Satya Goud vs Sara Shivarama Goud
2023 Latest Caselaw 3547 Tel

      HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1458 OF 2023

ORDER:

This revision petition is directed against the order of

temporary injunction dated 03.04.2023 in C.M.A.No.25 of 2022

passed by the Principal District Judge, Medak District whereby the

order dated 19.09.2022 in I.A.No.514 of 2022 in O.S.No.193 of

2022 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, at Narsapur has been

inversed and granted temporary injunction.

2. I have heard Mr. N. Manohar, learned counsel for the

revision petitioners and Mr. T. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the

respondent.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that, the

respondent/plaintiff/petitioner (hereinafter 'the petitioner') had

filed the suit vide O.S.No.193 of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil

Judge, Narsapur for perpetual injunction against the revision

petitioners/defendants/respondents (hereinafter 'the respondents')

against the suit schedule property described in A, B and C

agricultural lands in 15 survey numbers admeasuring Ac. 3.31.10 2 NTR,J CRP_1458_2023

guntas at Kothapet village, Shivampet mandal, Medak District

(hereinafter 'the subject land'). The petitioner claimed that the

subject land has been devolved on succession and he being the

owner and possessor is in continuous possession and enjoyment

and the respondents without any right or interest interfering with

his possession.

4. The respondents are in agreement that the subject land and

other landed properties are ancestral properties and devolved on

them from their ancestors. However, contended that though the

property was partitioned on paper the lands were never been

divided by metes and bounds and all the co-parceners including the

petitioners submitted a requisition to the Tahsildar to fix the

individual boundaries. In this position, as they are co-owners

injunction cannot be granted and the petitioners' claim that he is in

possession of the subject land with specific boundaries is

unacceptable and without exact localization, granting injunction

would be clear impropriety.

5. The trial Court in its order held that there are rival claims in

regard to possession and common boundaries hence granting 3 NTR,J CRP_1458_2023

injunction until full fledged trial is not feasible. On appeal by the

petitioner, the learned appellate Court granted temporary

injunction. Aggrieved thereby the respondents preferred this

revision.

6. In revision the learned counsel for the respondent would

contend that the agricultural lands of their forefathers was devolved

in three branches on the respondents and the petitioner. Though

the revenue records were separated as per the entitlement of each

co-parcener the same was never effected on ground and no

supplementary sethwar has been issued. Thus, the petitioner

claiming particular portion with boundaries is evidently improbable.

Therefore, granting injunction would amount to issuance of

injunction against co-owners, which is unlawful. In addition,

submission of requisition dated 03.03.2022 to the Tahsildar, is

proof that the landed property was not demarcated as per the

shares. This aspect was properly considered by the trial Court, but

the appellate Court by drawing untenable analogies granted the

temporary injunction causing serious prejudice to their interests.

                                  4                                 NTR,J
                                                           CRP_1458_2023

7. In support the respondents relied on the authorities in Aileni

Sanjeev Reddy v. Lavudya Vijaya - 2019(5) ALD 238 (TS) and Palem

Chandrasekar and others v. Palem Bikshapathy and others - 2019(5) ALD

235 (TS) (DB) and pleaded that if the physical location of the

property is unclear from the documents submitted by the parties,

temporary injunction cannot be granted. Further cited Mehanga

Singh and others v. Bal Bir Singh - (2003) 9 SCC 226 to show that the

injunction restraining co-owner from repairing and using property

cannot be granted.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded

that the appellate Court had considered the facts and circumstances

in proper perspective and granted temporary injunction. The

petitioners are in possession of subject land and his name was

mutated in the revenue records and the pattadar passbook, title

deeds were also issued. Further even by the pleading of the

respondents that the agricultural land is devolved from the

ancestors and as the title over the subject land is clear by the

revenue record and the specific claim as to possession within

specific boundaries and the unnecessary interference by the 5 NTR,J CRP_1458_2023

respondents has not been rebutted, granting of temporary

injunction pending suit is perfectly justified. Further pleaded that

in revision this Court will have a limited role only to the extent of

finding of illegality and impropriety or the jurisdictional error. In

absence of such pleading the impugned judgment deserved to be

confirmed.

