Partly allowed

D.Narsing Rao v. Geetha Srinivasan

Telangana HC20 Nov 2014CMA/617/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a common judgment, the court held that while an interim injunction for protective possession was proper, a prayer to restrain construction of a compound wall amounted to final relief and could not be granted without a full trial.

What did the court decide?

Injunction in CMA 617 upheld; injunction in CMA 657 restraining construction of wall set aside as it amounted to final relief.

D.Narsing Rao Vs Geetha Srinivasan — Partition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

C.M.A. No. 617 & 657 OF 2014

¶3

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶4

As the lis in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arises in respect of same property and in the same suit, they are taken up together and disposed of by way of Common Judgment. CMA No.617 of 2014

¶5

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against order dated 02.06.2014 in I.A.No.2041 of 2013 in OS No.1356 of 2013, wherein the Court below has granted injunction restraining the appellants/respondents/defendants 20 to 24 in the suit, their agents, henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondents 1 to 8 over the petition schedule property.

¶6

2. Facts which are necessary for disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are that the respondents 1 to 8 herein are the plaintiffs, who filed OS No.1356 of 2013 for permanent injunction against the appellants herein and respondents 9 to 36 herein, the defendants in the suit. In the aforesaid suit, they filed I.A.No.2041 of 2013 for ad-interim injunction restraining the appellants herein and others stating that the respondents 1 to 8 herein are the co-owners and are in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.19.10 guntas in Sy.No.309 of Poppalaguda village. It is stated that originally the land in Sy.No.309 and other lands are evacuee property which was allotted to Kum Surjan under allotment order No.Hyd/48, dated 20.05.1966 by Office of the Custodian of Evacuee, Bombay. Accordingly, a Sanadh was also issued. It is stated that late A.Ramaswamy, father-in-law of the first respondent, father of the respondents 4 to 8 herein jointly purchased lands in Sy.No.309 to an extent of Ac.19.10 guntas and other land along with K.Rama Murthy

¶7

from J.Surjan under registered sale deed bearing No.797/1968, dated 25.06.1968. It is also stated that late A.Rama Swamy and K.Rama Murthy have filed declarations under the A.P. Land Ceiling (Agricultural Land) Act, 1976 and accordingly orders were also passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal on 16.11.1976 stating that the lands are within the stipulated holdings vide its orders in CC No.829 to 832/W/75. Later, as disputes arose between A.Ramaswamy and his brother-in-law K.Rama Murthy and his son K.Seetha Ram and others, K.Rama Murthy filed suit OS No.471 of 1990 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against

¶8

Sri A.Rama Swamy and his sons, which was dismissed and the counter claim filed by legal representatives of A.Rama Swamy was decreed. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the legal heirs of K.Rama Murthy filed CCCA No.51 of 2007 and CCCA No.110 of 2007, which were dismissed. Even SLP (c ) No.24447 of 2007 and SLP (c ) 24448 of 2007 filed against said orders, were dismissed on 09.01.2008 by the Supreme Court. It is stated that subsequently E.P.No.139 of 2006 was filed. When the younger son of A.Rama Swamy by name Dr.R.Ranganathan died on 13.03.2008, his wife Reshmi Ranganathan was brought on record in E.P.No.139 of 2006 which was allowed and documents were executed by the Court. Subsequently, Reshma Ranganathan also executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 22.02.2010 in favour of the respondents 1 to 8 releasing her 1/7^th share in entire properties including land in Sy.No.309 and thereby the respondents 1 to 8 herein have become coowners of the schedule of property and other properties and that their names have been included in the revenue records. As such, the respondents 1 to 8 herein are in possession and enjoyment of the said property for the last 45 years.

¶9

3. It is stated that at the instance of the respondents 1 to 8 herein, a survey was also conducted by the Revenue Authorities and

¶10

boundaries of Sy.No.309 was fixed under a Panchanama and sketch was also prepared in the presence of panchas. It is stated that the appellants and others, are the owners and possessors of land in Sy.No.296 on the southern side of the schedule property. It is stated that the appellants and others have caused damage to the barbed fencing wire on 25.10.2003 for which the respondents 1 to 8 filed complaint before the concerned Police. The appellants herein and others, again tried to dispossess the respondents 1 to 8 from the schedule of properties belonging to them, as such, sought for an interim injunction as prayed for.

¶11

4. The respondent No.26 herein, who was respondent No.18 before the lower Court remained ex parte. The respondent Nos.19 and 20 filed counter affidavit stating that they are the owners and possessors of the land covered by Sy.No.296 (LU) and there is a permanent wall dividing the land in Sy.No.309 and land in Sy.No.296 (LU). It is stated that the respondents 1 to 8 herein were never in possession of land in Sy.No.309 and that the respondents 19 and 21 have purchased the property for a valid consideration. It is stated that while conducting survey, notice was not given to the appellants/respondents 19 and 21, as such, they have violated the procedure contemplated under the Survey and Boundaries Act. It is further stated that the pahanies filed by the respondents 1 to 8 are concocted and that they cannot be permitted to remove the existing compound wall and sought for dismissal of the Interlocutory Application.

¶12

5. The Court below, basing on the documents Exs.P1 to P17 which were marked on behalf of the respondents 1 to 8 herein as well as Ex.R1 which is marked on behalf of the appellants herein, granted injunction. Aggrieved by which, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

¶13

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8.

