Telangana High Court

Birru Siddi Ramulu And 4 Others vs Nellutla Sakku Bai on 20 February, 2023

Bench: P.Madhavi Devi

         THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1901 of 2022

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners,

challenging the order dated 30.06.2022 of the Principal District

Judge, Jangoan in C.M.A.No.22 of 2018 confirming the injunction

order dated 18.01.2017granted by the Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Jangoan in I.A.No.249 of 2016.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision

Petition are that the petitioners herein are the defendants in the

Suit in O.S.No.138 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Jangoan. The Suit was filed by the respondent herein

seeking permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff

claimed to have become the owner of the suit schedule land by

virtue of Final Decree of partition passed in O.S.No.7 of 1970 on

29.08.1977. She claimed to have got the schedule land mutated in

her name by making an application to the Tahsildar on 15.11.2006.

Thereafter, vide letter dated 19.08.2010, the District Collector

directed the Tahsildar to implement the final decree by collecting PMD,J C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022

the stamp duty on the partition deed, if it has not already been

collected by the Court under the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar

Passbooks Act, 1971. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, vide proceedings

dated 09.12.2010 has mutated the name of the plaintiff/respondent

herein as pattadar with respect to the suit schedule property.

3. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.138 of 2016 on the file

of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangoan along with

an I.A.No.249 of 2016 for interim injunction. The Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Jangoan vide orders dated 18.01.2017 has granted

interim injunction in favour of the petitioner, by taking into

consideration the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 09.12.2010,

and holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule

property.

4. Challenging the same, the defendants have filed the CMA

before the Court of the Principal District Judge in CMA No.22 of

2018. The appellants before the District Court have brought to the

notice of the District Court that the proceedings of the Tahsildar

dated 09.12.2010 have been challenged before the Revenue

Divisional Officer and vide orders dated 19.04.2017, the PMD,J C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022

proceedings of the Tahsildar have been set aside by the Revenue

Divisional Officer and subsequently, the plaintiff had challenged the

proceedings before the Joint Collector, Jangoan and vide orders

dated 13.04.2018, the Joint Collector had set aside the proceedings

of the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Tahsildar, Jangoan

and had directed the parties to approach the Competent Court and

further directed the Tahsildar, Jangoan to restore the names of the

original pattadars and to record occupant column as per physical

possession and to maintain status quo until final orders are passed

by the Competent Court. It was brought to the notice of the District

Judge that when the orders of the Joint Collector were not

implemented by the Tahsildar, the plaintiff filed W.P.No.2408 of

2019 and vide orders dated 15.02.2019, the High Court directed the

Tahsildar, Jangoan and the Village Revenue Officer, Jangoan to

take necessary steps for implementation of the directions of the

Joint Collector, Jangoan within a period of two (02) weeks from the

date of receipt of the copy of the order of the High Court. It is

submitted that thereafter, in compliance with the directions of the

Joint Collector, the Tahsildar has issued the proceedings PMD,J C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022

No.C/10446/2016 dated 10.07.2019. It is submitted that the

proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 10.07.2019 are without any

basis. The Appellants before the District Court had also drawn the

attention of the Court to the fact that through the proceedings of

the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Collector, the earlier

proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 09.12.2010 have been set aside,

and further that they are in physical possession of the property

from the year 1960-61 onwards. In support thereof, they have relied

upon the copies of the pahanis for the years 1960-61 to 2007-08.

Therefore, the appellants sought setting aside of the orders of the

Junior Civil Judge, Jangoan in I.A.No.249 of 2016.

5. The District Court, after considering the contentions of both

the parties and also the documents filed before the Civil Court, has

observed that the Tahsildar under Ex.B1 dated 10.07.2019 has

restored the names of the original pattadars after conducting of

enquiry by the mandal girdhavar and it was established that the

subject land is in physical possession of Smt.Nellutla Sakkubai i.e.,

plaintiff. The District Court also observed that the possession of the

plaintiff has been recorded in the possessors column as per the PMD,J C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022

enquiry made by the Tahsildar and therefore there was no necessity

to interfere with the orders of the learned Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Jangoan. The CMA was accordingly dismissed. Aggreived,

the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein

submitted that the respondent has claimed to have become the

owner of the property by virtue of the partition deed and the final

decree passed in the year 1977. However, she has not approached

the Civil Court in the EP proceedings for execution of the same

within the prescribed time of limitation, but has approached the

Revenue Authorities for implementation of the decree belatedly in

the year 2006. It is submitted that the Revenue Authorities, without

following due procedure established by law, have implemented the

final decree without considering that the respondents/petitioners

herein are in physical possession of the property since 1961. It is

submitted that the proceedings on the basis of which the injunction

has been granted are the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated

09.12.2010. However, the same have been set aside by the Revenue

Divisional Officer and subsequently by the Collector, but the same PMD,J C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022

has not been properly appreciated by the court of Principal Junior

Civil Judge and interim injunction has been granted in favour of the

plaintiffs. He further submitted that the plaintiff has not come to

the Court with clean hands as she has not got her name mutated in

the revenue records by way of Court proceedings but got her name

mutated by approaching the revenue authorities by way of an

application. Thus, according to him, the relief claimed by the

plaintiff ought not to have been considered by the Civil Court. He

further submitted that the names of the petitioners have been

deleted from the possessors column only by virtue of the

proceedings of Tahsildar, dated 09.12.2021 and since the said order

of the Tahsildar has been set aside, the petitioners have to be

considered as being in possession of the property and the Civil

Court ought to have considered the same and ought not to have

granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance

upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

1. 2021 (1) ALD 298(TS) (DB) in the case of Basa Jagadishwar Rao v. Basa Rajeshwar Rao and others.

PMD,J C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022

2. 2020 (1) ALD 368 (AP) (DB) in the case of the D.S.Rao v. G.Audemma

3. 2020 (1) ALD 174 (SC) in the case of Saketa Vaksana LLP and another v. Kaukutla Sarala and others

8. Learned counsel for the respondents i.e., plaintiff, on the other

hand, submitted that the right of the plaintiff has been established

by virtue of the final decree of partition granted in favour of the

plaintiff by the Civil Court and plaintiff had approached the

Revenue Authorities for implementation of the decree. It is

submitted that the Tahsildar, after getting instructions from the

District Collector and after conducting due enquiry had directed for

implementation of the orders of the Civil Court and duly mutated

the name of the plaintiff in both the pattadar as well as the

possessors column. It is submitted that only after the directions of

the Joint Collector dated 13.04.2018, the Mandal Revenue Officer

has conducted enquiry through Girdhavar and only after verifying

that the plaintiff is in physical possession of the property, has

issued the proceedings dated 10.07.2019 in which the name of the

plaintiff is clearly mentioned as occupant of the property. It is

submitted that the petitioners have challenged the proceedings of PMD,J C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022

the Tahsildar dated 10.07.2019 by way of a Writ Petition in

W.P.No.20391 of 2019 and vide orders dated 19.09.2019, this Court

had granted status quo as on date with respect to the revenue

entries in the revenue records. It is submitted that the petitioners,

thereafter filed a Writ Appeal No. 762 of 2019 against the interim

order granted by the learned Single Judge and the division bench of

this Court has dismissed the Writ Appeal thus confirming the order

of the Tahsildar. It is further submitted that the petitioners herein

have also filed an appeal against the proceedings of the Tahsildar

dated 10.07.2019 and the same is pending adjudication. According

to him, the name of the plaintiff is finding place in the revenue

records as the occupant/possessor of the said land and the

injunction order on the basis of revenue entries as well as the

physical possession of the revision petitioners need no interference.

He further submitted that both the courts below have already

considered the issue on merits and passed orders and since it is a

concurrent finding of the lower court, the same may not be

interfered with at this stage.

PMD,J C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022

9. Learned counsel for the respondent has further placed reliance

upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the

respondents wherein it is stated that pending the suit in

O.S.No.138 of 2016, the revision petitioners herein filed an appeal

before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Janagam challenging the

order of Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar dated 09.12.2010 after

5 years with a delay condonation petition which was condoned by

Revenue Divisional Officer without giving notice to the respondent

herein and consequently the proceedings of Mandal Revenue Officer

was set aside on 19.04.2017 overlooking the fact that the revision

petitioners were also parties to the Suit, where an ad interim

injunction decree dated 18.01.2017 was already granted against

them at that point of time.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent further stated that

assailing the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the respondent

filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.19316 of 2017 before this Court

and the same was dismissed by giving a liberty to approach the

Joint Collector in the form of revision petition. Thereafter, the

respondent filed a revision petition before the Joint Collector, PMD,J C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022

