Allowed

Kasamalla Venkataiah v. Gunreddy Ramulamma and another

Telangana HC12 Apr 2023CRP/1177/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil revision petition. The court set aside the interim injunction granted by the District Court, holding that the plaintiff admitted being out of possession while the defendant established possession, shifting the balance of convenience to the defendant.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition allowed; the injunction granted in favour of the respondent set aside; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Kasamalla Venkataiah Vs Gunreddy Ramulamma and another — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,^{THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL} JTWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU}

¶6

CIVIL^{REVISIONPETITIO N NO:1177 0F 2022}

¶7

PetitionunderAtlicle22Tconstitution.oflndiaaoainsttheJudqmentdated 22t4t22in^{cMA.NO. to ot zoii'oiii"'nie-ortne^c-rrt.of"thePrinciple District Judge} at Nalqonda^{ptefened ,g"i,;;ii" ti'o"ioit"o 20t12.t.21in l'A No 1510of 2019in} 6sN6. ;;r;i^{zbis on tlhe file of seniorcivil Judge' Nalsonda}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kasamalla Venkataiah,^{son of Sailu, Aged about . 50 years'.Occupation} ]6i3rrii,E,^{Fv;'ilil;i;p;liv uitt'seof 'ch5ndurMandar'Narsonda}

¶10

...REVISION^{PETITIONERYRESPONDENT/DEFENDANT}

¶11

AND

¶12

1 E]c.u.p:iiil.igffiid;; Gunreddv Ramulamma,^{wife of nlo inumatapallv late Ram Reddy' villale Age^q ol chandur about 60 ye.ap'Mandal'} Nalgonda

¶13

2 l5#;ltffi, lraoadidla Lachaiah, ffid;ni^{son rni,rn"r"p'ttv'viliase of Edaiah, Agedabout of chandur 58years, Mandal' occupation Nalgonda.}

¶14

...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

¶15

IA O:1 oF 2022

¶16

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC praying that. in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit^{filed in supfort of tne peiition' ihe} -H-ign^{Court may be pleased to} il;; il ;p"irtion^{oi [n"-L'ag*"ntof the. cMA 1ot2o22datd 22t04t2o22} nassed bv the^{principle oiriii"iJuig",Nalgonda pending disposalof cRP in the} interest oi iustice^{and circumstances of the case'}

¶17

Counsel^{for: the Petitioner:SRI'P RAMACHANDRAN}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Respondents:SRI K V SUDHAKAR}

¶19

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶20

¶21

I l

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU CIVIL RE ION 70F 2o22

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Civil Revision perition is liled by the petitioner under Article 222 ol Constitul.ion of India against the Order in^(l.M.A.No. lO <tf 2022 or_I rhe file of principal District ,Irrdgc. Nalgonda b,y u,hic;h the learned District Judge rc:r,crsed thc linciing of thc. Lrial Court rn an interlocutor.v appli<:arion ,..icle I.A IJc. t 5l O cf 2}lg filed bv thc rcspoodenr/ piar ntiflf under Order.39 Rule 1 and 2 C.p.C

¶25

tl. As lrcr rhc rt cord it shows that the r1:sp.rondr:nt / plaintr ll u,ho liled O.S.No.429 of 2O1c_) for perperuai injuncrion in respect cf agricultural lartd to an extent cf Ac.3 27 gunras in 3 survey numbers, at Thummalapaft Viilage, tiled LA.No.lSlO of 2OI 9 under Order 39 Rule I and 2 C.p.C. and sought for temporary inlunctiotr against the petitioner herein. As per the affidavit fi],:d in suppOrr ol. tire said interlocutory appljcation, the .t_.sponclenLlplairrritf har; i:larmr:cl rhat slle is the absolutc

¶26

ssR^i, ''/ C.R.P.No-1177^{of 2022}

¶27

¶28

owner and possessor of the suit schedule property which she acquired from her husband who died in 20 15. The respondent has got two daughters and two sons and after the death of her husband, the revenue authorities conducted an enquiry and entered the name of the respondent in all the revenue records and issued pattadar passbook and title deed in her favour. She has further claimed that Former Service Cooperative Society, Chundur issued a letter on 04.10.2019 in her favour and all thc revenue records show the name of respondent as absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The petitioner has no right over the property, but developed ill will and intending to grab the suit schedule property by dispossessing her by use of force and there was such an attempt by the petitioner herein, as such she sought for temporary injunction to restrain the petitioner and his men from ever interfering with the alleged possession of the respondent.

