Vuppalapati Ramesh vs T.Narayan Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 5039 Tel

        THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
                          AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

      CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.438 OF 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)

      This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of

CPC, is filed by the appellant/plaintiff No.3, challenging the order,

dated 29.07.2022, passed in I.A.No.98 of 2020 in O.S.No.8 of

2020 by the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Secunderabad, whereby, the subject application filed by the

appellant/plaintiff No.3 and respondent Nos.8 and 9 herein/plaintiff

Nos.1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking the

relief of temporary injunction restraining the respondent Nos.1 to 7

herein/defendants, their agents etc., from interfering with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule

property, pending disposal of the suit, was dismissed.

2. We have heard the submissions of Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao,

learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri V.Rohit, learned counsel

for the appellant/plaintiff No.3, Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan,

learned senior counsel, appearing for Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy,

learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 7/defendants and

perused the record.

                                       2                        Dr.SA,J & NBK,J
                                                             CMA No.438 of 2022

3. For convenience of discussion, the parties are hereinafter

referred to, as per their array in the subject I.A.No.98 of 2020

before the Court below.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff

No.3 would contend that the findings recorded and the conclusions

reached by the Court below are perverse and contrary to the

settled legal position in relation to grant of temporary injunction

order, pending disposal of the suit. The subject suit in O.S.No.8 of

2020 was filed on 27.01.2020 to declare that the registered sale

deeds bearing document Nos.2785/2007 dated 13.12.2007,

2885/2007 dated 31.12.2007, 2814/2007 dated 19.12.2007,

2750/2007 dated 10.12.2007, 2789/2007 dated 14.12.2007 and

2817/2007 dated 19.12.2007 executed by late V.Ravi Raju in

favour of defendant Nos.1 to 6 respectively are not binding on the

plaintiffs and to grant perpetual injunction restraining the

defendant Nos.1 to 7, their agents, supporter, henchmen, legal

heirs etc., or any other persons from interfering with peaceful

possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over the suit schedule

property in any manner without following due course of law.

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed several

documents to show that they have lawful title and possession over

the suit schedule land. There are no documents to show that the 3 Dr.SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.438 of 2022

defendants are having lawful title and possession over the suit

schedule land. The defendants are claiming title from one V.Ravi

Raju, who is none other than the brother of the plaintiffs.

However, V.Ravi Raju has no absolute right to alienate the suit

schedule land. The sale deeds executed by said V.Ravi Raju in

favour of the defendants are not supported by any consideration

and no possession was delivered under those sale deeds.

Mr.V.Ravi Raju even filed suits in O.S.Nos.180, 181, 182, 183, 184

and 192 before the Court below against the defendant Nos.1 to 6

for cancellation of those sale deeds on the ground that they were

obtained fraudulently without paying sale consideration. However,

the said suits were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, V.Ravi Raju

preferred appeals in CCCA Nos.174/2018, 175/2018, 181/2018,

184/2018, 192/2018 and 195/2018 before this Court, which are

pending before this Court. Furthermore, in Execution Application,

the Court concerned held that the plaintiffs are in joint possession

and enjoyment of the subject property admeasuring 5716.64

square yards. There are several documents to the credit of the

plaintiffs to substantiate their lawful ownership and possession

over the suit schedule land. Though the plaintiffs have made out

prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and the balance of

convenience is in their favour and established that they would 4 Dr.SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.438 of 2022

suffer irreparable injury if injunction is not granted in their favour,

the Court below, without properly appreciating the facts and the

legal position obtaining, erroneously dismissed the subject

application and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal as prayed

for.

5. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein/defendants would submit that in the

appeals preferred by V.Ravi Raju against the dismissal of the suits

filed by him, this Court did not grant any interim relief in favour of

the plaintiffs. There are registered sale deeds to the credit of the

defendants in respect of 2104 square yards out of the suit

schedule land admeasuring 5716.64 square yards. Even in the

suits filed by V.Ravi Raju, he has not denied the alienation made

by him in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 6. He admitted the

averments of the sale deeds. In fact, V.Raju Raju, during his life

time, was bequeathed the suit schedule land by way of a Will

Deed, dated 06.06.1991, by his father V.Kumara Swamy. V.Ravi

Raju died on 15.02.2019. He was the absolute owner and

possessor of the suit schedule land and he conveyed lawful title

and possession of the same in favour of the defendants under

registered sale deeds. The property covered by the sale deeds

marked as Exs.R3 to R8 is open land, i.e., house plots and the 5 Dr.SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.438 of 2022

defendants are in continuous possession and ownership of the

same from the date of purchase, as indicated in the

aforementioned registered sale deeds. The plaintiffs neither made

out a prima facie case to grant interim injunction in their favour

nor established that balance of convenience is in their favour. The

Court below, having meticulously analysed the evidence on record,

arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to make out a

prima facie case to grant interim injunction and consequently,

dismissed the subject application. The Court below is justified

arriving at the said conclusion. There are no circumstances to

interfere with the order under challenge and ultimately prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

6. In view of the above rival submissions, the points that arise

for determination in this appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the appellant/plaintiff No.3 has made out a prima facie case to grant interim injunction in his favour?

2. Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant/plaintiff No.3 to grant the relief sought in the subject I.A.No.98 of 2020 in O.S.No.8 of 2020?

3. Whether irreparable injury would be caused to the appellant/plaintiff No.3 in the event of refusal to grant injunction?

