THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.204 of 2022
JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the
appellants aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2022 passed in
Interlocutory Application No.671 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021
on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District,
L.B.Nagar.
2. The appellants are the petitioners/plaintiffs in O.S.No.428 of
2021.
3. The parties hereinafter are referred to as per their array
before the trial court.
4. The petitioners/plaintiffs, represented by their General
Power of Attorney holder, filed a suit for perpetual injunction to
restrain the defendants from trespassing and interfering with their
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also
filed Interlocutory Application No.671 of 2021 seeking temporary
::2::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J
cma_204_2022
injunction pending disposal of the main suit. An ex-parte ad
interim injunction was granted in their favour on 01.10.2021.
5. The General Power of Attorney holder of the petitioners
filed an affidavit in support of the petition filed under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC r/w Section 151 CPC. The case of
the petitioners, as seen from the affidavit filed by the General
Power of Attorney holder, was that the father of the petitioners by
name V. Krishna Brahmam (Late) was the absolute owner and
possessor of Acs.10.01 gts. in Survey Nos.26 & 31 situated at
Kokapet village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by virtue
of a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.597 of 1966 dated
18-6-1966. His name was reflected in the revenue records. The
father of the petitioners executed a registered General Power of
Attorney in favor of one Mr. P.V Subba Reddy vide Document
No.39 of 1988 dated 1-2-1988. But, later due to suspicion about
the behaviour of the agent/attorney he cancelled the registered
GPA through registered cancellation of General Power of Attorney
bearing document No.245 of 1989 dated 24-5-1989. Thus, the
earlier General Power of Attorney executed by late V. Krishna
Brahmam in favor of P.V Subba Reddy got cancelled and came to
::3::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J
cma_204_2022
an end. The father of the petitioners, viz., V.Krishna Brahmam,
died on 5-10-1989. The mother of the petitioners also died on
21-3-1999. The petitioners, as legal heirs of Mr. V. Krishna
Brahmam, succeeded to the said property.
6. P.V.Subba Reddy on the basis of the earlier General Power
of Attorney dated 1-2-1988 clandestinely got his name recorded as
pattedar in revenue records knowing very well that the earlier
General Power of Attorney was cancelled through registered
cancellation of General Power of Attorney bearing document
No.245 of 1989. Concealing the fact of cancellation of his General
Power of Attorney, Mr. P.V.Subba Reddy in collusion with
respondent Nos.1 & 2 fabricated and forged two sale deeds dated
31-10-1996 bearing document No.3806 of 1996 and 31-7-1997 bearing document No.2072 of 1997 purporting to have conveyed land admeasuring Ac. 3-00 gts in Sy. No. 31/1/EE-AA/1 and admeasuring Ac.02-05 gts in Sy. No 31/1/EE-AA/2 in favor of the respondents 1& 2. The said documents were void as the same were brought into existence by playing fraud. Mr.P.V.Subba Reddy had no right/interest to execute the registered sale deeds. The ::4::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 respondents 1 &2 in collusion with the revenue officials tried to illegally mutate their names on the basis of the void documents.
7. Soon after coming to know about the forged and void sale deeds as well as illegal entries of the names of respondents 1 &2 in revenue records, the petitioners challenged the illegal mutation in favor of respondents 1 & 2 vide Case No. C/2566/2017. On appreciating the merit in the application filed by the petitioners, the RDO, Rajendra nagar Mandal, vide order dated 26-5-2018, set aside the illegal mutation order passed in proceedings No. D/40/2017 dated 18-7-2017 issued by Tahsildar Gandipet Mandal. The respondents 1 &2 filed a revision petition under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights Act, 1971 vide Case No. D1/2800/2018. The said revision petition was dismissed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide order dated 01.02.2019. R1 & R2 filed a Writ Petition against the said dismissal order, and the same was pending.
8. The petitioners conveyed Acs.2.12 gts in Sy. No 26/part out of the total land admeasuring Acs.10.01 gts vide registered sale deed dated 19-5-2016 vide document No.3640 of 2016. The petitioners remained to be owners and possessors of the balance ::5::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 land admeasuring Acs.7.29 gts in Sy.No 31 at Kokapet, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
9. On 21-8-2021 at about 11:00 AM, respondents along with their henchmen tried to trespass and interfere with the petitioner's possession over the suit property. The petitioners with the help of their representatives and well wishers restrained the respondents. The petitioners lodged a police complaint against the respondents on 21-8-2021. After investigation police Narsingi registered FIR No. 948 of 2021 against the respondents. Again on 12-9-2021, the respondents tried to interfere with the petitioners' possession and enjoyment over the suit property. With great difficulty, the petitioners succeeded in restraining the respondents. Apprehending that the respondents were adamant to interfere and to dispossess them, the petitioners filed the suit and also interlocutory application.
