1 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT -CUM-
VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: KADAPA.
PRESENT:-
Smt. Aruna Sarika,
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT -CUM-
VI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE : KADAPA.
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 03 rd DAY OF JULY, 2019.
I.A.No.1841 of 2018 and I.A.No.1842 of 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018
I.A.No.1841/2018:
1. Yenugakrishnareddygari Yella Reddy.
2. R.Madan Mohan Reddy.
3. Patan Khasim Valli.
... Petitioners / Plaintiffs.
Versus
Smt. Nama Saraswathi.
... Respondent / Defendant.
And
I.A.No.1842/2018:
1. Yenugakrishnareddygari Yella Reddy.
2. R.Madan Mohan Reddy.
3. Patan Khasim Valli.
... Petitioners / Plaintiffs.
Versus
Smt. Nama Saraswathi.
... Respondent / Defendant.
These two petitions are coming on 04.6.2019, for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Sudhakar Babjee, Counsel for the Petitioners / Plaintiffs and of Sri M.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent / defendant and on perusing records, after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
C O M M O N O R D E R S
These two Interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners Under
Order.XXXIX Rule.1 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to grant temporary 2 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 injunction to restrain the respondent / defendant, her men and agents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property and also not to alienate the petition schedule property in favour of third parties pending disposal of the suit, in the interest of justice.
2)The averments of the affidavits in I.A.No.1841/2018 and
I.A.No.1842/2018 filed in support of the petitions in brief, is as follows : “The main suit is filed for declaration of title and injunction over the suit schedule property by the petitioners 1 to 3. The petitioners 1 and 2 are absolute owners of the petition schedule property, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dt.05.01.2013 from its lawful owner G.Ramulu. The said vendor G.Ramulu got the same on 23.07.2011 from Smt.P.Ramanamma to whom one Nama
Subbarathnamma sold away the property on 06.01.2011 under registered sale deed. Ever since from the date of purchase, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. They sold away the 120 square yards out of the suit schedule property in favour of petitioner No.3 on 01.06.2015 by way of registered sale deed. Ever since from the date of purchase, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property without any let or hindrance and with the knowledge of villagers including the respondent / defendant. The respondent / defendant is nothing to do with the petition schedule property is neither title holder nor possessor of the petition schedule property. The respondent and with her men who are unknown to the petitioners came to the petition schedule property previous day to the date of filing of the present petition and made attempts to trespass in to the land by 3 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 laying temporary fencing with the aid of cement pole and barbed wire. Except the petitioners, none including the defendant have no right, title or possession over the suit schedule property. Having to know about the highhanded act of the respondent through her men, they rushed to the suit schedule property and resisted the highhanded act of the respondent and her men. The police intervened on receipt of information from the public about the highhanded act of the respondent, wherein the respondent vehemently denied the title of the petitioners and proclaim to lay fencing. Since the respondent is a lady whereas the plaintiff No.3 is senior citizen and Government employee and the petitioner
No.2 is business man at Kadapa and they are law-abiding citizen, as such the police advised to approach the court of law to adjudicate the issue according to law. The respondent has been proclaiming in the village that, she would trespass in to the land at any means and create fictitious documents and thereby left the jurisdiction of this Court. In such case, the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and it will become multiplicity of proceedings besides there likely to be waste and damage of the petition schedule property during pendency of the suit. The petitioners filed the original documents which clearly shows that they have prima-fcie case and balance of convenience in their favour and hence prayed the
Court to restrain the respondent, her men and agents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property by means of granting exparte ad-interim injunction pending disposal of the suit and also not to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third parties, as otherwise they shall suffer irreparably as it is expedient in the interest of justice.” 4 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018
3)The respondent / defendant filed her counters in both I.A.No.1841/2018 and I.A.No.1842/2018 and the averments of the same, in brief are as follows :
