Thummalapalli Seetha ... vs Mudunuri Jyothi Kumari
2022 Latest Caselaw 3223 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

          Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.110 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants being

aggrieved by the order, dated 04.11.2015, passed in I.A.No.616 of

2015 in O.S.No.118 of 2015 on the file of the learned VII

Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.

2. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.118 of

2015 against the appellants herein/defendants, for cancellation of

the registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA, dated 15.09.2014

bearing document No.2956/2014 and for permanent injunction and

also filed I.A.No.616 of 2015 in O.S.No.118 of 2015 under Order

39 Rules 1 and 2 to grant temporary injunction to restrain the

respondents/appellants herein and their men from interfering with

the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff/respondent

herein over the suit schedule property. The said I.A has been

considered by the trial Court and granted temporary injunction

vide orders, dated 04.11.2015. Being aggrieved by the impugned

order, dated 04.11.2015, the present appeal is filed.

3. Heard Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioners and Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for

the respondent.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that on

receipt of sale consideration of Rs.18,90,000/- on 15.09.2014 and

Rs.45,000/- on 14.10.2014 by the respondent herein/plaintiff, the

sale agreement-cum-General Power Of Attorney, dated

15.09.2014, was executed by the respondent/plaintiff in favour of

the 1st appellant herein and handed over the possession of 346.6

square yards or 289.802 square meters of land in Assessment

No.2312, Plot No.10, Door No.14-109/2 and RCC Daba building, as

such, the 1st appellant became absolute owner and later, a

registered sale deed, dated 17.04.2015, was executed by the 1st

appellant in favour of the appellants 2 and 3 herein.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants further contended

that prima facie case and balance of convenience are in favour of

the appellants and there is no fraud or misrepresentation by the

appellants against the respondent with regard to the registered

documents as the respondent is not an illiterate and she borrowed

an amount of Rs.25,00,00/- from Sri Ram City Union Finance Ltd.,

Eluru on 15.12.2012 by mortgaging the plaint schedule property

and to clear the said debt the respondent approached the

appellants and the respondent is aware of the transaction.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that

the Court below wrongly held that prima facie respondent is

absolute owner and balance of convenience is in her favour, basing

on the land tax, current bill and other taxes etc paid by the

respondent prior to the execution of the said agreement of sale-

cum-General Power of Attorney without considering the registered

sale agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated

15.09.2014, which was executed by the respondent/plaintiff in

favour of the 1st appellant, hence, prayed to set aside the

impugned order, dated 04.11.2015, passed in I.A.No.616 of 2015

in O.S.No.118 of 2015 on the file of the learned VII Additional

District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru and to allow the

appeal.

7. Per contra, Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for

the respondent, submitted that the Court below passed the

impugned order, dated 04.11.2015, on merits by duly taking into

consideration of the facts and material available on record and

hence, there is no need to interfere with the said impugned order

that too at this length of time and requested to dismiss the appeal.

8. On perusal of the record and on the submissions made by

the learned counsel, it is clearly shows that the issues involved in

the appeal with regard to the validity of the documents will be

decided during the course of trial. The present appeal is filed in the

year 2016 and injunction is subsisting in favour of the

plaintiff/respondent herein all these years and hence, interference

with the said order is not justified at this length of time.

9. Taking consideration of the facts and circumstances of the

case and as the suit is of the year 2015, this Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is dismissed, however, this Court deems it appropriate to

direct the Court below to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.118 of 2015

on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, West

Godavari District, Eluru within a period of six months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order, on its own merits and

uninfluenced by the dismissal of this appeal by this Court. There

shall be no order as to costs.

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

stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

Date : 01.07.2022

SPP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

C.M.A.NO.110 of 2016

Date : 01.07.2022

SPP