10. The respondent No.4 filed counter-affidavit denying the petition averments. He contended about the maintainability of the suit filed by the petitioners through a self claimed General Power of Attorney and that the petition was filed abusing the process of court by arraying a person as respondent No. 1, who expired on ::6::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 22-8-2020, and obtaining ad interim injunction by misleading the court without filing any document to show their possession as on the date of filing the petition.
11. He further contended that the General Power of Attorney was not in subsistence and neither the agent nor the principals were ever in possession of the suit property. The General Power of Attorney could not depose the facts which were not to his knowledge and pointed out several lacunae in the alleged document of General Power of Attorney. The respondent No. 4 contended that there was no any publication or intimation to the concerned Registrar of Kokapet village where the said lands were situated nor any intimation in writing to the concerned Tahsildar of Rajendranagar Mandal regarding the cancellation of General Power of Attorney in favor of Mr.P.V.Subba Reddy by Krishna Brahmam so as to caution the general public or prospective purchasers. The cancellation document was created and the same was not acted upon. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 while purchasing the suit property gave paper publication on 14-1-1990 in three leading newspapers intimating and cautioning the general public regard the purchase of suit property but neither the legal heirs of late Krishna Brahmam ::7::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 nor the alleged General Power of Attorney came with any objection on the said transaction. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 were the bona fide purchasers and followed due procedure while purchasing Acs.5.35 gts of suit property during the years 1996 and 1997 vide document Nos.3801 of 1996 and 2072 of 1997 under registered instruments. Even after the alleged cancellation, Mr.P.V.Subba Reddy fought the case on behalf of V.Krishna Brahmam before the MRO in Case No.B/3976/1988, RDO Rajendranagar in Appeal file No. 3095 of 1990 dated 2-12-1995 and obtained suitable favorable orders. The petitioner No.3 appeared after 10 years and preferred revision vide Case D5/4173/99 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy against Mr.P.V.Subba Reddy, MRO and RDO. But having filed the same, the petitioner No.3 did not evince any interest. The said appeal was dismissed on 10-3-2006 and the same attained finality. The orders passed by MRO and confirmed by RDO became final. The objection to the General Power of Attorney given by V.Krishna Brahmam in favor of Mr.P.V.Subba Reddy could not again and again be challenged and questioned before the revenue officials. After a lapse of more than 25 years, the law of Acquiescence and ::8::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 Waiver would apply. The petitioners were estopped from challenging the same.
12. As per the revenue records the right, interest and title was also created in favor of PV Subba Reddy coupled with General Power of Attorney, as such the revenue officials recorded his name as owner and pattedar of the suit property after conducting due enquiry. The sale deeds executed by Subba Reddy in favor of respondent Nos.1 & 2 were not challenged before any competent civil court. The petitioners filed simplicitor injunction suit even knowing that the respondents acquired title under registered sale deeds. No relief of declaration was sought for by the petitioners, as such the present suit was not maintainable. The petitioners and their alleged General Power of Attorney could not challenge the title and possession of the respondents under registered documents after a lapse of more than two and half decades by claiming the sale deeds as void documents. The petitioners could not have kept quiet till date if any fraud or forgery was committed without initiating any penal action.
13. The respondent No.4 further submitted that since the date of purchase, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and subsequent to the demise ::9::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 of respondent no.1 on 22-8-2020, the respondent no.2 along with respondent Nos.3 to 5, being legal heirs and sons of deceased respondent no.1, had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said lands without any interruption or hindrance from any corner. The respondents developed the said lands by erecting sheds, servant rooms, watchman room, dug bore well, planted mango trees and other fruit bearing trees etc. Apart from them, the respondents were also grazing cows in the said lands numbering about 20. They also applied and obtained electricity connection in the said lands in the year 1997 and in the year 2002 vide Consumer Service Nos.321700387 and 321700614 and were paying electricity consumption charges as and when demanded by the concerned authorities. The respondents also acquired bore well permission from the concerned Tashildar in the year 2015. They had mortgaged the said lands earlier with Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank and thereafter with HDFC Bank and obtained loans. The said property was also given for development under a registered instrument to a builder but as he could not proceed with it in time, as such the same was cancelled. The said acts would clearly show the continuous possession of the respondents over the suit property.
