Telangana High Court

Shaik Kaleemuddin vs Asia Sulthana And 3 Others on 22 December, 2022

Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                     C.R.P.No.5384 OF 2018
ORDER:

This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment

dated 31.07.2018 in C.M.A.No.1 of 2017, on the file of the

Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the said appeal

filed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein

(defendant Nos.1 to 3), was dismissed, confirming the order dated

13.12.2016 in I.A.No.298 of 2016 in O.S.No.192 of 2016 passed

by the II-Additional Civil Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder the said

application filed by respondent No.l herein-plaintiff, was allowed,

granting temporary injunction.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.192 of 2016

for perpetual injunction against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2

to 4 herein. Pending disposal of the suit, she filed an application

in I.A.No.298 of 2016, whereunder temporary injunction was

granted on 13.12.2016. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1

filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2017 and the same was dismissed confirming

the orders of the trial court granting temporary injunction in favour

of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner and other respondents

vide judgment dated 31.07.2018. Challenging the said judgment,

the present revision is filed.

4. According to respondent No.1 she is the absolute owner

and possessor of the suit schedule land of 72 sq. yards in

Sy.Nos.758 and 759, situated at Bommakal Village of Karimnagar

District, having purchased the same from the original owner

namely Mohd. Fasiuddin through a registered sale deed dated

14.12.2015 and since then she had been in continuous possession

of the same. The vendor of respondent No.1 Ahmed Shamshad

Hussain sold an extent of sold Acs.0-02 Gts., i.e, 242 sq.yds., out

of his Ac.3-00 of land, to one Mr.Fasiuddin under a registered sale

deed dated 26.12.2006. Thereafter, respondent No.1 obtained

permission for construction of house from the Gram Panchayath.

Petitioner (defendant No.1) and respondent Nos.2 to 4 (defendant

Nos.2 to 4) without any right or title over the said land tried to

interfere with her possession and on 30.07.2016, they came to suit

property along with their family members and obstructed the

construction of house and tried to dispossess her.

5. On the other hand, it is the case of petitioner and

respondent Nos.2 to 4 that the vendors' vendor of the petitioner

was having only Acs.2-06 Gts., in Sy.No.759 and later he sold his

entire land to one Ahmed Bin Awaz under a registered sale deed

dated 11.01.1979. One Smt.Challu Shyamala purchased an extent

of Acs.0-16¼ Gts., in Sy.No.758 from the vendors' vendor of

respondent No.1. The said Shyamala sold an extent of 227.06 sq.

yards in Sy.No.758 to Smt.Malan Bee, who is the mother of

petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein, and she constructed a

house therein and towards the western side of the said house, an

area of 53.66 sq. yards is left and Shyamala intended to sell the

same to them. Respondent No.1 was never in possession and

enjoyment of the suit plot.

6. Before the trial Court, Exs.P-1 to P-3 were marked on behalf

of respondent No.1-plaintiff and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked on

behalf of the defendants. On a consideration of the evidence

available on record, the trial Court granted temporary injunction in

favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff, pending disposal of the suit.

Aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 preferred an

appeal. By the impugned judgment, the appellate Court dismissed

the appeal by confirming the order of trial Court granting

temporary injunction. Hence, the present revision is filed by

petitioner-defendant No.1.

7. It appears that respondent No.1-plantiff filed registered sale

deeds Exs.P-1 and P-2 and also produced copy of permission for

construction of house issued by Panchayat Secretary, Bommakal

Gram Panchayat, whereas petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4-

defendants produced Ex.R-1 which is a declaration given by

Shyamala stating that she sold an extent of 53.66 sq. yards in

Sy.No.758 to one Shaik Khaja Kaleemuddin under a notarized

document.

8. In DALAPAT KUMAR V. PRAHLAD SINGH1, the

Hon'ble Apex Court observed that three essentials that need to be

fulfilled while granting injunction viz., prima facie case, balance of

1 (1992) 1 SCC 719

convenience and irreparable loss. At para No.4, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held as under:

"Order 39 Rule 1(c) provides that temporary injunction may be granted where, in any suit, it is proved by the affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing ... or dispossession of the plaintiff or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Law Commission clause (c) was brought on statute by Section 86(i)(b) of the Amending Act 104 of 1976 with effect from February 1, 1977. Earlier thereto there was no express power except the inherent power under Section 151 CPC to grant ad interim injunction against dispossession. Rule 1 primarily concerned with the preservation of the property in dispute till legal rights are adjudicated. Injunction is a judicial process by which a party is required to do or to refrain from doing any particular act. It is in the nature of preventive relief to a litigant to prevent future possible injury. In other words, the court, on exercise of the power of granting ad interim injunction, is to preserve the subject matter of the suit in the status quo for the time being. It is settled law that the grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. The exercise thereof is subject to the court satisfying that (1) there is a serious disputed question to be tried in the suit and that an act, on the facts before the court, there is probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintiff/defendant; (2) the court's interference is necessary to protect the party from the species of injury. In other words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right would be established at trial; and (3) that the comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would be likely to arise from granting it.

9. Coming to the case on hand, the trial court on due

appreciation of the documentary evidence adduced by both sides in

Exs.P-1 to P-3 and Exs.R-1 and R-2 and keeping in view the

principles stated above, had elaborately discussed the material on

record and granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent

No.1-plaintiff. The appellate court on re-appreciation of the entire

material on record confirmed the orders passed by the trial court by

holding that no illegality was committed by the trial court while

granting temporary injunction.

10. I have carefully perused the orders passed by the courts

below, including the material on record. It appears that respondent

No.1 is in possession of the suit land within the boundaries stated