Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Konisa Konisi Trinadha Rao vs Subudhi Rama Rao on 17 August, 2022

                                  1



      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.655 of 2022

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the

decree and judgment, dated 09.12.2021 made in C.M.A.No.7

of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram

(which was filed against the order made in I.A.No.440 of 2018

in O.S.No.99 of 2018 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,

Cheepurupalli, Vizianagarama District).

2) Heard Sri K.A. Narasimham, learned Counsel for the

Petitioners, Smt.T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the

Respondents and perused the material available on record.

3) The Petitioners are the defendants and the

Respondents are the Plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.99 of 2018

on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli,

Vizianagaram District.

4) The respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.99 of

2018 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli,

Vizianagarama District, against the petitioners herein for

permanent injunction restraining the petitioners, their men,

agents and servants from in any way interfering with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule

property in any way and also from trespassing into the plaint

schedule property. Along with the said suit, the Respondents

filed I.A.No.440 of 2018 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w

Section 151 of CPC praying to grant ad-interim injunction. The

trial Court, after careful perusal of the material available on

record, allowed the I.A.No.440 of 2018, dated 20.03.2019,

granting ad-interim injunction. Aggrieved by the said order,

the petitioners herein filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.7 of

2019 before the Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram.

5) The learned Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram,

dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.7 of 2019

confirming the order and decree passed in I.A.No.440 of 2018

in O.S.No.99 of 2018 by the Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurupalli,

by order, dated 09.12.2021 and also observed that since the

suit is of the year 2018, the learned Junior Civil Judge,

Cheepurupalli is directed to give priority and dispose of the suit

within four months from the date of receipt of the Judgment.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Civil Revision

Petition has been filed.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that

the lower Appellate Court erred in not considering the fact that

the petitioners have purchased an extent of Ac.0-05 cents site

way back in the year 1975 from third party, who in turn

purchased it from the respondents in the year 1939 and now

the petitioners are constructing their house in their own site.

The lower appellate court also erred in not considering the

records of the petitioners which include geo-tagging, mutation,

sanction of loan by A.P. Housing Corporation, etc. It is also

erred in not considering the fact that previously the petitioners'

family had exchanged land with the respondents and thereby

provided them a right of way to reach the cement road.

7) Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends

that the lower appellate Court should have seen that the

petitioners have proved their case and proceeding with their

construction activity and in such a case a suit for an injunction

simplicitor is unsustainable under law, if the grievance of the

respondents is that their land was occupied by the petitioners

and constructing their house thereon. Therefore, the learned

counsel prayed to allow the present Civil Revision Petition.

8) The learned counsel for the respondents submits

that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are brothers and sons of late

Subuddhi Sriramulu, the 3rd Respondent is son of 1st

Respondent and he is looking after the properties of 1st

Respondent. The plaint schedule property is an extent of

nearly Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.112/6 of Cheepurupalli Village

which is a vacant land. The plaint schedule property and some

other properties were succeeded by them from their ancestors

and after death of their father, they are enjoying the same.

9) The Respondents having Ac.0-76 cents in Sy.No.112/6

in which the 2nd Respondent constructed his house and residing

therein and some land was sold away to others by the

Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and they remains the plaint

schedule property (i.e.) Ac.0-15 cents. The revenue authorities

recognized the title and possession of the Respondents and

they got issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour

of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 separately, but, they enjoying the

same jointly on ground. The pattadar pass book of the 1st

Respondent was misplaced and he is having the title deed.

The 1st Respondent also applied for pattadar pass book through

Mee-Seva on 08.10.2018. The 2nd Respondent obtained recent

pattadar pass book and title deed from the revenue

authorities. The 1B Register and the cultivation Adangal clearly

shows the title and enjoyment of the Respondents over the

plaint schedule property.

10) The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife and

they requested the Respondents to sell away the plaint

schedule property to them, for that, the Respondents refused

to do so as they are intending to construct a house in it. In

order to construct a house, the respondents leveled the site,

dug bore-well and raised temporary foundations and they are

about to start the work by obtaining necessary permissions.

While so, the petitioners being the active supporters of the

ruling party came to the schedule property on 06.10.21018

and threatened the respondents proclaiming that they would

not allow the respondents to enjoy the petition schedule

property. As the petitioners have no manner of right, title or

possession over the petition schedule property, the

respondents filed the suit for permanent injunction. Therefore,

the learned counsel prays to dismiss the presents Civil Revision

Petition.

11) This Court carefully considered the contentions of

the both parties and perused the material available on record.

The 1st Appellate Court while dismissing the C.M.A.No.7 of

2019 by order, dated 09.12.2021 held that without examining

the witnesses including the revenue officials, this Court cannot

come to definite conclusion. The Appellate Court also opined

that the documents filed by the respondents are prior to the

filing of the suit and on the other hand, some documents filed

by the petitioners are subsequent to the suit and some

documents are not corresponding to the suit schedule

property. Considering the same, the Appellate Court held that

the respondents could establish their possession as on the date

of filing of the suit.

12) On careful consideration of the reasons given by the

appellate Court while dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal,

this Court is of the opinion that there is no irregularity or

infirmity in the order passed by the appellate Court.

13) The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a

decision in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. V.

Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. And others1 wherein the Hon'ble

Apex Court held as extracted hereinunder:

"We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants-defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Ex.B.15and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party."

14) There is no dispute with regard to the opinion

expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision relied by

(1994) 1 SCC

the petitioners. But, in the present case, as the appellate

Court rightly observed that without examining the witnesses

including the revenue officials in this regard, this Court cannot

come to a definite conclusion, however, upon considering the

documents placed by both parties. Under the circumstances,

in our view, the said decision is not applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

15) The facts and circumstances of the present case are

squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in

Jonnalagadda Rajendra Prasad/Edukondalu RP v.

Yogananda Lakshmi Narasimhaswami Vari Temple,

Nidumolu, Movva Mandal, Avanigadda2 wherein it is held

at para No.11 as extracted hereinunder:

11. "The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the land in question is a Grama Kantam land and that there was overwhelming evidence to show the possession of the defendants. But I do not think that the petitioners can pray for a re-appreciation of the entire material by this Court in a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution. The pleadings as well as all the documents produced on both sides are analysed threadbare by the first appellate Court before coming to the conclusion that the temple deserved an order of injunction. As rightly pointed out by the first appellate Court, Google earth images are not to be taken as documents to prove the possession. An entry made in a statutory Register by the competent authority and the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, of the year 1952 actually clinched the issue, alteast prima facie. Therefore, I find no material irregularity or illegality in the order of the first appellate Court. In fact,

2019 (1) ALD 269

it must be pointed out that the jurisdiction of this Court in a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is more circumscribed than the jurisdiction of this Court in a revision under Section 115 CPC. I find no justification for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the revision is dismissed."

16) However, since the suit is of the year 2018, the

appellate Court directed the trial Court to give priority and

dispose of the suit within four months from the date of receipt

of the order. In view of considering all these aspects, in our

considered opinion, the present Civil Revision Petition is devoid

of merits and liable to be dismissed.

17) Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

18) There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt. 17.08.2022 PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND