Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Thinnaluri Hari Krishna vs Kcp Ltd on 8 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.120 of 2023
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred under Order 43 Rules
1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, questioning an order of
injunction, dated 15.03.2023, passed by the learned X Additional
District Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District in I.A.No.16 of 2022 in
O.S.No.02 of 2022, , is before this Court for adjudication.
2. Defendants 1 to 4 in the aforesaid suit are the appellants and
the first respondent herein instituted the said suit for declaration of
title and Permanent Injunction. The following is the schedule of the
property mentioned in the plaint:
"Schedule Immovable property filed on behalf of the
plaintiff:
Guntur District-Narasaraopet Regn.Dist-Macherla
SRO- Macherla Town-In D.No.1008/16E (said to be
converted as 1415)-An extent of Ac/2/10-Bounded
on:
East : Government land in Sy.No.1008/16F
South : Plaintiff's land in Sy.No.1009.
West : Land of Gopu Mohanarao.
North : Government land".
AVSS,J & JS,J
Along with the suit, plaintiff-first respondent herein filed I.A.No.16 of
2022 under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 CPC,
seeking temporary injunction to restrain the defendants-appellants
herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiff from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Resisting the said application,
third defendant filed a counter and the defendants 1, 2 and 4 adopted
the same.
3. In order to substantiate its case, plaintiff-first respondent herein
filed Exs.P1 to P12 and, on behalf of the defendants, Exs.R1 to R7
were filed.
4. The learned X Additional District Judge vide the impugned
order, dated 15.03.2023, allowed the I.A., granting temporary
injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants 1 to 4
from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Hence, the present appeal
under the provisions of Order 43 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, questioning the
said order of interim injunction, dated 20.03.2023.
5. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the
defendants-appellants, and Sri K.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the
plaintiff-first respondent herein, apart from perusing the entire
material available on record.
AVSS,J & JS,J
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the order
impugned in the present appeal is highly erroneous, contrary to law
and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the learned Additional District Judge grossly
erred in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff-first respondent
herein and against the defendants-appellants herein as the plaintiff-
first respondent herein failed to establish the existence of the
necessary ingredients i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience in
its favour and irreparable loss in the event of not granting the order of
injunction; that the plaintiff did not file any document which shows its
possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property; that, as
the documents, on which the plaintiff-first respondent places reliance,
do not contain the boundaries for the properties, the learned
Additional District Judge grossly erred in granting injunction on the
basis of such documents; that the reasons assigned by the learned
Additional District Judge are neither sustainable nor tenable in the
eye of law.
7. To bolster his submissions and contentions, learned counsel for
the defendants-appellants places reliance on the following judgments:
1. (2006) 5 SCC 282.
2. (2002) 5 SCC 760.
3. (2020) 19 SCC 119.
AVSS,J & JS,J
8. On the contrary, strongly resisting the appeal, learned counsel
for the plaintiff-first respondent herein contends that there is no error
nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned order and, in the
absence of the same, the impugned order is not amenable for any
correction by this Court; that the documents made available by the
plaintiff-first respondent herein clearly and clinchingly demonstrate
the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the subject
property; that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants
that the learned Judge grossly erred in granting injunction, in the
absence of boundaries in Exs.P1 and P2-documents, is neither
sustainable nor tenable; that having regard to the valid and
convincing reasons assigned by the learned Additional District Judge,
the impugned order cannot be faulted; that the order of injunction has
been in existence in favour of the plaintiff for quite a long time, as
such, the same deserves to be continued pending the suit proceedings.
9. In the above background, now the issues that emerge for
consideration of this Court in the present appeal are:
1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the impugned order is sustainable and
tenable? and
2. Whether the questioned order warrants any
interference of this Court under the provisions of
Order 43 Rule 1 CPC?
AVSS,J & JS,J
10. According to the plaintiff-first respondent herein, the subject
property originally belonged to one Sri Upputholla Kasaiah, S/o
Venkaiah and he sold the said property and executed Ex.P1-Sale deed,
dated 19.09.1958, in favour of one Sri Anumolu Krishna Vardhanarao,
who was the then Plant Manager of the plaintiff-company, in his
individual capacity, and, subsequently, Ex.P2-Registered Rectification
deed, dated 05.12.1958, was executed, inserting the name of the
plaintiff-company in the place of the said person in the vendee column
of Ex.P1-Sale Deed, dated 19.09.1958. It is also the case of the
plaintiff that its vendor-Sri Upputholla Kasaiah purchased the subject
property from one Sri Upputholla Venkataiah vide Ex.P3-Registered
Sale deed, dated 31.10.1924.
