Dismissed

Sri B.Sampath Kumar v. Sri. Vemula Raj Kumar

Telangana HC4 Jul 2022CRP/149/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 222 of the Constitution and Section 151 CPC regarding a property injunction. The Court held that the Higher Court does not interfere with factual findings unless perverse.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition No. 149 of 2022 is dismissed, pending miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

Sri B.Sampath Kumar Vs Sri. Vemula Raj Kumar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

I\T9ryDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWb PRESENT

¶3

THE HoNouRABLE sMT JUsncE p.sREE si,oro

¶4

CIVIL REVISI ON PETITION NO: 149 oF 2022

¶5

Petitron under Atticle 222 of Constrtution of lndia, aggrreved by the Orders daled 1410712021 passed in cMA 04 of 2oz1 on the fire of the court of the I Additional chief Judge, city civir court, secunderabad preferred against order dated 11-02-201 passed in r.A.No. 4oz of 201s in o.s.No. 194 of 20i5 on the file of the court of the lll senior civir Judge, city civir court, secunderabad.

¶6

Between:

¶7

Srl B.Sampath Kumar, S/o.B.Chandra Sekhar Rao Age.62 years, Occ.Busjness, R/o. H. No, 1 2-1 3-1 23, Street t to. S, f amaki, Si"rnJ.rr'O-ii'_ r z

¶8

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT AND

¶9

1 . Sri. Vemula Raj Kumar, S/o. Raja Shekhar Age.5i years, Occ. Doctor, R/o.H.No.'12-13-34st323tN1, riit lro sqlsti"e-ei rrr,i-gll"rn" No.3, Tarnaka, Secunderabad - 17.

¶10

Sri Vemula Ravi Kumar, S/o.Raja Shekhar Age.47 years. Occ.Doctor, R/o H.No,'12-13-345t323tN1, rlail.ro.SOJ, Stieei rui,]d Lane No.3, iarnaka, Secunderabad - 17.

¶11

3 Avunuri Santosh Kumar, S/o A Srihari Age.42 years, Occ.Software Enoineer. R/o.Amar Naaar.^pedaDartr, Karimnagar.bislrict, Fre'sen-ffi'Jdi;; ;i Eii6T' Warren^pKWY, ApT 827, Texas _ 75634, USA^-

¶12

(Respondent No'1,2 & 3 are being represented by their GpA Vemulu Raj Kumar Respondent No. 1/Ptaintiff No. I I

¶13

.,. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTSPETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS

¶14

lA NO: 2 OF 202 2

¶15

Between

¶16

Sri. Vemula Rai Kumar. S/o Raja Shekhar Age.51 years, Occ.Doctor,

¶17

R/o H. No. 1 2-1 3- 345t 323 t N 1. riit uo. sq, sirdei ilolg,lli,J ruo :, rarnaka, Secunderabad - 17.

¶18

2 E1l;H$"5,^{j,iii,,fl.Ti,ii?E,n.T{8ild,?;;1,-[6,,i,::.?:.:,fl.,n,r,,}

¶19

¶20

ff::ffi dffi fi i*,yi{$lTfi f flq+i.f^{EB.?,",.,,.,:'"yfl} 3".tss.,".

¶21

....PET|T|ONERS/R_1 to 3

¶22

AND

¶23

R,t,:-Tfi%ifl :g,g&',,i8l:?iH,?:i[Lff S"fl',?:0,_,,",*",occBusiness,

¶24

... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER

¶25

Petition under a""r,":-J-].grC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in suooort or tne peirtio,n, ih; Hlg; tourt may be pteased to I:[J",,_[: %#rte interim stay oroer In r' niilci.'i izdzz.i, cRp. No. 14s or 2022

¶26

IAN F 22

¶27

Petition under section .151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support ot tne peiitio,n, il; ii;; Court may be pteased to :::ffi?:,j[:.:;.8;i:_T:^{90,,.toi i eJjr ;;j;i Judse} city ctvi, courr petitjon. 12021 dt.14to7t2o21 pending oiJporrt Jr tn" n"iirill

¶28

Counset for the petitioner :SRl. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRl. B ANIL

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶32

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.149 of 2022

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The present Civil Revision Petition is^{filed by appellant in} CMA No. 4 of 2021 dated 14.07.2027.