¶29

¶30

SSR]Y, J c.R.P.No.1177 of 2022

¶31

The petitioner hercin filed a counter aflidavit on his behalf and on behalf of the other defendant in the^{suit and} submitted Lhat. the averments made by the^{respondent in} the alfidavit are^f alse.^'lhc boundaries^{mentioned in the} suit schedule property arc incorrect.^{The petitionerhas} submitted that the husband of the^{respondentnamely} G.Ramreddl, and his brother^{G.VenkatReddy who are sons} of one La-xrna Reddr, \/cre the^{original ownersand} possessors of the agricultur;rl lands.^{They have dividedthe} lands into hottse plots artd^{they sold open houseplots} admeasuring 2 gutnrts in Sy.No.118^situatedat Thummalapalti Villarge in^larvour of^{the petitioner herein} and also in lavour of Kashumalla^{Chandraiahunderan} agreement of sale dated 24^{O2.2OOO for a considerationof} Rs.3,2O0/ . The petitioner and said^{Chandraiah paid} Rs.2,OOO/- towards earnest^money and^{agreedto' pay the} ba-lance consideration at the time of registration^{of sale} deed. Later they have paid the balance^{considerationand} requested the vendors to execute the registered sale deed, but dodgecl the cxecution on one pretext or other. The

\ t

ss,lf,r. J C.R-P-No.ll77 oI 2022

¶36

vendors have delivered the vacalt possession of the open plots 1n favour of the petitioner and Chandrarah. Thc husband of respondent and his brother have sold the remarnlng plots to various other persons and the purchasers have been in possession of their respective plots

¶37

The petitioner further submitted that he and said Chandraiah partitioned the plots with equal shares and he got one gunta of land within specific boundaries. Subsequently, said Chadraiah sold his share of land in favour of one l.Laxmaiah who constructed a house in the plot. The petitioner further sated that he has constructed a hut in the said plot and running a chicken shop by obtaining electricity service connection. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the plot and hut with absolute rights. But, in view of the increase in the prices of the lands, the respondent hatched a plan to grab the property of the petitioner herein by taking advantage of her nominal patta. But, the respondent has no possession over

¶38

¶39

SARN, J c.R.P.No.l177 oJ 2022

¶40

¶41

the propertr'. He has also claimed that he and other purchasers are in possession of their respective shares. The respondent obtained crop loan by showing open plots thereby, the petitioner herein and other purchasers lodged a complaint before the Tahsildar, Chundur and on the instructions of Tahsidar. Chundur, the Village Revenue Officer, Chundur inspected Sy.No.118, conducted an enquiry and submitted a rr:port to Tahsildar stating that there are houses in the Sr.No.118. The petitioner and other purchasers have lodged a complaint against the respondent bel'ore Police, Chundur.

¶42

Therefore. the petitioner has claimed that the suit schedule propcrty is not ar.l agricultural land. There are house plot aird some purchasers have constructed houses in their respective house plots. The respondent has no possession over the propcrty, thereby she has no prtma facie^{case, balanceof convenienceand any injunction in} her favour will cause irreparable loss to the petitioner and

¶43

¶44

¶45

SSRN. J C-R.P.No-1177 of 2022

¶46

other purchasers, thereby sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶47

l'he learned trial Judge having heard the parties to the interlocutory application and after perusing the record, dismissed the petitioner i.e., I.A.No.15lO of 2019 vide Order dated 20.12.2021 and vacated the exparte temporary injunction granted in favour of the respondent on 22.1o.2019

¶48

Being aggrieved by the said Order, the respondent herein preferred Civil Miscelianeous Appeal before the learned principat District Judge, Nalgonda vide C.M.A.No. lO of 2022. The learned District Judge disposed the said CMA and reversed the findings of the trial Court, allowed petition and granted temporary injunction, restraining the petitioner and other defendant from interfering with the alleged possession of respondent over the suit schedule property.

¶49

SSRN, J c.R.P.No.r177 oI2022

¶50

¶51

Feeling unhappy v.'itli the said Orders, the^petitioner herein liled t he present rcvisron^{petition on the following} grou nd s:

¶52

The learned District Judge failed^{to appreciatethe} documents produced by^{pctitioner vide Ex.R2 and R3 and} did not consider the samc^{with afinding that those} documents cannot^provt: llossession^{in spitc of the fact} that theY wet e issuecl^{bv co trcerned oflicialsThe learned} District.Judge faited to^{considerthe electricitypassbook,} electricitv receipts^{u'hich shows the possessionof the} petitioner on the propert,.^{but erroneously aiiowed the} Civil Miscellaneous Appeal^{in favour of the respondent'} The learned District^{Judge faiied to accept the photographs} liled by the petitioner^{ancl decided the petition as if the} Court was deciding the^{main suit. The lower appellate} Court failed to consider^{the possessionof the peLiLioneron} the suit property and^{wrongly grantedinjunction in favour} of respondent/ plaintiff.

