Dismissed

Smt.Y.Jayamma v. Y.Mohan Reddy

Telangana HC8 Jul 2013CMA/465/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil appeal challenging the grant of temporary injunction. The High Court affirmed the trial Court's view that respondents had proved prima facie case and threat of dispossession. The appeal was dismissed, restraining the appellant from interfering with the suit schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Order of temporary injunction granted to respondents by the trial Court was upheld; appellant restrained from interfering with the suit schedule property.

Smt.Y.Jayamma Vs Y.Mohan Reddy — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶4

C.M.A.No.465 OF 2013

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per SVBJ)

¶6

This civil miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of

¶7

1^st defendant in O.S.No.179 of 2012, on the file of the I- Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, against the order dated 26.04.2013 in I.A.No.1384 of 2012 filed in the suit.

¶8

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed suit O.S.No.179 of 2012 for the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the appellant herein and respondent Nos.4 and 5 from, in any manner, interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of respondents 1 to 3 over the suit schedule property, consisting of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.450/A in an extent of Ac.3-02 gts situated at Velmala village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District.

¶9

The case of the respondents is that through registered sale deed dated 07.09.1995 his father purchased the suit land from one B.Malla Reddy, and thereafter the land was divided into three equal shares, and that each one of them were allotted Ac.01-11 gts. Their names are said to have been incorporated in the revenue records, both in pattedar and possessor columns. They claim to have sold extents of

¶10

Ac.0-10 gts and Ac.0-20 gts from out of their holdings and that the balance of land is with them.

¶11

It was pleaded that the appellant purchased land on the western side of the land of the respondents through registered sale deed dated 06.03.1997 and are trying to encroach upon the land of plaintiffs.

¶12

In view of the apprehension of encroachment or dispossession, the respondents filed the present suit for perpetual injunction. With the same set of allegations, they filed I.A.No.1384 of 2012 for the relief of temporary injunction.

¶13

The appellant filed counter in the IA stating that she is the absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.450/AA in an extent of Ac.3-19 gts situated at Velmala Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Medak District, having purchased through registered sale deed dated 06.03.1997. She pleaded that the eastern boundary in the said sale deed is shown as the land of respondents. Reference was made to a preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.122 of 2006, filing of I.A.No.83 of 2010 in O.S.No.122 of 2006 for appointment of advocate commissioner and identification of the land in Sy.No.450/AA admeasuring Ac.3-19 gts. She stated that respondents 1 to 3 are signatories to the panchanama conducted by the Mandal Surveyor with reference to the identity of the property on 06.01.2011. In other words, the plea of appellant is that the plaintiffs accepted the identity of

¶14

property which belongs to her.

¶15

The respondents filed Exs.P-1 to P-11 and the appellant filed Exs.R-1 to R-6. The trial Court, after considering the contentions of respective parties and the documents relied upon by them in support of their case, has come to the conclusion that respondents 1 to 3 have proved the existence of prima facie case and threat of dispossession by the appellant and allowed I.A.No.1384 of 2012, granting temporary injunction. Hence, the present appeal.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court failed to take into account that the respondents purchased the plaint schedule land in the year 1995, and they have identified the land of the appellant in the panchanama prepared by the Mandal Surveyor on 06.01.2011. He submits that in view of the fact that respondents 1 to 3 admitted the location and identity of the property belonging to them and appellant and that there is difference in the description in sale deed dated 07.09.1995 on the one hand and description in the plaint schedule on the other hand, the finding of the trial Court that there is prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs cannot be countenanced. It is further contended that being the owners of definite extent of land, the respondents are entitled for injunction only in respect of plaint schedule property and they are not entitled for anything over and above what they have purchased in the

¶17

year 1995.

¶18

The controversy between the parties is concerning the land situated on the western side of plaint schedule. The respondents purchased the land in the year 1995 while the appellant purchased the land two years thereafter. Being the purchasers earlier in point of time, the respondents have got right and title to the property purchased by them. To show that they have title and possession, the respondents filed Exs.P-1 to P-11. These documents show the prima facie right, title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. To contend that the property claimed by respondents 1 to 3 is different from what they have purchased under registered sale deed dated 07.09.1995, the appellant relies upon the commissioner’s report in I.A.No.83 of 2010 in O.S.No.122 of 2006.

¶19

It may be noted that respondents 1 to 3 herein are not parties to the said suit and the subject matter of O.S.No.122 of 2006 is different. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the attestation in the panchanama prepared in I.A.No.83 of 2010 does not in any manner affect the right and title of respondents 1 to 3 over the suit land. The appellant did not claim any right and title to the suit schedule property. The prima facie findings arrived at by the trial Court are upon consideration of the documents brought on record, at the stage of interlocutory application. This Court, after careful

¶20

consideration of the material, is in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court on the question of prima facie case, balance of convenience and the need to grant temporary injunction, pending suit.

¶21

Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. It hardly needs any mention that the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court shall operate only vis-à-vis the suit schedule property. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

The miscellaneous petitions in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.

¶23

__________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶24

____________ S.V.BHATT, J

¶25

08^th July, 2013 Lrkm

Smt.Y.Jayamma v. Y.Mohan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Y.Jayamma v. Y.Mohan Reddy

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

Selco International Limited, Vs L.V.R. Infrastructures Pvt. Lt.

Selco International Limited, Vs L.V.R. Infrastructures Pvt. Lt.

Valluru Sivanath, Vs Valluru Ravindranath

The Secretary to Government Vs Sri P.Sunder Rami Reddy (Died as per LRs)

Mohd.Imamuddin and Another Vs Husna Begum and 5 Ors.

Sri Balaram Mohantho Vs Smt.Krishna Mohantho , Manu Mohantho