“The present applications are filed by the petitioners to grant temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from disposing the petition schedule property i.e. to an extent of Ac.0.52 cents covered by Survey No.27/2 of
Vempalli village Polam and also not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit. The petitioners have suppressed the facts in the above suit and filed the present suit and the present application. They approached the court with unclean hands. The petitioners have suppressed the true facts and filed the present suit and the petition with all false and untenable allegations. The husband of the respondent namely Nama Prabhakar, had two more brothers i.e., Nama Naga Mallaiah and
Nama Sreenivasulu. All the three brothers together acquired right, title and possession over an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Survey No.27/2 of Vempalli village polam under a registered sale deed dt.28.06.1991 from its lawful owner namely
Sab Hussain Mohammad. The understanding being that all three brothers shall have the rights in the said extent of Ac.2.00 cents i.e., an extent of Ac.0.67 cents for Nama Sreenivasulu, an extent of Ac.0.67 cents for Nama Prabhakar and an extent of Ac.0.66 cents for Nag Mallaiah. The said Naga Mallaiah who had right for the said extent of Ac.0.66 cents of the property, has executed a registered gift deed in favour of Nama Prabhakar who is husband of the respondent herein, under a registered gift deed dt.31.03.2001. Therefore, the husband of the respondent had acquired right to an extent of Ac.0.67 cents under the said registered sale deed dt.28.06.1991 and to an extent of Ac.0.66 cents acquired by 5 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 him from his brother Naga Mallaiah, totaling to an extent of Ac.1.33 cents in the suit survey number. The said Naga Mallaiah has executed a fraudulent revocation deed in 11.08.2008 unilaterally, revoking the gift deed executed by him in favour of husband of this respondent. The said revocation deed is not valid under law. However the husband of the respondent herein namely Nama
Prabhakar has filed a suit in O.S.No.95 of 2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s
Court, Pulivendula seeking the relief of cancellation of revocation deed dt.11.08.2008 bearing Document No.1759 of 2008 of Sub-Registrar office,
Vempalli and further to restrain the defendants therein i.e., Nama Naga Mallaiah,
Nama Subbrathnamma, wife of Nama Naga Mallaiah and Punganuru
Ramanamma, from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the husband of this respondent, who is the plaintiff in the said suit. The said suit was decreed on 09.02.2017, thereby canceling the said revocation deed dt.11.08.2008 bearing document No.1759 of 2008 of Sub-Registrar Office, Vempalli executed by the said Naga Mallaiah in favour of husband of this respondent and also permanent injunction was granted restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of husband of this respondent. The said decree and judgment has become final. The said Punganurru Ramanamma who is 3rd defendant in
OS.No.95 of 2011 and she appears to have obtained a fraudulent sale deed from
the wife of said Naga Mallaiah namely Nama Subbarathnamma dt.06.1.2011 to an extent of Ac.0.57 cents and the said Punganuru Ramanamma in turn executed another fraudulent sale deed dt.23.07.2011 in favour of Ramulu and in a series of transactions, the petitioner and his alleged vendors appear to have obtained the fraudulent sale deeds which are not valid under law and in view of the fact, the 6 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 revocation deed executed by Naga Mallaiah is cancelled by the competent court.
The wife of said Naga Mallaiah executed sale deeds in favour of vendors of the petitioners after the revocation deed is executed and therefore when once revocation deed is cancelled by the court, subsequent documents are not valid under law. When once revocation deed is declared as illegal and void, based upon the said document, the subsequent sale deeds or other documents in favour of the petitioners or their vendors are invalid. Under these circumstances, the petitioners and their vendors are restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the possession of the husband of the respondent, again suppressing the said fact the petitioners have filed the present suit which is not valid. After the death of the husband of this respondent, she continues to be in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. The petitioners have intentionally avoided in mentioning series of transactions from the said
Ramanamma, who is the third defendant in the said suit. However the suit itself is clearly barred by Section 11 of C.P.C. and consequently, the present application does not lie. All the allegations mentioned in Para 3 and 4 of the affidavit are false and are denied. Thus the suit lacks of cause of action and the petitioners never possessed the petition schedule properties at any point of time.
