THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
C.R.P.No.5384 OF 2018
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.07.2018 in C.M.A.No.1 of 2017, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein (defendant Nos.1 to 3), was dismissed, confirming the order dated 13.12.2016 in I.A.No.298 of 2016 in O.S.No.192 of 2016 passed by the II-Additional Civil Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder the said application filed by respondent No.l herein-plaintiff, was allowed, granting temporary injunction.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
3. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.192 of 2016 for perpetual injunction against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. Pending disposal of the suit, she filed an application in I.A.No.298 of 2016, whereunder temporary injunction was granted on 13.12.2016. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 2 filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2017 and the same was dismissed confirming the orders of the trial court granting temporary injunction in favour of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner and other respondents vide judgment dated 31.07.2018. Challenging the said judgment, the present revision is filed.
4. According to respondent No.1 she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule land of 72 sq. yards in Sy.Nos.758 and 759, situated at Bommakal Village of Karimnagar District, having purchased the same from the original owner namely Mohd. Fasiuddin through a registered sale deed dated 14.12.2015 and since then she had been in continuous possession of the same. The vendor of respondent No.1 Ahmed Shamshad Hussain sold an extent of sold Acs.0-02 Gts., i.e, 242 sq.yds., out of his Ac.3-00 of land, to one Mr.Fasiuddin under a registered sale deed dated 26.12.2006. Thereafter, respondent No.1 obtained permission for construction of house from the Gram Panchayath. Petitioner (defendant No.1) and respondent Nos.2 to 4 (defendant Nos.2 to 4) without any right or title over the said land tried to interfere with her possession and on 30.07.2016, they came to suit 3 property along with their family members and obstructed the construction of house and tried to dispossess her.
5. On the other hand, it is the case of petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 that the vendors' vendor of the petitioner was having only Acs.2-06 Gts., in Sy.No.759 and later he sold his entire land to one Ahmed Bin Awaz under a registered sale deed dated 11.01.1979. One Smt.Challu Shyamala purchased an extent of Acs.0-16¼ Gts., in Sy.No.758 from the vendors' vendor of respondent No.1. The said Shyamala sold an extent of 227.06 sq. yards in Sy.No.758 to Smt.Malan Bee, who is the mother of petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein, and she constructed a house therein and towards the western side of the said house, an area of 53.66 sq. yards is left and Shyamala intended to sell the same to them. Respondent No.1 was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit plot.
6. Before the trial Court, Exs.P-1 to P-3 were marked on behalf of respondent No.1-plaintiff and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked on behalf of the defendants. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial Court granted temporary injunction in 4 favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff, pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 preferred an appeal. By the impugned judgment, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of trial Court granting temporary injunction. Hence, the present revision is filed by petitioner-defendant No.1.
7. It appears that respondent No.1-plantiff filed registered sale deeds Exs.P-1 and P-2 and also produced copy of permission for construction of house issued by Panchayat Secretary, Bommakal Gram Panchayat, whereas petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4- defendants produced Ex.R-1 which is a declaration given by Shyamala stating that she sold an extent of 53.66 sq. yards in Sy.No.758 to one Shaik Khaja Kaleemuddin under a notarized document.
8. In DALAPAT KUMAR V. PRAHLAD SINGH1, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that three essentials that need to be fulfilled while granting injunction viz., prima facie case, balance of 1 (1992) 1 SCC 719 5 convenience and irreparable loss. At para No.4, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"Order 39 Rule 1(c) provides that temporary injunction may be granted where, in any suit, it is proved by the affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing ... or dispossession of the plaintiff or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Law Commission clause (c) was brought on statute by Section 86(i)(b) of the Amending Act 104 of 1976 with effect from February 1, 1977. Earlier thereto there was no express power except the inherent power under Section 151 CPC to grant ad interim injunction against dispossession. Rule 1 primarily concerned with the preservation of the property in dispute till legal rights are adjudicated. Injunction is a judicial process by which a party is required to do or to refrain from doing any particular act. It is in the nature of preventive relief to a litigant to prevent future possible injury. In other words, the court, on exercise of the power of granting ad interim injunction, is to preserve the subject matter of the suit in the status quo for the time being. It is settled law that the grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. The exercise thereof is subject to the court satisfying that (1) there is a serious disputed question to be tried in the suit and that an act, on the facts before the court, there is probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintiff/defendant; (2) the court's interference is necessary to protect the party from the species of injury. In other words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right would be established at trial; and (3) that the comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would be likely to arise from granting it.6
9. Coming to the case on hand, the trial court on due appreciation of the documentary evidence adduced by both sides in Exs.P-1 to P-3 and Exs.R-1 and R-2 and keeping in view the principles stated above, had elaborately discussed the material on record and granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff. The appellate court on re-appreciation of the entire material on record confirmed the orders passed by the trial court by holding that no illegality was committed by the trial court while granting temporary injunction.
10. I have carefully perused the orders passed by the courts below, including the material on record. It appears that respondent No.1 is in possession of the suit land within the boundaries stated by her in the suit schedule land, whereas the boundaries shown by the petitioner and respondent No.2 to 4 appear to be quite different from that of the boundaries shown by respondent No.1 in the suit schedule land. The suit schedule is a vacant land and respondent No.1 had also obtained permission under Ex.P-3 from Gram Panchayat for construction of house. The documents filed by respondent No.1 clearly show that she is in possession of the suit 7 schedule property and that she has made out a prima facie case in her favour so also the balance of convenience lies in her favour. The trial court had rightly granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff and the same was confirmed by the appellate court holding that if temporary injunction is not granted, there is every likelihood of irreparable injury being caused to respondent No.1-plaintiff.
11. I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 22.12.2022 Lrkm