A second appeal against concurrent findings dismissing a suit for perpetual injunction. The plaintiff claimed possession through her late husband's patta but failed to prove possession at the date of suit. The appeal was dismissed at admission as no substantial question of law arose.
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.
[3215 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR OF TELANGANA AT HYDHRIBX;TE
_l/.gtDAY,t-HE rHtRD DAY OF APRTL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
SECOND APPEALN O: 329 OF 2017
?:f. i!:,7iiiJ il"::"ll"lJ : R ":1,: : ff '." 1n",,,.,I e J,o.o r e n t a nd D e c re e i,T'",,iiJffi 'J:1"%alels;,TTI;i.#j,;#:"srd:fl +i:"""'['J'j',,11 Judse - cum - xvil Meiiopotitan rr/lrslir",. "i'M1i"*li'#,lt the Addl. Junior civit
Between:
3"::3i:f i?,H1",,,'"1t,iill:fl 1;,&'.Tfi of $,.u,1,#,,.,occ:Housewire,r/o
AND
...APPELLANT
,.?;Y;lS:t#:.iX':,?,Yii:#ili"?S"X?,H: j,[??:?occ:privateservice,
..,RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant: SRt D. SUDHARSHAN
Counsel for the Respondents: - _ _ -
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
t--:::€
q
..!
THE HON()URABLE DR.JUSTICE G. II,\IIHA RANI
SI(]OND APPEAL NO.329 ()F 2017
JUDGMEN'I:
fhis Scconci .a.ppeal is filed by rhe appellant _ plairtilf arggrieved by the judgmcnt and dc:* e passed in A.S.No.30l of 2010 d.ted 0I.()7.10t3 on the tire of the III Additionel r)istrict Judge, L.B.Nagar, Rangzrredclt [.risr-icr confirming the judr:nre^t und d, c'ee passed in o.S.No.7r6 of 2003 darec r)9.()7.2010 by the Additio,al Junior'(r viIJudge cum XVIII l\4etropoliran Magistr.ate, Matkajgiri. 2. T'he paties ar, : lLerein after referred to as arrayecr befor: lr-re triar court.
3 . The plaintifi f lel a suit for perpetual injunction vide c r. S .Nr.3g6 of 2005 contending that her h.rsband late Sri G.Shivaiah was the origi ral allottee of lancl in Survey No.40.5 ro an extent of Ac.2_09gts. srtuate(l at Kanojiguda, Tirumalagiri Village, zrlwal Municipality, Rangar-eddv l)is ri,:r b1, viftue of patta certificate issue, I by RDo. l'he husrband of the plaintiil'Sri G.shivaiah expired on 22.1?'.2001 leaving behind him, the prainriff arcr his three (03) children as his legal ht irr; and successors to the said property. 'l-he plaintiff and her family were in p rs;ession and enjoyrnent of the said ra'cr rrs absolute ownel's without inttl(:rr:nce or disturbance of anybotly sir i:t: the date of allotmenr.
2
Dr.GRR, I sa 329 2077
3.1. The defendant who was a stranger to the plaintiff without having any title, share or any documentary prooi started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the ptaintiff with a sole intention to grab the land with the help of anti-social elements and political influence.
3.2- on 02.03.2005 at 04:00 PM, the defendant came to the suit schedule property along with anti-social elements and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property illegally by force and tried to grab the said land. But due to timely resistance by the plaintiff and neighbours, the defendant and his henchmen could not succeed in their illegal attempts to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property. Immediately, the plaintiff approached the concemed Police, but the Police could not help the plaintiff and advised her to approach the court of law for the relief, as the matter was of civil in nature. As such, she filed the suit.
