Contempt of court after passing injunction decree = when photos shows only repair of damaged wall - it can not be said the Jdr violated the injunction orders = These averments would disclose that even by the time, the suit was instituted, the house belonging to defendants was already demolished in order to construct a new house within their property. Photograph at page No. 41 filed along with this revision would show that joint wall was partially affected. Photographs filed by the plaintiff along with the vacate petition would disclose that by December, 2015, defendants constructed a new house and affected portion of the wall is also now filled up. These photographs are testimony to the fact that after the suit is decreed, no demolition is caused and in fact the small offending portion of the joint wall is now filled. =Though, the Court below elaborately discussed the rival contentions, without giving any findings on the rival contentions, allowed the Execution Petition and ordered for arrest. It is not stated how the defendants disobeyed the decree passed by the Court below, much less, such disobedience is not held as deliberate and willful. On the contrary, material on record would disclose that no damage whatsoever is caused to the schedule joint wall by the defendants after the decree was passed. =The order under revision is unsustainable and it is accordingly set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed.

CRP 318 / 2016
CRPSR 1563 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
KOKA VEKATARAMAAPPA AANTHAPUR DIST & ANR  VSKOKA GOVINDAPPA, ANANTHAPUR DIST
PET.ADV. : HAMSA DEVINENIRESP.ADV. : KUMMATHI VENKATESULU
SUBJECT: C.P.C.DISTRICT:  ANANTAPUR
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 318 of 2016
Date :11-04-2016
Between : Koka Venkataramanappa s/o Veerappa, Aged 85 years, Occu: Agriculture, r/o Nimbagallu Village, Uravakonda Mandal, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh and another. … Petitioners/judgment debtors
And
Koka Govindappa S/o Veerappa, Aged about 74 years, Occu: Agriculture, r/o.Bimbagallu village, Uravakonda Mandal, Ananthapur District, Andhra Pradesh. … Respondent / decree holder
The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 318 of 2016
ORAL ORDER: Parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.
2. This revision is filed against the order in E.P. No. 33 of 2015 in O.S. No. 62 of 2005 dated 06.01.2016 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda. The suit is filed by sole respondent herein praying to grant decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/revision petitioners from disturbing the western joint wall of the plaint schedule property. The suit was decreed granting permanent injunction regarding the plaint schedule property with direction to the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and not to disturb the western joint wall.
3. Alleging that the judgment and decree is violated, plaintiff filed Execution Petition. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants made constructions violating the injunction order. The Court below held that the defendants disobeyed the Court orders, allowed the petition and issued arrest warrant against the defendants. 
4. Learned counsel for defendants contended that Court below exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing Execution petition. The defendants have not violated the decree passed in the suit. No demolition took place after the suit was decreed as alleged by the plaintiff. He further submitted that it is a joint wall belonging to plaintiff and defendants and since the house owned by the defendants was in dilapidated condition, defendants decided to undertake construction of new house and accordingly old house was demolished much prior to institution of suit and constructed a new house. The wall being joint wall belonging to the plaintiff and defendants, defendants are entitled to undertake construction on their side of the wall and by doing so, it cannot be alleged that the defendants have violated the decree passed against them. Learned counsel further contended that aggrieved by the exparte decree, the defendants filed application to set aside the ex-parte decree and the same is pending consideration by the Court below. The Court below erred in disposing of the Execution Petition, without considering the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree.
5. By referring to the photograph filed at page 41 of the revision, learned counsel for plaintiff contended that defendants sought to alter the suit schedule property and, thus, violated the decree passed against them. Defendants caused damage to the wall. He therefore, justifies the order passed by the Court below. 
6. The averments in para 3 of the plaint disclose that by the time suit was instituted the defendants already demolished the house belonging to them and started constructing a house in their open site. It was alleged that in the process of undertaking construction, the defendants were affecting the joint wall, which might endanger the entire structure of his property. It was further averred that in spite of plaintiff requesting defendants not to disturb the joint wall, as any disturbance to the joint wall would result in collapse of his house, they did not heed to his request and proceeded to undertake construction.
7. These averments would disclose that even by the time, the suit was instituted, the house belonging to defendants was already demolished in order to construct a new house within their property. Photograph at page No. 41 filed along with this revision would show that joint wall was partially affected. Photographs filed by the plaintiff along with the vacate petition would disclose that by December, 2015, defendants constructed a new house and affected portion of the wall is also now filled up. 
8. These photographs are testimony to the fact that after the suit is decreed, no demolition is caused and in fact the small offending portion of the joint wall is now filled. 
9. The Constitution of India guarantees every citizen fundamental right to freedom and liberty. When personal liberty of a person is in jeopardy, the Court must be extra cautions and unless there is unimpeaching evidence to show that his actions were deliberate, willful and his conduct offends the authority of the Court, his liberty and freedom should not be curtailed.
10. Though, the Court below elaborately discussed the rival contentions, without giving any findings on the rival contentions, allowed the Execution Petition and ordered for arrest. It is not stated how the defendants disobeyed the decree passed by the Court below, much less, such disobedience is not held as deliberate and willful. On the contrary, material on record would disclose that no damage whatsoever is caused to the schedule joint wall by the defendants after the decree was passed.
11. The order under revision is unsustainable and it is accordingly set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed. No costs. Having regard to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed. ______________ DATE:11.4.2016 P NAVEEN RAO,J TVK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 318 of 2016 Date :11-04-2016 Tvk

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.