Veeramallu Satyanarayana vs Smt. Tadigadapa Venkata Ramana
2024 Latest Caselaw 9659 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Veeramallu Satyanarayana vs Smt. Tadigadapa Venkata Ramana on 25 October, 2024

APHC010098692013
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                               PRADESH
                                                       [3460]
                            AT AMARAVATI
                     (Special Original Jurisdiction)

        FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER
            TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                           PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4514/2013

Between:

Veeramallu Satyanarayana                        ...PETITIONER

                              AND

Smt Tadigadapa Venkata Ramana                 ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. TURAGA SAI SURYA

Counsel for the Respondent:

   1. M L ALI

The Court made the following:
                                  2




        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

                     C.R.P.No.4514 of 2013
ORDER:

The present revision is filed against the order dated

25.04.2013 in E.P.No.114 of 2011 in O.S.No.540 of 2008 passed

by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari

District passed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Petitioner is the defendant/judgment debtor. The suit

was filed in the year 2008 by the Respondent/decree holder

seeking for permanent injunction against the Petitioner from

interfering with the suit schedule property. The said suit was

decreed ex parte on 30.09.2009. Thereafter, the

Respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.114 of 2011 under Order

21 Rule 32 C.P.C., alleging violation of the decree of permanent

injunction by the Petitioner/defendant.

3. On receipt of notice, the Petitioner/defendant filed counter

contending that he had not intentionally disobeyed the orders of

the Hon'ble Court as he had no knowledge about the ex parte

decree. It was further contended that the Petitioner/ judgment

debtor's wife along with others were granted patta in the year

January, 2008 with possession and as such, they continued to

remain in possession of the suit schedule property.

4. It was pleaded that W.P.No.1938 of 2008 was filed before

this Court by some third parties questioning the cancellation of

assignment of pattas dated 20.6.1999 in Sy.No.9/4 of

T.Gokavaram Village, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District

and this Court had passed interim order on 04.02.2008 restraining

the Respondents i.e. the District Collector and others from

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

assigned land in favour of the Petitioners therein without due

process of law and notice. It was pleaded that in the said writ

petition, the Tahsildar of Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District

had filed counter pleading that the pattas said to have been

issued on 20.06.1999 in favour of the Petitioners therein by the

then Mandal Revenue Officer are forged and fabricated.

5. It was also contended at para 10 of the counter of the

Tahsildar in the writ petition that even before the interim order in

W.P.No.1938 of 2008 was passed as mentioned above, the

pattas in the said survey number were distributed to eligible

beneficiaries after due enquiry on 19.01.2008 and that the said

beneficiaries are in possession of their respective extents in

Sy.No.9/4 of T.Gokavaram Village, Pedavegi Mandal, West

Godavari District.

6. The Petitioner/defendant also contended that the assignees

of land in January, 2008 had formed into a society by name

Maganti Ravindranadh Chowdary Farmers Welfare Society and

filed W.P.No.21214 of 2008 before this Court seeking to declare

the action of the Respondents in interfering with the possession

and enjoyment of land assigned to 135 members as illegal and

arbitrary. This Court on 26.09.2008 directed that status quo as on

date shall be maintained pending further orders after taking note

of the interim order of this Court in W.P.No.1938 of 2008.

7. In the enquiry before the Trial Court, P.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined on behalf of the Respondent/decree holder and R.W.s1

to 3 were examined on behalf of the Petitioner/defendant. The

Petitioner/Defendants also marked Ex.B.1 i.e. D.Form patta dated

19.01.2008 and Ex.B.2 Title deed.

8. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary

evidence and after referring to the writ petitions and the interim

orders granted by this Court held that the Petitioners are not

parties to the W.P.No.1938 of 2008 and W.P.No.21214 of 2008,

and that the Petitioner did not choose to mark the those

documents as exhibits. Further, the trial Court opined that in

execution, it cannot go beyond a decree and allowed the E.P. and

directed arrest warrant against Petitioner/judgment debtor under

Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. Hence, the present revision is filed.

9. Heard Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the

Petitioner.

10. The P.W.1/Respondent/plaintiff had deposed that the

Petitioners are constantly quarreling and trying to interfere with

the plaint schedule property. P.W.2 deposed that Mandal

Revenue Officer had granted patta in favour of P.W.1/decree

holder on 20.06.1999 with regard to petition schedule property

and Petitioner/ judgment debtor is trying to dispossess the

Respondent/ plaintiff from the schedule property. R.W.1/Petitioner

herein deposes that his wife was granted patta in January, 2008

and the same was reiterated by R.W.3.

11. The W.P.No.1938 of 2008 was filed by persons alleging

dispossession from the lands assigned to them on 20.6.1999.The

Respondent/Plaintiff is similarly placed as Writ petitioners in

W.P.No.1938 of 2008 as his claim is also based on patta granted

on 20.06.1999. In the Counter affidavit filed by the Mandal

Revenue Officer in W.P.No.1938 of 2008, it was pleaded that no

patta that were granted in the year 1999 and the copies of patta

therein are forged and fabricated. At paragraph 10 of the counter

affidavit, it was pleaded that on 19.01.2008, pattas were

distributed to the beneficiaries and that they are in possession of

the respective extents.

12. Apart from the stand taken by the Mandal Revenue Officer

in the counter affidavit, This Court in W.P.No.21214 of 2008 filed

by the beneficiaries of patta said to have been granted on

19.06.2008 passed the following order:

'The Petitioner averred that in pursuance of the order said to have been granted in WP.No.1938 of 2008 by this Court, it's possession is sought to be disturbed.

Having considered the averments contained in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner, I am of the view that in the interest of justice, status quo as on today shall be maintained pending further orders. Ordered accordingly.'

sThe said writ petition is still pending before this Court.

13. From the above, it is apparent that there is a serious

dispute with regard to the patta said to have been issued to

Respondent/Plaintiff on 20.06.1999 and his possession over the

scheduled property since January, 2008. On the contrary, there

is no dispute with regard to the genuineness of the patta in favour

of the wife of the petitioner on 20.1.2008 (Ex.B.1), but the dispute

is only with regard to the validity of the patta. In addition to the

above, is the status-quo order of this Court in W.P.No.21214 of

2008 filed by the society of beneficiaries who were granted patta

on 19.01.2008.

14. For a person to be held guilty of violation of the decree of

permanent injunction, the same should be willful and this is

apparent on a reading of the Rule itself. The Order 21 Rule 32

CPC reads as under;

Rule 32(1). Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction.:

Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction] by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both.

15. The highlighted portion of the Rule makes it apparent that

the requirement of willful disobedience is a condition precedent

for exercise of power under this Rule. As the penal consequence

is provided under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, willful violation which is

akin to mens rea needs to be established.

16. The Trial Court did not consider this aspect and without

recording any finding regarding willful violation passed an

impugned order of arrest. Apart from that the trial court ignored

the fact that this court seized the issue with regard to the

genuineness of patta of the Respondent/plaintiff on 20.6.1999

and possession of the Respondent/Plaintiff over the suit schedule

property and the validity of the patta in favor of the wife of the

petitioner in the writ petitions referred supra.

17. Therefore, the orders of the trial Court cannot be sustained

and the civil revision petition is allowed. However, it is left open

to the Respondent//decree holder to file an appropriate

application subject to the outcome of above mentioned Writ

Petitions pending before this Court. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 25.10.2024 KLP