Telangana High Court

Smt. N.Annapurna vs Mr. Kedarmal Agarwal And 6 Others on 26 August, 2022

Bench: P Naveen Rao, G.Radha Rani

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

                                 AND

        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

            Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.204 of 2022

JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani)

        This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the

appellants aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2022 passed in

Interlocutory Application No.671 of 2021 in O.S.No.428 of 2021

on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District,

L.B.Nagar.


2.      The appellants are the petitioners/plaintiffs in O.S.No.428 of

2021.


3.      The parties hereinafter are referred to as per their array

before the trial court.


4.      The petitioners/plaintiffs, represented by their General

Power of Attorney holder, filed a suit for perpetual injunction to

restrain the defendants from trespassing and interfering with their

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also

filed Interlocutory Application No.671 of 2021 seeking temporary
                                 ::2::
                                                        PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J
                                                           cma_204_2022




injunction pending disposal of the main suit. An ex-parte ad

interim injunction was granted in their favour on 01.10.2021.


5.    The General Power of Attorney holder of the petitioners

filed an affidavit in support of the petition filed under Order

XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC r/w Section 151 CPC. The case of

the petitioners, as seen from the affidavit filed by the General

Power of Attorney holder, was that the father of the petitioners by

name V. Krishna Brahmam (Late) was the absolute owner and

possessor of Acs.10.01 gts. in Survey Nos.26 & 31 situated at

Kokapet village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by virtue

of a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.597 of 1966 dated

18-6-1966. His name was reflected in the revenue records. The

father of the petitioners executed a registered General Power of

Attorney in favor of one Mr. P.V Subba Reddy vide Document

No.39 of 1988 dated 1-2-1988. But, later due to suspicion about

the behaviour of the agent/attorney he cancelled the registered

GPA through registered cancellation of General Power of Attorney

bearing document No.245 of 1989 dated 24-5-1989. Thus, the

earlier General Power of Attorney executed by late V. Krishna

Brahmam in favor of P.V Subba Reddy got cancelled and came to
                                ::3::
                                                       PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J
                                                          cma_204_2022




an end. The father of the petitioners, viz., V.Krishna Brahmam,

died on 5-10-1989. The mother of the petitioners also died on

21-3-1999.   The petitioners, as legal heirs of Mr. V. Krishna

Brahmam, succeeded to the said property.


6.    P.V.Subba Reddy on the basis of the earlier General Power

of Attorney dated 1-2-1988 clandestinely got his name recorded as

pattedar in revenue records knowing very well that the earlier

General Power of Attorney was cancelled through registered

cancellation of General Power of Attorney bearing document

No.245 of 1989. Concealing the fact of cancellation of his General

Power of Attorney, Mr. P.V.Subba Reddy in collusion with

respondent Nos.1 & 2 fabricated and forged two sale deeds dated

31-10-1996 bearing document No.3806 of 1996 and 31-7-1997

bearing document No.2072 of 1997 purporting to have conveyed

land admeasuring Ac. 3-00 gts in Sy. No. 31/1/EE-AA/1 and

admeasuring Ac.02-05 gts in Sy. No 31/1/EE-AA/2 in favor of the

respondents 1& 2. The said documents were void as the same were

brought into existence by playing fraud. Mr.P.V.Subba Reddy had

no right/interest to execute the registered sale deeds. The ::4::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

respondents 1 &2 in collusion with the revenue officials tried to

illegally mutate their names on the basis of the void documents.

7. Soon after coming to know about the forged and void sale

deeds as well as illegal entries of the names of respondents 1 &2 in

revenue records, the petitioners challenged the illegal mutation in

favor of respondents 1 & 2 vide Case No. C/2566/2017. On

appreciating the merit in the application filed by the petitioners, the

RDO, Rajendra nagar Mandal, vide order dated 26-5-2018, set

aside the illegal mutation order passed in proceedings No.

D/40/2017 dated 18-7-2017 issued by Tahsildar Gandipet Mandal.