¶35

The petitioner herein contended that the^respondents have no valid title to the suit schedule^{property and they are not} entitled for injunction. They^{purchasedproperty during the} subsistence of injunction restraining^{their vendorsfrom} alienating the property in a^{different suit but he sold the same} to the respondents herein in violation of^{the Court order' As} such, it will not confer any title^{to the purchaser.Vendor of} the respondents was^{punished for contempt of Court. The trial} Court did not discuss about^{the documentsfiled by him and the} injunction was granted basing on^{the exhibits Iiled by the} plaintilfs and thus it is irregular^{and illegal. They also} contended that vendor of the^{respondentshas disposed in OS} No. 165 of 2006 and he did^{not deliver any possession of the} subject property to them^{though the saie deed containsthat it} was deiivered and thus requested^{to set aside the order of the} 1st appellate Court.

¶36

)

¶37

O.S. No. 144 of^{2Ol5 is filed for injunction' Duringthe} pendency of the^{suit, the plaintiffs in the suit filed an} application^{seeking interim injunctionin IA No 4O2 ol 2Ol5'} The trial Court^{after consideringthe documentsfiledbefore it} and also the^{arguments of bothsides grantedinjunctionagainst} the said order'^{The respondentsin the applicationpreferred} CMA. The lst^{appellateCourt also consideredthe arguments of} both sides^{but conlirmed the orders of trial Court'}

¶38

Aggrieved by the^{said order, this C'R'P'is preferred'} There is so^{muchiitigationbetween the parties not oniy in the} trial Court^{but also before the High Court prior to this} application.^{The Judgment of the trial Court in OS No' 48 of} 1998 dated 07.11.2000^{is also filed'The said suit is filed by} Mr. Arvind Kumar^{against Sampath Kumar and his family} members. lt^{wasdecreed in favour of the plaintiffs whenthe} defendant lailed^{to executethe sale deed in his favour' the} plaintiffs intended^{to Iile the Execution Petitionbut in view of} the advise of^{mediators, the defendant executed sale deed in} his favour on^{3O'05.2021 .IA No' 1925 of 20 18 is hled to set} aside the decree^{in O.S. No. 44 of 1998 but it was dismissed by} the l"t Addl.^{Chief Judge on 26.08'2019'Aggrieved by the}

¶39

¶40

¶41

same, C.R.P. 2955 of 2019 was filed and it was also dismissed on 06.o8.2021. Admittedly, the suit is iiled for injunction in which ad interim injunction was sought for, it was granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, against said order this CRP is filed and the scope is very limited as there is no irregularity ort illegality in the Court findings of both the Courts. I do not find any reason in interference^with the findings of the 1"t appellate Court. As^per citation^reported in AIR 1991 SC 455 between Masiid Kacha^T Nahan Vs.

¶42

Tuffail Mohammed

¶43

"Under Seclion ll5 of CPC High Court connol^re- oppreciote the evidence ond connot set oside^ihe concurreni findings of the Courts below by^tokingo differeni view of ihe evidence. The High Court^is empowered only to interfere wiih the^{findingsof focts, if} the findings ore^perverse by the Court below.^Simply becouse onother view of the^{evidence moy be iokenis} no ground by the High Court to inierfere^{in this revisionol} jurisdiction ".

¶44

The parties are herein are directed to^{get ready with the suit} before the trial Court to see that^{it was disposed of on meritsas} the parties herein will have^{ample opportunityto submitoral} and documentary evidence and the Court^{can considerthe}

¶45

¶46

evidence of both sides and^{after hearing the arguments while}

¶47

disposing of the suit on merits.^{As such this Court foundthat}

¶48

the C.R.P. is devoid^{of merits and is to be dismissed.}

¶49

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also

dismissed.

_.-

To,

SD/- M. MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qe SECTION OFFICER

¶55

The I Additional Chief^{Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad}

¶56

The lll Senior Civil^{Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad'}

¶57

One CC to SRl.^{VEDULA CHITRALEKHAAdvocate [OPUC]}

¶58

One CC to SRl.^{B ANIL Advocate} IOPUC]

¶59

Two CD Copies d

HIGH COURT

PSSJ

DATED:041O712022

ORDER

CRP.No.149 of 2022

e i4 r€:
q
I
I d oE JUL 2OI7 7zo
*
t o E c

¶66

DISMISSING THE CRP.

¶67

NO COSTS-

Sri B.Sampath Kumar v. Sri. Vemula Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B.Sampath Kumar v. Sri. Vemula Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Edigi Dastaiah Vs Edigi Buggaiah And 7 Others

Edigi Dastaiah Vs Edigi Buggaiah, And 7 Others

SerlaVaikuntam Vs Smt. Bantu Laxmi and 2 others

Arvind Narania, Vs Sailesh Mansata

Mohammad Rafiuddin Vs M/s. Pride India Avenues Pvt. Ltd.

Kanapureddy Laxmana Swamy Vs Mustafakhan