¶53

\ \

¶54

¶55

ssSA'. J c.R.p-No. t j 7z of 2OZ2

¶56

He has also pleaded that the learned District Judge failed to appreciate the fact that respondent admitted that she is not in possession arrd was lhrown out after the petitioner constructed a hut with palmyra leaves afld running a chicken center, that itself shows that the respondent is out of possession and petitioner herein is enjoying the property. But, the learned District Judge failed to consider the order passed by the trial Court based on the documents, thereby prayed for setting aside the Order of the District Court in the above referred Civil Miscellaneous Appea.l and sought for dismissal of the petition filed by the respondent,zplaintiff.

¶57

to. Heard both parties.

¶58

Now the point for consideration is:

¶59

Whether th.e Order of the learned. Dtstrict Judge in Ciuil Miscellaneous Appeat wLLether the .and District Jud.ge came ,""--'",::::' tncofrect conclusion uhile allowing the interloculan respond.ent/platntifJ?rt::,::::X!:;:::r:r.':; to be set asid.e?

i:.,

SSRN, J c-R.P.No.1177 oI 2022

¶64

¶65

12. POINT

¶66

As alread_i' stated in the previous paragraphs, the main suit {.as filed b1. the respondent/ plaintiff for perpetual injunction in respect of an agricultural land in (3) survcy numbers. SI-re has filed an interlocutory application undcr Order 3c) Rule l and 2 CpC with a spccilic pela that she has been in possession of the property and there was ar attempt to dispossess her from the scheclule propert-v. therebv sought for an injunction. As per the alfidavir liled in srrpport of the petition, it is very clear that the rr:spondent/ ptaintiff has submitted in para_ No.^.l of the affidavit in the follor.ving words:

¶67

"4. I subnrit mearrwhile when I am going to plant some plants in the suit letnds, respondents 1 and 2 forcibly thrown me from there and threatened me if I go there again they w,ill kill me, and respondent No.l constructed a small hut with a toddy. leaves for establishing a chicken center and respondent No. 2 is doing construction lvork of a pcrl.naltcnt l-r,.)r-rsc- ir-r the sult l;rnds,..

¶68

,l -1

¶69

¶70

.. *. n". , , ,riiI[L"" ".

¶71

Jt is settled law that whenever interlocutory apprication for a temporary injunction h ras been filed, the burden is heavily .on the petitioner/plarntiff to show arrd esta blish prima fat case to have an injunction in his/her favour. rrr" po.tr, in such an application shar show the balance o, .:""t rnvenience in his far ravour a,,d must estabrish the denial of ini,,'.^., injunttion would cause irreparable Ioss which carnot o, : compcnsated in rrr t ec rms of money The respondent, against *n^- ^. ,*q such an application was filed' need not disprove thr of plarntiff lt is not the burden of the respono.r,ro"a-r^t to show that he is possession of rhe properry and it ::t: sufficient if he is able to show that petitioner who is seeki possession or the property and ;:':" ;;.,:j," Iracie case in favour of the petitioner. 14. In the case on I d' as per the averments made in the affidavit and other filed by the respondent it was her specific case that nt""oto ler husbancl was the absoiute owner of the suit schedure )roperty and after his demise the

¶72

¶73

.SSRN. J C.R.P.No-1t77 oJ 2022

¶74

respondent arld her chilclrcn succeeded the property. They havc obtaincd pattadar passbook from revenue authorify. They have obtained loan from the bank. However, in the afiidavit itse]1, the resporrdt:nt categorically submitted that she was thror,r'n au,ay frorn tl-re suit schedule property. The petitioner herein has constructed a chicken centre and the otl'rer respor]dent stzuted i:onstruction of a house in the rcmaining suit plot.

¶75

15.^'I'he petitioner herein and other defendants have taken a specrfir: stalrd that tlrc husband of thc respondent and his brother who have got absolute right on the agriculturzrl land, divided the same into house plots and sold the plots t.o differcnt purchasers. The petitioncr has claimed that he and the 2"d respondent have purchased 2 guntas of such house plots from the husband of the respondent and his brother. They have divided the plots into two equal shares. The pctitioner has also claimed that he has raised a hut in thc plot that fell to his share and started a chir:l<en cerlt(:r after obtaining electricit.,r

¶76

¶77

¶78

^ ssR :./ t.R.P No tt77 ol2Oi2

¶79

connection. The other respondent constructed a house in his plot and residing in the house.