The respondents 1 &2 filed a revision petition under Section 9 of

Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights Act, 1971 vide Case No.

D1/2800/2018. The said revision petition was dismissed by the

Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide order dated 01.02.2019.

R1 & R2 filed a Writ Petition against the said dismissal order, and

the same was pending.

8. The petitioners conveyed Acs.2.12 gts in Sy. No 26/part out

of the total land admeasuring Acs.10.01 gts vide registered sale

deed dated 19-5-2016 vide document No.3640 of 2016. The

petitioners remained to be owners and possessors of the balance ::5::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

land admeasuring Acs.7.29 gts in Sy.No 31 at Kokapet, Rajendra

Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9. On 21-8-2021 at about 11:00 AM, respondents along with

their henchmen tried to trespass and interfere with the petitioner's

possession over the suit property. The petitioners with the help of

their representatives and well wishers restrained the respondents.

The petitioners lodged a police complaint against the respondents

on 21-8-2021. After investigation police Narsingi registered FIR

No. 948 of 2021 against the respondents. Again on 12-9-2021, the

respondents tried to interfere with the petitioners' possession and

enjoyment over the suit property. With great difficulty, the

petitioners succeeded in restraining the respondents.

Apprehending that the respondents were adamant to interfere and

to dispossess them, the petitioners filed the suit and also

interlocutory application.

10. The respondent No.4 filed counter-affidavit denying the

petition averments. He contended about the maintainability of the

suit filed by the petitioners through a self claimed General Power

of Attorney and that the petition was filed abusing the process of

court by arraying a person as respondent No. 1, who expired on ::6::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

22-8-2020, and obtaining ad interim injunction by misleading the

court without filing any document to show their possession as on

the date of filing the petition.

11. He further contended that the General Power of Attorney

was not in subsistence and neither the agent nor the principals were

ever in possession of the suit property. The General Power of

Attorney could not depose the facts which were not to his

knowledge and pointed out several lacunae in the alleged document

of General Power of Attorney. The respondent No. 4 contended

that there was no any publication or intimation to the concerned

Registrar of Kokapet village where the said lands were situated nor

any intimation in writing to the concerned Tahsildar of

Rajendranagar Mandal regarding the cancellation of General Power

of Attorney in favor of Mr.P.V.Subba Reddy by Krishna Brahmam

so as to caution the general public or prospective purchasers. The

cancellation document was created and the same was not acted

upon. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 while purchasing the suit property

gave paper publication on 14-1-1990 in three leading newspapers

intimating and cautioning the general public regard the purchase of

suit property but neither the legal heirs of late Krishna Brahmam ::7::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

nor the alleged General Power of Attorney came with any

objection on the said transaction. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 were

the bona fide purchasers and followed due procedure while

purchasing Acs.5.35 gts of suit property during the years 1996 and

1997 vide document Nos.3801 of 1996 and 2072 of 1997 under

registered instruments. Even after the alleged cancellation,

Mr.P.V.Subba Reddy fought the case on behalf of V.Krishna

Brahmam before the MRO in Case No.B/3976/1988, RDO

Rajendranagar in Appeal file No. 3095 of 1990 dated 2-12-1995

and obtained suitable favorable orders. The petitioner No.3

appeared after 10 years and preferred revision vide Case

D5/4173/99 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy against

Mr.P.V.Subba Reddy, MRO and RDO. But having filed the same,

the petitioner No.3 did not evince any interest. The said appeal was

dismissed on 10-3-2006 and the same attained finality. The orders

passed by MRO and confirmed by RDO became final. The

objection to the General Power of Attorney given by V.Krishna

Brahmam in favor of Mr.P.V.Subba Reddy could not again and

again be challenged and questioned before the revenue officials.

After a lapse of more than 25 years, the law of Acquiescence and ::8::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

Waiver would apply. The petitioners were estopped from

challenging the same.

