suit for permanent injunction. Interim injunction made absolute pending appeal Cancellation of pattadar pass book and title deed - not valid - res-subjudice = PETITIONER RESPONDENT RASOOL SAB & 8 OTHERS VS MOULA SAB - hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.=CRP&mno=2208&year=2013

suit for permanent injunction. Interim injunction made absolute pending appeal
  Cancellation of pattadar pass book and title deed - not valid - res-subjudice=  
since the issue is subjudice, no decision on the cancellation of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds can be taken by the revenue authorities = 
during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court, his clients have produced the letter dated 19.07.2012 addressed by the Tahsildar, Adoni, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, for cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds granted in favour of the respondent and that the same was marked as Ex.R-34. 
          A perusal of the order of the lower appellate Court shows that it has discussed the aforesaid document and also referred to Ex.P-6 filed by the respondent i.e., letter dated 05.01.2013 of the Revenue Divisional Officer issued in reply to Ex.R-34 to the effect that since the issue is subjudice, no decision on the cancellation of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds can be taken.

          The Courts below rendered findings in favour of the respondent based on the documentary evidence.  Therefore, while exercising revisional jurisdiction of this Court, I am not inclined to disturb these findings of fact as they do not suffer from any patent errors.

CRP 2208 / 2013

CRPSR 12647 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
RASOOL SAB & 8 OTHERS  VSMOULA SAB
PET.ADV. : BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARYRESP.ADV. : SITA RAM
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  KURNOOL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2208 of 2013

 

Date: 11.06.2013

Between:

 

Rasool Sab and others

                   ..  Petitioners

          and

 

Moula Sab

..  Respondent


Counsel for the Petitioners          :  Sri K.Laxmaiah
Counsel for Respondent              :  Sri K.Sitaram























ORDER:      

This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 16.04.2013 in C.M.A.No.22 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Kurnool, whereby he has confirmed the order dated 07.06.2012 in I.A.No.600 of 2010 in O.S.No.153 of 2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni.

          The respondent filed the aforementioned suit for permanent injunction.  
He has also filed the aforementioned I.A. for temporary injunction against the petitioners. 
 An ad interim injunction was initially granted and later the same was made absolute by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, through its order dated 07.06.2012 in the aforesaid I.A. 
While passing the said order, the trial Court has placed reliance on
Exs.P-1 to P-4, which are the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Adoni, pattadar passbook, title deed and No.3 adangal extract for fasli 1419.  
The petitioners also produced documentary evidence, which are marked as Exs.R-1 to R-33.  After considering the evidence on both sides, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.  
The lower appellate Court has confirmed the same through its order dated 16.04.2013, which is questioned in this revision.

          The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court, his clients have produced the letter dated 19.07.2012 addressed by the Tahsildar, Adoni, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, for cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds granted in favour of the respondent and that the same was marked as Ex.R-34. 
          A perusal of the order of the lower appellate Court shows that it has discussed the aforesaid document and also referred to Ex.P-6 filed by the respondent i.e., letter dated 05.01.2013 of the Revenue Divisional Officer issued in reply to Ex.R-34 to the effect that since the issue is subjudice, no decision on the cancellation of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds can be taken.

          The Courts below rendered findings in favour of the respondent based on the documentary evidence.  Therefore, while exercising revisional jurisdiction of this Court, I am not inclined to disturb these findings of fact as they do not suffer from any patent errors.

          For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.  However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

          As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2903 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.


_____________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

11th June, 2013
GHN

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