Telangana High Court
Battu Rajender vs Nalla Ramana Reddy on 10 February, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1071 OF 2022
ORDER:
This revision petition is filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2022 passed in
CMA No.9 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge at
Karimnagar, confirming the order and decree dated 05.10.2020 passed
in I.A. No.100 of 2020 in O.S. No.258 of 2020 by the I-Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.
2. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No.258 of 2020
for perpetual injunction and along with the said suit filed I.A. No.100
of 2020 seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of
CPC. The interlocutory application was filed seeking ad-interim
injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with
their enjoyment and possession of the petition schedule A and B
properties. Petition schedule 'A' property was an agricultural land to
an extent of Ac.0-13 gts., in Survey No.492/D/1/2, an extent of Ac.0-
13 ½ gts., in Sy. No.492/D/1/3 in total an extent of Ac.1.00 gts., as a
compact block in Sy.No.492/D/1 situated at Sadashivapally village of
Manakondur Mandal of Karimnagar District. Petition schedule 'B'
Dr.GRR,J
property was an agricultural and to an extent of Ac.0.22 gts., in Sy.
No.491/B/1 and an extent of Ac.0-21 ½ gts., in Sy. No.491/B/2 and
also an extent of Ac.0.21 ½ gts., in Sy. No.491/B/3 in total an extent
of Ac.1-25 gts., as a compact block in Sy. No.491/B situated at
Sadashivapally of Manakondur Mandal of Karimnagar District. The
petitioners contended that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2-plaintiff Nos.1
and 2 were the absolute owners and possessors of the 'A' schedule
property and the petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 - plaintiff Nos.3, 4 and 5
were the absolute owners and possessors of the 'B' schedule property.
The respondent-defendant was the initial owner and possessor of the
suit schedule A and B lands and obtained loan from Indian Bank,
Asifnagar Branch by depositing title deeds vide document No.1950 of
2008, dated 27.05.2008. Subsequently, after clearing the loan and
after release of the title deeds, the defendants sold the suit schedule
property to one Singireddy Karunakar Reddy and Smt. Kethi Reddy
Mamatha and inducted them into possession by executing an
irrevocable agreement of sale cum GPA document bearing No.1143 of
2011 dated 11.03.2011. The said Singireddy Karunakar Reddy and
Smt.Kethi Reddy Mamatha sold the suit schedule property to one
Mothey Narayana Reddy, Puramandla Karunakar Reddy and Adepu
Dr.GRR,J
Ramesh through registered sale deed document No.7304 of 2012,
dated 07.11.2012 and they were inducted into possession of the same.
Subsequently, the suit schedule lands were mutated in revenue records
in the names of Mothey Narayana Reddy, Puramandla Karunakar
Reddy and Adepu Ramesh. As per the procedure, the Pattedar
Passbooks were also issued in their favour and their names were
entered in the pahanies and revenue records. The plaintiff Nos.1 and
2 purchased the suit schedule 'A' property through registered sale
deed document No.989 of 2020 dated 08.06.2020 and the plaintiff
Nos.3 to 5 purchased petition schedule 'B' land through registered
sale deed document No.990 of 2020 dated 08.06.2020 from Mothey
Narayana Reddy, Puramandla Karunakar and Adepu Ramesh and
were inducted into possession of the same. Subsequently, the
plaintiffs filed applications before the Tahsildar, Manakondur Mandal
for mutation of their names and the same was under process. As such,
the Tahsildar, Manakondur issued temporary proceedings for effecting
mutation in their favour.
