Nallamothu Seshagiri vs Nallamothu Mohan Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 3635 Tel

             HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.915 of 2021

                           ORDER

1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioners-Judgment

Debtors aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2021 passed in

E.A.No.1 of 2020 in E.P.No.9 of 2020 on the file of the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madhira, whereby the learned

Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent-Decree

Holder seeking police protection to the petition schedule

property.

2. The petitioners herein are the judgment debtors and the

respondent herein is the Decree Holder. For the sake of

convenience, the petitioners herein are referred to as Judgment

Debtors and the respondent herein is referred to as Decree

Holder.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that

their mother was duly allotted the petition schedule property

vide O.S.No.101 of 1987, which is filed for partition against the

respondent herein. They would further assert that even after the

decree in the injunction suit there was clear understanding

between the parties in which the respondent herein

compromised the matter and agreed to abide by the terms of the

partition suit and same was also reduced into writing. He would

also assert that when the respondent herein filed a complaint

before the Police Station, the Police verified the physical

situation and held that there is no necessity for police

protection. He would also assert that the trial Court

misinterpreted the case law and also considered the case law

which are not relevant to the present proceedings and as such

requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

4. O.S.No.448 of 2005 is filed by Nallamothu Mohan Rao

against his sons aged 22 and 19 years as on the date of filing

the suit for an injunction and it was decreed in his favour on

25.07.2017. Thereafter, he filed E.P.No.9 of 2020 for attachment

of the petition schedule properties and for sending the

petitioners herein into civil prison. He stated that the suit was

decreed in his favour and from then onwards he is in possession

and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties till the filing of

the E.P. Telangana Government also issued new ROR-cum-

pattadar pass book in his favour. While the matter stood thus,

on 29.06.2020 the second Judgment Debtor illegally came upon

the petition schedule property and tried to stop the cultivation

and as such he gave complaint in Crime No.109 of 2020 before

the Bonakal Police Station. He would further submit that he

leased out the property to Yarraboina Nageswar Rao in the said

year. He cultivated and raised cotton crop in July, 2020. On

13.08.2020 again the Judgment Debtors illegally trespassed

into the property and ploughed the standing crop and caused

damages, and thus, he gave complaint before the Bonakal Police

Station, but the Police personnel has not taken any action. The

Judgment Debtors wilfully disobeyed the injunction order, and

therefore, he filed the execution petition. The date of filing the

E.P. is not mentioned. He filed E.A.No.1 of 2020 for providing

police protection to safeguard his property from the hands of the

Judgment Debtors.

5. In a counter filed by the judgment debtors, they stated

that they never disobeyed the orders of the Court. Their mother

filed O.S.No.10 of 1987 representing them for partition against

the decree holder and his parents. It was decreed in her favour.

E.P. schedule property was allotted to the judgment debtors and

they are enjoying it as per the decree. Their mother died in the

year 1989. They would also submit that police aid cannot be

granted for mere asking unless the circumstances warrant.

Since an alternative procedure is available under Order 39 Rule

2A, the application is not maintainable under Section 151 CPC.

There is no evidence on record to show that there is interference

by them.

6. The trial Court held that the order of injunction passed by

the Court is not obeyed by the judgment debtors and the decree

holder is not in a position to enjoy the benefits of the order due

to the illegal acts of the judgment debtors and more over the

decree holder is aged about 64 years and he cannot protect his

legal right without necessary orders of the Court and as such

interference of the Police is absolutely necessary and

accordingly police protection was granted in his favour.

7. The Judgment Debtors filed copy of the order dated

13.04.2011 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Khammam, in which it was stated that O.S.No.10 of 1987 was

decreed on 22.04.1987. The Judgment Debtors' mother died in

the year 1990. There was an understanding between the parties

and as per it the Judgment Debtors were allotted land in an

extent of Ac.6.31 guntas in different survey numbers as

mentioned therein. It was mentioned that the land in an extent

of Ac.1.01 guntas out of Sy.No.86/U situated at Garlapadu

Village was also allotted to them. Injunction suit is filed only in

respect of the above two extents. The Revenue Divisional Officer

in his orders stated that the pattadar passbook and title deed

issued in favour of the Decree Holder to an extent of Ac.2.00

guntas in Sy.No.81/AA1 is liable for cancellation. W.P.No.30099

of 2021 is also filed by the Decree Holder in which it was

observed that police shall provide protection to the subject

properties as and when required.

8. The Judgment Debtors also brought to the notice of the

Court regarding the compromise entered into by the Decree

Holder in their favour on 18.07.1918 after passing of the

injunction order in which he stated that he was pressurized to

file the injunction suit at the instance of his second wife and

family. He gave up all rights over his property and delivered

possession to both of them in equal shares and they can enjoy

the same with full rights and possession. They can also register

the same in their names at their expenses, but later for the

reasons best known to them, the land was not registered in

their favour.

9. When a partition decree was passed in favour of the

mother of the Judgment Debtors in the year 2007 itself, whey it

was not brought to the notice of the Court when the father of

the petitioners filed a suit for injunction is not explained

anywhere. The Judgment Debtors have also not explained as to

why so far they could not register the properties in their names

when the Decree Holder is ready and willing to register as and

when required. The Judgment Debtors would state that only in

view of the undertaking given by the father in their favour, they

have not filed any E.P. against him till 2020. It is also stated

that no appeal was preferred against the judgment in

O.S.No.448 of 2005 dated 25.07.2017 and it attained finality.

The Decree Holder filed E.P.No.9 of 2020 for attachment and

later filed E.A.No.1 of 2020 for police protection. As the

injunction is granted in his favour, he gave complaint against

the Judgment Debtors for their trespass. The trial Court rightly

considered that it is just and reasonable to protect his

possession and granted police aid in his favour and therefore, I

do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Apart from

the above, the Judgment Debtors states that the Decree Holder

is not in possession since thirteen years but the said fact was

not brought to the notice of the Court in a suit filed for

injunction. The suit was decreed in the year 2017 and the E.P.

is filed after three years i.e. in the year 2020.

10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed

confirming the order under challenge.

11. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision

shall also dismissed in the light of this final order.

____________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J.

12th JULY, 2022.

PGS