The petitioners have neither title nor possession over the subject property at any point thereof and there is no prima-facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners and the same are in favour of respondent. If the injunction is not granted, no loss would be caused to the petitioners and that there are no merits or bonafides in the petition and hence prayed the Court to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs in the interest to justice.” 7 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018
4) During the course of enquiry in both applications, no one was examined on behalf of both sides, but Ex.A.1 to A.3 were marked on behalf of the petitioners and Ex.B.1 to B.5 were marked on behalf of the respondent.
5) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent and perused the material on record.
6) Now the points that are for determination in these interlocutory applications are :- (1) Whether the petitioners have made out valid and sufficient grounds to grant temporary injunction, restraining the respondent/defendant, her men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property till disposal of the main suit in O.S.No.132/2018 ?
(2) Whether the petitioners have made out valid and sufficient grounds to grant temporary injunction, restraining the respondent/defendant, her men and agents from alienating the petition schedule property in favour of third parties till disposal of the main suit in O.S.No.132/2018 ?
(3) To what relief ?
7) POINTS No.1 and 2:-
a) The facts leading to the present interlocutory applications and the pleadings of both sides are already stated supra, in detail. Hence, the same are not restated.
8 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018
b) The record shows that both the parties have filed their respective documents and the same are marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3 on behalf of the petitioners and Exs.B.1 to B.5 on the side of respondent.
c) On a careful reading of the pleadings and the contents of the documents filed by both sides, it manifests that the petitioners have filed the suit for declaration of right and title and perceptual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e. survey No.27/2 to an extent of Ac.0.52 cents or 0.208 hectors out of Ac.6.97 cents with specific boundaries i.e. East – Land of Nama
Sreenivasulu, West – Land of Nama Saraswathi, North – Land of Rama Mohan
Reddy and others and South – Public Road. The petitioners contention is that the petitioners 1 and 2 are absolute owners of the petition schedule property having purchased the same under registered sale deed dt.05.1.2013 from its lawful owner G.Ramulu and the said vendor G.Ramulu got purchased the same on 23.7.2011 from Smt. P.Ramanamma to whom one Nama Subbarathnamma sold away the property on 06.1.2011 under registered sale deed. Ever since from the date of purchase, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property and later both the petitioners 1 and 2 sold away 120 square yards out of the suit schedule property in favour of petitioner No.3 on 01.6.2015 under registered sale deed, since then the petitioner No.3 has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondent is nothing to do with the petition schedule property and is neither title holder nor possessor of the petition schedule property. The respondent along with her men who are unknown to the petitioners came to the petition schedule property and made attempts to trespass 9 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 into the land by laying temporary fencing with the aid of cement pole and barbed wire. The petitioners came to know about the highhanded act of respondent, they rushed to the suit schedule property and resisted the highhanded act of respondent and her men.”
d)To substantiate their contentions that the petitioners 1 to 3 are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, they filed Exs.A.1 to A.3 documents. A perusal of Ex.A.1, original registered sale deed dt.05.1.2013, would show that
Yenugakrishnareddygari Yella Reddy, S/o. Chenna Reddy and Ramireddy Madan
Mohan Reddy, S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy i.e. petitioners 1 and 2 herein purchased the property to an extent of Ac.0.52 cents or 0.208 hectors out of Ac.6.97 cents in sarkar punji survey No.27/2 with specific boundaries from one Gangarapu
Ramulu, S/o. Venkataiah for a valid sale consideration of 32,000/-. A perusal of
Ex.A.2 original registered sale deed dt.01.6.2015, would show that Patan Khasim
Valli, S/o. Patan Khasim Sab purchased the property to an extent of 120 square yards in survey No.27-2 with specific boundaries for a valid sale consideration of
Rs.96,000/- from the Yenugakrishnareddygari Yella Reddy, S/o. Chenna Reddy and Ramireddy Madan Mohan Reddy, S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy i.e. petitioners 1 and 2 herein. A perusal of Ex.A.3 original registered sale deed dt.23.7.2011 would show that Gangarapu Ramulu, S/o. Venkataiah purchased the property to an extent of Ac.0.52 cents or 0.208 hectors out of Ac.6.97 cents in sarkar punji survey No.27/2 with specific boundaries for a valid sale consideration of
Rs.35,000/- from the Punganuru Ravanamma, W/o. Kondaiah who is vendor of petitioners 1 and 2 herein.
