High Court dismissed two civil miscellaneous appeals against orders granting temporary injunctions in a suit for declaratory relief regarding agricultural land boundaries and possession near Himayath Sagar Lake.
Temporary injunctions granting rights to plaintiffs and restraining defendants from construction and interference were maintained.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANG,ANA AT HYDERABAD
[32s8 ]
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
C.M.A. NOS: 405 AND 411 OF 2021
cMA NO.405 0F 2021:
Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against the Order and decree dated 1810612021 made in lA No.1103 of 2018 in OS No.1366 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
cMA NO.411 0F 2021 :
Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against the Order and decree dated 1810O12021 made in lA No.1104 of 2018 in OS No.1366 ot 2018 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
COMMON C.T.
Between:
AND
....Respondent No.1 & 2/ Petitioners/ Plaintiffs
_ 9y itspartners llohammed ShoebAhmed And Syed Aillazucdin
For the Appellants : I iRt KOTHA JANARDHAN REDDY, Advocate
For the Respondents : SRI VIVEK JAIN, Advocate
The Court delivered th I following : JUDGMENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
C.M.A.NO.4O5 of 2021 AND c.M.A.NO.411 0F 2021
COMMON J UDGMENT:
Being aggrieved by the common order of learned III Addl. District ludge, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.1103 of 2018 and I.A.No.1104 of 2018 in O.S.No.1366 of 2018 dated 18-06_202L by which the learned District Judge granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1, respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2, restraining the respondents/defendants in the said suit from interfering with the possession of respondents/plaintiffs and from changing the nature of the suit schedule property, respondents No.14 and 15 in the above said petition, filed two separate Miscellaneous Appeals. Though two appeals are filed, the contention in both the appeals is one and the same. Both the learned counsel for appellants and counsel for respondents advanced common arguments in both the appeals. Therefore, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals can be disposed by a common
order.
f
2 SSRN,J cMA No.405of 2O21 ti CJ,IANo.411 of 2021
l
SSRN,] CMA No.405 of 2021 & CMA N.o.411 of 2021
have claimed that one Gurram Mallaiah was the absolute owner and possessor ofland in Sy.Nos.40 and 42 of Kothwalguda and the said land was equally distributed on his four (4) sons. One of his sons by name G.Narayanagot Ac.04.00 gts of land in Sy.No.40 and Ac.01.14gts in Sy.No.42towards his share. Another son by name Jangaiah was also allotted same share. Later said G.Narayana sold an extent of Ac.03.10 gts in Sy.No.4O/Aa and Ac.o1.14gts in Sy.No.42/Ato his mother by name G.Chandramma through a registered sale deed dated 27-10-.1999. langaiah another son ofMallaiah sold an extent of Ac.0.25 gts in Sy.No.4O to Gurram Raju Yadav @ Theegaram Raju Yadav through a registered sale deed document No.l74l/2006. In the said sale deed, the land ofhis mother in Sy.No.42lPart is shown as Northern boundary and hisremaining land is shown as Eastern boundary. The land of Manemma i.e., mother of the defendant No.2 was shown as Southern boundary and land of Chandramma was shown as Western boundary..
r
I
.1 SSRN,] CMA No.405 of 2021 & CMA No.411of2021
purchased fr om her sons, in their favour and as :,;uclr, they have been in act ralpossession and enjoyment of t hr: suit schedule property sinr e the date of said gift deed.
B.-'he respondents/plaintiffs have furtherpleadedthat the appellants herein started interfering with therpossession and they tried tc dug trenches and to raise walls bu:t.he respondents could prevert the said attempt with the help ofrteighbours. They have alsopleaded that the appellants herein haveexecuted a
5 SSRN,] CMA No.4O5 of 2021 & CMA No.411of 2021
registered sale deed document N0.11880/2018 on 27-0g-201g in favour of respondent/D16 who was represented by respondents/D17 and D18.
t
i il 1t
6 SSRN,I CMANo.405 of 2021 & CMANo.411 of 2021
in fact there is no land exceptHimayath Saga - Lake on west. Whereas, Re:;pondents/DefendantsNo.16to 18 hari'e claimedthat they havep trchasedland fromDefendantsNo L'l and 15 (the appellants) atd they are in possession of the said prroperty.
