Disposed

Lakkireddygari Ram Reddy v. P Narayan Reddy

Telangana HC11 Dec 2014CRP/1903/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an appellate order that set aside a status quo interim order. Upholding the appellate direction to expedite the trial, the Court held that the orders would not influence the trial court to dispose of the suit on merits.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was disposed of by upholding the direction of the lower appellate court to expeditiously dispose of the suit on merits.

Lakkireddygari Ram Reddy Vs P Narayan Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO C.R.P No.1903 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2013 passed in C.M.A No.4 of 2013 (Old No.3 of 2013) on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak District, which was filed against the decreetal order dated 05.12.2012 in I.A No.2 of 2011 in O.S No.1 of 2011 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur.

¶4

The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The defendants are respondents 1 and 2. O.S No.1 of 2011 is filed for injunction. Pending the suit, I.A No.2 of 2011 was filed for temporary injunction. There was an exparte ad interim order was granted and it is after appearance and contest by respondents, the trial Court directed both the parties to maintain statusquo as on date in existence regarding possession of the plaint schedule property. It is said order when impugned by the defendants in maintaining C.M.A No.4 of 2013 (Old No.3 of 2013), the same was set-aside by order dated 09.12.2013 of such an order is not sustainable without decision. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the suit and dispose of the same as early as possibly within three months from that date of order i.e., 09.12.2013. It is impugning the same, the plaintiff maintained the present revision with the contentions of grounds of revision that when the trial Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo existing the lower appellate Court was no right in set-asiding the same that too without passing the any orders in directing disposal of the suit and such an order amounting to vacating the interim order in force and in favour of the plaintiff.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though served notice to respondents failed to attend hence taken as heard to decide on merits.

¶6

Now the points that arise for consideration is

¶7

1) Whether the impugned order of lower appellate Court is sustainable and requires interference by this Court while sitting in revision within its limited scope and with what observations?

¶8

2) With what result?

¶9

Point No.1:

¶10

The factual matrix of the lis is necessary to maintain in deciding so on formulated supra are that in support of the claim by plaintiffs in the temporary injunction application plaintiffs placed reliance upon Ex.P1 to P6 viz., Ex.P1: original registered sale deed dated 05.06.2010, Ex.P2: Proceedings of Tahsildar, Jinnaram. dated 25.10.2010, Ex.P3: Title deed, Ex.P4: Pattedar Pass Book, Ex.P5-certificed copy of pahani for the year 2009-10 and Ex.P6: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11. It is to say Ex.P1-registered sale deed dated 05.06.2010 to claim any right or entitlement so far as the plaint schedule land of Ac.3.10 gts in S.No.567/A, AA of Ootla Village within the boundaries mentioned in plaint schedule i.e., East: land of Boini Krishna in Sy.No.568, West: land of Venkataramana and Vijay Bhaskar in Sy.No.566, North: Road, South: Sy.No.566 belongs to Vadla Nagabhushanam and Chakali Srinivas.

¶11

The defendants 1 & 2 in support of their contest placed reliance upon Exs.R1 to R26 of which Ex.R1 to R.20 are the pahani patrika for the years 1984-85 to 2008 – 2009, Ex.R21 is registered sale deed dated 06.08.2004 equally Ex.R-22 and 23 sale deed Nos.22 and 23 of 1992 and Ex.R-24 is Certified copy of judgment in O.S No.92 of 1985 on the file Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur. Ex.A25 and 26 are agreements of sale.

¶12

It is the contest by the defendants in their counter in opposing temporary injunction against the claim of plaint schedule of S.No.567/A and 567/AA total admeasuring Ac.3.10 gts by opposing the same that there was collusion between plaintiff and his so called vendor i.e., L.Satynarayana in creating Ex.A1 fictitious sale deed dated 15.06.2004 and in managing to get the revenue records based on it in claiming as if in possession and as if got right though said Satyanarayana the so called vendors L.Prakash and L.Srinivas filed the suit for perpetual injunction in O.S No.92 of 1985 for S.No.567 and 139 respectively admeasuring Ac.3.10 gts and Ac.0.19 gts of Ootla Village and they obtained ex parte decree and the defendants and others filed exparte set aside application and the same was allowed