t,'.rs';ft;*.. =---7
3
Dt.6RR, .J so_329_2077
l lllll(' lt( I()t r' ()t) I95r \s pe r Section i of t rc A.t t. tire lanci r cstcd in the (itrrtT"r'' rr' \Jrri.rs -r to 9 r'crc s:^,ecl undcr.the .{r.t Ihc ,ers.rs *.ho ere lt |ossc:r()n .r rd cr.rltir ation irtrrlc.diatclr alter tlre. Jlrt: rl',csting a lone rr c,re t'rrtiilcti fi, :rrrrr r ,rl'()ccul.rrnc,r I{ights Ccrtillcatc u..e. hc sarcl ,\cr. I.hc cut .l rlate rr.i:, .rr (J . i L Ic)7i. As on that date. thc pe..sons ,r.,1111 11,g1., i, possession ancl pcr s.r 'rr cu rtir ation arone wcre entitred ror g'arrt .r ()ccLrpancl, I{ights c'c.ritlcrrLc' I r.' d,-'tenda.t r,,as ir.r possessio, and r)erso,. ct iti'arion, as sLrch he rrlorc \r's "i r.r''d lbr grant o1'occupancy I{ighrs cerlilrcat,:. 'r.hc defl.ndanr c,'rc(() l<r. rb ).t grant ot 3g-E certificate to the pl.in if 's rusband irr LRw ll-175 rlrtc.l I I )-i. i()7i. .\qai.st the said order, the del,,.cia,t pr.clerred an ap.cai r ici.. liri . t lrr (t605175 berbre the r)isrrii,r Irt:r.enrc orficer. I^de.a'aci I )ist'ic t f he same was dismissed on i5.0 r . r!,r 7. {g.irst thq said order' rrre dcl'e,ria 11 p.eferred c.R.p.No.4r 3i77 0n,he Iire :rf he Iligh c)ourr. I'hc c l{ l'} rr us u'lri ed and was rerranded back to trre 'l'r;hr.rna . T.hc l.ribunal by irs ,rder 'iatt:cl 0'1. r2.rgg3 vide fre No.G/2gg7182 disp,se<r o1.ihe matter r'r'ith a crirecrir)n to trre plaintirf's husband and the rretenr irrt t.r fire petitions tundcr '[] 1r.'\t \rrc ririon o1-rnarns Acr. Ig55 as the rard w,a; r n Iran rand. r-he delendarr tlrcJ .r, a; ,prication under the Flyderabad Inarr ,\br,rition Act fbr grant or' occunarc) Ilights certificare berore the Inirms Iriiruna] c.nr RDo. (lhevclla vidc rlic \ r.i /1996t97 J'he Inams'lribunal passe i rr.ro ,.lrcle rs on thc petrtio. "\gairsr iht sairr orcre.s, the rl.f-endant preferred an irr)pe rr b the JoinL
4
Dr.6RR'r 5q_329-2O77
\
-l'hc Joinl Collcctot' aticr. dtre cnqrrrr) Collcctorvide file No.Fl/1358/1998. l.c'ntand€dthelnattcrlorlieslrerlquirl.l.Irclnatnslr.ihurrulirticrdrrecnquirr'. granted OccupancyRights Certificate to the delerrdant on 0l'101003b1'order datcd20.09.2003 vide file No.L/l i03rz0o2.Against thc said order. rhe plaintilf prelerredan appealto the Joint Collcctorvi<le lrle NoF I /791 2/03 and the satne was pending.Suppressing the said fact' the ptaintilfa pproached this Court and obtainedan interim order. Under the guiseof the said order, the plaintifl was tr)'ingto encroachinto the schedule propeftyrvhich was in possessionol'the defendant'The rightsof the parties had to be decidedby the lnams Tribunal cumRDo,Chevellawhichhadjurisdictiontoentertaintheapplication.Unless re-grantwas made'nobodywouldhaveright and CivilCourrhad no jurisdiction to entertainthe suit when the matter was pending beforethe Tribunal as per the judgment reportedin 1995 (3) SCC page2gland prayed to dismiss the suit with exemPlarycosts'
i) Whetherthe suit filedby the plaintiff is without jurisdiction?
ii) Whetherthe plaintiff is in possessionof the suitschedulepropertyas on the date of/ilingofthe suit?
iii) tUhetherthe plaintiff is entitled for perpettraliniunction ctgainstthe defe ndantas PraYedfor?
ivt To what reliel?