::10::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022
14. The 4th respondent further contended that the petitioners and their alleged General Power of Attorney had committed fraud upon the Court by suppressing and not disclosing the various orders passed by the Revenue Officials and also orders of the High Court and obtained ex parte orders, and committed cheating, as such, the said orders should immediately be suspended. He further contended that petitioners had approached the Trial Court with unclean hands and there was material suppression of facts on their part, as such, petitioners were not entitled to claim equitable relief of injunction; the petitioners were guilty of false and misleading averments and prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary and compensatory costs of Rs.10 lakhs by each petitioner to respondent Nos.2 to 5.
15. Petitioner No.1 filed a reply-affidavit denying the various contentions raised by the 4th respondent. In the reply-affidavit, petitioner No.1 contended that the registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy executed by her father was immediately cancelled vide Document No.245/1989, dated 24.05.1989, and once the document was registered before the concerned Sub-Registrar, it itself would serve as notice to public at ::11::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 large; further, the petitioners published a news publication informing the general public at large about the demise of Mr.V. Krishna Brahmam (Late) and cautioned about the actions of Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy in trying to sell the suit schedule property; and cautioned the public at large not to enter into any conveyance with respect to the suit schedule property; inspite of the said caution, the respondents illegally fabricated the registered sale deeds in their favour only to defeat the legitimate rights of the petitioners and to grab the suit schedule property; as on the date of creating the documents in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy himself did not possess any kind of right to execute a deed of conveyance, therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 could not have a legal title or ownership to the suit schedule property; neither the father of the petitioners nor petitioners had any knowledge or were informed with regard to the representation of Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy in revenue proceedings; without the knowledge of petitioners, with an ulterior motive, Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy might have represented in various revenue proceedings by impersonating the petitioners; in the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division in Case ::12::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 No.C/2566/2017, dated 26.05.2018, the Revenue Divisional Officer observed that the Tahsildar, Gandipet had violated the rules and inserted the name of Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy; they approached the Court with clean hands and informed the Court about the Writ Petition filed by the respondents challenging the orders of the Joint Collector, and that the same was pending; petitioners filed the suit to seek urgent remedy of perpetual injunction as the respondents tried to encroach into the property of the petitioners causing hindrance to their possession, and denied the other averments.
16. Petitioner No.1 further submitted that the Revenue proceedings or Revenue Records would not confer title and the petitioners were in possession of the suit schedule property throughout the Revenue proceedings, and further denied that the respondents perfected their title through adverse possession, and reiterated that they had prima facie case in their favour and were entitled for the equitable relief of injunction.
17. Before the Court below, petitioners got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11, and the respondents got marked Exs.R.1 to R.23 in their favour.
::13::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022
18. On hearing both the learned counsel on record and on considering the documents filed by them, the Trial Court dismissed the petition and vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction order dated 01.10.2021.
19. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, petitioners herein filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal contending that the documents relied upon by the respondents were not valid as the alleged sale deeds obtained in the name of 1st respondent were executed by General Power of Attorney holder after the demise of its executant and the same was proved by Ex.P.1; the Trial Court erred in vacating the injunction order dated 01.10.2021 basing on the Exs.R.1 to R.23 including the entries and mutation in the Revenue Records which were found to be erroneous by the competent Revenue Authority; the Trial Court ought to have observed that Ex.R.1 - Electricity Bills, were not pertaining to the plaint schedule property, and the same were illegal documents; the documents under Exs.P.1 to P.11, filed by the appellants, were not properly appreciated; the Trial Court failed to observe that the father of the appellants, viz., Mr.V. Krishna Brahmam (Late), died on 15.10.1981, as such, the document under which the respondents ::14::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 were claiming their rights were not valid in the eye of Law and ought not to have taken into consideration; on a proper perspective of appreciating the documents, viz., Exs.P.1, P.3, P4, P.6 and P.8 read with Exs.R.1, R.4 and R.5, they would prima facie establish that the appellants were the absolute owners and possessors of the property, and the Court below ought not to have dismissed the petition; and therefore, prayed this Court to allow the Appeal.