12. As per the revenue records the right, interest and title was

also created in favor of PV Subba Reddy coupled with General

Power of Attorney, as such the revenue officials recorded his name

as owner and pattedar of the suit property after conducting due

enquiry. The sale deeds executed by Subba Reddy in favor of

respondent Nos.1 & 2 were not challenged before any competent

civil court. The petitioners filed simplicitor injunction suit even

knowing that the respondents acquired title under registered sale

deeds. No relief of declaration was sought for by the petitioners, as

such the present suit was not maintainable. The petitioners and

their alleged General Power of Attorney could not challenge the

title and possession of the respondents under registered documents

after a lapse of more than two and half decades by claiming the

sale deeds as void documents. The petitioners could not have kept

quiet till date if any fraud or forgery was committed without

initiating any penal action.

13. The respondent No.4 further submitted that since the date of

purchase, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and subsequent to the demise ::9::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

of respondent no.1 on 22-8-2020, the respondent no.2 along with

respondent Nos.3 to 5, being legal heirs and sons of deceased

respondent no.1, had been in continuous possession and enjoyment

of the said lands without any interruption or hindrance from any

corner. The respondents developed the said lands by erecting

sheds, servant rooms, watchman room, dug bore well, planted

mango trees and other fruit bearing trees etc. Apart from them, the

respondents were also grazing cows in the said lands numbering

about 20. They also applied and obtained electricity connection in

the said lands in the year 1997 and in the year 2002 vide Consumer

Service Nos.321700387 and 321700614 and were paying

electricity consumption charges as and when demanded by the

concerned authorities. The respondents also acquired bore well

permission from the concerned Tashildar in the year 2015. They

had mortgaged the said lands earlier with Tamil Nadu Mercantile

Bank and thereafter with HDFC Bank and obtained loans. The said

property was also given for development under a registered

instrument to a builder but as he could not proceed with it in time,

as such the same was cancelled. The said acts would clearly show

the continuous possession of the respondents over the suit property.

::10::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

14. The 4th respondent further contended that the petitioners and

their alleged General Power of Attorney had committed fraud upon

the Court by suppressing and not disclosing the various orders

passed by the Revenue Officials and also orders of the High Court

and obtained ex parte orders, and committed cheating, as such, the

said orders should immediately be suspended. He further

contended that petitioners had approached the Trial Court with

unclean hands and there was material suppression of facts on their

part, as such, petitioners were not entitled to claim equitable relief

of injunction; the petitioners were guilty of false and misleading

averments and prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary and

compensatory costs of Rs.10 lakhs by each petitioner to respondent

Nos.2 to 5.

15. Petitioner No.1 filed a reply-affidavit denying the various

contentions raised by the 4th respondent. In the reply-affidavit,

petitioner No.1 contended that the registered General Power of

Attorney in favour of Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy executed by her

father was immediately cancelled vide Document No.245/1989,

dated 24.05.1989, and once the document was registered before the

concerned Sub-Registrar, it itself would serve as notice to public at ::11::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

large; further, the petitioners published a news publication

informing the general public at large about the demise of

Mr.V. Krishna Brahmam (Late) and cautioned about the actions of

Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy in trying to sell the suit schedule property;

and cautioned the public at large not to enter into any conveyance

with respect to the suit schedule property; inspite of the said

caution, the respondents illegally fabricated the registered sale

deeds in their favour only to defeat the legitimate rights of the

petitioners and to grab the suit schedule property; as on the date of

creating the documents in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2,

Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy himself did not possess any kind of right to

execute a deed of conveyance, therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and

2 could not have a legal title or ownership to the suit schedule

property; neither the father of the petitioners nor petitioners had

any knowledge or were informed with regard to the representation

of Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy in revenue proceedings; without the

knowledge of petitioners, with an ulterior motive, Mr. P.V. Subba

Reddy might have represented in various revenue proceedings by

impersonating the petitioners; in the order passed by the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division in Case ::12::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

No.C/2566/2017, dated 26.05.2018, the Revenue Divisional

Officer observed that the Tahsildar, Gandipet had violated the rules

and inserted the name of Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy; they approached

the Court with clean hands and informed the Court about the Writ

Petition filed by the respondents challenging the orders of the Joint

Collector, and that the same was pending; petitioners filed the suit

to seek urgent remedy of perpetual injunction as the respondents

tried to encroach into the property of the petitioners causing

hindrance to their possession, and denied the other averments.

