Telangana High Court
Mirza Mujahid Baig vs Mohammad Amjad Ali Khan on 6 September, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITON NO.1600 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the
petitioner/defendant to set aside the order and decree dated
14.08.2020 in I.A.No.176 of 2019 in O.S.No.116 of 2019
(O.S.No.266 of 2022) passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-
cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Manthani and as
confirmed by the Principal District Judge at Jayashankar
Bhupalpalli by Common Order, dated 27.03.2023 in CMA No.42
of 2022 (CMA No.1/of 2020 old).
2. Heard Sri Mirza Aijaz Ali Baig, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Puli Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for
respondent.
3. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent
herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the
parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil
Revision Petition are that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.116 of
2019 for perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining
LNA,J
the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas,
Ac.0.20 guntas and Ac.0.14 guntas in Sy.Nos.91/1A/A,
91/2B/2/2 and 91/2A/2/2, respectively, situated at Kataram
village, Kataram Mandal of Jayashankar Bhupalpally district
(hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property'). It is averred
that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule
property having purchased the same by way of sale deed
bearing document No.4554/2019 dated 24.07.2019; that defendant
tried to interfere and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit
schedule property on 03.11.2019 along with his henchmen.
Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction vide
O.S.No.116 of 2019.
5. Along with the suit, petitioner also filed I.A.No.176 of 2019
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC
praying the Court to grant ad-interim injunction. Initially, the
trial Court, vide order dated 08.11.2019, granted ad-interim
injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
LNA,J
6. Defendant entered appearance and filed counter in the said
application denying the claim of plaintiff and further contended
that plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule
property and in fact, defendant is the absolute owner and
possessor of the land to an extent of Acs.2.39 guntas in
Sy.No.91/1 and Ac.1.29 guntas in Sy.No.91/2, total admeasuring
Acs.4.28 guntas, having purchased the same through sale deed
bearing document no.2254/2015 dated 03.08.2015 and finally,
prayed to vacate the interim order granted earlier.
7. The trial Court, on due consideration of the material and
documents placed on record, vide order dated 14.08.2020,
dismissed the I.A.No.176 of 2019 and vacated the ad-interim
injunction granted on 08.11.2019. However, the trial Court
directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the
suit schedule property and further directed the Tahsildar,
Kataram not to mutate any further transfers/transactions and
also directed the Sub-Registrar, Manthani and the Sub-Registrar,
Mulugu not to register any further transfers/ transactions made
LNA,J
either by plaintiff of defendant in respect of the suit schedule
property till the disposal of the main suit.
8. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2020, defendant filed
CMA No.42 of 2022 (old CMA No.1/2020) before the Principal
District Judge at Jayashankar Bhupalpally and the Principal
District Judge vide common order dated 27.03.2023 dismissed the
said CMA by confirming the order dated 14.08.2020 passed in
I.A.No.176 of 2019. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2023, the
defendant preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant submitted that
the trial Court committed error in granting status quo and also
further directions to the Tahsildar, Kataram not to mutate any
further transfers/transactions made by either parties in respect
of the suit schedule property and also to the Sub-Registrar,
Manthani and the Sub-Registrar, Mulugu not to register any
further transfers/transactions made either by plaintiff of
defendant in respect of the suit schedule property till the disposal
of the main suit and that the said directions are beyond the scope
of the application. Learned counsel further submitted that
LNA,J
defendant is, in fact, owner of the suit schedule property having
purchased the same under sale deed bearing document
Nos.2254/2015 dated 03.08.2015 and its registered rectification
deed bearing document No.2614/2015 dated 26.08.2015 from the
lawful owner. He further submitted that the appellate Court also
erred in confirming the order passed by the trial Court without
properly appreciating the facts of the issue as well as grounds
raised by the petitioner in the CMA.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant further
contended that trial Court as well as appellate Court passed
orders without considering the statutory provisions of the Civil
Procedure Code, Specific Relief Act and the authoritative
pronouncements passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as
High Courts. It is further contended that trial Court has exceeded
its jurisdiction while issuing directions to the Tahsildar, Kataram
as well as the Sub-Registrars beyond its jurisdiction and beyond
the scope of application i.e., I.A.No.176 of 2019. Learned counsel
further submitted that the sale deed bearing document No.2254/
2015, dated 03.08.2015, under which the defendant purchased the
LNA,J
same, is much prior to the sale deed bearing document
No.4554/2019, dated 24.07.2019 purchased by the plaintiff in
respect of the same property and the same is collusive sale deed.