w
5
'Dr.GRR, J 5a 329 2017
6
Dr.GRR, I so_329-2011
procecdings initiatcdbefbre the Revenue Tribunalrverependingarrd clrtritrg thc pendenc-v ol thesaid appeal proceedingsbelorc thc Joint Collector'' the plaintiff flled thepresentsuit. Thcrelore, the suit lilcd b1' the plaintif'l' rvas ri ithout jurisdiction and answeredissueNo l against the plaintilf and in lavour ol the de lendant
l0.AggrievedbythesaiddismissalofthesuitbytheAdditionalJuniorCivil Judgecum XVIII MetropolitanMagistrate'Matkajgirion 09'0720 l0' the The appealwasheard by the lllAdditional ptaintiff Preferredan aPPea[' District Judge,Rangareddy District vicie A'S No30 l ol 20 I0 dated 04 07'20t 3 ' The lowerappelratecourt also dismissed the appealconfirming the judgment of the trialcourtobserving that the plaintilffailed to prove that she was irr possession ofthe scheduleproperty as on the date of the suit Exccpt filing revenuerecords, she did not choose to file any other documentto establish her title overthe schedule property' She did not chooseto summon the Revenue Officialsto estabtishthat the patta issued by the RevenueAuthoritiesrvasintact and thepossession was withher and there rvere no reasonsto interferewiththe findingsgiven by the triat court and dismissed the appeal'
w
7
Dr.6RR, l so 329 2017
I l. .\glrrie',,: I lu:-rlrr-r'. tire Plairtili' prcr-erred t,ris scct .d appcal conr.erding that thc rr ul .r tl tj.crrrer:r.rrr tr idclrce- edducctl br r1.,. e1 ,Pellant plaintifl' r.roLrld cle rr'lr r:.t rblish hcr' posscssion. There \as r() ora I or clocurrrentarl, er. icie'nce t,r ir:ir rl rh.' ericlcncc ol thc appellant - plairtiti. In Lhc absence ol' rcbLrttal e I iclr.t..,. th,-' a1,Pc-llanr Dlairtril'l'rras cn:itlecl to ge thc relief sought by lrer'.tlre r'lict soLrglrr br rlte appellant plainr l i,.as ibr pcrpcrual iniuncLion Iirl ulrich thc esscntial ingredients rerluircci i:re prirna-1acic case, balance ol co. rrrience anrl irretrrarable loss.-fhe ap,re lant plaintiff hacl estahlished hc' r irlid possc.sion or c'r the suit schoduie n-oP jrt.'l'he Iorrerappellatc courr \v ri e .rdnritting that thc revenue recorcis Iiltd by the appcllant plaintifF *.orrlti cs lblish her Possession of the property. euel ir holcling that the appcllant Irlrirrr r'l did nor csrablish hcr ritle but tht'I'acr \()Lrl(l rcmain th.at the appellant - i,lai.ti'l'r.r,us in posscssion right from the date rl issrance of patta in lavour o1'(i.Shii:iar. who rvas her husba.d. lhe;ouns below lailcd to take into considcrarit,r hc pahunics t:xs.Al to A7 rvhich .ver() sho\.ing that I-ate Shivaiah *'as in Possessiorr ol thc suit propeftv. 1.1 .trgh the rcspondent allegerl that >orr.: p.rceedinqs werc pending belore the rovcrlLre authorities, lailed to fllc- rr,r n.rl'ol'thc sa.rc and thired to cross-cxaminc psi. l. Hence, the findinq 5rii,,n b. lhc tr.ial court lvas contrary to krr.r 611l fsc15. The responde,r lcr,:n larrt did n.t choose to corne into rhe 'v lrress box to depose ard estirblisir ri\ e .r.!' In the abscnce of the same, d smissir.g tlrc -suit filed bl,
