Single judge dismissed the revision petition challenging an appellate order that restored a temporary injunction. The court held that the respondent had proof of prior possession and no evidence showed the original GPA was cancelled before the petitioner's sale deed.
The revision petition was dismissed. The appellate order restoring the temporary injunction was upheld.
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. 643 of 2011
Oral order:
This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the Special Sessions Judge-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district, allowing the appeal in C.M.A. No. 59 of 2010, filed by the respondent against the order dated 04.03.2010 passed by the
I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, vacating the ex parte temporary injunction granted dated 09.09.2009 and dismissing the application in I.A. No. 2302 of 2009 in O.S. No. 1745 of 2009, filed by him for temporary injunction.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision.
Though the trial Court vacated the ex parte interim temporary injunction granted by it earlier in favour of the respondent on the ground he failed to make out prima facie case and balance of convenience and that he did not approach the Court with clean hand, the fact remains, the appellate Court, in the appeal filed against the said order by the respondent, found that the trial Court did not go into question as to who was prima facie in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, and that it was carried away by the fact that the respondent earlier filed suit O.S. No. 452 of 2009 and that he did not mention about the same in the plaint. Having found so, and considering the fact that for grant of temporary injunction, the
question as to who is in possession of the suit schedule property, is material, the appellate Court, proceeded to consider the said question, by re-appreciating the evidence on record. Having re-appreciated the evidence on record, the appellate Court found that the respondent had withdrawn the suit filed by him earlier with liberty to file fresh suit, and that in pursuance of such liberty, he filed the present suit and that as on the date of filing of the suit, the respondent was in possession of the suit schedule property, and having found so, set aside the order passed by the trial Court, vacating the temporary injunction granted earlier, and restored the temporary injunction.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the original GPA holder had no power to give another GPA and that the original GPA did not deliver possession of the suit property to the respondent, and as such, the Court below committed an error in granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, and more so when the petitioner by virtue of the sale deed dated 30.08.1990 executed by the original GPA holder in his favour, was also put into possession. Even though the original GPA holder executed sale deed dated 30.08.1990 in favour of the petitioner wherein it is reflected that he is put in possession of the suit schedule property, the fact remains, much prior to the execution of the same, the original General Power of Attorney, namely Mirza Maseehuddin Baig, on his behalf and eight others, executed irrevocable GPA dated 31.01.1987 in favour of Sri T. Mallaiah, wherein a recital is made that Sri T. Mallaiah, who is the lawful Power of Attorney, is given power to effect sale in favour of prospective purchasers and deliver possession thereof to the purchasers, and on the strength of the said Power of Attorney, Sri T. Mallaiah, entered into
an agreement of sale with the respondent, and subsequently executed sale deed in favour of the respondent.
Thus from the above, it becomes clear the respondent was put into possession of the suit schedule property, much before execution of the sale deed dated 30.08.1990 by the original GPA holder in favour of the petitioner, and that being so, and further in the absence of the petitioner placing any material to show that the irrevocable GPA executed by the original GPA holder in favour of Sri T. Mallaiah, was cancelled, and after cancellation of the same, the original GPA holder executed sale deed dated 30.08.1990 in favour of the petitioner, it cannot, prima facie, be said that the petitioner was put into possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, no exception can be taken to the order under revision, passed by the appellate Court setting aside the order passed by the trial Court vacating the temporary injunction granted and consequently passing temporary injunction in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.
For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision 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. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. No order as to costs.
__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
11th March, 2011 IBL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the temporary injunction granted in favour of the respondent needs to be set aside given the petitioner's sales and possession claims.
Whether the appellate court erred in holding that the respondent was in possession of the suit schedule property prior to the petitioner's alleged delivery.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
