This Second Appeal challenges a decree granting permanent injunction. The High Court held that the preliminary decree on the land was incomplete without a final allocation, and thus the trial court correctly dismissed the possession claim while the initial suit seeking perpetual injunction was unsuccessful.
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.
I I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENWTWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
SECOND APPEAL NO: 295 OF 2016
Between
1 . Sara Bhasker Goud, S/o. Narsa Goud, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture
Both are Ri/o. Gummadidala Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District ...PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS
AND
Yeruva Chinnamma, Wo. Cinnapur Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Household, Rl/o. Gummadidala Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District,
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree of the Court ofthe by the Vlll Addl. District &-'Sessions Judge; Medak in A,S.No. 512014 daled 03-02-2015 Preferred against the Judgment and decree of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, at Narsapur in OS.No. 14l2OO8 daled 24.O3.2O14.
Counsel for the Appellant:SRl. M DAMODAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: E POORNACHANDER RAO
The Court delivered the following: JUOGMENT
I
THI.], IION'T}I,F] SI{I.IUS'TICE M. I,AXMAN
SF.COND Al'Pt,Al, No.295 OF'2016
JUDGMENT:
l. The present appeal has becn directed againstjudgment and decree dated 03.02.2015 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2014 by the Vlll Additional District Judge, Medak, wherein and whereby thejudgment and decree dt.24.03.2014 passed in O.S.No l4 of 2008 by the Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, was reversed. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for grant of perpeLual injunction and it was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent hcrcin prcl'errcd l'' appcal and thc First Appellate Court reversed thejudgment ol- trial Court and decreed the suit. Hence, the present Second r\ppeal
2 ML,J SA No.295 of 2O 16
\
Whereas the plaintiff purchased Ac.0-l3gts., Sy.No.498 from Sathyamma. The det-endants' vendor along with others have filed suit lor partition in respect of various lands including the land in Sy.No.498 to an extent of Ac.0-26gts., claiming that they are entitled 1o half share and remaining half shar€ to the defendant-i.e. Sathyamma in the said suit, and the said suit was preliminary decreed. As per the panchanama conducted by the Revenue Authorities, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-06% gts., out of the land purchased under registered sale deed. The plaintilf by suppressing the passing of final decree on 23.10.1998, has filed the present suit.
ML,J SA No.295 of 2016
r
4 ML,J SA No.295 of 2016
the defendants' vendor acquired Ac.0-l2gts., towards her share under \ Ex.B3. Therefore, according to him, if such document had been properly looked into, the decision would have been otherwise. Therefore, such finding suffers from perversity.
9-A It is also his contention that Ex.B3 was not known to the plaintiff until the same was produced in evidence and the First Appellate Court rightly considered Ilx.B3 and rightly held that the defendants failed to establish that their vendor had been inducted into separate possession by passing a final decrce, thercfore, the dcfendants cannot set up the exclusive possession under the decree(Ex.B3) without producing final decree.
-) ML,J SA No.295 of 2016
t 10. On appreciation of evidence, the evidencc shows that there ts preliminary decree under Ex.B3 passed by the competent Court. As per preliminary decrce, the plaintiff-s vendor got Ac.0- l3gts., and defendants' vendor got Ac.0-l3gts., The plaintiff claims that she has purchased Ac.O- l3 gts., during pcndency of the partition suit proceedings in the year 1997 and thereafter, she has obtained penrission from the Grarnpanchayat for construction ol Rice Mill. Subsequenlly, delendants purchased Ac.0-ll gts., in the ycar 2004. According to the defendants, the land purchased by them was overlapping on the land purchased by the plaintiff.
i I. Unfortunatcl5r, when prelinrinary decree was there and when there was no evidence of final decree. the appropriate rernedy to both parries was to approach the competent Court which passed the prelirninary decree and seek allocation of property purchased b1, thern on equity. This was not done. It is not known whether both the parties to this suit who purchased from the original parties to the partition suit, were parties to the final decree or not. Final decree is also not produced.
\
6 ML,J SA No.295 of 2016
That possession cannot be disturbed unless eithcr ol thc parties \ approaches the competent court for seeking appropriate relief basing on the preliminary decree.
adr- . 5P11I11Y4SA7RAO JorNr REGITRAR //TRUECOPYI/ sEcnoN 31r,"=
To,i -'fn" Utt AdditionalDistrict& Sessions Judge, Medak 2. The JuniorCivil Judge at Narsapur a. d; CC i; sni.-t',tdnuooARREDDY'Advocate[oPUcJ- -. ;. il; dd i" sni.e pboiNAcHANDERRAo' Advocate{oPUCl 5. Two CD CoPies
pr 'as
I I i
HIGH COURT'
DATED:2710912022
JUDGMENT SA.No.295 of 2016
1rI
o 21 rtB 2t?:j
t,l
<br>
DISMISSING TI.II' SECOND APPEAL
t{ .cA
i<br>'\P
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal raises a substantial question of law to be allowed?
Whether the appellants can challenge the favourable revenue entries without producing the final decree of the partition suit?
Whether the preliminary decree is a bar to the parties' own action for possession pending final allocation?
Sara Bhasker Goud
Korapati Anjaneyulu
Yeruva Chinnamma
M. Laxman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