10 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018
e) Per contra, the respondent denying the right, title and possession of the petitioners over the petition schedule property, has specifically pleaded that the petitioners have suppressed the real facts and filed the present suit along with these applications and approached the Court with unclean hands. She also pleaded that her husband namely Nama Prabhakar had two brothers namely
Nama Naga Mallaiah and Nama Sreenivasulu and all the three brothers have acquired right, title and possession over an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in survey
No.27/2 of Vempalli village polam under a registered sale deed dt.28.6.1991 from its lawful owner namely Sab Hussain Mohammad. All the three brothers shall have right in the said Ac.2.00 cents i.e. an extent of Ac.0.67 cents for Nama
Sreenivasulu, an extent of Ac.0.67 cents for Nama Prabhakar and an extent of
Ac.0.66 cents for Naga Mallaiah. The said Naga Mallaiah who had right to an extent of Ac.0.66 cents of property, executed a registered gift deed in favour of husband of respondent under registered gift deed dt.31.3.2001. Therefore, the husband of respondent had acquired right to an extent of Ac.0.67 cents under registered sale deed dt.28.6.1991 and also to an extent of Ac.0.66 cents acquired by him from his brother Naga Mallaiah, the husband of respondent has got in total an extent of Ac.1.33 cents in the suit survey number. As per respondent, the said Naga Mallaiah has executed a fraudulent revocation deed on 11.8.2008, revoking the gift deed executed by him in favour of husband of this respondent.
The said revocation deed is not valid under law and the husband of respondent herein namely Prabhakar has filed a suit in O.S.No.95/2011 on the file of Junior
Civil Judge’s Court, Pulivendula, seeking the relief of cancellation of revocation
deed dt.11.8.2008 bearing document No.1759/2008 and the said suit was decreed 11 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 on 09.2.2017 and thereby cancelling the said revocation deed dt.11.8.2008 bearing document No.1759/2008 of Sub Registrar Office, Vempalli and hence the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.95/2011 has become final. The said
Punganuru Ramanamma who is defendant No.3 in O.S.No.95/2011, appears to have obtained a fraudulent sale deed from the wife of said Naga Mallaiah namely
Nama Subbarathnamma dt.06.1.2011 to an extent of Ac.0.57 cents and the said
P.Ramanamma in turn executed another fraudulent sale deed dt.23.7.2011 in favour of Ramulu and in a series of transactions the petitioner and his alleged vendors appear to have obtained the fraudulent sale deeds which are not valid under law. As per respondent, the wife of said Naga Mallaiah executed sale deeds in favour of vendors of petitioners after the revocation deed is executed and when once the revocation deed is declared as illegal and void, based upon the said document the subsequent sale deeds or other documents in favour of petitioners or their vendors are invalid.
f)To substantiate the contentions of the respondent, she filed Exs.B.1 to B.5 documents. A perusal of Ex.B.1, certified copy of registered sale deed dt.28.6.1991 executed by Sab Hussain Mahammad in favour of Nama Naga
Mallaiah, Nama Sreenivasulu and Nama Prabhakar who was husband of respondent, to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents out of Ac.6.97 cents in survey No.27/2 of Vempalli village polam. A perusal of Ex.B.2, certified copy of registered gift deed dt.31.3.2001, would show that the donor Nama Naga Mallaiah executed the gift deed in favour of donee by name Nama Prabhakar, who are own brothers to an extent of Ac.0.66 cents out of Ac.6.97 cents in survey No.27/2 and the same 12 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 was executed by him out of love and affection. A perusal of Ex.B.3, would show that the Nama Naga Mallaiah has executed a registered deed revocating the gift deed executed by him in favour of his brother Nama Prabhakar on 31.3.2001 to an extent of Ac.0.66 cents in survey No.27/2. A perusal of Ex.B.4 decree and
Judgment dt.09.2.2017 in O.S.No.95/2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s
Court, Pulivendula, would show that the Nama Prabhakar who is husband of respondent herein filed a suit against the Nama Naga Mallaiah, Nama
Subbarathanamma and Punganur Ramanamma for cancellation of revocation deed dt.11.8.2008 of Sub Registrar Office, Vempalli and for permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff therein and the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula ordered to cancel the revocation deed dt.11.8.2008 vide document No.1759/2008 of Sub Registrar Office, Vempalli. A perusal of Ex.B.5, certified copy of registered sale deed dt.06.1.2011, would show that Nama Subbarathnamma, W/o. Nama Naga Mallaiah executed the said registered sale deed in favour of Punganuru Ravanamma, W/o. Kondaiah to an extent of Ac.0.52 cents out of Ac.6.97 cents in survey No.27/2 with specific boundaries.