2.1 The petitioners further contended that the respondent-
defendant being resident of Sadashivapally village by taking
advantage of his local strength and influencing the police was illegally
Dr.GRR,J
interfering into their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule
lands. On 07.07.2020 while the petitioners-plaintiffs started ploughing
the suit schedule lands by engaging two tractors and agricultural
operations were going on, the respondent-defendant along with his
father and other associates came to the suit schedule land and
interfered with their peaceful possession and enjoyment and restrained
the agricultural operations. As such, on 11.07.2020, the petitioners
approached P.S., Manakondur and lodged a complaint against the
respondent-defendant and his father. Again the respondent-defendant
and his father caused interference into their agricultural operations on
12.07.2020 inspite of police complaint. When they called the police,
the respondent-defendant executed an undertaking letter admitting his
fault stating that he would not interfere into the possession of the
petitioners over the suit schedule lands. But, however, on 18.07.2020,
the defendant along with his yesman and antisocial elements came to
the suit schedule A and B properties, created nuisance and damaged
the pillars erected as boundary stones, removed them and tried to enter
into the suit land violating the undertaking executed by him and
destroyed some portion of paddy field and threatened the neighbours
not to co-operate with the petitioners. The petitioners further
Dr.GRR,J
submitted that the police, Manakondur failed to take any action
against the defendants due to his political influence, as such, filed the
suit and the petition seeking ad-interim injunction.
3. The respondent-defendant filed his counter submitting that
he was the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.1.25
gts., in Sy.No.491 and Acs.7.00 gts., in Sy.No.492/D, which included
the suit schedule land and the same was mutated in the name of the
respondent-defendant in the revenue records. The respondent-
defendant was the Managing Partner of M/s.Laxmi Sri Para Boiled
Rice Mill, Sadashivapally. The respondent obtained loan by
mortgaging his lands including the suit schedule land with Canara
Bank, Branch Karimnagar vide registered document No.1386 of 2009
dated 03.05.2009. Subsequently, the loan was transferred to City
Union Bank, Karimnagar vide document No.5 of 2012 on 26.12.2011
and still the loan was not repaid. When the respondent and his firm
M/s. Laxmi Sri Para Boiled Rice Mill not complied milling of paddy
provided by Government for Rs.1,28,99,126/-, the Tahsildar,
Manakondur attached the respondent-defendant's land including the
suit land on 16.10.2013 vide letter No.A/3851/2013 upon the
instructions of the District Collector (Civil Supplies). Still the suit
Dr.GRR,J
schedule land was under attachment of the Government. The
respondent-defendant approached Bobbala Mohan Reddy, ASI, who
was known as Finance Mohan Reddy, for loan. The said Mohan
Reddy agreed to provide loan of Rs.20,00,000/- and instructed the
respondent to execute a GPA cum sale in the name of his benamies
Singireddy Karunakar Reddy and Kethi Reddy Mamatha, wife of
Jagan Mohan Reddy. Singireddy Karunakara Reddy was none other
than the own brother-in-law of Bobbala Mohan Reddy while
Kethireddy Mamatha's husband was near relative of Bobbala Mohan
Reddy and his business partner. Accordingly, the respondent-
defendant executed a GPA cum agreement of sale vide document
No.1143/2011 dated 11.03.2011 in favour of Singireddy Karunakar
Reddy and Kethireddy Mamatha nominally as security but not
delivered the possession. Mohan Reddy did not provide loan except
Rs.1,00,000/- towards expenditure for execution of GPA cum
agreement of sale. As the respondent-defendant was in dire need of
funds for repayment, atlast the respondent-defendant could obtain
funds from his near relatives and approached ASI, Bobbala Mohan
Reddy for cancellation of registered GPA cum Agreement of sale, but
he demanded the respondent to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as he arranged fund
Dr.GRR,J
of Rs.20,00,000/- and kept it in his account to advance the loan and
sustained loss of interest, since the respondent-defendant did not take
the loan and demanded the respondent to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards
stamp duty and expenditure for GPA cum agreement of sale and
Rs.2,00,000/- towards interest, totaling Rs.3,00,000/-. The ASI
Mohan Reddy obtained signatures of the respondent on Rs.100/-
stamp papers, four cheques of Laxmi Sri Para Boiled Rice Mill drawn
on Gayathri Bank, Karimnagar. With the intervention of elders,
Mohan Reddy received Rs.1,00,000/- and instructed his brother-in-
law Kethireddy Karunakar Reddy to cancel the agreement of sale cum
GPA dated 11.03.2011. Accordingly, Singireddy Karunakar Reddy
executed cancellation of GPA cum agreement of sale on 09.01.2012
admitting that no transaction took place. Thereafter, criminal cases
were registered against Mohan Reddy and he was remanded to
judicial custody. The respondent-defendant came to know that Mohan
Reddy and his benamies in collusion with the vendors of the
petitioners-plaintiffs brought a registered sale deed No.7304/2011.
