The High Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging an interim injunction order. It held that the trial court correctly established a prima facie case and balance of convenience for the plaintiffs, as the disputed properties fell under distinct survey numbers.
The civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.
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 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.20 OF 2014
Dated: 19.2.2014
Between: B.Narasimha Reddy, S/o.late B.Lakshma Reddy And Pappula Renaiah, S/o.Yettaiah And another
… Appellant/ Defendant
… Respondents/ Plaintiffs
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.20 OF 2014
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Sunil Chowdary)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the defendant against order dated 30.9.2003 in plaintiffs’ I.A.No.1595 of 2013 in O.S.No.1076 of 2013 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. By the impugned order, learned District Judge granted interim injunction restraining defendant and others from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs in respect of petition schedule plots. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that first plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of petition schedule-I i.e., plot bearing No.177, admeasuring 169.5 Sq.yards, in survey No.60 Part, situated at Ward No.8, Block No.3, Sri Ramana Colony, Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under GHMC L.B.Nagar Circle. The second plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of petition schedule-II i.e., plot bearing No.179, admeasuring 530.05 Sq.yards in the same survey No.60. The first plaintiff purchased the plot No.177 by registered sale deed bearing No.2452/2011, dated 06.4.2011 from N.Ananthamma, through her GPA holder M.Sridhar and K.Prabhavathi, and others. The second plaintiff purchased the plot No.179 by registered sale deed bearing document No.22072/2006, dated 24.10.2006 from Balam Jangaiah. Originally Balam Jangaiah and others were possessors of Acs.52.00 of land in survey No.60 of Karmanghat village. The said land was classified as Inam land as per the revenue records. Balam Jangaiah
and others applied to revenue authorities for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The Inams Tribunal vide proceedings No.AD/survey/Special-80 issued independent ORCs in favour of Balam Jangaiah and others on 31.10.1980. In pursuance of the said ORCs, Balam Jangaiah and others have become owners to an extent of Acs.52.00 of land situated in Karmanghat Gram Panchayat vide its proceedings No.415/1980, dated 29.8.1980 and thereafter they converted the land into 575 plots and sold them to various persons. The first plaintiff’s vendors, namely, Smt.N.Ananthamma and K.Babu Rao purchased the petition schedule plot-I under registered sale deed bearing document No.4706/1981, dated 28.6.1981. The second plaintiff’s vendors are Balam Jangaiah and others, who got the property vide OR Certificates as stated above. The plaintiffs’ vendors and thereafter the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective schedule plots. The plaintiffs have made constructions in their respective plots and obtained electricity connections. The defendant is openly proclaiming that he is having title to the suit property and tried to dig pits in the petition schedule plots on 02.8.2013. Again on 25.8.2013, the defendant along with his men and JCB machine came to the plots and tried to encroach the plots and demolish the structured therein. The plaintiffs and the neighbours resisted the same and gave complaint to the police. Prima facie case and balance of convenience are in favour of the plaintiffs and if interim injunction is not granted in their favour, they would sustain irreparable injury. Hence, this petition.
3. The defendant filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that originally the land in survey No.58 of Karmanghat village is Inam land and its Inamdar, late Khaja Shakir Hussain, and the defendant was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.8.26 guntas of land in
survey No.58. The defendant approached the Inams Tribunal for grant of ORC. After due enquiry, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division granted ORC in favour of defendant vide File No.H/963/81 dated 24.9.1981 in respect of Ac.8.26 guntas. He got his name mutated in the revenue records and obtained sub-division survey No.58/1/S. Out of the said land, the defendant sold Ac.1.06 guntas to one Ghan Shaheed Baba, who is running a school in the name of GSB International School. The defendant obtained layout for an extent of Ac.5.38 guntas from HUDA in the year 1991 and sold plots to different persons. He also sold Ac.0.18 guntas to one P.D.Prakash and others. The defendant retained Ac.1.04 guntas in survey No.58. The members and office bearers of Sri Ramana Colony Welfare Association (for short, the Association), who have no right or title, tried to interfere and occupy the land Ac.1.04 guntas in survey No.58/1/S. Then he filed O.S. No.1014 of 1999 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for perpetual injunction and the same was decreed on 25.6.2013. During the pendency of the said suit, the Advocate Commissioner with the help of surveyor demarcated the land and a sketch map was prepared. The plaintiffs who are well aware of the earlier proceedings in O.S.No.1014 of 1999 and passing of the decree of perpetual injunction in favour of defendant on 25.6.2003 by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, suppressed the same and filed the present suit, and obtained the ex parte injunction order against the defendant. There is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of plaintiffs. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of plaintiffs, Exs.P1 to P17 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, Exs.R1 to R10 were marked. But no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of either of the
parties. Basing on the material available on record, the trial court arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to interim injunction. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the defendant preferred this miscellaneous appeal.
5. The learned counsel for defendant/appellant strenuously submitted that the trial court granted interim injunction without properly considering the documents filed by defendant. Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiffs/respondents submitted that the trial court rightly considered the documents filed by both the parties and granted interim injunction.