g) I have given a detailed and thoughtful consideration to the pleadings of both the parties and material on record. The present applications being filed under order.39 Rule.1 of C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction, this Court cannot go into deep i.e. into each aspect raised by the parties and the documents marked on their behalf, but if the petitioners proved their prima-facie case and so also that they have balance of convenience in their favour and if the injunction is not 13 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 granted, it would cause irreparable loss to them, then only this Court can go to their rescue by way of granting temporary injunction. The petitioners filed the main suit against the respondent / defendant seeking declaration of right and title and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, contending that the petitioners 1 and 2 purchased the petition schedule property from its lawful owner G.Ramulu under a registered sale deed dt.05.1.2013 and ever since then the date of purchase, they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. Later the petitioners 1 and 2 sold away 120 square yards out of the petition schedule property in favour of petitioner No.3 on 01.6.2015 by way of registered sale deed and ever since then they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property without any let or hindrance with the knowledge of villagers including the respondent. To substantiate their contentions, the petitioners filed the documents as referred supra. From the documents filed by the petitioners, it shows that the petitioners 1 and 2 purchased the property under Ex.A.1 registered sale deed vide document
No.20/2013 dt.05.1.2013 and on the same day, they were put in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is also shows that the petitioners 1 and 2 sold some extent of property i.e. 120 square yards to the petitioner No.3 under Ex.A.2 registered sale deed vide document No.741/2015 dt.01.6.2015, and put the petitioner No.3 into possession and enjoyment of the same. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that the petitioners’ vendor’s vendor i.e. Naga
Mallaiah and his wife Nama Subbarathnamma, had no title over the petition schedule property, as the said Naga Mallaiah executed a registered gift deed in favour of the husband of respondent vide gift deed document No.214/2001 14 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 dt.31.3.2001. The respondent also filed the said registered gift deed in support of her contention. The respondent further contended that Naga Mallaiah has executed a fraudulent revocation deed vide document No.1759/2008 dt.11.8.2008 and aggrieved by the said act of Naga Mallaiah who is the brother of her husband, her husband by name Nama Prabhakar filed a suit in
O.S.No.95/2011 before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Pulivendula, seeking to
cancel the said revocation deed and for permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed in favour of husband of respondent herein against said Nama Naga
Mallaiah, who is brother of husband of respondent, Nama Subbarathnamma and
Punganur Ramanamma and therefore, the very execution of registered sale deeds executed by petitioner’s vendor’s vendor are became null and void. Therefore, the petitioners have no right and title over the petition schedule property which is exclusively belongs to her husband and after the death of her husband, she became absolute owner of the petition schedule property. It is the contention of the respondent that injunction cannot be granted against the true owners.
