Telangana High Court
K.Laxman Goud, vs Durga Rani Agarwal, on 13 March, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
A.S.No.99 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree,
dated 31.12.2024, passed in O.S.No.178 of 2017 by the learned
I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
2. Heard Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants
and Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the
respondents have filed the subject Suit i.e. O.S.No.178 of 2017, under
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'), against
the appellants, contending that they were in possession of the suit
schedule property and that they were dispossessed by the
appellants high-handedly. In the said Suit, the respondents have
sought for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property
along with permanent injunction, which is not permissible under
Section 6 of the Act. If injunction is sought as a prayer, then the Suit
2 AKS,J & ETD,J
cannot be tried as a summary Suit. It has to be tried as a regular
Suit. But the trial Court has tried the subject Suit as summary Suit
and decreed the subject Suit in favour of the respondents vide
impugned judgment, dated 31.12.2024, and directed the appellants
to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also
granted permanent injunction against appellant No.3 not to change
the nature of the suit schedule property and also not to alienate the
same. Once injunction was sought, the trial Court could not have
tried the subject Suit as a summary Suit.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his
submissions, had relied upon the judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in H.P.Vedavyasachar v. Shivashankara and
another 1, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that in a
Suit filed under Section 6 of the Act, only recovery of possession can
be sought, but not injunction. Admittedly, in the instant case, the
trial Court has decreed the Suit in favour of the respondents and
directed the appellants to deliver vacant possession of the suit
(2009) 8 SCC 231
3 AKS,J & ETD,J
schedule property to the respondents and also granted permanent
injunction, which is not permissible. Therefore, appropriate orders
be passed in the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment
and decree, dated 31.12.2024, and allow the appeal.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents had
contended that the respondents have filed the subject Suit under
Section 6 of the Act. In the subject Suit, only as a consequential
relief, permanent injunction was sought. Learned counsel further
contended that the respondents have no objection if that portion of
the relief of granting permanent injunction is deleted. In respect of
delivery of possession of the suit schedule property is concerned, it
is very much permissible under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, that
portion of the order of the trial Court where it has granted
permanent injunction may be set aside, but delivery of possession of
the suit schedule property to the respondents be upheld, as
admittedly, the appellants have forcibly thrown out the respondents
from the possession of the suit schedule property way-back in the
year 2017 and that nearly after seven years, the respondents could
4 AKS,J & ETD,J
succeed in getting the judgment and decree. Therefore, appropriate
orders be passed in the appeal.
6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the
trial Court erred in granting permanent injunction in a Suit, which
was filed under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned
judgment and decree, dated 31.12.2024, rendered by the trial Court
are liable to be set aside. In the interest of justice, this Court is of the
considered view that the matter can be remitted to the trial Court for
passing appropriate orders.
7. Accordingly, the judgment and decree, dated 31.12.2024,
rendered in O.S.No.178 of 2017 by the learned I Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, are set aside and the matter
is remitted to the trial Court for passing appropriate orders. Since
the subject Suit is of the year 2017, the trial Court is requested to
dispose of the subject Suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy
5 AKS,J & ETD,J
of this order. Since the pleadings and evidence in the subject Suit
are completed, the trial Court has only to pass final orders, after
hearing the parties. The trial Court shall pass final orders in the
subject Suit without being influenced by any of the observations
made by this Court. It is always open for the respondents to file an
application before the trial Court for deletion of injunction prayer in
the subject Suit and on such application being filed, the trial Court
shall adjudicate the subject Suit under Section 6 of the Act.
8. With the above observations/directions, the appeal is
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal
shall stand closed.
________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
__________________________
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Date: 13.03.2025.
MD