16. Petitioner No.1 further submitted that the Revenue

proceedings or Revenue Records would not confer title and the

petitioners were in possession of the suit schedule property

throughout the Revenue proceedings, and further denied that the

respondents perfected their title through adverse possession, and

reiterated that they had prima facie case in their favour and were

entitled for the equitable relief of injunction.

17. Before the Court below, petitioners got marked Exs.P.1 to

P.11, and the respondents got marked Exs.R.1 to R.23 in their

favour.

::13::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

18. On hearing both the learned counsel on record and on

considering the documents filed by them, the Trial Court dismissed

the petition and vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction order

dated 01.10.2021.

19. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, petitioners herein

filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal contending that the

documents relied upon by the respondents were not valid as the

alleged sale deeds obtained in the name of 1st respondent were

executed by General Power of Attorney holder after the demise of

its executant and the same was proved by Ex.P.1; the Trial Court

erred in vacating the injunction order dated 01.10.2021 basing on

the Exs.R.1 to R.23 including the entries and mutation in the

Revenue Records which were found to be erroneous by the

competent Revenue Authority; the Trial Court ought to have

observed that Ex.R.1 - Electricity Bills, were not pertaining to the

plaint schedule property, and the same were illegal documents; the

documents under Exs.P.1 to P.11, filed by the appellants, were not

properly appreciated; the Trial Court failed to observe that the

father of the appellants, viz., Mr.V. Krishna Brahmam (Late), died

on 15.10.1981, as such, the document under which the respondents ::14::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

were claiming their rights were not valid in the eye of Law and

ought not to have taken into consideration; on a proper perspective

of appreciating the documents, viz., Exs.P.1, P.3, P4, P.6 and P.8

read with Exs.R.1, R.4 and R.5, they would prima facie establish

that the appellants were the absolute owners and possessors of the

property, and the Court below ought not to have dismissed the

petition; and therefore, prayed this Court to allow the Appeal.

20. Heard Mr. S. Laxma Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Rahul Reddy, for the appellants; and

Mr.M. Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

Mr. Pramod Kumar Kedia, for the respondents.

21. Now the point for consideration is "whether the Trial Court

committed any error in dismissing the petition filed by the

petitioners seeking the relief of interim injunction, pending

disposal of the main suit?".

22. The learned counsel for the respondents contended about the

maintainability of the suit as well as the petition by the General

Power of Attorney Holder. Their objections with regard to the

General Power of Attorney filed by the petitioners, dated ::15::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

29.12.2014, are that : (a) the alleged General Power of Attorney

was not executed and signed by all the parties; (b) the General

Power of Attorney document was grossly under-stamped and not

registered. As power to execute the sale deed was granted under it,

the stamp duty was chargeable at par with conveyance; (c) the

General Power of Attorney document was neither notarized nor

properly attested; (d) the deponent had not filed the affidavit of

principals showing the subsistence of the powers granted under it;

(e) the deponent had not got validated the said General Power of

Attorney before the District Registrar of Stamps and Registration

Department by paying the requisite stamp duty and penalty; (f) the

deponent and the executant of the said General Power of Attorney

played fraud before the Court by not paying the requisite stamp

duty and penalty which would run into crores of rupees; (g) the

petitioners cheated the Government in not paying the stamp duty

and penalty of Rs.2,15,05,000/- on the basis of the land value as

shown in the concerned Sub-Registrar which was amounting to

Rs.1,95,00,000/- per acre; (h) the General Power of Attorney

would not disclose having any personal knowledge; (i) the General

Power of Attorney document would show different boundaries of ::16::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