The respondent-defendant lodged a report to the Superintendent of
Police, Karimnagar against Mohan Reddy on 21.11.2015. Later ACB
police also examined the respondent-defendant and recorded his
Dr.GRR,J
statement regarding making of false registered sale deed No.7304 of
2011. After three and half years of judicial remand, Mohan Reddy
was released on bail. Whenever the respondent-defendant demanded
about false registered sale deed document No.7304 of 2011, Mohan
Reddy informed that the GPA cum sale was cancelled as Kethireddy
Karunakar Reddy executed cancellation papers and asked him to do
whatever.
3.1 The respondent further submitted that the Pahani Patrikas
were reflecting his name as owner and possessor of the suit land in the
year 2018 also and that he filed applications before the Tahsildar,
Manakondur and the District Collector requesting them not to mutate
his lands in favour of the vendors of the petitioners-plaintiffs, namely,
Mothe Narayana Reddy, Purumandla Karunakar Reddy and Adepu
Ramesh, on 30.12.2019. The Tahsildar also instructed his VRO and
MRI to conduct spot enquiry of the suit schedule land. The MRI and
VRO visited the suit land at Sadashivapally on 06.01.2020 and
conducted enjoyment survey and found that the respondent-defendant
was only enjoying the suit schedule land by cultivating the same and
no others were in possession of the suit schedule land including the
petitioners. The MRI and VRO gave a report to the Tahsildar,
Dr.GRR,J
Manakondur on 06.01.2020. The Tahsildar also sent a report to the
RDO, Karimnagar in the month of March, 2020 stating that the suit
land was under possession and cultivation of the respondent-
defendant. The respondent-defendant further contended that the
petitioners-plaintiffs and their vendors colluded with each other and
brought two registered sale deeds in existence to occupy the suit
schedule land. They were no way concerned with the suit schedule
lands and were not even aware where the land was located. The
respondent-defendant was cultivating the suit schedule land
continuously and paying loans to the banks and also to the
government. The Tahsildar, Manakondur sent a report that the
respondent-defendant was in possession in the month of March, 2020
to RDO, Karimnagar, basing on the report dated 06.01.2020 given by
the MRI and VRO of Tahsildar Office, Manakondur. The suit
schedule land was under attachment of government. The agreement
of sale cum GPA bearing document No.1143 of 2011 dated
11.03.2011 was only nominal and executed towards security for
repayment of loan, but not for sale. No loan was advanced under the
said document. Singireddy Karunakar Reddy cancelled the agreement
of sale cum GPA on 09.01.2012 admitting that no transaction was
Dr.GRR,J
held and that he had no right over the suit land. The alleged registered
sale deeds in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs were brought in to
usurp the suit schedule land of the respondent. The petitioners filed
the suit within a month of the alleged creation of registered sale deed
on 08.06.2020 and were trying to get an interim injunction order from
the Court by misguiding the Court to occupy the suit schedule land.
The names of the petitioners-plaintiff's vendors were not entered in
the revenue records and they were never in possession of the suit
schedule land. There was no prima facie case, balance of convenience
to grant injunction and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. Exs.P.1 to P.54 were marked on behalf of the petitioners and
Exs.R.1 to R.18 were marked on behalf of the respondent. The
learned I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, on considering
the contentions of the counsel representing both the parties and the
documentary evidence adduced by them dismissed the petition filed
by the petitioners seeking temporary injunction holding that the
petitioners failed to establish their possession and enjoyment over the
suit schedule land as on the date of filing of the suit.
Dr.GRR,J
5. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the petition filed by
them, the petitioners-plaintiffs preferred CMA No.9 of 2020. The said
appeal was heard by the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar
and vide judgment and decree dated 03.01.2022 dismissed the appeal
confirming the order and decree passed by the I-Additional Junior
Civil Judge, Karimnagar. Aggrieved further, the petitioners preferred
this revision petition.
