Or. 21, rule 32 C.P.C.- Execution of injunction suit - when a third party made constructions over the suit schedule property , JDr should not be send to civil prison when specifically pleaded , he has no way concerned with the constructions - Trial court wrongly allowed the E.P. - Their lordships of High court held that the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. It is made it clear that the petitioner shall not, in any way, interfere with the rights of the respondents 1 to 4 and it shall be open to the latter to remove the structure,which is said to have been made upon the suit schedule property.= Kulukulri Suresh Varma V.Venkata Satya Subrahmanya Mallikarjuna Surya Rao and others = 2013(April.Part ) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9795

Or. 21, rule 32 C.P.C.- Execution of injunction suit - when a third party made constructions over the suit schedule property , JDr should not be send  to civil prison when specifically pleaded , he has no way concerned with the constructions - Trial court wrongly allowed the E.P. - Their lordships of High court held that  the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under
revision is set aside. It is made it clear that the petitioner shall not, in any way, interfere with the   rights  of the respondents 1 to 4 and it shall be open to the latter to remove the structure,which is said to have been made upon the suit schedule property.=

The
respondents 1 to 4 filed E.P.No.24 of 2012, under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, with
a prayer to send the petitioner and the 5th respondent to civil prison on the
ground that they violated the decree for perpetual injunction. 
It was pleaded
that the petitioner brought into existence a structure over the suit schedule
property,  part of a plot of 377 square yards of site.=

The petitioner filed a counter denying the allegations. He stated that he
is not at all concerned with the so-called structure and that he did not make
it. The executing Court partly allowed the E.P. directing that the petitioner be
sent to civil prison.  =
"I submit that we never interfere with the E.P. schedule property in any manner
and we are nothing to do it. The D.Hrs filed the E.P. creating evidence to
harass us though they have knowledge that one Paradesi Naidu purchased the E.P.  
schedule property and that he is making constructions. After filing the E.P. we
made enquiries. Then only, we came to know that M. Paradesi Naidu making  
constructions."
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under
revision is set aside. It is made it clear that the petitioner shall not, in any
way, interfere with the   rights  of the respondents 1 to 4 and it shall be open to the latter to remove the structure,which is said to have been made upon the suit schedule property. There shall be
no order as to costs.
2013(April.Part ) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9795

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

Civil Revision Petition No.1532 of 2013

04-04-2013

Kulukulri Suresh Varma

V.Venkata Satya Subrahmanya Mallikarjuna Surya Rao and others  

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

Counsel for petitioner : Sri Ravi Cheemalapati

Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 : Sri T.D. Phani Kumar

?CASES REFERRED :    

ORDER:
        Respondents 1 to 4 filed O.S.No.114 of 2011 in the Court of the Junior
Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam, against the petitioner and the 5th respondent, for
the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The
suit was decreed on 05.11.2011 and the decree is said to have become final. The
respondents 1 to 4 filed E.P.No.24 of 2012, under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, with
a prayer to send the petitioner and the 5th respondent to civil prison on the
ground that they violated the decree for perpetual injunction. It was pleaded
that the petitioner brought into existence a structure over the suit schedule
property,  part of a plot of 377 square yards of site.

2.      The petitioner filed a counter denying the allegations. He stated that he
is not at all concerned with the so-called structure and that he did not make
it. The executing Court partly allowed the E.P. directing that the petitioner be
sent to civil prison. The same is challenged in this civil revision petition.

3.      Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
once the petitioner stated that he did not make any structure and that he is not
concerned with it, the executing Court ought to have simply dismissed the E.P.
He contends that just on the basis of certain suggestions made in the
cross-examination, the E.P. was allowed. He further submits that even according
to the respondents 1 to 4, there are disputes with one Sri Paradesi Naidu in
relation to the suit schedule property.

4.      Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, who
filed caveat, on the other hand, submits that on one hand, the petitioner stated
that he is not concerned with the suit schedule property or the structure made
thereon, but on the other hand, he went on doubting the very right of the
respondents 1 to 4 over the suit schedule property.

5.      It is no doubt true that the petitioner has figured as defendant No.2 in
the suit and the decree passed therein became final. If the petitioner had
violated the decree for perpetual injunction, he is certainly liable to be
punished.

6.      In his counter filed in the E.P., the petitioner stated  that he
did not involve in any illegal or unlawful acts and violate the decree, much
less caused any obstructions to the respondents
1 to 4. In the affidavit filed in lieu of chief-examination, the petitioner
repeated the same. To be precise, his statement is as under:
"I submit that we never interfere with the E.P. schedule property in any manner
and we are nothing to do it. The D.Hrs filed the E.P. creating evidence to
harass us though they have knowledge that one Paradesi Naidu purchased the E.P.  
schedule property and that he is making constructions. After filing the E.P. we
made enquiries. Then only, we came to know that M. Paradesi Naidu making  
constructions."

Once the petitioner stated as above, the Executing Court ought to have dismissed
the E.P. leaving it open to the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the structure, if
any, that is existing over the schedule property. However, by presuming that the
petitioner is behind one Mr. Paradesi Naidu in bringing into existence the
structure, the Executing Court allowed the E.P. The order passed by the
Executing Court cannot be sustained either on facts or in law and the same is
liable to be set aside.

7.      Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under
revision is set aside. It is made it clear that the petitioner shall not, in any
way, interfere with the   rights  of the
respondents 1 to 4 and it shall be open to the latter to remove the structure,
which is said to have been made upon the suit schedule property. There shall be
no order as to costs.

8.      The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this civil revision petition shall
stand disposed of.
_____________________  
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J    
4th April, 2013

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.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.