Dismissed

Juthiga Srinivas v. Tatavarthi Srinivas

Telangana HC17 Jun 2013CMA/426/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal commenced from the trial Courts execution of sale deeds and dismissal of interlocutory injunction petitions. The appellants claimed agreements of sale were in their favor, while the trial court held that the current respondents were bona fide owners in possession.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible.

Juthiga Srinivas Vs Tatavarthi Srinivas — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

C.M.A. No.426 of 2013

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

¶6

The appellants are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.97 of 2012. The suit was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein in the Court of Additional District Judge, Narsapur, for the relief of perpetual injunction against the appellants and respondents 3 and 4. It was pleaded that after the property had changed hands since 2006, they purchased it through a sale deed dated 21-07-2010 from one Smt. Chakka Nagalakshmi Damayanthi for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-.

¶7

It was alleged that the appellants are trying to interfere with their possession by pleading that there is an agreement of sale in their favour.

¶8

The respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.412 of 2012, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. They repeated their plea in the plaint. Respondents 3 and 4 remained ex parte. The I.A was contested by the appellants alone. They pleaded that respondents 3 and 4 executed agreements of sale on 16-04-2005 and 12-08-2005, and possession was also delivered to them, while executing the same. They further pleaded that when respondents 3 and 4 did not cooperate for execution of the sale deeds, they filed O.S.Nos.61 and 62 of 2011 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Eluru,

¶9

for specific performance of agreements of sale, and that the suits have since been decreed. It was also pleaded that in the E.Ps filed by the

¶10

appellants, the trial Court executed the sale deeds.

¶11

Through its order dated 01-02-2013, the trial Court allowed the I.A., and made the order of ad interim injunction granted by that Court as absolute.

¶12

Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶13

The appeal arises out of an order passed in an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., for perpetual injunction. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, Exs.P-1 to P-29 were marked, and on behalf of the respondents, Exs.B-1 to B-34 were filed. It is no doubt true that the appellants pleaded that ever since the date of execution of the agreements, in their favour, which are marked as Exs.B-27 and B- 28, they are in possession of the property. It was also pleaded that they filed two suits for the respective reliefs, and on the ex parte decrees being passed therein, sale deeds have been executed. The fact, however, remains that, by the time the decree for specific performance of agreement of sale was passed in favour of the appellants,

¶14

the respondents 3 and 4 ceased to be owners, and after two or three transactions, the respondents 1 and 2 became the owners. The matter did not rest at that.

¶15

An old house, that was existing on the suit schedule property, was demolished and the respondents 1 and 2 have obtained permission for construction. An approved plan is filed as Ex.P-10. Further, before the respondents 1 and 2 purchased the property, they obtained encumbrance certificates, which are marked as Exs.P-16 and P-17. Receipts for payment of tax to Municipality were also filed. In this scenario, it is difficult to imagine that the appellants are in

¶16

possession of the property. The trial Court has taken the view that the respondents 1 and 2 are in possession of the property. Further, if the appellants have any rights vis-à-vis the property, they can certainly enforce them by instituting appropriate proceedings, and it hardly needs any mention that the construction made by the respondents 1 and 2 is subject to such proceedings.

¶17

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J _______________________ S.V.BHATT, J Dt.17-06-2013

¶20

Juthiga Srinivas v. Tatavarthi Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juthiga Srinivas v. Tatavarthi Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Akber Alam Vs Pradeep Kumar Agarwal

Sri L.Gangadhara Pratap Vs Ms. L.Neelima

The Commissioner and Spl. Officer Vs C. Sreeramulu(died) per Lr Rr 2 to 4

A.S.S.K. Sarma alias Phani Vs M/s Appele Credit Corporation Ltd.

M/s. Central Roadlines Corporation Vs M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Smt. Sita Bai Vs The South Indian Bank Ltd.