suit property contradicting with the plaint schedule property; (j) the

General Power of Attorney and principals could not maintain the

present petition and suit without complying with the provisions of

Rules 32 and 33 of Civil Rules of Practice; and (k) it was

obligatory and mandatory on the Court where such document was

presented to impound and collect requisite stamp duty and penalty

as per Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

23. The Court below observed that there was no reply with

regard to lapses of giving the alleged General Power of Attorney

by one petitioner out of the three petitioners. Only the 3rd

petitioner, i.e., Smt. V. Sri Lakshmi executed the alleged General

Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. T. Venkateshwarlu, but the 1st

petitioner, Smt. N.Annapurna and Smt. V.Anjani, 2nd petitioner,

had not signed the said General Power of Attorney. The reply-

affidavit filed by the petitioners denying the averments made in the

counter-affidavit filed by the respondents was signed by the 1st

petitioner, viz., Smt. N. Annapurna only. The said ambiguity was

not explained by the petitioners' counsel. He had not explained as

to how the petition was filed by the General Power of Attorney

holder, Mr. T. Venkateshwarlu, on behalf of three petitioners, who ::17::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

had not executed the General Power of Attorney in his favour and

the subsequent conduct of the 1st petitioner who filed reply-

affidavit without obtaining any permission or initiating any steps

for discharging the General Power of Attorney. The same would

lead to suspicion as to the maintainability of the petition itself.

24. No arguments are submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellants on the above aspect which would go to the root of the

case as well as the maintainability of the petition.

25. Coming to the merits of the petition, to make out a case for

grant of interim injunction, the petitioners must first satisfy the

Court that they had a prima facie case, and balance of convenience

was in their favour; and that they would suffer irreparable loss or

injury if injunction was not granted to them. To make out a prima

facie case, the petitioners must, first and foremost, establish their

possession over the petition schedule property as on the date of

filing of the suit by adducing necessary oral and documentary

evidence.

26. The petitioners got filed Exs.P.1 to P.11, viz., : (a) Ex.P.1 is

the Death Certificate of Mr.V. Krishna Brahmam (Late), father of ::18::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

the petitioners; (b) Ex.P.2 is the General Power of Attorney

Document bearing No.39/1988 executed by the Mr.V. Krishna

Brahmam (Late) in favour of Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy, the vendor of

the respondents; (c) Ex.P.3 is the General Power of Attorney

cancellation Document No.245/1989, dated 24.05.1989; (d) Ex.P.4

is the proceedings of the Joint Collector, dated 02.02.2019; (e)

Ex.P.5 is the F.I.R. in Crime No.1411/2021, dated 23.11.2021; (f)

Ex.P.6 is a set of 8 positive photographs; (g) Ex.P.7 is the Certified

Copy of the Sale Deed bearing Document No.3640/2016, dated

19.05.2016; (h) Ex.P.8 is the Certified Copy of cancellation of the

Development Agreement - cum - General Power of Attorney,

bearing Document No.3356/2018, dated 10.04.2018; (i) Ex.P.9 is

the Certified Copy of order in Case No.D/732/2021, dated

25.06.2021; (j) Ex.P.10 is the Certified Copy of Order passed in

Writ Petition No.27570 of 2021, dated 02.11.2021; and (k) Ex.P.11

is a Compact Disc (C.D.).

27. As observed by the Trial Court, none of the above

documents are in respect of proof of possession of the petitioners

over the petition schedule property and considering the nature of

the petition schedule property being a landed property, the ::19::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

photographs Ex.P.6 are not satisfactory proof of as to the

possession of the petitioners for the petition schedule property.