20. Heard Mr. S. Laxma Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Rahul Reddy, for the appellants; and Mr.M. Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Pramod Kumar Kedia, for the respondents.
21. Now the point for consideration is "whether the Trial Court committed any error in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners seeking the relief of interim injunction, pending disposal of the main suit?".
22. The learned counsel for the respondents contended about the maintainability of the suit as well as the petition by the General Power of Attorney Holder. Their objections with regard to the General Power of Attorney filed by the petitioners, dated ::15::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 29.12.2014, are that : (a) the alleged General Power of Attorney was not executed and signed by all the parties; (b) the General Power of Attorney document was grossly under-stamped and not registered. As power to execute the sale deed was granted under it, the stamp duty was chargeable at par with conveyance; (c) the General Power of Attorney document was neither notarized nor properly attested; (d) the deponent had not filed the affidavit of principals showing the subsistence of the powers granted under it;
(e) the deponent had not got validated the said General Power of Attorney before the District Registrar of Stamps and Registration Department by paying the requisite stamp duty and penalty; (f) the deponent and the executant of the said General Power of Attorney played fraud before the Court by not paying the requisite stamp duty and penalty which would run into crores of rupees; (g) the petitioners cheated the Government in not paying the stamp duty and penalty of Rs.2,15,05,000/- on the basis of the land value as shown in the concerned Sub-Registrar which was amounting to Rs.1,95,00,000/- per acre; (h) the General Power of Attorney would not disclose having any personal knowledge; (i) the General Power of Attorney document would show different boundaries of ::16::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 suit property contradicting with the plaint schedule property; (j) the General Power of Attorney and principals could not maintain the present petition and suit without complying with the provisions of Rules 32 and 33 of Civil Rules of Practice; and (k) it was obligatory and mandatory on the Court where such document was presented to impound and collect requisite stamp duty and penalty as per Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
23. The Court below observed that there was no reply with regard to lapses of giving the alleged General Power of Attorney by one petitioner out of the three petitioners. Only the 3rd petitioner, i.e., Smt. V. Sri Lakshmi executed the alleged General Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. T. Venkateshwarlu, but the 1st petitioner, Smt. N.Annapurna and Smt. V.Anjani, 2nd petitioner, had not signed the said General Power of Attorney. The reply- affidavit filed by the petitioners denying the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents was signed by the 1st petitioner, viz., Smt. N. Annapurna only. The said ambiguity was not explained by the petitioners' counsel. He had not explained as to how the petition was filed by the General Power of Attorney holder, Mr. T. Venkateshwarlu, on behalf of three petitioners, who ::17::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 had not executed the General Power of Attorney in his favour and the subsequent conduct of the 1st petitioner who filed reply- affidavit without obtaining any permission or initiating any steps for discharging the General Power of Attorney. The same would lead to suspicion as to the maintainability of the petition itself.
24. No arguments are submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants on the above aspect which would go to the root of the case as well as the maintainability of the petition.
25. Coming to the merits of the petition, to make out a case for grant of interim injunction, the petitioners must first satisfy the Court that they had a prima facie case, and balance of convenience was in their favour; and that they would suffer irreparable loss or injury if injunction was not granted to them. To make out a prima facie case, the petitioners must, first and foremost, establish their possession over the petition schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit by adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence.
26. The petitioners got filed Exs.P.1 to P.11, viz., : (a) Ex.P.1 is the Death Certificate of Mr.V. Krishna Brahmam (Late), father of ::18::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 the petitioners; (b) Ex.P.2 is the General Power of Attorney Document bearing No.39/1988 executed by the Mr.V. Krishna Brahmam (Late) in favour of Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy, the vendor of the respondents; (c) Ex.P.3 is the General Power of Attorney cancellation Document No.245/1989, dated 24.05.1989; (d) Ex.P.4 is the proceedings of the Joint Collector, dated 02.02.2019; (e) Ex.P.5 is the F.I.R. in Crime No.1411/2021, dated 23.11.2021; (f) Ex.P.6 is a set of 8 positive photographs; (g) Ex.P.7 is the Certified Copy of the Sale Deed bearing Document No.3640/2016, dated 19.05.2016; (h) Ex.P.8 is the Certified Copy of cancellation of the Development Agreement - cum - General Power of Attorney, bearing Document No.3356/2018, dated 10.04.2018; (i) Ex.P.9 is the Certified Copy of order in Case No.D/732/2021, dated 25.06.2021; (j) Ex.P.10 is the Certified Copy of Order passed in Writ Petition No.27570 of 2021, dated 02.11.2021; and (k) Ex.P.11 is a Compact Disc (C.D.).
