temporary injunction= for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A. No.47 of 2012 for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the suit schedule property pending the suit. The trial Court has granted injunction- By order, dated 07-01-2013, the learned District Judge, Anantapur allowed the said C.M.A. and set aside the order of injunction.- the school records produced by him do not show that he is the adopted son of Pedda Bandeppa, and that therefore, he failed to establish his prima-facie case. - Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which contains the doctrine of lis pendens and held that even in the absence of injunction, the interests of the petitioner are secured.

CRP 462 / 2013

CRPSR 2610 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
K. VEERESH, ANANTHAPUR DIST  VSK. SIDDA LINGAMMA, ANANTHAPUR DIST
PET.ADV. : SRINIVASRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  ANANTAPUR



The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy


Civil Revision Petition No. 462 of 2013

Date: 21-02-2013

Between:

K. Veeresh                                                              .. Petitioner

And

K. Sidda Lingamma                                              .. Respondent



Counsel for the petitioner      :  Mr. K. Srinivas

Counsel for the respondent       :  ---











The Court made the following:




















ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated
07-01-2013, in C.M.A. No. 23 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Judge, Anantapur.

  The petitioner herein has filed O.S. No. 45 of 2012 in the court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property.  In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A. No.47 of 2012 for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the suit schedule property pending the suit The trial Court has granted injunction.  Assailing the same, the respondent herein filed C.M.A. No. 23 of 2012 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Anantapur.  By order, dated 07-01-2013, the learned District Judge, Anantapur allowed the said C.M.A. and set aside the order of injunction.
I have heard Mr. K. Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
 In his order, the learned District Judge has discussed the prima-facie case of the petitioner and found that the school records produced by him do not show that he is the adopted son of Pedda Bandeppa, and that therefore, he failed to establish his prima-facie case.  The learned District Judge has also referred to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which contains the doctrine of lis pendens and held that even in the absence of injunction, the interests of the petitioner are secured.  Having carefully considered the reasoning of the learned District Judge,
I am convinced that the order under revision does not suffer from any jurisdictional error requiring interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.  The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, C.R.P.M.P. No.603 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

                                                              _____________________

                                                   C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

February 21, 2013.
Mgr/Am

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.