HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
C.R.P.No.483 OF 2019
ORDER:
This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 13.11.2018, in C.M.A.No.19 of 2018, on the file of the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioners herein was allowed, setting aside the order, dated 17.04.2018, in I.A.No.231 of 2017 in O.S.No.258 of 2017, on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge's Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad granting interim injunction in favour of the respondents herein.
2. Heard Sri R.Mahender Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Dr.K.Laxminarasimha, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
3. The petitioners are the defendants ("defendants" for short) and the respondents are the plaintiffs ('the plaintiffs" for short) in O.S.No.258 of 2017.
2
4. The facts, which are necessarily be stated as prelude to the order, in brief, are as follows:
The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and consequential perpetual Injunction in respect of the schedule property i.e. dilapidated old house bearing No.1-11-250, (New House No.1-11-250/B/A) admeasuring 1000.00 square yards or 836.00 square meters in Sy.Nos.53/5 and 89/1 situated at Shamlal Building, Begumpet, GHMC, Secunderabad. While so, the respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.231 of 2017 under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The defendants filed counter opposing the said application.
5. During enquiry, Exs.P-1 to P.7 were marked on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs and Exs.R-1 to R-49 were marked on behalf of the petitioners/defendants.
6. On a consideration of the material documents available on record, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the 3 plaintiffs failed to establish the prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour for grant of temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the respondents/plaintiffs filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.19 of 2018. The learned Additional Chief Judge, on re-appraisal of the evidence on record set aside the order of the trial Court and allowed the appeal vide order, dated 13.11.2018. Assailing the same, the petitioners/defendants filed the present civil revision petition.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the appellate Court committed error in allowing the appeal. He further submits that the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts of filing of suit in O.S.No.2106 of 2012 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge's Court, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar between the same parties in respect of the same property. When they failed to get favourable orders, the present suit has been filed by changing the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The plaintiffs failed to show prima facie case that they are in possession of the schedule property and balance of convenience is in their favour. 4
8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the defendants are in possession of the entire property admeasuring 7528 square yards including the schedule property. He also submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of suppression of material facts. More so, they failed to satisfy the cardinal principles for grant of temporary injunction in their favour. He placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1.
9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs while supporting the order of the appellate Court submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and that there is no error apparent on the face of record. He also submits that the there is no suppression of material facts. The appellate Court has rightly discussed the rival contentions and rightly set aside the order of the trial Court and granted temporary injunction on being satisfied that the plaintiffs have established the prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference. 1 (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114 5
10. Here, it is apt to note, briefly, the case of both the parties as under:
That the plaintiffs are joint absolute owners and possessors of the schedule property having purchased the same from Smt.Bathula Narsamma for total consideration of Rs.1,87,000/- under registered sale deed dated 03.09.1993. Ever since, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants tried to interfere with their possession and enjoyment over the schedule property.
11. Whereas, it is the case of the defendants that late G.Mahalakshmi, M/s.GRT Hotels and Resorts Private Limited, M/s.Macur Hospitality India (P) and M/s.Mamallapuram Hotels (P) Ltd and others purchased the immovable property admeasuring 7528 square yards under seven registered sale deeds on 11.05.2006. The said property was earlier mortgaged by the predecessors-in-title to M/s.Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited and put the property in auction. The above said persons purchased the property, after M/s.Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., has obtained clearance from Government of Andhra Pradesh 6 vide Memo No.19201/Co-op III (1) 2005-1, dated 18.04.2006. Subsequently, M/s.Macnur Hospitality India (P) Ltd., and M/s.Mamallapuram Hotels (P) Ltd., were merged into M/s.GRT Hotels and Resorts Private Limited, by virtue of the orders of High Court of Madras, dated 13.04.2009 passed in Company Petition Nos.8 to 10 of 2009. M/s.G.R.Thanga Maligai Pvt., Ltd., was changed to M/s.G.R.T.Hotels and Resorts Private Limited with effect from 21.03.2007. Thereafter, other six purchasers have executed and registered lease deeds in favour of the defendants vide document Nos.2258, 2259, 2260, 2261, 2262 and 2263 of 2008, dated 26.06.2008. Since then, the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property including the schedule property.
12. A perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the trial Court has considered the documents filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants and dismissed the application for grant of temporary injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs have suppressed the filing of suit in O.S.No.2106 of 2013 on the file of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in respect 7 of the same schedule property between the same parties and also about the suits between their vendors and compromise proceedings between them in O.S.No.594 of 2012.
13. Undisputedly, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.2106 of 2013 for perpetual Injunction against the predecessors-in-title of the defendants and the defendants, wherein I.A.No.1529 of 2013 was also filed for grant of temporary injunction and the same was dismissed. Against dismissal, the plaintiffs filed CMA.No.5 of 2016 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Admittedly, the said suit was also between the same parties and in respect of schedule property in the present suit.
14. Since the present suit is a comprehensive suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of their rights and Perpetual Injunction, while so, the sole question that arises for consideration for disposal of this petition is; whether non-mentioning of filing of earlier suit in O.S.No.2106 of 2013 and details thereof in the present suit, would disentitle the plaintiffs for order of temporary injunction.
8
15. It is not in dispute that the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of declaration of title in respect the schedule property and also for grant of Perpetual Injunction. However, admittedly, the plaintiffs failed to mention the details of their filing of O.S.No.2106 of 2013, but that itself does not amount to suppression of material fact, as the present suit was filed for declaration of title and for Perpetual Injunction and the said suit was not decided on merits and only temporary injunction application was dismissed.
16. It is well settled principle of law that application for temporary injunction would be decided on three well recognized principles;- firstly, prima facie case, secondly, balance of convenience and inconvenience and thirdly, irreparable loss and injury. The injunction is a discretionary and equitable relief and may disentitle the plaintiff an order of injunction, if there is a suppression of the material facts.
17. However, there lies a distinction between the suppression of the facts and suppression of material facts. The material facts are those which have a direct nexus and impact on the disputes 9 involved in the suit or a proceeding and the suppression thereof may disentitle the plaintiff to have the order of injunction in his favour. In the instant case, non-mention of details of previous suits between the same parties may amount to non-furnishing of details of disputes between the parties, but it is not a material fact, which would have impact on the dispute involved in the suit. Since the present suit is a comprehensive suit filed by the plaintiffs and non-furnishing of details of earlier suits filed by them between the same parties does not amount to suppression of material facts and consequently, they are entitled for the discretionary and equitable relief of temporary injunction.
18. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the appellate Court has rightly appreciated the material on record and took a view that the plaintiffs have established the cardinal principles for grant of temporary injunction and, accordingly, set aside the order of the trial Court and granted temporary injunction in their favour.
19. Therefore, the impugned order, which is passed on due consideration of the material on record and in proper exercise of 10 discretion, does not call for any interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
20. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 14.11.2022 Note:
Issue C.C. by 17.11.2022.
B/o.
Nvl 11