Y-,.--.W
DT,GRR'I so 3292017
theappellantplaintiffwasr'it'iatedrrithtnaterralirregtrlaritiesanclsouglttto admit theappealand to set aside the judgmentsol the courtsbelow'
12.I leardthe learned counselfor the appellant
lj.Considcringtlresubmissionofthelearrrcdcottnseliortheappcllantthat inspite oftakingpersonal noticestwiceon the respondent i e ' on 18 06'10 l5 and 04. II .20 16, they could not be served'substitute servicewas permittedanda publicationrvasfiled in AndhraJyothi relugu Daily Nervspaper. Even after the pubticationof, the notice in Newspaper'as thetewas no representationlor the respondent,the appcal was heard ex-parte'
'AlR1962 sc l3l4
9
Dr.GRR, J so 329 2017
clisLingrris tinl h. sLrhsluntilil (lLlesIi()1 61'llru Ii )nr ar \r hstrntiaj of lact. helcl
thar
"'t I ii1 1ti ,t11r,t !(\t !t)t l(tennit,ut.\ :tt(t'tt,t. tt ltt('t t't. ,ll ,ir,.,,/ itt t , , rt, lttI)\tLtttIiIti ttotrlrl. ttt t)ll- t)liltion. h,.' y htt!tc. it i ' , " .', , . tttt/\tt tttttr'r il t1.tt l,t, tt tltrL'ttir ttttLl ', t r i) ' t rtt t t r t t I I t Ltltt,(t.\ tlt,irttt.. )t lt( prtrtie.s tutLl il .s,t rtltrittr tt is r:itl.ar utl (.t:n L!t!t'\lion itt tltt, ',1,111r' thut it i.\ not li,tullv s,,tlLttl h) tlti.t t. ()tl t ot hj tlte l)rirt ('oulttl ctr hlltr' Ft'dtrrtl t oltt t)r i.\ lot /iet fio11 ,lil/ict t, ttr Lull: lttr , r( t/\/()/i tt ulternut^,(' t,ey.; li ikt, qut\tit,t1 i: t,c'rllt Ll hr tfu h,:ghe.rt ( ttrr r),, t 'rc qe'tL'tdi !)ritlrilrlr,: t,, lx, ttpJ:litd in l(termtnitlg tht Lltrtrtirttt Ltt t, \t(li (titl(tl (rttd tlrcr: is u ,nt.c tlut,\lion t)/ (/)ll.: in,! tln.( principlc.\ or !ho, tttc ,tlrt nrt.:t:rl i.: 1x 1nbl uhsurd th., que: ti(,n ,t otrlLl tiol l)t d \lh\tonti(tl tl !.\tion OJ 1a...,
1 5. I'he Iear ne counscl lirr Lhe appellant - pla ntifl' rontelded that in this
casc. thc firlloin in -1 juhstantial rlLrcsti()ns ol'lau, u ould aris e rbr conslderation
ct) Whelhertht,[.'. s :li to,llt).filatl ()n hehol.f'of the plaint,t s51qbli.sh rhe valid pOSSeSS ion ()rL,t 1l ,.1 \uil pr()p(t t.1,)
b) l'lihethcr tltt rin ling,s git'cn hl tl?e Lortrs bclow,ate ju't,1i,:tl tn the absence of anyoral ortlor.trn,:r,tat.).'eyi,lcrtL.t-',nhefi:1lJ,,1 tht.dtfbnclcn,? c') Whether /ht' t:'r,,ifit.atc j,\E i:;.suatl in the nama tf ihiya;ah, nho is the hushan.l o/ tlte l,lct.n,ifi hu: ant. rttlue or not? d) lYhether rhL lit lgn,:rtt.s t,, / llte c'ottt-ls be lr.tyy ore iu,stiJie,lv hen tlte appeal IO prefirred b.l, tlt.: . 'lainti.[/ as tuhlis h her title, is pe'nain3 f, adlutlication berttre the Jo,'nt ( r- llccter-'.)