6. Now, the points that would arise for consideration in this miscellaneous appeal are:
Point Nos.1 and 2:
7. It is settled principle of law that establishment of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss likely to be caused to plaintiff if no injunction is granted, is sine quo non for granting interim injunction. Suffice to say that while deciding the interlocutory applications, the court should not express any opinion which ultimately affects the rights of the parties to the suit.
8. As seen from the material available on record, plaintiffs have purchased the petition schedule plots under the originals of Exs.P.1 and P.2 registered sale deeds dated 06.4.2011 and 24.10.2006 from their respective vendors. The said vendors have separately purchased petition schedule plots under the originals of Exs.P3 and P6 sale deeds dated 27.6.1981 and 31.3.1989. Exs.P5 and P9 are the photographs. Ex.P14 is the photocopy of ORC issued in favour of original owners of the land in respect of survey No.60. Ex.P7-the
certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate is filed to show that petition schedule plots are not burdened with any encumbrance. Exs.P4 and P8 Electricity bills and Exs.P12 and P13 Pahanis prima facie show that petition schedule plots are in possession of plaintiffs. Ex.P17 is photocopy of layout plan.
9. The contention of defendant is that he is owner of an extent of Ac.1.04 guntas of land in survey No.58/1/S is supported by Exs.R1 and R2, the certified copies of Inam Certificate and order in File No.H/963/81 respectively. The defendant filed O.S.No.1014 of 1999 against Sri Ramana Welfare Association and the same was decreed. Exs.R4, R5 and R6 clearly manifest that during the pendency of O.S.No.1014 of 1999, Advocate Commissioner with the help of surveyor demarcated and prepared sketch map in respect of survey No.58. The contention of defendant that he lodged police complaints against members of the Association is prima facie supported by Exs.R7 to R9. In the counter, it is categorically mentioned that the police have not taken any action against the members of the Association basing on the basis of the above complaints. A perusal of sketch map indicates that there is clearcut demarcation between survey Nos.58 and 60.
10. It is not the case of the defendant that the plaintiffs herein are parties in O.S.No.1014 of 1999. It is also not the case of the defendant that he is the owner and in possession of the property covered under survey No.60. The plaintiffs and defendant are in possession and have title with respect to distinct survey numbers i.e., survey No.60 and survey No.58/1/S of Karmanghat village respectively. Whether the plaintiffs have occupied survey No.58/1/S has to be decided at the time of trial of the suit. Mere apprehension in the mind of the defendant that the plaintiffs may encroach his property under the guise of interim injunction is untenable.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kashi Math Samsthan v Srimaed Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy[1] while deciding a petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2 discussed about the requirements for grant of temporary injunction during pendency of suit and held as under:
“In order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted.”
The plaintiffs made out prima facie case to go for trial. The material placed before the court prima facie reveals that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs. If no injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs irreparable loss likely to be caused to the plaintiffs cannot be compensated in terms of money. The plaintiffs have satisfied the ingredients for granting of interim injunction in respect of the plaint schedule plots.
12. In Wander Ltd. v Antox India P. Ltd.[2] , while dealing with interference of appellate courts in the matters of interlocutory injunctions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows.
“14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion
has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court’s exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) (P) Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph, AIR 1960 SC 1156 : (1960) 3 SCR 713: (AIR p.1159, para 9)
‘9. … These principles are well established; but, as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Osenton (Charles) & Co. v. Johnston, 1942 AC 130 : (1941) 2 All ER 245 (HL) : (AC p. 138)
“… The law as to the reversal by a Court of Appeal of an order made by [a] Judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well-settled principles in an individual case.”’
The above principle is followed by the Supreme Court in a recent
decision in Mohd. Mehtab Khan v Khushnuma Ibrahi m[3] .
13. Granting or rejecting the relief of interim injunction is discretion of the court. While exercising the discretion the court must strictly adhere to the sound principles of law. In the present case, the trial court has taken meticulous care in exercising discretion while granting interim injunction. Basing on the material available on record, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion that the order passed by the court below is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interim injunctions. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the ratio laid down in the cases 2nd and 3rd cited supra, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the order under appeal.
14. The civil miscellaneous appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
___________ G.ROHINI, J
_____________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
Dated: 19.02.2014 YS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an interim injunction?
Whether the order under appeal granting interim injunction is sustainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kashi Math Samsthan v. Srimaed Sudhindra Thirtha SwamyRelied on¶29
Kashi Math Samsthan v Srimaed Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy [1]
Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd.Relied on¶32
Wander Ltd. v Antox India P. Ltd. [2]
Printers (Mysore) (P) Ltd. v. Pothan JosephReferred¶33
Printers (Mysore) (P) Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph, AIR 1960 SC 1156 · Who else cites this
Osenton (Charles) & Co. v. JohnstonReferred¶34
Osenton (Charles) & Co. v. Johnston, 1942 AC 130
Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma IbrahiReferred¶37
Mohd. Mehtab Khan v Khushnuma Ibrahi [3]
B.Narasimha Reddy
Pappula Renaiah
Respondents
G.ROHINI
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
