injunction suit not maintainable with out possession = In a suit for injunction, what becomes material is the state of affairs obtaining as on the date of filing of the suit. Though the appellant pleaded that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, in the course of cross-examination, she admitted that DW.1 is in possession of the property, not only by the time the suit was filed, but also 9 years prior to her deposition. That itself is sufficient to non-suit the appellant. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal.

SA 94 / 2013



PETITIONERRESPONDENT
CHEMBETI LAKSHMAMMA W/O PERUMALLU  VSCHERI SUBBAIAH AND 3 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : SUBRAHMANYA NARUSURESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: nullDISTRICT:  CHITTOOR



 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

Second Appeal No.94 of 2013
JUDGMENT:

The appellant filed O.S.No.700 of 1980 in the Court of I Additional District Munsif, Tirupathi, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property.  
She stated that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the respondents are trying to interfere with her possession without any basis.  The trial Court dismissed the suit through its judgment, dated 08.08.1988.  
Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed A.S.No.107 of 1988 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi.  
The appeal was dismissed through judgment, dated 14.08.1996.  Hence, the second appeal.
Heard Sri K.S.R.Murthy, the learned counsel for the appellant.
The appeal was initially presented way back in the year 1996.  Ever since then, it has been undergoing several adjournments and stages, on one ground or the other.  It was in the recent past that the second appeal has been numbered. 
On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1.                              “Whether Cheri Perumallu was absolute owner of the suit schedule and it devolved on the plaintiff due to intestate demise of cheri Perumallu?
2.                              Whether the 2nd defendant purchased the suit schedule from 1st defendant and enjoying it as its absolute owner?
3.                              Whether the 2nd defendant is not a necessary party to the suit?
4.                              Whether the cause of action alleged in the suit is true and genuine?
5.                              To what relief?”

On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.20 were filed.  On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.52 were filed.  The trial Court held all the issues against the appellant.  The lower Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration, and held the same against the appellant.

1.                                   “Whether the plaintiff has title to the 1st item of the plaint schedule?
2.                                   Whether the plaintiff has possession in respect of 1st  item of the plaint schedule?
3.                                   Whether the plaintiff has title to the 2nd item of the plaint schedule?
4.                                   Whether the plaintiff has possession in respect of 2nd item of the plaint schedule?
5.                                   Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction in respect of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule?
6.                                   Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court are liable to be set aside?”


In a suit for injunction, what becomes material is the state of affairs obtaining as on the date of filing of the suit.  Though the appellant pleaded that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, in the course of cross-examination, she admitted that DW.1 is in possession of the property, not only by the time the suit was filed, but also 9 years prior to her deposition.  That itself is sufficient to non-suit the appellant.  No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal.
Hence, the second appeal is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this second appeal shall also stand disposed of.

____________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.   
Dated:11.02.2013

GJ











THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Writ Petition No.4053 of 2013



Date:11.02.2013

GJ                                                                     




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.

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

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.