9. In support of the pleadings cited the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Naresh Chander, a Full

Bench decision dated 27.08.2014 in Civil suit No.6177 of 2004 and Rasool

Bee and others v. Gousiya Begum - 2002 SCC Online AP 794 to project

that in revision the Court will have a limited role to find out

impropriety or illegality in the order.

10. The rival pleadings of the learned counsel are duly

considered and the materials on record are perused.

11. Granting of temporary injunction is a discretionary and

equitable relief. It is well settled that the discretion should be

exercised reasonably, judiciously and on sound legal principles and

it should not be lightly granted without considering the adverse

effects on the other side. Generally for granting temporary 6 NTR,J CRP_1458_2023

injunction the Court must examine whether the petitioner has made

out a prima facie case in support of his claim and infraction thereof

and existence of strong case for trial which needs inquiry/trial.

Further whether the petitioner suffers irreparable injury if the

injunction is not granted and the comparative inconvenience which

is likely to be caused to the petitioner by refusing injunction that is

balance of convenience shall be considered in exercising the judicial

discretion.

12. In the light of above proposition, existence of circumstances

for exercising judicial discretion needs examination in the light of

the materials placed on record by the petitioner and the

respondents.

13. Issuance of pattadar pass books, mutation and entries in

favour of the petitioner over the subject land is not in dispute. For

that matter, the respondents specifically pleaded as to their

ownership and possession over particular portions of devolved land

and filed voluminous revenue record to support this stand.

Respondents also categorically admitted in counter that the

properties are divided on paper among the co-parceners and also 7 NTR,J CRP_1458_2023

mutated in their names. The core contest of the respondents is

that the assigned portions of agricultural lands in revenue record

are not demarcated on ground with boundaries. Therefore, though

the revenue record is showing division, all of them are in joint

possession of the entire schedule property. However this pleading

is found inherently improbable in the light of definite assertion that

the respondents are the owners and possessors of certain portions

of land of the devolved land. This factual position is demolishing

the respondents claim that all the parties are in joint possession of

entire property and probabalising the pleading of petitioner. The

other claim of the respondents that in view of application dated

03.03.2022/Ex.R-15 before the Tahsildar to fix boundaries is

establishing the fact that the land was not actually bifurcated. A

perusal of Ex.R-15/"Oppanda Pathram" (deed of understanding

dated 03.03.2022) is discerning the signatures of the petitioner and

the respondents. Further the applicants requested the Tahsildar to

cause survey of the lands and grant the lands to each petitioner in

which each petitioner is in possession. The averments in the

application are indicating that the petitioner and the respondents 8 NTR,J CRP_1458_2023

are in possession of specified portions of the lands though the land

was not specifically demarcated. This aspect is further

strengthening the petitioner's assertion that he is in possession of

subject land with specified boundaries. Therefore, the pleadings

and the materials are indicating that the petitioner is holding

revenue record in regard to the subject land and also the possession

on ground. In these circumstances, even though the respondents

claim as to specific demarcation has not been done is accepted,

interfering with the settled possession in the name of joint

possession is found not justified, atleast at the interlocutory stage.

Thus in view of prima facie case and till determination of rights of

the parties in the suit, if the intervention of respondents is not

restrained, in all probabilities, the petitioner may suffer

inconvenience and injury. Hence it shall be held that the appellate

Court had rightly considered the materials on record and granted

temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner.

14. For the afore-stated reasons, no error of jurisdiction is

disclosed in the impugned judgment and in absence of any reason

to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court below, the 9 NTR,J CRP_1458_2023

impugned judgment deserves confirmation. In effect, the revision

petition fails on merit and is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

_______________________ JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Date:03.11.2023 ccm