In this civil revision, the High Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal against a temporary injunction in a property suit. The court held that title disputes require a full trial and affirmed the injunction to maintain status quo pending disposal.
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.
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4338 of 2014
ORDER :
The revision petitioners herein are defendant Nos.4, 5 and 9 to 11, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are the defendant Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7 in O.S.No.85 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangeon, Warangal District. It is endorsed in this revision that respondent Nso.2 to 6 are not necessary parties. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.234 of 2012 in the suit seeking temporary injunction and that petition was allowed. It is impugning the order dated 05.06.2014 in I.A.No.234 of 2012 in O.S.No.85 of 2012 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, the revision petitioners-defendant Nos.4, 5 and 9 to 11 supra maintained C.M.A.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon and from the dismissal of the same on 07.10.2014 against the concurrent finding granted the temporary injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property of Ac.3.14 gts. of Sy.No.236 of Jalapally Village of Maddur Mandal (Tahasilr) in the main suit for bare injunction against the defendant Nos.4 to 11 and so far as defendant No.1 to 3, who are revenue officials, the plaintiff is seeking against them the relief of rectification of entries in the revenue records. 2. The total extent claimed is Ac.12.29 gts in Sy.Nos.54, 187, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 236, 256, 259 and 261 and it is claim that the original owner for said extents is one Malki Mallaiah and after his death, his three sons, viz., Yellaiah, Chinna Mallaiah and Venkaiah,
2
Dr.SSRB, J C.R.P.No.4338 of 2014
having succeeded, partitioned the properties during the years 1976-77 and were allotted Ac.4.09 gts. Ac.4.10 gts. And Ac.4.10 gts. respectively and their names were also claimed mutated in revenue records respectively and later the same were succeeded by the children of the respective three brothers.
3
Dr.SSRB, J C.R.P.No.4338 of 2014
or there is another extent, is a matter finally to be adjudicated. Thereby on that ground, this Court cannot sit in revision to reverse the concurrent findings of the Courts below when the plaint schedule property claimed of Ac.3.14 gts by explaining from the above, but for leave to the trial Court to decide after full dressed trial from evidence being placed on record and on merits.
4
Dr.SSRB, J C.R.P.No.4338 of 2014
____________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
1st November 2016.
mar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings granting temporary injunction warrant interference in revision when title disputes remain to be tried on merits.
Whether the balance of convenience and irreparable injury conditions for injunction are satisfactorily met to maintain status quo.
Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 9 to 11
Plaintiff (Defendant No.2 to 6 in O.S.No.85 of 2012)
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