/L
SSRN,J cMA No.405 of 2021 & CMA1o.411of 2021
the respondents/plaintiffs have changed the boundaries on the western side and filed a speculative suit for declaration and injunction as per Exs.p1 and p2. The western boundary is shown as Himayath Sagar whereas, the respondents while filing the suit have shown western boundary as Himayath Sagar Nala in Sy.No,33. The lands of respondents are far away from the lands of appellants No.14 and 15 and moreover, the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed are quite different when compared with the boundaries mentioned in the petition and the complaint. Therefore, the court came to a wrong conclusion and passed an order which is liable to be set aside.
ri
8 55RN,I CMA No.405 of2021 ii C.!,rA No.411of2021
sought for s€ tting aside the orders of the trial cc,urt in the above , ...-/ referredlnterlocutoryApplications. \
Whether the trial Court wrongly g.anted temporary iriunction in favour of the respondents/pla ir tiffs, if so, the said o der is liable to be set aside?
Nor:h - vendors land Sou th -Neighbours land Eas -Neighbours land Wet t -HimayathSagar
17 . T re property that was gifted in l'avour of the
respondents/ rlaintiffs under Ex.P1 is shown rr the following boundaries.
9
SSRN,J CMA No.4OS of 2021 & CMA4o.411 of 2021
North - Neighbours land South - Neighbours land East -Neighbours land West - Himayath Sagar
-Neighbours land
r
10
CMA No-405of 2021 & C&4ANo.411of 2021
schedulepro )erty, therefore, Sy.No.33,is coverlCby Himayath Sagar. Claim of respondents/plaintiffsthat the lard on the west of their propert) is in thecatchment area of Himay;thSagarcannot be decided tasing on thedocument unless the partiesproduce their respect ve oral evidence.Therefore, this issue can be decided only rtthe time of trial.However,the dcctlments filedby the respondents/plaintiffsand admission madeby the appellants and other deendants clearly show that the resp()ndents/plaintiffs got'title ancpossession on the suitschedule property.The photographs tiled by the respondents/plaintiffsprc,r'ed dumpingof some constn tctionmaterial on the suit land and carryingsome construction activity. Therespondents/plaintif -s have pleaded before the Crurt below thatthe appellantsherenweretrying to raise structu'es by encroachinginto the suit scheduleproperty. Therefore, ur less they aregrantedtemporary injunction, theyshall not protect t reirpossession anddenial ofinjunctionwill definitely cause irrepatable loss to therespondents/plaintitf;.Therefore, the Court below rightlygrantedtemporary injunction as sought for in the Interlocutory Application.There are no mer ts in the present appeals, thereby they are liable to be dismissed.
11
rl
CMA No.405 of2021 & CMA Nc411of 2O21
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-T.SRINI DEPUTY REGIS R //TRUE COPYII
To
u' SECTION bFFICER
Kj tl
'',
I
<br>
HIGH COURT
DATED:2110912022
GOMMON JUDGME {'I-
-i *e STA 'c
o
:-l--a
., l t tB 2t',?3 ,
CMA.Nos.405 and 411 o'f 2021
CMA's ARE DISMISI;ED.
{ n
,\L lL)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in granting temporary injunction to restrain defendants from interfering with plaintiffs' possession and raising unauthorized structures?
Whether the lower court wrongly concluded that the suit schedule property lies within the catchment area of Himayath Sagar Lake based on documentary evidence?
G.Kondal Reddy
G.Vivek Nanda Reddy
B.Padma
A.Radha
Sambasiva Rao Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