27. As observed by the Trial Court, none of the above documents are in respect of proof of possession of the petitioners over the petition schedule property and considering the nature of the petition schedule property being a landed property, the ::19::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 photographs Ex.P.6 are not satisfactory proof of as to the possession of the petitioners for the petition schedule property.
28. On the other hand, the documents filed by the respondents marked as Exs.R.4 and R.5, i.e., certified copy of the Sale Deed bearing Document No.3806/1996, dated 31.10.1996 and Certified Copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.2072/1997, dated 31.07.1997, prima facie prove the title of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the schedule property to an extent of Acs.4.30 gts. and Acs.1.05 gts. in Survey No.31/1 of Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Similarly, Exs.R.6 to R.11, copies of Adangal Pahanies for the year 1995-96 to 2001-02, would show that Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy, the vendor of the respondents, was in possession of the property during the year 1995-96 and subsequently the names of respondent Nos.1 and 2 were incorporated in the possessory column in Survey No.31/1 for an extent of Acs.5.34 gts. Likewise, Ex.R.15, certified copy of the Adangal Pahani for the land situated in Survey No.31/1/EA/1, dated 05.08.2017, would show the name of respondent Nos.1 and 2 as pattedar and possessors in an extent of Acs.2.5 gts. in Survey No.31/1EA/2; Ex.R.1 is a set of electricity bills (7 in number).
::20::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 They would show that the service connection was in the name of 1st respondent in Survey No.31/1 of Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal under 'Domestic' category. The said electricity bills would relate to the years 2020 and 2021. All these documents, prima facie, would prove the title and possession of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the schedule property by the date of filing the suit.
29. The counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent would disclose the various orders / proceedings given by the Revenue Officials. It would disclose that the 3rd petitioner filed Appeal No.D5/4173/1999 challenging the orders passed in proceedings No.3095/90, dated 02.12.1995 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and the same was dismissed by the Joint Collector vide order dated 10.03.2006 and the said proceedings had attained finality. Subsequently, 3rd petitioner filed another application before the Dy. Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal in case No.D/1005/2013 seeking correction of entries in the Revenue Records for the period 1996-97 and to incorporate the names of the legal heirs of Mr.V. Krishna Brahmam (Late) in respect of land totally admeasuring Acs.10.1 gts. in Survey Nos.26 and 31. But, the respondents were not arrayed as parties to the said case. The ::21::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 respondent Nos.1 and 2, after coming to know about the application filed by the 3rd petitioner, sought to implead themselves as parties to the said proceedings and contested the said case. The Dy. Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, vide order dated 21.12.2013 observed that the Tahsildar was not competent for making correction of entries in the Pahanies beyond one year, and as the petitioners were seeking correction of Revenue Records relating to the years 1996-97 onwards, they were directed to approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievance.
30. It was further submitted that the Joint Collector - II, Rajendranagar Mandal, on representation of the 3rd petitioner, had taken up suo moto revision in File No.D1/2755/2014 for enquiry under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights Act, 1971 for correction of entries in the Pahanies for the year 1996-97 in respect of land in Survey Nos.26 & 31 in an extent of Acs.10.1 gts. situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and on after hearing the arguments of both sides, observed that any person objecting to a transfer which was effected through a sale deed alleging forgery and fabrication, had to institute a civil suit. The jurisdiction of the Revenue authorities was limited to ::22::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 recognising transfers and would not embark on disputes relating to title of property. As the revision petitioners were requesting for grant of succession and correction of entries in the Revenue Records from 1996-97 onwards, the said Court was not competent to grant succession after a long period, and that the Civil Court alone was competent, and directed the parties to approach the competent Civil Court; and after adjudication by the competent Civil Court, advised them to approach the Revenue Authorities for relief, if any.
31. Even though the Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal and the Joint Collector made observations directing the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court, the petitioners failed to file any suit seeking for cancellation of the registered sale deeds of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and that the same were not binding upon them.