Janagam and the same was allowed on 13.04.2018 by directing the

Mandal Revenue Officer to restore the names of the original

pattadars in O.S.No.7 of 1970. It is also stated that the respondent

made an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer for

implementation of Joint Collector's order dated 13.04.2018 and

when it was not implemented, the respondent herein filed a Writ

Petition before this Court in W.P.No.2408 of 2019 and this Court

directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to implement the Joint

Collector's order within a period of four (04) weeks. Thereafter also,

when the order of this Court was not complied with, the respondent

herein filed a contempt case in C.C.No.541 of 2019 and at that

point of time, the Mandal Revenue Officer had implemented the

orders of Joint Collector and the contempt case was closed. It is

further submitted that in the meantime, the revision petitioner

herein filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.20391 of 2019 challenging the

proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer knowing very well that

W.P.No.2408 of 2019 was ordered and the contempt case is also

filed vide C.C.No.541 of 2019 and contempt was closed on the

ground that the order was implemented. The above W.P.No.20391 PMD,J C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022

of 2019 filed by the revision petitioners, in which interim order was

granted directing the revision petitioners to give personal notice to

the respondent herein against which the revision petitioner herein

filed a W.A.No.762 of 2019 in which same direction was given to

serve the notice to the respondent. This itself shows the conduct of

the revision petitioners to avoid the notice and knock away the

valuable property of the respondent herein.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent had placed reliance upon

the decision of A.P. High Court in the case of A.Rukmini v.

Government of Andhra Pradesh and others in W.A.No.356 of

2021 dated 27.10.2021.

12. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on

record, this Court finds that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the

Suit for injunction against the Civil Revision Petitioners in

O.S.No.138 of 2016. Admittedly, the Civil Revision Petitioners were

not parties to the Suit for partition filed in O.S.No.7 of 1970 and the

Civil Revision Petitioners are only seeking protection of their

possessory rights over the suit schedule property. Final decree

dated 29.08.1977 was passed in O.S.No.7 of 1970 and the PMD,J C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022

respondent/plaintiff has got the land mutated in her name on the

basis of said decree. As on the date of filing of the Suit in

O.S.No.138 of 2016, the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the

records as possessor of the said land. Though the Civil Revision

Petitioners have challenged the orders of the Tahsildar in the Writ

Appeal filed by the petitioners herein, the order of the Tahsildar has

been confirmed. Therefore, as on the date of the order in

C.M.A.No.22 of 2018, the orders of the Tahsildar hold the ground.

In view of the same, this Court does not find any reason to interfere

with the orders of the Principal District Judge, Jangoan dated

30.06.2022 in C.M.A.No.22 of 2018 confirming the injunction order

dated 18.01.2017 granted by the Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Jangoan in I.A.No.249 of 2016 in O.S.No.138 of 2016. The

Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in

the case of Saketa Vaksana LLP and another v. Kaukutla

Sarala and others reported in 2020 (1) ALD 174 (SC) is not

applicable to the facts of the case before this Court. Therefore, it is

held as not relevant. Similarly, judgment reported in 2021 (1) ALD

298 (TS) (DB), C.M.A.No.241/2020 relied upon by the learned PMD,J C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022

counsel for the petitioner is also held as not relevant. However, the

Judgment in the case of D.S.Rao v. G.Audemma reported in

2020 (1) ALD 368 AP (DB) has laid down the legal position and the

principles which govern the grant or refusal of the injunction. The

relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:

"Ordinarily, the following three main principles govern the grant or refusal of injunction : (a) prima facie case; (b) balance of convenience; and, (c) irreparable injury. In grant or refusal of injunction, pleading 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 judicious 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 which 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 issued. In addition to the three basic principles, a Court while granting injunction must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties. A person who had kept quiet for a long time and allowed others to deal wiht the property exclusively would not be entitled to an order of injunction. The Court should not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one. Grant or refusal of injunction would have serious consequences depending upon the nature PMD,J C.R.P.No.1901 of 2022

thereon. In dealing with such matters the Court must make all endeavours to protect the interest of the parties by balancing the conveniences and inconveniences. In addition, 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."

13. From the above said principles, it is clear that the Court below

must make all endeavors to protect the interest of the parties by

balancing the convenience and inconveniences of the parties before

passing any interim order. In the case before this Court, the

Principal District Judge Court has considered the same before

confirming the injunction order granted by the lower court. In the

judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.356 of

2021 dated 27.10.2021 relied upon by the learned counsel for the

respondents, the Division Bench has held that in the absence of

any perversity or procedural infirmity and jurisdictional error in the

action taken by the authorities in the orders passed by the

authorities in exercise of the powers conferred under the statute,