be owned by the plaintiff-petitioner is lying, he approached the court and obtained the ex parte

¶7

interim injunction. It was further contended that the plaintiff deliberately and purposefully misled the court by describing the boundaries of the land owned by the petitioners herein. It is stated that the particulars of the land which have been described by the plaintiff are in fact situated in Sy. No. 126/66 and this five acres of land is owned by the petitioners herein in their own right as they have purchased it as long back as in the year 1969. Therefore, the ex parte interim injunction granted by the court is the result of improper appreciation of facts on record.

¶8

An ex parte interim injunction can be granted upon being prima facie satisfied that the plaintiff – petitioner possesses the land in question and he has established prima facie title and right to the said land. But, however, when the defendants have filed their counter, raising certain disputes with regard to the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule and further raise a plea that land owned by them in their own right cannot be shown as that of the plaintiff for obtaining injunction, the court ought to have been examined the same promptly. Since the counter affidavit has been filed nearly ten months back in the IA, I consider it appropriate to direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, to take up IA No. 3 of 2010 in OS No. 3 of 2010 for consideration and pass appropriate orders thereon on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. With this, the civil revision petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶9

In view of the disposal of the CRP, no orders are needed to be passed in CMP No. 3234 of 2011 and it is always open to the petitioners herein to seek such remedies as are available to them under law against the plaintiff – petitioner for the alleged loss sustained by them at the hands of the petitioner – plaintiff.

¶10

-----------------------------knk N.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J

¶11

Dt : 01.07.2011

Saireddy Jayamma v. Payam Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saireddy Jayamma v. Payam Krishna

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

B.Venkateswara Rao and Another Vs the Joint Collector and 3 Others

K.Viswanatham Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy Mandal

Masjid-E-Meena Managing Committee, Mallela Village, Vs The District Collector

M.Rama krishna Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

S.Lalithamm , S.Lalitha, Vs The District collector, Chittoor.

B.Venkateswara Reddy Vs The District Registrar