e) Whether t,he .ol,,irttill'hus t,.stablislrctl the essenti,tl in+rL'iie,1ts 4.9 required undcr Order .Y).Y|.' tlule I an<l 2 tt CpC'l
10
w Dt.6RR,J so i29 2077
t6..fhe learnedco.rrscl tbr the appclrant rclicd upon rhe judgurent ol the Hon'ble APexCourrinBoddiredtly Chandraiahand Othersv' Arigeta
Laxmi andAnotherr,u hercinit was held that:
"(tii). l-hc gt'trcralrule is that High Courl -t i.Ll ,nt' irte,li,ettiLh collLLo'renl.lindings o.[the ('rurt., iielnu. BLtt itis tlol an absoluterule' t;tltlt' ttl tfutellrccognizcdd''ePlionsare. ,,r::hru 1i1 thL'('('urts helou huveignore'l r,-rorioiet,idanceor ocled on no evidence (ii) iirn ',j,,i,1,u'rJ ,uurrtltavedrau'tt t'rong inferences'[t-om tr,r,,fiLtpptl.lttgthr ldvL'rn)nu)u\l'r'. or 'i,ii,,ii, ,l,,ur,i h',st'tl vr';ngly t'rt,;t rht'hurdt'nrtI or,t,tt ll'htn\L't'L'lt t- t't 'JLtitionhdsaJttn no '"riJri',tcc', it ttttt t'nly rt:lLr'\ to tast': wherc thcre is a totaldcorth of evidence' bul also refers lo "' on, ,lo,rn,u'here tie evidence, lakenas a whole' not ,"rn,nobtycapableof supportingthe Jinding."
'(2007)8 scc lss 'AIR1966sc 605
11
Ot.GRR, J sd i29 2017
tlrittq rrr il ,Lltla i l Lhis rrlts shoup l1 c\isL. lll irrlcr.'1rc (,t Is r]()IItiIIrIiIL ri,itititt a rcas()na[]l\ |r(J</sup> inlrtc ti;le both lorrr erd und ba- k\ ur (L nli r.]rr s()metillres be dr arr n
iti. Ilc irlso le iccl Lrpou the iLrcl-qrrrcnt of rhc IIiuir ( o,r r rl'.\ndhra pradesh in (ianapuram llt r:rmaramba and Others r,. z\nnepar thy .\nantharamaiah and othersr. u'ht re in it ri.as hclcl thirt
''7 t:tt, prL,suntl lt)u lt.()'ti(rl lot. nLtt'r .\L'( |it tl
t l.l ol !ht lttltttt Lrt,ltttt., !tt ,t.: tttt,/;r ,,, Ll iv the ,\uprctn( ( olrt !n tlt r-ct.tc rrle ry1,,! ,11 Ltbove, is not ,tbst)lItt lt LIL,P(nl.\ ttn !he tttt tr;t, tt/ t't'idenct tltttt is odtlrrtttl hr'/ort' the ( ()ltI ,tt):l the nuttu't, ol reliL,l tlui ts prcn,er, lor l'lic ,'iupremt'( otrrt oltsL,rycl rhdt pt.t:.\un,pti()1t ,:o t rperote l()nrurd a.s tell u: hrttht,rrrd Ll/lrtlc th: l.re.;ltmpliont)tr tltr l)tt.\i:t)l atjtt.r 't in tl,, t !a)rd.\ or ..'itniIur u\p(t.t.\ cLttt opctLttt fo'.y.,t.t.t,. .\trcn prc.\unlptnn hust,d ott the aLltktl stdr( ()l ,tfluirt ,,ht.t;tti,ty ,t: r,n tltt,l,rtr' ,t1 til ,1y ,,, ,;1, .t,lil can opeftt/e hrttkvdrtl'|rc.\e pre\umpti,)n. itt turtt ,trt, \tihJ(t.t to ttbuttul l:.1. tl ,: p117,i,,
o?pt).ting it "
19 lle relied Lr x)n rhe judgrne,t ol the IIigh c,rurr cf Anrlhra pradesh in
Nallamilli Satl ar a rayana Rcddr \allamilli Chinr Venkat Reddys,
rvherein it was lt3l( trtaL