32. The respondents applied for mutation of their names in respect of the land in Survey No.31/1 before the Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the Tahsildar passed orders vide proceedings No.D/40/2017, dated 18.07.2017, mutating the names of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the Revenue Records as pattedars with respect to land forming part of Survey Nos.31/1/EE-
::23::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 AA/1 and 31/1/EE-AA/2, total admeasuring Acs.5.15 gts., situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
Aggrieved by the said orders, 3rd petitioner once again preferred appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal vide Case No.C/2566/2017 against the said mutation proceedings effected in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders in favour of petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide D1/2800/2018, and the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District passed orders suspending the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 04.01.2018. On receipt of notice of the said orders, the 3rd petitioner challenged the said orders before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.28836 of 2018. Despite the notice of interim stay granted by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case No.D/2800/18 and further stay of the said order by this Court in Writ Petition No.28836/2018, the Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal passed orders in Case No.918/2018, dated 06.09.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred Writ Petition No.33643 of 2019, and interim orders are passed therein ::24::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 by this Court on 18.09.2018 granting interim suspension of the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal and directed the respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioners (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) until further orders. The said Writ Petition is reported to be still pending before the High Court for adjudication, and the interim orders passed therein are still subsisting as on to-day. Thereafter, the Joint Collector passed orders in Revision D1/2800/2018, dated 02.02.2019, confirming the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional officer, Rajendranagar Mandal. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No.3423 of 2019 and the said Writ Petition is also still pending for adjudication. Ex.R.12 is the proceedings of the Dy. Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide proceedings No.D/214/15, dated 07.05.2015. Ex.R.13 is the Certified Copy of orders in C/3095/1990, dated 02.12.1995 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District at Domalguda, Hyderabad. Ex.R.14 is the certified copy of order in case No.D1/2735/2014, dated 22.08.2015, passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District.
::25::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 Ex.R.16 is the certified copy of orders passed in Writ Petition No.33643/2018, dated 18.09.2018.
33. From the above documents, it can be seen that the petitioners herein had suppressed and not disclosed the various orders passed by the Revenue Officials and also the orders passed by this Court in their petition. It was the respondents who gave all the details in their counter-affidavit supported by the documents before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Joint Collector and the High Court.
34. A person approaching the Court seeking equitable relief of injunction must make an honest disclosure of all the material facts which include both for and against him. Any suppression of material facts would disentitle the person from claiming the equitable relief.
35. In the instant case, as rightly observed by the Trial Court, no explanation was given by the petitioners as to non-disclosure of the said proceedings in their petition. The same would amount to suppression of material facts and, as such, they were not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction.
::26::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022
36. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that people who approach the Court for relief are under a contract with the Court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.
37. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mandali Ranganna vs. T. Ramachandra2, wherein the Apex Court held as follows :
"18. While considering an application for grant of injunction, the Court will not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto, viz., existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties.
Grant of injunction is an equitable relief. A person who had kept quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the properties exclusively, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of injunction. The Court will not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one. We are not however, oblivious of the fact that grant or refusal of injunction has serious consequence depending upon the nature thereof. The Courts dealing with such matters must make all 1 (2013) 2 S.C.C. 398 2 AIR 2008 S.C. 2291 ::27::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 endeavours to protect the interest of the parties. For the said purpose, application of mind on the part of the Courts is imperative. Contentions raised by the parties must be determined objectively."
38. In the present case also, the petitioners kept quiet for a long time, i.e., for more than two-and-a-half decades. Their contention that the vendor of respondents, i.e, Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy himself was not having title over the suit schedule property, and as such, he could not have conferred title to the respondents, cannot be gone into in this petition or appeal. The scope of enquiry in this petition for temporary injunction is limited only as to who is in possession of the property. The validity of the title documents executed by P.V. Subba Reddy after the cancellation of General Power of Attorney by Mr.V. Krishna Brahman (Late), father of the petitioners, cannot be gone into in this petition or appeal. Revenue Records do not confer title, but they are the prima facie documents to prove possession of the parties. In the instant case, the petitioners failed to file any single document in proof of their possession of the schedule property.
39. As such, the petitioners failed to prove a prima facie case in their favour. When the petitioners failed to prove the prima facie ::28::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 case, it is not open to the Court to grant injunction in their favour. Hence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners.
40. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and it is dismissed, confirming the order dated 22.04.2022 passed in Interlocutory Application No.671 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021 by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar.
41. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Appeal, shall stand closed.
___________________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J __________________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J Date : 26.08.2022 Ndr ::29::
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.204 of 2022 Date: .08.2022 Ndr