He further contended that both the Courts have failed to consider
the fact that the sale deed bearing document No.4554/2019 was
brought into existence by the plaintiff after a period of four years
from the date of execution of registered sale deed in his favour.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant relied upon
the following decisions:
i) S.Prakash Rao and others vs. S.Shyam Rao 1;
ii) West Bengal Housing Board vs. Pramila Sanfui and
others 2;
iii) Union of India vs. Ibrahimuddin and another 3
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff
submitted that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of the suit
schedule property having purchased the same vide document
No.4554/2019 and the name of the plaintiff was also mutated in
the revenue records. That the defendant challenged the said
2001 SCC Online AP 1147
(2016) 1 SCC 743
(2012) 8 SCC 148
LNA,J
mutation before the Joint Collector, Jayashankar District and the
Joint Collector passed orders in favour of the defendant.
Aggrieved by the said orders, the plaintiff filed Writ Petition vide
W.P.No.2215 of 2020 and this Court was pleased to grant interim
stay and the writ petition is still pending. It is further contended
that the vendor of the defendant Mohammad Mazar Ullah Khan
was not the title holder and possessor of the suit schedule
property as on the date of execution of sale deed vide document
Nos.2254/2015 and 2614/2015. Therefore, claim of the defendant
is not sustainable in the eye of law and that the defendant did not
approach this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and finally, prayed
to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
13. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff placed on record
the order dated 24.01.2024 passed in CRP No.3199 of 2023, in
which this Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by the
trial Court as well as the appellate Court and directed both the
parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. It is
contended that petitioner in CRP No.3199 of 2023 and present
LNA,J
CRP are one and the same, however, the respondent in both the
CRPs are different.
14. Perusal of the record would show that petitioner/
defendant is claiming that he purchased the suit schedule
property vide sale deed bearing document Nos.2254/2015 dated
03.08.2015 and rectification deed bearing document
No.2614/2015 dated 26.08.2015, whereas the respondent/
plaintiff is claiming that he purchased the suit schedule property
under sale deed bearing document No.4554/2019 dated
24.07.2019. It is also evident from the record that mutation
affected in favour of the respondent/plaintiff was set aside by the
Joint Collector on challenge by petitioner/defendant and against
which, the respondent/plaintiff filed Writ Petition No.2215 of
2000, wherein this Court granted stay of operation of the order of
the Joint Collector, which mean that the mutation affected in
favour of the plaintiff is subsisting and the said writ petition is
pending adjudication.
15. It is evident that the trial Court initially granted interim
injunction in favour of respondent/defendant. The petitioner/
LNA,J
plaintiff entered appearance and filed vacate petition and the trial
Court, on detailed examination of the material placed before it,
had vacated the interim order granted earlier and directed both
the parties to maintain status quo and also further directed the
Sub-Registrar not to entertain the transfers/ transactions and also
directed the Tahsildar, Kataram not to affect any mutation in
respect of the suit schedule property to preserve the property
intact and to avoid further multiplicity of litigation in respect of
the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff
filed suit simpliciter for perpetual injunction along with
application for ad-interim injunction and did not seek any further
reliefs in the said application. Therefore grant of further
directions to the Sub-Registrars of Manthani and Mulugu and the
Tahsildar, Kataram are beyond scope of application filed by the
respondent/plaintiff and also beyond powers conferred under
Section 151 of CPC. Therefore, the said directions are
unsustainable and liable to be set aside. However, the status quo
granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court
shall continue.
LNA,J
16. Perusal of the record would also show that the suit was
filed in the year 2019 and it appears that the pleadings have
already been completed and entire material is also placed on
record. At this juncture, it is not appropriate for this Court to
undertake detailed examination and adjudication of the rival
claims of both the parties in this Revision and rival contentions
can be decided only after full-fledged trial.
17. The issue involved in West Bengal Hosing Board (supra),
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is with
regard to grant of temporary injunction and police protection. In
the said suit, the trial Court granted temporary injunction and
police protection against the persons, who are not parties to the
suit. The facts and the issue involved in the above judgment are
completely different and therefore, said judgment has no
application to the facts of the present case.
18. The issues and facts involved in S.Prakash Rao (supra) and
Union of India (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for
petitioner, are also completely different and therefore, the said
judgments have no application to the facts of the present case.
LNA,J
19. In the light of above discussion, Civil Revision Petition is
disposed of and the directions issued to the Sub-Registrars of
Manthani and Mulgu not to register any further transfers/
transactions and to the Tahsildar, Kataram not to mutate any
further transfers/transactions in respect of the suit schedule
property by the trial Court in I.A.No.176 of 2019 in O.S.No.116
of 2019 and confirmed by the appellate Court vide order dated
27.03.2022 in CMA No.42 of 2022, are set aside. However, the
order of status quo granted by the trial Court and confirmed by
the appellate Court shall continue till the disposal of the suit.
The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit-O.S.No.116 of
2019 as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 06.09.2024
Kkm