')2. .As 1tr /ht' uboyt rutro. i/ it i.s shot n that ,t ,c"son is in po.sse:.ttorr tt/ o thng ot .!livt,tl ':tll t)l ltmt u lt., t,tntttt) (,.rl./.\ l/ t. L \O , 't t\tt l((l lh,tt \ itllttt,(,t\t)nihle tu u!D,tt. rt;,, uth perxtn Lo)ttinl(.\ trt ltoltl tlrc rhing 1,trtt tttl,, ,n,l ha,-ktanl: l.arrne<l t.oun:el lor tJ c
- 200.+ (l I AI.l) I s
' 2ooe 1:, {t-t) '-'l
l2
..w*
D..GRR,t\s-,.W so,329_2017 \
d(/('1?tlunl.\ r(,li(,\ otl tltts.jttLlgnutDt lo sln,tr thut itt. tlp uh.sctttc ol ttn.r tpat ific trllcgation b1. pltittlill u.\ tt) | 11(:tj lrc tu.s tli.tltosscs.sctl h.t. dt/tndunt.t I Ltrl.l ). h1 trllcge,l tresDa.ss. utt itt/i'tcntc cttn ht, tttun tltqt dc/i,ntlazt.t ulonc rrrc in pos.tttti0n ol l)rol)ct.t.r' pi.iot. to Er.B I. aqrce nrtt. lltt .subni:sion is ttti.tconceived In para l0 o/ tht ploinl. o t.leur ullegotion is matlc thul. "itnmediuttlt, a/irr death of Vaerreddy, the de furrluttt.s ttith the ttttiv u.s.s.islancc anr) h'elp o/ Satl.ti l,laddirtt!i1,, .Ve tlaptli tlhootak rittiy und Padala ,\lundu Redttt, lrelipossed into lhe land antl otctqtiad ittegutty. unaulhorisedly u ithtut s111l trt,ttrner rl ri.qh1. lt i, 1aaov, j t6 everybody thar t-aereddy died on 22.09.1979. ln paru 9 tf rllc plaint, il i.\ clearly .stoled that l'tt -'dJy tlit,l rtt )2.0).t,)-9. tt i: not u t,t.se u,hcrc the pluintiff i.t itt douht crs to u,hen tre.tpuss lookpluct.'fharc/bre. no inference can bc drarn in lttrttrr ol ltlen,lunts thut they wcrL. in possession ol propcrtl,prior lo agreement of sale, Ex.Bl. Lten othertrise in view of thi admi.ssbn oJ de/indants t and 2 in uiritten stalamenl. that third dclindant took pos.te.s.rion pursuanl to fix B. ], agrcemcnl, they cannot take adtantage oJ tha presuntption of continuily of possession as laicl dou,n hy Supreme Court in the abot,e .iudgntcnt. "
,
Hon'ble Apex court in Adivckka and others v. Hanamavva Kom venkatesh
(dead) by LRs. and Another6 on the aspect that non- examination of the party would lead to drawal olan adverse inference against him or her.
2l . He also relied upon the judgmenr of the High court of Andhra pradesh in
Urmila Devi (Died) per LRs. v. Subhash KumarT & Indian Bank. Chittoor
u lzoozy z scc e r '2oto(4) ALD 3tj
-..
.- rryu*.
. -.,,til
, .- . ,,,.. -.. -'-
t3
Dr.GRR, J so 329 2017
r. .11. lt'rrlirrtlr-zrnlirn and otherss. r.rh..r.cirr it,r.r: ht.lt tlr rr thc l)rcsurnptiorl turtcicr Sc'ctiorr I J ol thc Inclian [:r,idcrce .{ct hatl tt, b,: llrar* allainst a party u,ho dirl lt()t c,ti Lhe rvirncss box t. pro'e thc casc s!-t ,l) I \ ltitn.
ll. Ihc lcrrrr:, rl c.rnsel 1b. thc apperr.irr reri.'.i r.p.r. tire .iudsrrcnt of the IIigh(',rur .l .dhra Praclesh i. .\kkiraju S:rras* rr hi anrl Another v.