6. Heard Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri Bandar Srikanth, learned counsel for the appellants
on record and Sri MRS Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri
P.Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent on record.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the
respondent had already lost his right over the suit schedule property
since he transferred his title. The petitioners-appellants were
purchasers of the suit land through registered sale deeds under Exs.P.3
and P.4 dated 08.06.2020 and were having link documents under
Exs.P.1 and P.2 and they were inducted into possession by their
vendors. The trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that the
petitioners failed to file any documents to establish their possession
Dr.GRR,J
inspite of producing Exs.P.1 to P.4 and the revenue records marked
under Exs.P12, P.13, P.15 to P.19 which would prove that the
petitioners were in possession of the suit schedule land. As such, the
finding arrived by the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court
was perverse and liable to be reversed. The judgment in Suraj Lamp
Industries v. State of Haryana [2012 (1) 656] relied by the trial
court was not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. At the
interlocutory stage, the trial court came to a wrong conclusion that
title was not transferred without trial being conducted. The trial court
failed to understand and differentiate between prima facie title and
prima facie case. The lower appellate court erred in coming to
conclusion that the trial court rightly verified the documents. The
appellate court failed to re-appreciate the evidence on record being a
final court on facts and law and failed to discharge its duties. The
findings recorded by both the courts were perverse and were not in
accordance with the evidence on record. The evidence on record
would clearly establish the title of the petitioners-plaintiffs. Title
would follow possession and relied upon the judgments of the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Nawab Mir Barkat Ali
Khan v. Nawab Zulfiquar Jah Bahadur and others 1 and of the
AIR 1975 AP 187
Dr.GRR,J
Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish
Ambalal Choksi and others 2.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
submitted that since the date of filing the suit in the year 2020, there
was no ad-interim injunction order in favour of the petitioners. Both
the courts below on appreciating the documents filed by both the
parties came to the conclusion that the petitioners were prima facie
not in possession of the property. The said observations were made
based on evidence, but not on assumptions and presumptions. A
revision could not be entertained unless perversity or irregularity was
shown and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Dalpat Kumar and another v. Prahlad Singh and others 3, Nagar
Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh, Advocate 4, Union of India and others
v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others 5 and
Amar Nath v. Gian Chand and Another6.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalpat Kumar and another v.
Prahlad Singh and others (3 supra) held that:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3538
1992 (1) SCC 719
1995 (3) SCC 426
(2014) 2 SCC 269
(2022) 11 SCC 460
Dr.GRR,J
"4. Order 39, Rule 1(c) provides that temporary injunction may
be granted where, in any suit, it is proved by the affidavit or
otherwise, that the defendant threatens to dispossess the
plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to
any property in dispute in the suit, the court may by order grant
a temporary injunction to restrain such act or make such other
order for the purpose of staying and preventing... or
dispossession of the plaintiff or otherwise causing injury to the
plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the
court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or until further
orders. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Law
Commission clause(c) was brought on statute by Section
88(i)(c) of the Amending Act 104 of 1966 with effect from
February 1, 1977. Earlier thereto there was no express power
except the inherent power under Section 151, C.P.C. to grant ad
interim injunction against dispossession. Rule 1 primarily
concerns with the preservation of the property in dispute till
legal rights are adjudicated. Injunction is a judicial process by
which a party is required to do or to refrain from doing any
particular act. It is in the nature of preventive relief to a litigant
to prevent future possible injury. In other words, the court in
exercise of the power of granting ad interim injunction is to
preserve the subject matter of the suit in the status quo for the
time being. It is settled law that the grant of injunction is a
discretionary relief. The exercise thereof is subject to the court
satisfying that (1) there is a serious disputed question to be tried
in the suit and that an act, on the facts before the court, there is
probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by the
plaintiff/defendant; (2) the court's interference is necessary to
protect the party from the species of injury. In other words,
irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right
would be established at trial; and (3) that the comparative
hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur
from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would
be likely to arise from granting it.
5. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff by evidence adduced
by affidavit or otherwise that there is "a prima facie case" in his
favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of
the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his
property or the right is a condition for the grant of temporary
injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima
facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial.
Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide,
which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction
that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant
injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference
Dr.GRR,J
by the Court would result in "irreparable injury" to the party
seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the
party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection
from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession.
Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be
no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only
that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot
be adequately compensated by way of damages. The third
condition also is that "the balance of convenience" must be in
favour of granting injunction. 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 parties, 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. If on weighing competing
possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the
Court considers that pending the suit, the subject-matter should
be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued.
Thus the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in
granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending
the suit."
10. In Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan v. Nawab Zulfiquar
Jah Bahadur and others (1 supra), the erstwhile High Court of A.P.
held that:
"It is well-settled that the grant or refusal of a temporary
injunction is covered by three well established principles viz.,
(1) whether the petitioners have made out a prima facie case (2)
whether the balance of convenience is in their favour i.e.,
whether it would cause greater inconvenience to them if the
injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the
opposite party or persons claiming through the opposite party
would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted and (3)
whether the petitioners would suffer irreparable injury. With the
first condition as sine qua non, at least two conditions should be
satisfied by the petitioners conjunctively and a mere proof of
one of the three conditions does not entitle the petitioners to
obtain a temporary injunction in their favour.
Dr.GRR,J
11. In its recent case in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v.
Harish Ambalal Choksi and others (2 supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court while considering the principles governing grant of temporary
injunction held that:
"33. In the case of Anand Prasad Agarwal v. Tarkeshwar
Prasad, [(2001) 5 SCC 568], it was held by this Court that it
would not be appropriate for any court to hold a mini-trial at the
stage of grant of temporary injunction.
12. Keeping these principles in mind when the order of the
trial court and the lower appellate court are seen, both the courts on
considering the documentary evidence, observed that Ex.P.5 to P.54
documents filed by the petitioners would not disclose that the
petitioners were in possession of the property as on the date of filing
the suit. Though the petitioners contended that Exs.P.1 and P.2 and
Exs.P.3 and P.4 and Exs.P.12, P.13, P.15 to P.19 would show that the
petitioners-plaintiffs were in possession of the suit schedule land, a
perusal of the said documents would disclose that Ex.P.1 was the
original irrevocable agreement of sale cum GPA executed by the
defendant in favour of Singireddy Karunakar Reddy and Kethi Reddy
Mamatha, Ex.P.2 was the registered sale deed executed by Singireddy
Karunakar Reddy and Kethi Reddy Mamatha in favour of the vendors
of the petitioners-plaintiffs and Exs.P.3 and P.4 are the original
Dr.GRR,J
registered sale deeds executed by the vendors of the petitioners in
favour of the petitioners in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties.
Ex.P.12 are the mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioners and
Ex.P.13 is the copy of the complaint filed by the petitioners before the
PS, Manakondur. Ex.P.15 to P.19 are the pattadar Passbooks in the
name of the respondent-defendant and in the names of the vendors of
the petitioners-plaintiffs. As rightly observed by the courts below,
these documents are title documents, but does not establish the
possession of the petitioners-plaintiffs. The lower appellate court also
observed that Exs.R.11 to R.13 would show that the MRI/VRO
conducted enquiry and submitted a report to the Tahsildar,
Manakondur stating that though the names of the appellants were
recorded as pattadars of the suit lands in Dharani Portal, they were not
in actual possession of the suit lands. As both the courts below on
consideration of the respective cases of the parties and the documents
filed before them, were of the view that the petitioners were not in
possession of the suit schedule property and this Court in the revision
filed against the orders of the trial court and the lower appellate court
is only required to adjudicate the validity of such orders applying the
well settled principles governing the scope of revision, does not find
Dr.GRR,J
any jurisdictional error in the orders of the courts below to set aside
the same. As the petitioners failed to prove the prima facie case itself
in their favour to show that they were in possession of the suit
schedule properties, there is no balance of convenience to grant
injunction in their favour. No irreparable injury would be caused to
the petitioners in declining to grant injunction. This court does not
find any jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the courts below
or any need to enter into the merits of the evidence to set aside the
same.
13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2022 passed in CMA
No.9 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Karimnagar,
confirming the order and decree dated 05.10.2020 passed in I.A.
No.100 of 2020 in O.S. No.258 of 2020. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
February 10, 2025
KTL