¶14

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that when there is a dispute with regard to boundaries of the subject property, the Court below should not have granted injunction. He further argued that before conducting the so-called survey, no notice was issued to the appellants, as required under the Survey and Boundaries Act, as such, same cannot be accepted. He further contends that the Court below without arriving at the prima facie conclusion, in whose favour balance of convenience lies so also irreparable loss, granted injunction.

¶15

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8 herein contends that the Court below has considered Exs.P1 to P17 and has granted injunction in respect of the land in Sy.No.309 protecting the rights of the respondents 1 to 8 herein. He further submits that the Court below found that the appellants are not owning any land in Sy.No.309 and also that the respondents 1 to 8 herein were not owning any land in Sy.No.296 (LU), as such, the Court below protected the interests of both parties.

¶16

9. Now, the point for consideration in the appeal is whether the trial Court is right in granting injunction by relying on Exs.P1 to P17. 10.POINT:

¶17

The Court below has considered Exs.P1 to P17 and granted injunction order in favour of the respondents 1 to 8 herein against the appellants and others in the suit. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the sale deed bearing No.797 of 1968 which Kum. Asha Jyothi Surjan has sold the schedule of property and other properties in favour of A.Rama Swamy and K.Rama Murthy. Ex.P2 is the I-B Form to show that the land in Sy.No.309 and other lands were mutated in favour of son of A.Rama Swamy. Similarly, Ex.P15 is the Panchanama conducted by Deputy Tahasildar of Rajendranagar Mandal, dated 20.09.2012 in the presence of mediators to which the survey was conducted with the help of teapon, village map and fixed boundaries of land in Sy.No.309 of Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal. Ex.P15 also includes

¶18

rough sketch signed by Mandal Surveyor showing the land in Sy.No.296 (LU) to the south of the land in Sy.No.309 and this Ex.P15 also shows that the respondents 1 to 8 are pattadars so far as land in Sy.No.309 of Poppalaguda village to an extent of Ac.19.10 guntas. Ex.P17 is the relinquishment deed to show that one of the shareholders of the respondents 1 to 8 by name Reshmi Ranganathan, w/o.R.Ranganathan has relinquished her right of the schedule of property and other properties. Exs.P3 to P14 are the pahanies for the years 1997-1998 to 2010-2011, which shows that the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule of property. 11. The aforesaid documents establish that the respondents 1 to 8 are owners of land to an extent of Ac.19.10 guntas in Sy.No.309 of Poppalaguda, Rajendernagar Mandal and prima facie, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the appellants that they are in possession of land in Sy.No.296 (LU). The case of the appellants is that they are not having land in Sy.No.309. It cannot be said that the Court has not considered the documents in arriving at a prima facie conclusion and that the respondents 1 to 8 are in possession of the suit schedule property. It cannot be said that the Court below has granted injunction in favour of the respondents 1 to 8 herein without any basis. Exs.P1 to P17 clearly shows that the respondents 1 to 8 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Court below while granting injunction observed that injunction is being granted only to the extent of Ac.19.10 gts of land in Sy.No.309 and not in respect of any part of land in Sy.No.296 (LU) belonging to appellants. In pursuance to the order dated 17.07.2014 passed by this Court, Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records also submitted report dated 22.09.2014, drawing F-Line between Sy.Nos.309 & 296. Since it is stated that attempt is made to remove barbed wire fencing over the suit property, it cannot be said that balance of convenience and irreparable loss is

¶19

not in favour of respondents 1 to 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.2041 of 2013 dated 02.06.2014. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

12. CMA No.657 of 2014

¶21

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against order dated 02.06.2014 in I.A.No.2042 of 2013 in OS No.1356 of 2013, wherein the Court below has granted injunction restraining the appellants/respondents/defendants in the suit, their agents, henchmen from interfering with the construction of southern compound wall running from east to west carried by the respondents 1 to 8 on the southern portion of Sy.No.309, situated Poppalaguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, R.R.District.

¶22

13. The prayer in I.A.No.2042 of 2014 appears to be in the form of granting of final relief. Since the appellants are disputing about the survey conducted by revenue authorities in favour of the respondents 1 to 8, report dated 22.09.2014 submitted by the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records has to be tested in the trial. The appellants state that already compound wall is existing and respondents 1 to 8 states that barbed wire fencing is in existence in the disputed property. When injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondents is granted in I.A.No.2041 of 2014, that will protect the interest of the respondents 1 to 8. However, unless full-fledged trial is conducted, a prayer which would amount to granting of final relief in the suit could not have been granted in favour of respondents 1 to 8. Though the prayer is made in the form of preventive relief, when once the relief is granted and constructions are made the nature of the suit schedule property will be changed. Therefore, in view of above facts and circumstances, I feel that it is not proper for the Court below to grant interim injunction for

¶23

proceeding with the construction of compound wall, which would amount to granting of final relief in the suit.

¶24

In view of above circumstances, the order dated 02.06.2014 in I.A.No.2042 of 2014 is hereby set aside and CMA No.657 of 2014 is allowed and CMA No.617 of 2014 is dismissed.

¶25

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these CMAs, shall stands dismissed.

¶26

_______________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J November, 20, 2014. KVS

¶27

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶28

C.M.A. Nos.617 and 657 OF 2014

¶29

Date: 20-11-2014

¶30

KVS

D.Narsing Rao v. Geetha Srinivasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Narsing Rao v. Geetha Srinivasan

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

Polamarasetty Satyavathy Vs The District Collector

M/s Simhadri Power Limited Vs -

Bank of Baroda Vs M/s Sanghi Polysters Limited

P. Ramanjaneyulu Naidu, Vs K. Kanna Babu

. Vs .

M. Sidharth, Vs N. Kistamma