appreciation of evidence = This claim of the appellant is evidently untenable because when the suit was pending and when possession was not obtained by the decree holder, it is difficult to believe that when the execution petition was filed, she could have inducted the appellant into possession of the property. Ex.P1-residence certificate and also Exs.P2 to P4 are brought into existence and the same cannot be ruled out.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD


FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

 

PRESENT

 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

 

C.M.S.A.No.44 of 2012

                                                                                

 

Between:

Dara Mani
..... APPELLANT
And
Kakinada Sarada and another
.....RESPONDENTS



The Court made the following:

                                                                                 

 


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

 

C.M.S.A.No.44 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

The petitioner in E.A.No.1154/2009 in E.P.No.262/2009 in O.S.No.190/2006 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry is the appellant herein.
The application was filed under Order 21 Rule-97 CPC claiming that the appellant herein is the tenant of the premises and a collusive decree was obtained by the respondent/decree holder and in pursuance of the said decree, the appellant is sought to be evicted forcibly.
According to the case of the appellant, the premises was given to her on lease in August, 2009.  The respondent/decree holder has contended that the alleged lease is not true and she has obtained certain documents from the Mandal Revenue Officer, which are not valid.  According to her, when the EP was filed, the delivery was sought to be effected on 09.10.2009, but due to holidays, it cannot be executed. 
The Court below after considering the evidence on record and also the documents came to the conclusion that the claim of the appellant is not bona fide.  As against that order A.S.No.47/2012 was filed and the lower appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal.  Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed.
The Second Appeal was admitted without framing any substantial question of law that arises for consideration.  However, after going through the grounds of appeal, the only question that stands for consideration is whether the claim of the appellant under Order 21 Rule-97 CPC is legal and sustainable?
Point:
Evidently, the suit O.S.No.190/2006 was filed for eviction and the same was decreed on 09.07.2009.  Thereafter, EP was filed and delivery was ordered.  According to the case of the appellant, the tenancy is said to have been created in August, 2009.  This claim of the appellant is evidently untenable because when the suit was pending and when possession was not obtained by the decree holder, it is difficult to believe that when the execution petition was filed, she could have inducted the appellant into possession of the property.  Even otherwise, the appellant has filed O.S.No.789/2009 on the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for injunction and initially the injunction was dismissed and thereafter as against the refusal of injunction, CMA was filed and the lower appellate Court has dismissed the CMA also. In fact, there is said to be a serious doubt about the documents relied on by the appellant.  In fact an opinion was given by the Executing Court that Ex.P1-residence certificate and also Exs.P2 to P4 are brought into existence and the same cannot be ruled out.  As a question of fact, both the Courts below have found that the appellant is not in possession of the property and consequently being a question of fact, it has to be decided after taking evidence of both sides, which does not appear to be against the evidence available on record.
I find no question of law much less substantial question of law that arise for consideration in this appeal or misappreciation of evidence by the Court below.  The Appeal has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.  However, if the appellant is in possession of the property in question, four weeks time is granted from this day for vacation of the premises, and she shall abide by the execution proceedings, which were initiated in the original suit.  Interim stay granted on 19.10.2012 shall stand vacated, CMSA MP Nos.125/2012 and 7/2013 shall stand dismissed in consequence.  No order as to costs. 

____________________________
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
Dated: 01.03.2013
Dsr

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515