                                         6                        Dr.SA,J & NBK,J
                                                               CMA No.438 of 2022

4. Whether the order and decretal order of the Court below impugned in this appeal are liable to be set aside?

5. To what relief?

POINTS:

7. Ordinarily, the three main principles which govern the grant

or refusal of injunction are (a) prima facie case; (b) balance of

convenience; and, (c) irreparable injury. In grant and refusal of

injunction, pleadings and documents play vital role. In the broad

category of prima facie case, it is imperative for the Court to

carefully analyse the pleadings and the documents on record and

only on that basis the Court must adjudge the existence or

otherwise of a prima facie case. The Court while granting or

refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial

discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or

injury which is likely to be caused to the plaintiffs, if the injunction

is refused and compare it with that it is likely to be caused to the

other side if the injunction is granted. Only on weighing

competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury, an

injunction would be granted. The Court should not interfere only

because the property is a very valuable one. In dealing with such

matters, the Court must make all endeavours to protect the 7 Dr.SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.438 of 2022

interest of the parties by balancing the conveniences and

inconveniences. In addition to the basic principles, temporary

injunction, being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such

relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free

from blame and he approaches the Court with clean hands.

8. In the instant case, there are sale deeds, as indicated above,

under Exs.R3 to R8, which demonstrate that the defendants have

purchased a part of the suit schedule land from the brother of the

plaintiffs, i.e., V.Ravi Raju. Mr.V.Ravi Raju also had not denied the

execution and registration of sale deeds in favour of defendant

Nos.1 to 6, in the aforementioned suits filed by him before the

Court below. His contention in the aforementioned suits filed by

him before the Court below was only that sale consideration was

not paid and that the sale deeds were obtained by playing fraud

and coercion. The said contention was negated by the Court below

vide separate orders and decrees dated 09.04.2018, passed in

O.S.Nos.181 and 183 of 2010, marked as Exs.R1 and R2

respectively, holding that the sale deeds were not executed by

coercion or without payment of consideration and the sale deed

was acted upon. Further, aggrieved by the dismissal of the

aforementioned suits by the Court below, V.Ravi Raju preferred

appeals before this Court vide CCCA Nos.174/2018, 175/2018, 8 Dr.SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.438 of 2022

181/2018, 184/2018, 192/2018 and 195/2018, which are pending

before this Court, and he was unsuccessful in obtaining any interim

order in the said appeals during his life time.

9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs contended

that the plaintiffs were living at different places and therefore, they

were not aware of filing of the aforementioned appeals before this

Court by their brother V.Ravi Raju and that after the death of their

brother only, the defendants started interfering with their

possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land due to

which they are constrained to file the subject suit in O.S.No.8 of

2020 before the Court below along with the subject interlocutory

application. It is pertinent to state that so far, the plaintiffs have

not challenged the Will Deed, dated 06.06.1991, executed by the

father of the plaintiffs in favour of their brother V.Ravi Raju

bequeathing the suit schedule land. The sale deeds under Exs.R3

to R8 were executed by V.Ravi Raju in favour of the defendant

Nos.1 to 6 in the year 2007 and the plaintiffs filed the subject suit

in the year 2020 after the demise of V.Ravi Raju, contending that

after the demise of V.Ravi Raju, the defendants started interfering

with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit

schedule land. Hence, it is difficult to sustain the said contention

of the learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff No.3. The 9 Dr.SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.438 of 2022

said aspect is required to be determined after full-fledged trial of

the subject suit in O.S.No.8 of 2020. As there are registered sale

deeds in favour of the defendant Nos.1 to 6 executed and

registered by the brother of the plaintiffs V.Ravi Raju during his life

time, it cannot be held that the appellant/plaintiff No.3 has made

out a prima facie case to grant interim injunction in his favour.

10. Learned senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff No.3 also

contended that the Court below, having granted ex parte interim

injunction on 31.01.2020 protecting the possession of the plaintiffs

over the suit schedule land, heard the subject interlocutory

application after a lapse of two and half years and passed the

impugned order dismissing the application, which is totally illegal,

unjust and unsustainable in the eye of law. Mere delay in deciding

the subject application by the Court below cannot be a ground to

vary the impugned order, which is otherwise decided on merits.

Hence, we find no force in the said contention of the learned senior

counsel.

11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff

No.3, taking us through the report, dated 18.07.2021, lodged with

Chilkalguda Police Station by defendant No.2 against the

appellant/plaintiff No.3 and another, contended that there is no

mention in the said report that the defendants are in possession of 10 Dr.SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.438 of 2022

part of the suit schedule land. Here, it is apt to state that the suits

filed by the brother of the plaintiffs V.Ravi Raju, were dismissed by

the Court concerned, vide judgment and decree, dated 09.04.2018

and in the appeals preferred before this Court challenging the

dismissal of the said suits, V.Ravi Raju was unsuccessful in

obtaining any interim order in his favour. Hence, it is also not

appropriate to hold that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit

schedule land. Moreover, the issue as to who is in possession of

the suit schedule land can only be decided after full-fledged trial of

the suit. Furthermore, even the findings recorded by a criminal

court do not have any bearing on the findings recorded by a civil

Court and vice versa, since the standard of proof in criminal

proceedings and civil proceedings is completely different. In view

of the circumstances, the conduct of the plaintiffs is not free from

suspicion and they did not approach the Court below with clean

hands. There is suppression of material facts also.

12. Under these circumstances, we are in agreement with the

finding recorded by the Court below that that the plaintiffs failed to

establish a prima facie case and also the other requirements for

granting temporary injunction order in their favour. When the first

factor, namely, prima facie case, which is sine qua non, is not

satisfied, it follows that the appellant/plaintiff No.3 is not entitled 11 Dr.SA,J & NBK,J CMA No.438 of 2022

to the equitable relief of temporary injunction. The Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal is lacking merits and is liable to be

dismissed.

13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. It

is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the issues/questions that fall for determination in the

subject suit. Hence, the Court below shall dispose of the subject

suit uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove, which

are made for the limited purpose of disposal of this Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

_______________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

12th October, 2022

Note:-

Mark LR Copy.

(B/O) BVV