Suit – Respondent-plaintiff filed suit inter alia for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit property – Also sought interim injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from interfering with his possession thereof – Interlocutory application dismissed – Appeal by respondent – Allowed – While issuing notice in the petition, Supreme Court observed that the withdrawal of prior suit by vendor of the respondent would have bearing upon the prayer for interim injunction in the present suit – Held: Prior suit filed by the vendor of the respondent was only a suit for permanent injunction and the dismissal of the application for injunction without recording any finding relating to possession was of no consequence – Previous proceeding will not be an impediment in the way of the respondent filing the present suit and seeking an injunction – Impugned order of High Court does not warrant any interference – Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 – s.38-E – Constitution of India – Art.136 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLIII, r.1.
Dismissing the petition, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The Division Bench of the High Court, while reversing the Order of the trial Court, pointed out: (i) that the predecessor of the respondent-plaintiff was issued a certificate under Exhibit P-21 dated 16.12.1975 under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950; (ii) that the said certificate is proof enough to show the passing of title in favour of the predecessor of the respondentplaintiff; (iii) that Exhibit P-17, which is Form 1-B (Record of Rights) showed that prima facie the respondent was in possession of the land on the date of institution of the suit; and (iv) that therefore, the person in possession was entitled to an interim order of protection. The High Court pointed out that the person under whom the defendant claimed title could not have acquired any right, under the sale deed dated 08.07.1980, after the issue of the certificate under Section 38-E of the Act in favour of the predecessor of the respondent-plaintiff on 16.12.1975. Insofar as the prior suit filed by the vendor of the respondent plaintiff is concerned, the High Court pointed out that it was only a suit for permanent injunction and that the dismissal of the application for injunction without recording any finding relating to possession was of no consequence. The High Court took note of the fact that under Exhibit P-22, which is the Pahani for the year 20032004, there was a sub-division of the land in Survey No.272 into Survey No. 272/A and 272/AA and that the Pahanis of all subsequent years in respect of Survey no.272/A were in favour of predecessors-in-title of the respondent-plaintiff. On the basis of these findings, the High Court reversed the Order of the trial Court and granted an interim injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Therefore, this is not a case warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Paras 1013][493-G-H; 494-C-D; 495-A-B]
1.2 At the time when this Court ordered notice in the above special leave petition on 2.08.2021, this Court was impressed prima facie with the argument that the withdrawal of the prior suit by the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff would have a serious bearing upon the prayer for interim injunction in the present suit. Paragraph 52 of the Order of the High Court records reasons as to why the High Court thought that the previous proceeding will not be an impediment in the way of the respondent-plaintiff filing the present suit and seeking an injunction. As rightly observed by the High Court, the dismissal of the application for injunction in the prior suit, was on account of the fact that the photographs showed the land to be an open vacant land. [Paras 14, 16][495-B-C, G-H]
Thota Sridhar Reddy and Ors. vs. Mandala Ramulamma and Others 2021 SCC Online SC 851 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.