Karanam Rajasekhar Rao vs Karanam Leela Mohana Rao
2024 Latest Caselaw 10570 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10570 AP
Judgement Date : 22 November, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Karanam Rajasekhar Rao vs Karanam Leela Mohana Rao on 22 November, 2024

Author: R. Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R Raghunandan Rao

 APHC010485522024
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI                           [3206]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

              FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER
                    TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                     PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                    CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2630/2024

Between:

Karanam Rajasekhar Rao                                            ...PETITIONER

                                        AND

Karanam Leela Mohana Rao                                        ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. CH NAGENDRAMU

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

The Court made the following Order:

On 08.11.2024, this Court had directed personal notice to the

respondent.

2. The cover produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that

the notice sent to the respondent was returned with the noting "no such

person in this address". However, the respondent while filing C.M.A.No.10 of

2024, had given the very same address as his place of residence. In such

circumstances, it is difficult to accept that the noting is a genuine reflection of

the address of the respondent being wrong.

3. Heard Ms. C.H. Nagendramu, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner.

4. The petitioner, who is the tenant of the brother of the respondent had

filed O.S.No.24 of 2022 before the learned Prinicipal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet, for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from

evicting him except in accordance with law.

5. The petitioner was also granted a temporary injuction by the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet in I.A.No.78 of 2022 in O.S.No.24

of 2022, dated 21.11.2022.

6. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent is said to have moved

C.M.A.No.10 of 2024 before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Narasaraopet.

7. This Appeal was allowed by the Appellate Court, by a judgment, dated

06.08.2024.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has

came to be filed.

9. The basic facts in the case are that the petitioner claims that he is the

tenant, of the brother of the respondent, and that his possession over the suit

premises is legal. The respondent contends that the property originally

belonged to his mother, who had initially executed a will bequeathing the suit

schedule property to his brother. However, there was a subsequent will under which the property was bequeathed to the respondent while the brother of the

respondent was given another part of the property.

10. The Trial Court took the view that the petitioner was in possession of

the property and he could be evicted only by way of a properly instituted suit

or proceedings and granted an interim injunction. The Appellate Court took

the view that the possession of the petitioner is illegal and as such, no

injunction can be granted or protection of such illegal possession.

11. Prima Facie, the view of the Appellate Court may require

reconsideration as a finding that possession of the petitioner is illegal would

affect the Trial itself. Apart from this, a question of whether injunction can be

granted, even in relation to illegal possession is a matter which requires

further consideration.

12. In these circumstances, there shall be an interim suspension of the