¶13

subject to costs. For non-payment of costs ended in dismissal and against which the respondents filed CRP No.4441 of 2009 maintained the same was allowed by this Court on 09.07.2010. The vendor of the plaintiff i.e., Satyarnayana played fraud and filed I.A No.46 of 2008 for police protection and later failed to prosecute the case with the defendants therein insisted for trial of the suit. The plaintiffs therein i.e., Satyanarayana, Prakash and Srinivas have filed a memo not pressing the suit with allegation of as if the matter is settled out side the Court for its dismissal on 28.12.2010 which is subsequent to Ex.P1 sale deed by said Satyanarayana in favour of plaintiff dated 05.06.2010 and during pendency of suit the MRO passed Ex.P2 order based on Ex.P1 so also in getting pattedar pass book and revenue title deed but thereafter and the factual matrix as per the counter of the respondents/ defendant Nos.1 & 2 that one Lingampally Golla Narayana Swamy was the owner and possessor of S.No.567 in toto. He has sold to one Putta Srinivas through sale deed dated 14.12.1976 and the 2^nd respondent-Putta Srinivas as purchaser since then in possession and enjoyment of the property of Ac.3.10 gts in S.No.567 and his name is mutated in revenue records i.e., clearly made in Ex.R.1 to R.20 referred supra right from 1984 and there is nothing to the present plaintiff vendor Satyanarayana to convey any title under Ex.P1 title to plaintiff much less to deliver the possession and these facts were suppressed and filed the suit.

¶14

It is also the contention in the counter that the plaintiff is trying to encroach the land of the 2^nd defendant—Puttu Srinivas under the guise of plaintiff said to have obtained from L.Satyanarayana though it is the property of Lingampally Golla Narayana swamy the original owner and the claim S.No.567 who sold to 2^nd defendant under sale deed dated 14.12.1976 and in fact said Narayana Swamy sold the land to Vidyasagar and delivered physical possession in 1958 and A.Vidyasagar in turn sold to P.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy on 04.05.1974 and while they were in respective possession and enjoyment the 1^st respondent—Narayana Reddy through P.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy and sons of Narayana Reddy while enjoying the property sold the same with 18 mango trees and they also get

¶15

compensation for loss of the crop from the revenue authorities earlier and the 2^nd respondent purchased part of the same under sale deed dated 14.12.1976 as referred supra and in exclusive possession and enjoyment of part of plaint schedule for the remaining of 1^st defendant.

¶16

The trial Court without appreciation of the material facts simply ordered status quo to be maintained though when the record filed by the defendants show entire S.No.567 is not that of the plaintiff vendor Satyanrayana and even Ex.R21 filed by the defendants which is a sale deed dated 06.08.2004 executed by M.Dasharath and K.Nelson in favour of L.Satyanarayana who is the vendor of the petitioner is not correlating in boundaries to the plaint schedule. Thus, it requires further facts for appreciation from evidence to come to a definite conclusion. When such is the case, status quo order is not just but for imposing conditions as laid down in Saraswathi vs Jaganmohan Rao^[1] . As such, for this Court while sitting in revision there is nothing to interfere but for to say none of the observations of the lower Courts or of this Order will influence the mind of trial Court to decide the suit lis on merits.

¶17

Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

¶18

Point No.2:

¶19

In the result, the Civil Revision is disposed of by upholding the direction of the lower Appellate Court but for to say none of the observations of the lower appellate Court or that of the trial Court in I.A No.2 of 2011 in O.S No.1 of 2011 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur shall influence the mind of the trial Court in ultimate decision of the suit lis, but for on its own merits. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this revision shall stand closed.

¶20

________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RĀO,J

¶21

Date:11.12.2014 knl

¶22

[1] 1985 (1) APLJ 277

Lakkireddygari Ram Reddy v. P Narayan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakkireddygari Ram Reddy v. P Narayan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boddu Peda Yellamandaiah Vs Jampani Suresh Kumar (Jampani Motors)

Sri Pullaiah, S/o Sri Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Manam Venkata Prasada Reddy Vs Annapureddy Venkata Narayana Reddy

Pusa Satyakishore Vs Chintala Raghavulu

Pusa Satyakishore Vs Chintala Raghavulu

G.Sreeramachandrudu, Vs P. Srinivas