11. On the other hand, the case of the defendants-appellants herein
is that once Smt.Boya Venkamma and her husband-Sri Boya Konda
Reddy purchased the subject property of Ac.2.04 cents in Sy.No.1415
by way of Ex.P6-Registered Sale deed, dated 20.09.1988, from the wife
and children of Sri Upputholla Kasaiah @ Kasi gadu and, thereafter,
the defendants 1 and 2, who are the legal representatives of
Sri Upputholla Venkataiah, sold an extent of Ac.1.04 cents vide
Exs.R1 and R2-Registered Sale deeds, dated 24.11.2021, in favour of
the defendants 3 and 4, who are the appellant Nos.3 and 4 herein.
Apart from the above said documents, in order to show their
AVSS,J & JS,J
possession in respect of the subject property, defendants-appellants
herein filed Exs.R3 to R7-documents. Exs.R3 and R4-documents are
the Certified Copies of 1B Namuna (ROR) obtained from Mee Seva.
Ex.R5 is the certified copy of Pattadar Adangal-Pahani copy obtained
from Mee Seva. The fact remains that the said Exs.R3 to R5 were
obtained by the defendants on 05.01.2022 and the reality remains
that the suit came to be instituted on 06.01.2022. The basic fact
remains that both the parties are tracing out their respective title and
right over the property from a common source i.e., Sri Upputholla
Kasaiah.
12. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the link
document i.e., Ex.P3-Registered Sale Deed, dated 31.10.1924, through
which Sri Upputholla Kasaiah purchased the subject property from
one Sri Upputholla Venkataiah. A copy of the aforesaid document is
placed on record. The said document, dated 31.10.1924, executed in
favour of Sri Upputholla Kasaiah also does not contain any
boundaries. It is required to be noted that, except the aforesaid
property covered by Ex.P3, Sri Upputholla Kasaiah did not have any
other property in the subject Survey Number. Yet another objection,
taken by the defendants, is that they are absolute owners of the land
in Sy.No.1415 and the document sought to be pressed into service by
the plaintiff shows Sy.No.1008/16 only but not Sy.No.1415. In this
AVSS,J & JS,J
context, it may be appropriate to refer to the documents available on
record.
13. Even according to the proceedings of the Collector & District
Magistrate bearing D.D.No.330/2020 E5, which was an enclosure to
Exs.R1 and R2, Sy.No.1008/16E would correspond to Sy.No.1415.
Ex.P9-document, dated 30.12.2021, also demonstrates the said
aspect. Ex.P10-Adangal shows the existence of the land of the
plaintiff-first respondent herein. In fact, the learned Additional District
Judge, after extensively and elaborately considering all the above
documents and the material available on record and while recording a
finding that the revenue records do not confer any title and the same
cannot be treated as documents of title and also while observing that
the photographs filed by the plaintiff show the old poles and the
Board wherein the name of the plaintiff company has been inscribed,
granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants-appellants herein. It is also required to be noted that the
documents filed by the plaintiff prima facie show the right of the
plaintiff over the subject property. It is also required to be noted that
there is no denial, in fact, in the written statement or in the counter
filed in Interlocutory Application about the purchase of the subject
property by the plaintiff. It is also significant to note that, in the
instant case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-first
AVSS,J & JS,J
respondent, ex parte status quo order was initially granted in favour of
the plaintiff-first respondent herein on 11.02.2022 and the same
continued till the disposal of the I.A. and the passing of the order
under challenge.
14. In view of the above reasons and having regard to the material
available on record, this Court is not inclined to meddle with the well-
articulated order passed by the learned Judge.
15. Having regard to the above reasons; the reasons assigned by the
learned Additional District Judge and in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case of the present case, the judgments on which
the learned counsel for the appellants seeks to place reliance would
not render any assistance to the case of the appellants herein.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________
A.V.SESHA SAI,J
________________________
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J
08th January, 2024.
Tsy