¶80

This particular plea of the petitioner arrd contention of the other respondent about their owning a hut and house in the suit plot, is not disputed by the respondent by way of any rejoinder and in fact, the affidavit filed by the respondent itself it rs . mentioned that the petrtioner has got a hut wherein he is running a chicken center and the other respondent started construction of a house. Therefore, it is very clear from the averments of the affidavi t ald counter affidavit filed by the petitioner that the respondent is not in possession of the property. 11 may be true that the respondent has got a pattedar passbook and prior to filing of the suit she was granted a loan from a bank. However, when the suit is filed for perpetual injunction, based on Possession and when ror a tempor*,"r,,jI";, ;:"r:;:::',:':":,: :i". rs under the obligation to establish prima face case balance of convenience.

¶81

¶82

ss.Rfl, J c.R.P.No.1177 of 2022

¶83

.1,7 . In [hc ,.:6 ss 66 ltanrl the petitioner herein has produccd electricirl, passbook, electricity bills and other documents to show th:rt hc Itas already constructed a hut and runnir-tg a chicken center. In the light of specilic averments in the affidavit tiled by the respondent/ plaintiff, he r-reed not est:rblish rhar his chicken center is withing the bounclaries shorvn in 1}-rr. petitioner schedule. The respondent rvho hersell r:larntecl that she was thrown from the proper[,v, cotrlr] har.e t.rl(err required steps for protecting hcr title, bur she canDot r aintain an interlocutory application for injunction whcn she is out of possession of the propertv.

¶84

But, surprisingly tl.re District Judge while deciding the Civil Miscellaneous Appcal, sought to place the entire burden on the petitioner. In the order impugned in the present revision vide para Nos. 10 to 13, the learned District Judge discrrssed about the failure of petitioner in showing his posscssiorl on the property, but did not cot'rsider the averrnr.nts macle b-r. tl_re respondent that she

¶85

.-.

¶86

¶87

ssP^/ ., c.R.P.No. t t 77 ol 2iz;

¶88

I i I I :

¶89

iost th<: possession of the property. The Court below has found that the respondent filed Ex.R I to prove that he got delivery of the property, but discarded the documents with a finding that there is no evidence from the l"t respondent i.e., petitioner herein on that aspect. While deciding the interlocutory application the Court need not expect any evidence from the parties to prove their title. The interiocutory application has to be dccided on the documents including affidavits filed by the parties to the suit. Ex.R2 is a copy of complaint lodgcd by petitioner to the Tahsildar and copy of the letter addressed by Village Revenue Officer, but the Court below discarded the documents on the ground that the Court cannot base the conclusions on the Ex.R2 and RS while deciding the possession df the property. The Court did not consider the electricity pass book, electricit5z receipts and photographs which clearly shows a chicken center in the schedule property and simpiy discarded the documents and allowed the appeal granting interim injunction. Absolutely no reasoning is available in the order to allow the application

¶90

¶91

ssRtv, J c.R-P.No.r t77 oI2022

¶92

¶93

when lhe doclrrnerrts lilerl ltr. lhe petitioner/ defendant and when the alfidavit filed b1. Lhe respondent/ plaintiff clearly shows the respondent is not h:rving prima facie possession and there is no balance o[ convenience in her favour, it cannot be held that lhe dcnial of injunction r.r,ould cause irreparable loss to the respondent. If, such an injunction is granted to the respondeni. it r.r'ould cause irreparable loss to the pctitionrrr^/ defcndan t . The re lore. the order is liable to be set aside

¶94

In the result, the^(livil Revision Petition is allowed. lnjunction grantr:d in favour o[ the rcspondent is set aside

¶95

As a sequcl, perrding Miscellaneous Applications, if

¶96

any, shall stand closed

¶97

¶98

To,

¶99

SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Lll SECTION OFFICER

¶100

//TRUE COPY//

¶101

t. The Principal District Judge, Nalgonda

¶102

The Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda

¶103

One CC to SRl. P RAMACHANDRAN Advocate [OPUC]

¶104

One CC to SRl. K V SUDHAKAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶105

Two CD Copies

dsag.-i*.+-=.

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210412023

ORDER

CRP.No.1177 of²⁰²²

I, iiit: St
!) I
0 4 r'tAY 2023 I
t--,
.,, ':j/

¶114

ALLOWING OF THE CRP

¶115

o
t<br>v)
q

Kasamalla Venkataiah v. Gunreddy Ramulamma and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasamalla Venkataiah v. Gunreddy Ramulamma and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. Srinivasa Rao Vs J. Vittal Rao and 5 Ors.

Sri. Praveen Kumar Prabhala, Vs Pingle Vasundhara

M/s Unik Industries Vs M/s Amazon India Ltd. and 7 Others

Kisna Avenues Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sharada Devi Kedia

Smt. R. Harika,a.Swathi Vs R. Srikanth Nayak

Revuri Rama Devi Vs Gopu Akhil , Akhileshwar