h)On careful perusal of the pleadings and the documents submitted on both sides, it is to note that the very contention of the petitioners shows that they have no knowledge about the cancellation of registered revocation deed executed by the Naga Mallaiah who is vendor’s vendor of petitioners 1 and 2 in favour of husband of respondent by a Court of law and as they being bonafide purchaser of the petition schedule property and having been in possession of the same, filed the present suit for declaration of right and title and permanent injunction in respect of the petition schedule property and hence they have prima-facie case 15 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 and balance of convenience in their favour and if the injunction is not granted in their favour, it would cause irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The submissions made by the respondent shows that the revocation deed was cancelled by the competent Court of law and the same is not questioned by Nama Naga Mallaiah and his wife Nama Subbarathanamma in support of the said contention, they filed certified copy of Judgment and decree in O.S.No.95/2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Pulivendula. A perusal of the said Judgment and decree dt.09.2.2017 passed in O.S.No.95/2011 by the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Pulivendula, would show that the petitioner’s vendor’s vendor namely Smt. Punganur Ramanamma was also arrayed as one of the defendants as defendant No.3 therein and so also the vendor of said
P.Ramanamma namely Nama Subbarathanamma as defendant No.2 in the said suit. As per the decree, the said suit in O.S.No.95/2011 was filed on 08.7.2011 and numbered as 16.7.2011. As per the contention of the petitioners, their vendor’s vendor purchased the property from N.Subbarathanamma on 06.1.2011 under a registered sale deed, in turn their vendor’s vendor P.Ramanamma sold the petition schedule property to their vendor G.Ramulu under registered sale deed dt.23.7.2011. Further the petitioners 1 and 2 purchased the said property from their vendor G.Ramulu under registered sale deed dt.05.1.2013 i.e. during the pendency of said suit in O.S.No.95/2011. It is the contention of both the parties that they are in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. As per the petitioners, ever since the date of purchase of petition schedule property, the petitioners 1 and 2 have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and on 01.6.2015, they sold away to an extent of 120 square yards 16 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 out of the petition schedule property in favour of petitioner No.3 and that they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any let or hindrance with the knowledge of villagers including the respondent / defendant.
The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent without having any title or possession over the petition schedule property had tried to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property by way of laying temporary fencing with the aid of cement pole and barbed wire and with great difficult, they could resisted the respondent and her henchmen.
i) Here, it is to note that the petitioners herein filed the main suit in
O.S.No.132/2018 seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect
of the suit schedule property against the respondent herein. As referred supra, according to the documents of petitioners, the prima-facie case and balance of convenience are seems to be in their favour, but taking into consideration of plea of respondent and the documents filed by her, it shows that the title of the vendor’s vendor of petitioners is under clouds, in view of the Judgment in
O.S.No.95/2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Pulivendula. However,
the present main suit is being filed for declaration of right and title over the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction, against the respondent / defendant, if injunction is not granted restraining the respondent not to alienate the suit schedule property, would definitely cause irreparable loss to the petitioners as it may leads to multiplicity of litigations. It is the contention of the respondent that the petition schedule property is an agricultural land, but the execution of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner No.3 to an extent of 17 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 120 square yards out of the entire suit schedule property by way of registered sale deed dt.01.6.2015, would create a doubt with regard to the nature of the petition schedule property whether it is an agricultural land or fallow. From the pleadings of both the sides, it clearly shows that the petition schedule property is vacant on ground without any structures. It is a settled principle under law that the possession of vacant land would follows through title. The present suit being filed for declaration of right and title over the suit schedule property and both the parties have been claiming their right over it and the documents i.e. registered sale deeds submitted by the plaintiffs to some extent shows that they are in possession of the petition schedule property, however, taking into consideration of the present suit being filed for declaration of title over the suit schedule property, if the property is alienated to third parties, during the pendency of the suit, it would lead to third party interest on it and it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and even it will complicate the issues involved in this case.
