Title = In a suit for injunction, what becomes material is the state of affairs, pertaining to possession as on the date of filing of the suit. The title is certainly important, but assumes significance only after possession. Though the title to the respective properties is yet to be established, if the appellant was able to prove his possession over the property, the relief of injunction could have certainly been granted ; Possession = The appellant, no doubt, filed Exs.A-5 and A-6 the 10(1) account and No.2 Adangal for the year 2005. However, immediately, prior to that period, Adangals were issued in the name of the respondents. The same is evident from Exs.B-7 to B-12. Things would have been different altogether, had the possession of the vendor of the petitioner been reflected in any records prior to 2005. Once Exs.B-7 to B-12 reflect possession of the respondents over the land, the appellant can succeed if only he claimed possession through them. Added to that, the possession of the vendor of the petitioner is nowhere shown in the records.


* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
+ SECOND APPEAL No.1425 OF 2012

 


% 13-02-2013

Between:

# Yachamaneni Rajaiah Naidu
                                                                    … Appellant

And

$ Yachamaneni Munikrishnaiah and others
                        …Respondents


! Counsel for the Appellant                            :        Sri S. V. Muni Reddy

^ Counsel for the Respondents                      :          None

            
< Gist:





> Head Note:





? Cases referred: 
  

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

SECOND APPEAL No.1425 of 2012

JUDGMENT

The appellant filed O.S. No.514 of 2005 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of eight items of agricultural lands, aggregating to an extent of Acs.2.29 cents of land in different survey numbers of Kanamanambedu Village, Buchinaidu Kandriga Mandal, Chittoor District.  He pleaded that the suit schedule property was purchased under four registered Sale Deeds, dated 03-11-2005,
01-12-2005, 05-12-2005 and 08-12-2005 from the original owner and that his name was entered in the 10(1) account and No.2 Adangal in the year 2005.  It was alleged that the respondents are trying to interfere with his possession.  The respondents, on the other hand, filed written statement stating that the father of the vendor of the petitioner sold items 3 to 8 of the suit schedule property to them, way back in the year 1974 and ever since then they are in possession of the lands. 

2. The trial Court partly decreed the suit in respect of items 1 and 2 of the schedule and dismissed the suit as regards items 3 to 8.  Feeling aggrieved by denial of relief in respect of items 3 to 8, the appellant filed A.S. No.15 of 2007 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi. The appeal was dismissed through judgment, dated
30-08-2012.  Hence, this Second Appeal.

3.  Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the source of title for the appellant in respect of 8 items of property and the nature of defence of the respondents is one and the same, but the Trial Court and the lower appellate Court denied the relief in respect of items 3 to 8.  He contends that the possession of the appellant over all the items is reflected through Exs.A-5 and A-6. 

4. The suit filed by the appellant was for the relief of injunction simplicitor.  The trial Court framed two issues; as to whether the appellant is entitled for the relief of injunction?, and whether the cause of action is true? 

5.  On behalf of the appellant, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 sale deeds and Ex.A-5 copy of No.2 Adangal and Ex.A-6 copy of 10(1) account were marked.  On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 sale letters, Ex.B-4 Old Ryot passbook, Ex.B-5 New Pattadar passbook and Ex.A-6 title deed were marked.  In addition to that, Exs.B-7 to B-12 copies of 10(1) account and No.2 Adangal were filed.

6.  The suit was partly decreed and in the appeal preferred by the appellant, the lower Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of  the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit by having right in it?
2. Whether there is any interference of the defendants with the plaint schedule property as claimed by the plaintiff, if it is so whether such interference is justifiable one or not?

The appeal was, ultimately, rejected.
          7.  In a suit for injunction, what becomes material is the state of affairs, pertaining to possession as on the date of filing of the suit.  The title is certainly important, but assumes significance only after possession.  
The appellant, no doubt, purchased eight items of property through four contemporaneous sale deeds in the year 2005.  The respondents, however, pleaded that about three decades earlier to that, the father of the vendor of the petitioner conveyed the lands through three sale letters, marked as Exs.B-1 to B-3.  
Though the title to the respective properties is yet to be established, if the appellant was able to prove his possession over the property, the relief of injunction could have certainly been granted.

          8.  The appellant, no doubt, filed Exs.A-5 and A-6 the 10(1) account and No.2 Adangal for the year 2005.  
However, immediately, prior to that period, Adangals were issued in the name of the respondents.  The same is evident from Exs.B-7 to B-12.  
Things would have been different altogether, had the possession of the vendor of the petitioner been reflected in any records prior to 2005.  
Once Exs.B-7 to B-12 reflect possession of the respondents over the land, the appellant can succeed if only he claimed possession through them.  
Added to that, the possession of the vendor of the petitioner is nowhere shown in the records.  
Therefore, no exception can be taken to the concurrent judgments rendered by the trial Court and the lower appellate Court.  
If the petitioner is so advised, he can file a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

          9.  The Second Appeal is dismissed, with the above observation.  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   

February 13, 2013.


Note:
L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/O. KTL.

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