28. On the other hand, the documents filed by the respondents

marked as Exs.R.4 and R.5, i.e., certified copy of the Sale Deed

bearing Document No.3806/1996, dated 31.10.1996 and Certified

Copy of Sale Deed bearing Document No.2072/1997, dated

31.07.1997, prima facie prove the title of respondent Nos.1 and 2

to the schedule property to an extent of Acs.4.30 gts. and Acs.1.05

gts. in Survey No.31/1 of Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District. Similarly, Exs.R.6 to R.11, copies of

Adangal Pahanies for the year 1995-96 to 2001-02, would show

that Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy, the vendor of the respondents, was in

possession of the property during the year 1995-96 and

subsequently the names of respondent Nos.1 and 2 were

incorporated in the possessory column in Survey No.31/1 for an

extent of Acs.5.34 gts. Likewise, Ex.R.15, certified copy of the

Adangal Pahani for the land situated in Survey No.31/1/EA/1,

dated 05.08.2017, would show the name of respondent Nos.1 and 2

as pattedar and possessors in an extent of Acs.2.5 gts. in Survey

No.31/1EA/2; Ex.R.1 is a set of electricity bills (7 in number).

::20::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

They would show that the service connection was in the name of 1st

respondent in Survey No.31/1 of Kokapet Village, Gandipet

Mandal under 'Domestic' category. The said electricity bills would

relate to the years 2020 and 2021. All these documents, prima

facie, would prove the title and possession of the respondent Nos.1

and 2 in the schedule property by the date of filing the suit.

29. The counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent would

disclose the various orders / proceedings given by the Revenue

Officials. It would disclose that the 3rd petitioner filed Appeal

No.D5/4173/1999 challenging the orders passed in proceedings

No.3095/90, dated 02.12.1995 before the Joint Collector, Ranga

Reddy District, and the same was dismissed by the Joint Collector

vide order dated 10.03.2006 and the said proceedings had attained

finality. Subsequently, 3rd petitioner filed another application

before the Dy. Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal in

case No.D/1005/2013 seeking correction of entries in the Revenue

Records for the period 1996-97 and to incorporate the names of the

legal heirs of Mr.V. Krishna Brahmam (Late) in respect of land

totally admeasuring Acs.10.1 gts. in Survey Nos.26 and 31. But,

the respondents were not arrayed as parties to the said case. The ::21::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

respondent Nos.1 and 2, after coming to know about the

application filed by the 3rd petitioner, sought to implead themselves

as parties to the said proceedings and contested the said case. The

Dy. Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, vide order

dated 21.12.2013 observed that the Tahsildar was not competent

for making correction of entries in the Pahanies beyond one year,

and as the petitioners were seeking correction of Revenue Records

relating to the years 1996-97 onwards, they were directed to

approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievance.

30. It was further submitted that the Joint Collector - II,

Rajendranagar Mandal, on representation of the 3rd petitioner, had

taken up suo moto revision in File No.D1/2755/2014 for enquiry

under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights Act, 1971 for

correction of entries in the Pahanies for the year 1996-97 in respect

of land in Survey Nos.26 & 31 in an extent of Acs.10.1 gts.

situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District and on after hearing the arguments of both sides, observed

that any person objecting to a transfer which was effected through

a sale deed alleging forgery and fabrication, had to institute a civil

suit. The jurisdiction of the Revenue authorities was limited to ::22::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

recognising transfers and would not embark on disputes relating to

title of property. As the revision petitioners were requesting for

grant of succession and correction of entries in the Revenue

Records from 1996-97 onwards, the said Court was not competent

to grant succession after a long period, and that the Civil Court

alone was competent, and directed the parties to approach the

competent Civil Court; and after adjudication by the competent

Civil Court, advised them to approach the Revenue Authorities for

relief, if any.

31. Even though the Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal and the Joint

Collector made observations directing the petitioners to approach

the competent Civil Court, the petitioners failed to file any suit

seeking for cancellation of the registered sale deeds of respondent

Nos.1 and 2 and that the same were not binding upon them.

32. The respondents applied for mutation of their names in

respect of the land in Survey No.31/1 before the Tahsildar,

Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the Tahsildar passed

orders vide proceedings No.D/40/2017, dated 18.07.2017, mutating

the names of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the Revenue Records as

pattedars with respect to land forming part of Survey Nos.31/1/EE-

::23::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

AA/1 and 31/1/EE-AA/2, total admeasuring Acs.5.15 gts., situated

at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Aggrieved by the said orders, 3rd petitioner once again preferred

appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar

Mandal vide Case No.C/2566/2017 against the said mutation

proceedings effected in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The

Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders in favour of petitioners.

Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred

appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide

D1/2800/2018, and the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District

passed orders suspending the orders passed by the Revenue

Divisional Officer on 04.01.2018. On receipt of notice of the said

orders, the 3rd petitioner challenged the said orders before this

Court by filing Writ Petition No.28836 of 2018. Despite the notice

of interim stay granted by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy

District in Case No.D/2800/18 and further stay of the said order by

this Court in Writ Petition No.28836/2018, the Tahsildar, Gandipet

Mandal passed orders in Case No.918/2018, dated 06.09.2018.

Aggrieved thereby, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred Writ

Petition No.33643 of 2019, and interim orders are passed therein ::24::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

by this Court on 18.09.2018 granting interim suspension of the

orders passed by the Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal and directed the

respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioners

(respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) until further orders. The said Writ

Petition is reported to be still pending before the High Court for

adjudication, and the interim orders passed therein are still

subsisting as on to-day. Thereafter, the Joint Collector passed

orders in Revision D1/2800/2018, dated 02.02.2019, confirming

the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional officer, Rajendranagar

Mandal. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed

Writ Petition No.3423 of 2019 and the said Writ Petition is also

still pending for adjudication. Ex.R.12 is the proceedings of the

Dy. Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District vide proceedings No.D/214/15, dated 07.05.2015. Ex.R.13

is the Certified Copy of orders in C/3095/1990, dated 02.12.1995

issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division,

Ranga Reddy District at Domalguda, Hyderabad. Ex.R.14 is the

certified copy of order in case No.D1/2735/2014, dated

22.08.2015, passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District.

::25::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

Ex.R.16 is the certified copy of orders passed in Writ Petition

No.33643/2018, dated 18.09.2018.

33. From the above documents, it can be seen that the petitioners

herein had suppressed and not disclosed the various orders passed

by the Revenue Officials and also the orders passed by this Court

in their petition. It was the respondents who gave all the details in

their counter-affidavit supported by the documents before the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Joint Collector and the High Court.

34. A person approaching the Court seeking equitable relief of

injunction must make an honest disclosure of all the material facts

which include both for and against him. Any suppression of

material facts would disentitle the person from claiming the

equitable relief.

35. In the instant case, as rightly observed by the Trial Court, no

explanation was given by the petitioners as to non-disclosure of the

said proceedings in their petition. The same would amount to

suppression of material facts and, as such, they were not entitled to

the equitable relief of injunction.

::26::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

36. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that people who

approach the Court for relief are under a contract with the Court

that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court

and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the

court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.

37. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mandali Ranganna vs.

T. Ramachandra2, wherein the Apex Court held as follows :

"18. While considering an application for grant of injunction, the Court will not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto, viz., existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties.

Grant of injunction is an equitable relief. A person who had kept quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the properties exclusively, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of injunction. The Court will not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one. We are not however, oblivious of the fact that grant or refusal of injunction has serious consequence depending upon the nature thereof. The Courts dealing with such matters must make all

(2013) 2 S.C.C. 398

AIR 2008 S.C. 2291 ::27::

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J cma_204_2022

endeavours to protect the interest of the parties. For the said purpose, application of mind on the part of the Courts is imperative. Contentions raised by the parties must be determined objectively."

38. In the present case also, the petitioners kept quiet for a long

time, i.e., for more than two-and-a-half decades. Their contention

that the vendor of respondents, i.e, Mr. P.V. Subba Reddy himself

was not having title over the suit schedule property, and as such, he

could not have conferred title to the respondents, cannot be gone

into in this petition or appeal. The scope of enquiry in this petition

for temporary injunction is limited only as to who is in possession

of the property. The validity of the title documents executed by

P.V. Subba Reddy after the cancellation of General Power of

Attorney by Mr.V. Krishna Brahman (Late), father of the

petitioners, cannot be gone into in this petition or appeal. Revenue

Records do not confer title, but they are the prima facie documents