Therefore, under these facts and circumstances, the pleadings and documentary evidence produced on both the sides, this Court is of the considered view that granting injunction not to alienate the petition schedule property to third parties, would do justice to both the parties. But coming to the granting of injunction not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property is concerned, though the petitioners contending that since the date of purchase of property, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, but it is also a fact that the petitioners 1 and 2 sold away only 120 square yards of property to the petitioner No.3. Therefore, there is a doubt with regard to the nature of the property itself whether it is an agricultural land as 18 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 narrated in Ex.A.1 or fallow land. For granting interim injunction, restraining the respondent, her men and agents from interfering with the petition schedule property, the petitioners have prima-facie to prove that they are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The Ex.B.2 registered gift deed dt.31.3.2001, would show that Naga Mallaiah has donated the petition schedule property to the husband of respondent herein and the said gift deed was acted upon by inducting her husband into possession of the said property on 31.3.2001. As per record, thereafter the said revocation deed dt.11.8.2008 was cancelled as null and void by a competent Court vide Judgment dt.09.2.2017 and also granted permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein including the vendor of the petitioners 1 and 2 who was arrayed as defendant No.3 therein. The petitioners did not file any document except the
Exs.A.1 to A.3 registered sale deeds to substantiate their contention that they are in possession of the petition schedule property. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners are in possession of petition schedule property as on the date of filing of the petition. On the other hand, as per the contention and the documents submitted by respondent, it shows that her husband was in possession of petition schedule property and later after his death, she came into possession and has been in possession of the same. Therefore, from the pleadings and the documents submitted on both sides, there is clear ambiguity with regard to who is in actual possession of the petition schedule property, particularly as on the date of filing of the petition. When there is a cloud on the said point, it is unjust to grant interim injunction, restraining the respondent and her men in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property by 19 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 the petitioners. Further more, there is permanent injunction in favour of the husband of respondent against the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.95/2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Pulivendula, including the vendors of petitioners 1 and 2. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners 1 and 2 purchased the petition schedule property under Ex.A.1 during the pendency of the said suit in O.S.No.95/2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Pulivendula. As rightly observed by the learned counsel for respondent that the
Judgment and decree passed in the said suit became final, as no appeal was preferred by the defendants therein and the said orders are still in force. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners failed to prove prima-facie case and balance of convenience in their favour that they are in possession of the petition schedule property as on the date of filing of the petition and are entitled for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property as sought for. The petitioners failed to establish the cordial principles i.e. prima-facie case in their favour to grant the said relief of temporary injunction, restraining the respondent and her men from interfering with the possession of the petition schedule property. Hence, in view of the detailed discussion coupled with reasons stated supra, this Court holds that the petitioners proved the requirements with regard to not to alienate the petition schedule property in favour of third parties pending disposal of the suit in
O.S.No.132/2018. The points 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
20 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018
8) POINT No.3:-
In the result, the petition in I.A.No.1841/2018 in O.S.No.132/2018 is dismissed and the petition in I.A.No.1842/2018 in O.S.No.132/2018 is hereby allowed by granting temporary injunction, restraining the respondent, her men and agents from alienating the petition schedule property i.e. Kadapa District,
Proddatur, Vempalli Sub District, Vempalli mandal, Vempalli village panchayat,
Vempalli village fields in survey No.27/2, Ac.0.52 cents or 0.208 hectors out of
Ac.6.97 cents, boundaries: East – Land of Nama Sreenivasulu, West – Land of
Nama Saraswathi, North – Land of Rama Mohan Reddy and others and South –
Public Road, to third parties, pending disposal of the suit in O.S.No.132/2018.
No costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 03rd day of July, 2019.
Sd/- Aruna Sarika.
Judge, Family Court- Cum-
VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PETITIONERS: RESPONDENT:
- Nil -- Nil-
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.A.1: Original registered sale deed dt.05.1.2013.
Ex.A.2: Original registered sale deed dt.01.6.2015.
Ex.A.3: Original registered sale deed dt.23.7.2011.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT:-
Ex.B.1: Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.28.6.1991.
Ex.B.2: Certified copy of registered gift deed dt.31.3.2001.
21 Dt.03.7.2019. I.A.No.1841 / 2018 and I.A.No.1842 / 2018 in O.S.No.132 / 2018 Ex.B.3: Certified copy of registered revocation deed dt.11.8.2008.
Ex.B.4: Certified copy of decree and Judgment dt.09.2.2017 in O.S.No.95/2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Pulivendula.
Sd/- Aruna Sarika.
Judge, Family Court- Cum-
VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa.