Telangana High Court
Juvvaji Ravinder vs Jakkula Pushpaleela on 11 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3637 of 2023
% Dated 11.01.2024
# Juvvaji Ravinder
S/o Late Somaiah Aged about 46 Yrs
Occ Agriculture R/o Eeravennu Village
Palakurthy Revenue Mandal
Jangaon District and another
... Petitioners
VERSUS
$ Jakkula Pushpaleela
W/o Late Ilaiah Aged about 62 Yrs
Occ House hold and Agriculture
R/o Eeravennu Village
Palakurthy Revenue Mandal
Jangaon District
... Respondent
! Counsel for petitioners : Sri Veera Babu Gandu
^ Counsel for Respondent : Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 2008 (4) SCC 594
2. (2019) 17 SCC 692
3. 2021 SCC OnLine 675
4. Civil Appeal No.1382 of 2022
JSR, J
C.R.P.No.3637 of 2023
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3637 of 2023
O R D E R:
This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the
Principal District Judge at Jangaon in C.M.A.No.61 of 2022 dated
17.10.2023 confirming the orders passed by the Additional Junior Civil
Judge at Jangaon in I.A.No.7 of 2021 in O.S.No.8 of 2021 dated
16.04.2021 invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
2. The revision petitioners herein are defendants and the respondent
is plaintiff in O.S.No.8 of 2021. For the sake of convenience the parties
herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.8 of 2021
before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.8 of 2021 on the file of the
Additional Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon seeking perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit,
the plaintiff filed application in I.A.No.7 of 2021 seeking temporary
injunction invoking the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of
C.P.C. contending that the husband of the plaintiff was absolute owner
and possessor of the suit schedule property i.e., agricultural land to an JSR, J C.R.P.No.3637 of 2023 3
extent of Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.486/45, situated at Eeravennu Village of
Palakurthy Revenue Mandal, Jangaon District and the revenue
authorities have granted assignment patta in his favour and his name
was mutated in the revenue records and also issued pattadar pass book
in the year 1975-76 and her husband died on 15.11.2020, after his
death, she succeeded the property and she is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property and doing cultivation and eking
out her livelihood. She further stated that defendants, without having
any manner of right, are trying to interfere and dispossess the plaintiff
from the suit schedule property.
3.2. The defendants filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations
made by the plaintiff interalia contending that husband of the plaintiff
sold the suit schedule property in favour of father of defendant No.1
through un-registered agreement of sale dated 03.03.2008 by receiving
the total sale consideration and delivered the possession of the suit
schedule property and since then they have been in possession of the
said property. In spite of several requests made by the defendants, the
husband of the plaintiff has not come forward to execute the sale deed.
They further stated that they are doing cultivation by raising paddy,
groundnuts, vegetables, etc., and also they got electricity connection.
The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property, therefore,
she is not entitled to grant temporary injunction.
JSR, J C.R.P.No.3637 of 2023 4
3.3. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and taking into
consideration the documentary evidence Exs.P.1 to P.8 and Exs.R.1 to
R.4, allowed the application and granted temporary injunction in favour
of the plaintiff till the disposal of the suit vide its order dated
16.04.2021.
3.4. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed C.M.A.No.61 of 2022
on the file of Principal District Judge at Jangaon. The lower appellate
Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial
Court by its order dated 17.10.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the
defendants filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
4. Heard M. Rathan Singh, learned counsel, representing Sri Veera
Babu Gandu, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, and
Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff/caveator.
5. Learned counsel for the defendants vehemently contended that
the suit filed by the plaintiff for seeking perpetual injunction is not
maintainable on the ground that the defendants are disputing the title
of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In such circumstances,
the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration, when the suit itself
is not maintainable and the Courts below ought not to have granted
temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. He further contended
that the plaintiff has not satisfied the ingredients of Order XXXIX Rules JSR, J C.R.P.No.3637 of 2023 5
1 and 2 C.P.C. i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable injury and in spite of the same, the trial Court granted
temporary injunction and the same is contrary to law. He further
contended that the defendants have filed documents i.e, Exs.R.1 to R.4
to establish their right and possession of the suit schedule property.
The trial Court without considering those documents granted temporary
injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
5.1. He also contended that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit
schedule property as on the date of institution of suit, on the other
hand, the defendants are only in possession of the suit schedule
property and under the guise of temporary injunction granted by the
trial Court, the plaintiff is trying to enter into the suit schedule property
high-handedly and the Station Houser Officer, Palakurthy P.S registered
a case in Crime No.8 of 2023 and after conducting investigation filed a
charge sheet, wherein it is specifically stated that the defendants are in
possession of the suit schedule property, and the said documents i.e.,
charge sheet and statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. were filed
before the lower appellate Court, but, without considering those
documents, simply confirmed the order of the trial Court. He further
contented that the lower appellate Court, which is a fact finding final
Court ought to have appreciated the contentions of the defendants and
documentary evidence on record afresh.
JSR, J C.R.P.No.3637 of 2023 6
5.2. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the
following judgments:
1. Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by Lrs. And others 1
2. Jharkhand State Housing Board v. Didar Singh and another 2
3. Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji v. Namboodiyil Vinodan 3
4. Padhiyar prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) through LR.s v. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) through LR.s and Ors 4.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the
defendants are not having any manner of right over the suit schedule
property and the alleged agreement of sale Ex.R-1 is not genuine one.
The suit schedule property is a government assigned land and as per
the provisions of the Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of
Transfers) Act, 1977, (for short, 'Act 9 of 1997) the said land is not
alienable, only heritable. Hence, the defendants are not entitled to
claim any rights over the suit schedule property basing on the alleged
agreement of sale dated 03.03.2008 and the same is hit by the
provisions of Act 9 of 1997.
1 2008 (4) SCC 594 2 (2019) 17 SCC 692 3 2021 SCC OnLine 675 4 Civil Appeal No.1382 of 2022 JSR, J C.R.P.No.3637 of 2023 7
6.1. He further contended that the plaintiff had established her case
by producing documentary evidence Exs.P.1 to P.8 that she is in
possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of
the suit. The trial Court after considering the contention of both parties
and documentary evidence on record granted temporary injunction in
favour of the plaintiff by giving cogent reasons and the lower appellate
Court rightly confirmed the orders of the trial Court. He also contended
that the defendants are not entitled to rely upon the subsequent
documents i.e., F.I.R. and charge sheet and statements recorded under
section 161 of Cr.P.C. filed in criminal case in S.C.No.77 of 2023 on the
file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (SC/ST Cases) at
Warangal to claim any rights over the suit schedule property and those
documents cannot be taken into consideration in the civil proceedings.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it clearly
reveals that the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.8 of 2021 for seeking
perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the
suit schedule property, along with the said suit, she also filed
application in I.A.No.7 of 2021 for grant of temporary injunction
invoking the provision of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The specific
claim of the plaintiff is that during the life time of her husband, the
revenue authorities have granted assignment patta in his favour in the
year 1975-76 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment JSR, J C.R.P.No.3637 of 2023 8
of the suit schedule property and his name was mutated in the revenue
records and pattadar pass book and title deeds were issued. The
husband of the plaintiff died on 15.11.2020 and after his death, the
plaintiff has been in possession of the suit schedule property by way of
succession and the defendants, without having any manner of right,
trying to interfere with her possession and to establish her claim, she
filed documents Exs.P.1 to P.8.
8. Whereas, the defendants are claiming the rights over the property
basing upon the un-registered agreement of sale dated 03.03.2008
executed by husband of the plaintiff and in support of their claim, they
filed Exs.R.1 to R.4. The trial Court, after considering the contentions of
the respective parties and Exs.P.1 to P.8 and Exs.R.1 to R.4, allowed the
application and granted temporary injunction, specifically holding that
the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property by its order
dated 16.04.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed
C.M.A.No.61 of 2022 before the Principal District Judge at Jangaon.
The lower appellate Court after considering the grounds, documentary
evidence on record and after hearing both the parties, passed the
impugned order dismissing the appeal and confirmed the order of the
trial Court, by its order dated 17.10.2023.
9. It is very much relevant to place on record that for grant of
temporary injunction, the parties have to establish prima facie case,
balance of convenience and irreparable injury as enumerated under the JSR, J C.R.P.No.3637 of 2023 9
provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and to satisfy the
above said ingredients, the plaintiff had filed documents Exs.P.6 and
P.7- Computer generated 1-B RoR Namoona dated 05.01.2021 and
Computer generated Dharani Portal Land Records respectively.
Whereas, the defendants have not filed any documents in support of
their claim that they are in possession of the suit schedule property as
on the date of institution of the suit. The trial Court specifically stated
that Exs.R.2 to R.4 documents no where disclosed that they are
connected to the suit schedule land, except Ex.R.1 un-registered
agreement of sale as the said document pertaining to the year 2008. It
is also relevant to mention here that the defendants are relying upon the
document i.e., charge sheet and statements recorded under Section 161
of Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.77 of 2023, but the said documents are subsequent
to institution of the suit and the above said S.C.No.77 of 2023 is
pending before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (SC/ST
Cases) at Warangal. Therefore, the said documents cannot be taken
into consideration at this point of time.
10. Insofar as contention of the learned counsel for the defendants
that when the defendants are disputing the title of the plaintiff, simple
suit for perpetual injunction is not maintainable under law and the
plaintiff has to file suit for declaration is concerned the plaintiff has filed
a suit seeking perpetual injunction basing upon her possession and she JSR, J C.R.P.No.3637 of 2023 10
is not seeking any other relief, and the relief sought by the plaintiff falls
under the provisions of Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
11. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
defendants, it is stated that when the defendant raises a genuine
dispute with regard to title and when a cloud over the title of the
plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot
maintain a suit for bare injunction and the said principles are not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, on the sole
ground that plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction. Similarly the
above said judgments arise out of final judgment and decree was passed
in the suit, whereas in the present case the suit is still pending. It is
also relevant to mention here that in a suit for perpetual injunction, the
most relevant issue is whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit
schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit or not. The relief of
injunction is discretionary and the title aspect cannot be gone into. In
the case on hand, the defendants are claiming rights over the suit
schedule property basing upon unregistered agreement of sale dated
03.03.2008 and the plaintiff is disputing the said document.
12. It is also relevant to place on record that the contentions raised
by the learned counsel for the defendants that (i) whether the simpliciter
suit for perpetual injunction is maintainable, without seeking relief of
declaration, (ii) whether the unregistered agreement of sale dated
03.03.2008 relied upon by the defendants is genuine or not and is JSR, J C.R.P.No.3637 of 2023 11
admissible in evidence or not, all the above said aspects have to be
decided and determined in the main suit after full-fledged trial only and
these aspects cannot be decided at this stage.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any
irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court in C.M.A.No.61 of
2022 dated 17.10.2023 confirming the orders passed by the trial Court
in I.A.No.7 of 2021 in O.S.No.8 of 2021 dated 16.04.2021 to exercise the
powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the
trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit i.e., O.S.No.8 of 2021
as early as possible, preferably, within a period of Six (6) months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on own merits, uninfluenced
by any of the observations made in this order or in the impugned orders
and both the parties are directed to cooperate with the trial court for
disposal of the suit. No costs
In view of dismissal of civil revision petition, interlocutory
applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J Date:11.01.2024 L.R. copy to be marked - Yes.
mar/psw
