HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1458 OF 2023
ORDER:
This revision petition is directed against the order of temporary injunction dated 03.04.2023 in C.M.A.No.25 of 2022 passed by the Principal District Judge, Medak District whereby the order dated 19.09.2022 in I.A.No.514 of 2022 in O.S.No.193 of 2022 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, at Narsapur has been inversed and granted temporary injunction.
2. I have heard Mr. N. Manohar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr. T. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The relevant facts in brief are that, the respondent/plaintiff/petitioner (hereinafter 'the petitioner') had filed the suit vide O.S.No.193 of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur for perpetual injunction against the revision petitioners/defendants/respondents (hereinafter 'the respondents') against the suit schedule property described in A, B and C agricultural lands in 15 survey numbers admeasuring Ac. 3.31.10 2 NTR,J CRP_1458_2023 guntas at Kothapet village, Shivampet mandal, Medak District (hereinafter 'the subject land'). The petitioner claimed that the subject land has been devolved on succession and he being the owner and possessor is in continuous possession and enjoyment and the respondents without any right or interest interfering with his possession.
4. The respondents are in agreement that the subject land and other landed properties are ancestral properties and devolved on them from their ancestors. However, contended that though the property was partitioned on paper the lands were never been divided by metes and bounds and all the co-parceners including the petitioners submitted a requisition to the Tahsildar to fix the individual boundaries. In this position, as they are co-owners injunction cannot be granted and the petitioners' claim that he is in possession of the subject land with specific boundaries is unacceptable and without exact localization, granting injunction would be clear impropriety.
5. The trial Court in its order held that there are rival claims in regard to possession and common boundaries hence granting 3 NTR,J CRP_1458_2023 injunction until full fledged trial is not feasible. On appeal by the petitioner, the learned appellate Court granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby the respondents preferred this revision.
6. In revision the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the agricultural lands of their forefathers was devolved in three branches on the respondents and the petitioner. Though the revenue records were separated as per the entitlement of each co-parcener the same was never effected on ground and no supplementary sethwar has been issued. Thus, the petitioner claiming particular portion with boundaries is evidently improbable. Therefore, granting injunction would amount to issuance of injunction against co-owners, which is unlawful. In addition, submission of requisition dated 03.03.2022 to the Tahsildar, is proof that the landed property was not demarcated as per the shares. This aspect was properly considered by the trial Court, but the appellate Court by drawing untenable analogies granted the temporary injunction causing serious prejudice to their interests.
4 NTR,J
CRP_1458_2023
7. In support the respondents relied on the authorities in Aileni Sanjeev Reddy v. Lavudya Vijaya - 2019(5) ALD 238 (TS) and Palem Chandrasekar and others v. Palem Bikshapathy and others - 2019(5) ALD 235 (TS) (DB) and pleaded that if the physical location of the property is unclear from the documents submitted by the parties, temporary injunction cannot be granted. Further cited Mehanga Singh and others v. Bal Bir Singh - (2003) 9 SCC 226 to show that the injunction restraining co-owner from repairing and using property cannot be granted.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded that the appellate Court had considered the facts and circumstances in proper perspective and granted temporary injunction. The petitioners are in possession of subject land and his name was mutated in the revenue records and the pattadar passbook, title deeds were also issued. Further even by the pleading of the respondents that the agricultural land is devolved from the ancestors and as the title over the subject land is clear by the revenue record and the specific claim as to possession within specific boundaries and the unnecessary interference by the 5 NTR,J CRP_1458_2023 respondents has not been rebutted, granting of temporary injunction pending suit is perfectly justified. Further pleaded that in revision this Court will have a limited role only to the extent of finding of illegality and impropriety or the jurisdictional error. In absence of such pleading the impugned judgment deserved to be confirmed.
9. In support of the pleadings cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Naresh Chander, a Full Bench decision dated 27.08.2014 in Civil suit No.6177 of 2004 and Rasool Bee and others v. Gousiya Begum - 2002 SCC Online AP 794 to project that in revision the Court will have a limited role to find out impropriety or illegality in the order.
10. The rival pleadings of the learned counsel are duly considered and the materials on record are perused.
11. Granting of temporary injunction is a discretionary and equitable relief. It is well settled that the discretion should be exercised reasonably, judiciously and on sound legal principles and it should not be lightly granted without considering the adverse effects on the other side. Generally for granting temporary 6 NTR,J CRP_1458_2023 injunction the Court must examine whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case in support of his claim and infraction thereof and existence of strong case for trial which needs inquiry/trial. Further whether the petitioner suffers irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted and the comparative inconvenience which is likely to be caused to the petitioner by refusing injunction that is balance of convenience shall be considered in exercising the judicial discretion.
12. In the light of above proposition, existence of circumstances for exercising judicial discretion needs examination in the light of the materials placed on record by the petitioner and the respondents.
13. Issuance of pattadar pass books, mutation and entries in favour of the petitioner over the subject land is not in dispute. For that matter, the respondents specifically pleaded as to their ownership and possession over particular portions of devolved land and filed voluminous revenue record to support this stand. Respondents also categorically admitted in counter that the properties are divided on paper among the co-parceners and also 7 NTR,J CRP_1458_2023 mutated in their names. The core contest of the respondents is that the assigned portions of agricultural lands in revenue record are not demarcated on ground with boundaries. Therefore, though the revenue record is showing division, all of them are in joint possession of the entire schedule property. However this pleading is found inherently improbable in the light of definite assertion that the respondents are the owners and possessors of certain portions of land of the devolved land. This factual position is demolishing the respondents claim that all the parties are in joint possession of entire property and probabalising the pleading of petitioner. The other claim of the respondents that in view of application dated 03.03.2022/Ex.R-15 before the Tahsildar to fix boundaries is establishing the fact that the land was not actually bifurcated. A perusal of Ex.R-15/"Oppanda Pathram" (deed of understanding dated 03.03.2022) is discerning the signatures of the petitioner and the respondents. Further the applicants requested the Tahsildar to cause survey of the lands and grant the lands to each petitioner in which each petitioner is in possession. The averments in the application are indicating that the petitioner and the respondents 8 NTR,J CRP_1458_2023 are in possession of specified portions of the lands though the land was not specifically demarcated. This aspect is further strengthening the petitioner's assertion that he is in possession of subject land with specified boundaries. Therefore, the pleadings and the materials are indicating that the petitioner is holding revenue record in regard to the subject land and also the possession on ground. In these circumstances, even though the respondents claim as to specific demarcation has not been done is accepted, interfering with the settled possession in the name of joint possession is found not justified, atleast at the interlocutory stage. Thus in view of prima facie case and till determination of rights of the parties in the suit, if the intervention of respondents is not restrained, in all probabilities, the petitioner may suffer inconvenience and injury. Hence it shall be held that the appellate Court had rightly considered the materials on record and granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner.
14. For the afore-stated reasons, no error of jurisdiction is disclosed in the impugned judgment and in absence of any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court below, the 9 NTR,J CRP_1458_2023 impugned judgment deserves confirmation. In effect, the revision petition fails on merit and is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________ JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Date:03.11.2023 ccm