Mohd.,lahangir I)irsha antl Othcrse. u hcrcin it u;rs irclri riet
'Tlrc busit rcquircntent lttr grctnting t,ti.s t.t,li,.t .: rhat the pl,tintilj nu.st pletti (tnd pr ).r t) tt (, satt.sfactiort of lhc rourt. thar ht, i.s i11 ,.t11. 11,5. 11t,7 t,rtc.l enjttvnrcnt o/ Lt ;ptCilic,(rittl id(. tt,i(o Lr,t,,,t r / land in r(,s:pe c.t tt/ yhit,lt ltt. i.s r..l,,rint.tt.g tlt: teliel. llvtn il tht ptuirttil/ liilttl ro 1 i.tnt t tt, he tvus et itled to hc, grurttt,Ll tht, rLlrL,/ r,t injuntlion, tl he hucl provcd hi.t 1to.s.sa,sion rtrt. ,, ony dafinitc und spct.lit. cytent t)f pl ol) t.t.t
_l Ile als. r,:li'd upon the judgrne'nt or'thc r{igh r.'.u.t,,',\rrdhra pradesh in Bongunoori Bal Reddy and Others r. l)...Satranar.a:rna Raju and
Othersr0 on thc sa nc aspect, u,herc in it rvas lield that:
"6. ln a suit fbr perpetuul injunction itle dt.es tl(,1 (t.\ tnte ltritnort itnJtttrtattt, lt r.t relctr,,.i 'nttstl1. to justi.lj,tltc t.luini frt 1to.:tes,io t.,,
in M.tsagi Rcddl r nd anothcr v.'I'. Krishna Reddr, and Othcrsrr, rvherein it
r.r as helci thal
'2oo+ 1.11ALJ) lrr tt)tl
'2ooz(:) A[.D I I.t
":009 1t,rAI Dl9
1J
Dt.G so 329 2017 \
"Thc suit bLint!tfic lt)t P(rtlrutrcttlinittrtctitttt sintpliciler. il i<sup>nol n(ces\o'1.to go into tlr queslion \tlt'lhct tltsuit lund i.t an lnant Lnnd And \t,hethet 1l1g()trnct.shipcct.tificdtesutLli:r Section 38E o/ lht''l'ctttrtttt-'1cti.s granlatlin fat,ouroI thc de/entluntrure wrlid und binding on the plaintii-.fortht purpo.scrtl disposal ttf suil ll is slLttu! thulllrcprocectlings underlhc Inams Abolirittn .1ctut.(still pendinghe.fbre the cotltpetent aullrct tl)utultr the suid ..1ct lt t ill therefore he ol .n loboth lha porlrcsto ogitote lhe ubova qtR.\liottsin tha :uitl l)roceedings beJore thc u thoril)urulcr lha lrutnts Aholiliott Acl "
07.03.2005 seeking the reliefof perpetualinjunctionand filed certifiedcopies ol pahanies for the years from1996-97to 2002-2003. The important requirement for granting the relief ofinjunction rvas that thc plaintiffmust plead and prove to the satisfaction of thecourt that shc uas in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bythe date ol claiming the relief, but she failedto. file any document inproof ofher posscssionoverthe suit schedule landas on the date of filing the suit.
property, but nototherwise.
"2ooo (4) ALD360
t--
15
Ot.GRR, J to 329 2017
1
1l . .4. 1-ri1 .l1i cleIaltdlttlt. thcrt tras a lon{ drart n litirrrtion l)L-n(lirrr betu,ecn Itirr urcl tlr-' Irus ,rind of thc- plaintill' Erefbre the Ir'..uls'-ibLurrrl rrrrcl the Inams I ribLrnal alicr tl rc cnqLlrr\ r:ranted Occrrpancy [i.illrts ,. clirilcutr. to hirl on 0l .10.1()r)r l)\ r,(l()r datcd 10.09 1001 ndaga iltsl tlr,-' :: ii orclcr'. thc plaintilf' prclclrctl al aIp! rl to the loint (.ollector-and the sa nr \i s tcrciirrg
Iti. Thus. th: llaintifl lost her possession to the cle lerr[ nl in ()ctoher. 2003 and she challcrLr:t d the sarne belbre tlie Joint (lollector-anrl ,hc sanre is pending As pcr the Jor.tc rtion o1' thc learned counsel fbr thc app. llilr)r.. Ihe delendant lailerl to cntcr nt r .hc witness bor or lailed to provc rhc 1--ic-l Jings ar,crred by hirn and laiictl tr.' li e any documentarv evidence in sup1t, rrr ()l his contentions I lcncc. thc slur(t c )L ld not bc' considcre d. [-.ren othe r.u ise unrnt ttl rnlunctron rs a cliscretionarv r 3l iel' and one who approaches tlte c:rur: sceking . such discrctiontrl, relic has to come clean on facts. Thc llaintill sulrpresscd the fact ol'tlre long pcn<lir: q litigation before the Inanrs Trib;Lnll ant. rhrt t5e det-endant \ was irr possessic,n rf the property as per the order ol thc Inar.rs'ribunal. When an apl)eal \as lilr:, I by thc plaintilf bcfore the Joint Coller.rr,r rlainsr rhe order ol'the Inams Tritrr nrrl and the same was pending, rhe plrriirtili'ought to have obtaincd nec('ss.u r r,-'lief seeking protection of hcr possc;ston fi.out thc same court itscll'. ,\pprc,rching the civil court, suppressinll the : iLid litct and seeking the relief ol pr:r-r::l -ral injunction basing on the docu'1,:nt: sho\'ing the
I
16
Dr.GRR, ) so 329 207/
possession of her husband more thanorle oI ollc and hall')cal'pl'iol to filingol' the suit would not help her case.
29.'rhe trial court as well as theloucr appellare courtrightly dismissedthe suit and the appeal as the p tainrifl'lailcd to cstablish her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date olfiling thc suit.fhis Courr does not find any substantial question of law arisingilr thc gircn lacts and circunrstances of the
case
itselL
No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applicationspending,il-any, shallstand closed
SD/. M.MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// lrD SECTION OFFICER
To,
BN ? CV
HIGH COURI
DATED:0310t 12023
JUDGMENT
SA.No.329 of 2017
zaa'.:
,,1-a 'r.-c S rAI€
,/z -,?.
.t ($
I.
o
O 2 1 Jll'{ 20zl
I
DISMISS!NG I'HE SECOND APPEAL AT ADMISSION STAGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant-plaintiff established valid possession over the suit property so as to be entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction.
Whether the findings of the courts below are perverse in the absence of oral or documentary evidence adduced by the respondent-defendant.
Whether the suit for perpetual injunction was maintainable when the matter was pending before the Joint Collector under the Inam Abolition Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chunilal v. Mehta & SonsReferred¶14
AIR 1962 SC 1314 · Who else cites this
1995 (3) SCC page 291Referred¶4
Boddireddy Chandraiah and Others v. Arigeta Laxmi and AnotherReferred¶16
(2007) 8 SCC 155 · Who else cites this
Ambika Prasad Thakur v. Ram Ekbal RoyReferred¶17
AIR 1966 SC 605 · Who else cites this
Ganapuram Lakshmikanthamma and Others v. Anneparthy Anantharamaiah and othersReferred¶18
2004 (1) ALD 1
Nallamilli Sathyanarayana Reddy v. Nallamilli China Venkat ReddyReferred¶19
2006 (2) ALT 66
Adivikcka and others v. Hanamavva Kom Venkatesh (dead) by LRs. and AnotherReferred¶20
2007 (2) SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Urmila Devi (Died) per LRs. v. Subhash Kumar & Indian Bank, ChittoorReferred¶21
2010 (4) ALD 315
Akkirju Satyanarayana and Another v. Mohd. Jahangir Pasha and OthersReferred¶22
2004 (1) ALD 146
Bongunoori Bal Reddy and Others v. D. Satyanarayana Raju and OthersReferred¶23
2007 (2) ALD 113
Musangi Reddy and another v. T. Krishna Reddy and OthersReferred¶24
2009 (1) ALD 49
4 provisions across 3 enactments
????? (appellant-plaintiff)
????? (respondent-defendant)
G. Radha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
