IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR
PRESENT : B. MANJARI II Addl.District Judge
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2022
I.A. No.671 of 2021
in
O.S.No.428 of 2021
Between :
1. Smt. N. Annapurna D/o. Late V. Krishna Brahmam, W/o. N. Prasad, Aged about 49yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.no. 14/119, Anamwari Street, Nellore – 524 001.
2. Smt. Veturi Anjani D/o. V. Krishna Brahmam, W/o. K. Ram Kumar, Aged about 47yrs, Occ: Service, R/o. Balaji Nagar, Nellore – 524 001.
3. Smt. Veturi Sri Laxmi D/o. Late V. Krishna Brahmam, W/o. V. T. Raghu Kumar, Aged about 48yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 149, Bonney CT, BRIDGEWATER, NEW JERSEY – 08807, USA.
All plaintiffs are represented by their GPA holder Mr. Tadi. Venkateswarlulu, S/o. Narayan Murthy, Aged about 60yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. 2-2- 1075/13/1, Flat no.104, Devi Homes, Street No.1, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad.
... Petitioners/Plaintiffs
AND
1. Mr. Kedarmal Agarwal, S/o. Late Deva Ram, Aged about 70yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. 14-2-405, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
2. Mr. Ravi Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Kedarmal Agarwal, Aged about 48yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. 14-2-405, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
3. Mr. Sunil Agarwal, S/o. Kedarmal Agarwal, Aged about 52yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. 14-2-405, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
4. Mr. Rajendra Agarwal, S/o. Kedarmal Agarwal, Aged about 55yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. 14-2-405, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.2 of 34
5. Mr. Pavan Agarwal, S/o. Kedarmal Agarwal, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. 14-2-405, Goshamahal, Hyderabad. … Respondents/Defendants
This petition coming before me for final hearing in the
presence of M/s. K. Raghava Ramana, counsel for
petitioners/plaintiffs and respondent no.1/Defendant
no.1 reported died, M/s. Pramod Kumar Kedia and
Associates, counsel for respondents/Defendants no.2
to 5 and upon hearing both sides, perusal of the
material on record and having stood over the matter
for consideration till this day, this court passed the
following :-
ORDER
1.The petition is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C seeking interim relief of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
2.It is the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that respondents/Defendants the father of the petitioners by name Late V.
Krishna Brahmam was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 10-01gts in Sy.no. 26 and 31 situated at Kokapet
Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by virtue of registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 597 of 1966 dt. 18.06.1966 and since the date of purchase Late V. Krishna Brahmam was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; subsequently, Late V. Krishna
Brahmam had executed a registered GPA in favour of Mr. P.V. Subba
Reddy vide GPA bearing doc.no. 39 of 1988 dt. 01.02.1988 enabling him to deal with the said property in terms of the GPA dt. 01.02.1988; on suspicion, Late V. Krishna Brahmam immediately cancelled the
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.3 of 34 registered GPA vide registered cancellation deed dt. 24.05.1989, thereby
P. V. Subba Reddy has nothing to do with the said property.
It is the further case of the petitioner/plaintiffs that their father V.
Krishna Brahmam died on 05.10.1989 and their mother V. Kameswari died on 21.03.1999 leaving behind the petitioners/plaintiffs as their legal heirs. That basing on the cancelled GPA bearing doc.no. 39 of 1988 P. V.
Subba Reddy clandestinely got recorded his name as Pattadar in revenue records in respect of the said property and subsequently in collusion with
Respondents no.1 and 2 fabricated and forged two sale deeds bearing doc.no. 3806 of 1996 dt. 31.10.1996 and doc.no. 2072 of 1997 dt.
31.07.1997 and thereby conveyed land admeasuring Ac.3-00gts in Sy.no.
31/1/EE-AA/1 and land admeasuring Ac. 02-05gts in Sy.no. 31/1/EE-AA/2 in favour of the respondents no.1 and 2. On coming to know about the forged fabricated sale deeds, the petitioners approached the revenue officials and challenged the illegal mutation in favour of the respondents no.1 and 2 vide Case No. C/2566/2017 and an order was passed on 26.05.2018 by the RDO, Rajendranagar Mandal setting aside the illegal mutation order passed in proceedings No. D/40/2017 dt. 18.07.2017 issued by the Tahasildar Gandipet Mandal, in turn, the respondents no.1 and 2 challenged the said order passed by the RDO, Rajendranagar by filing revision petition under Sec. 9 of AP ROR Act, 1971 vide case no.
D1/2800/2018 and said revision was dismissed by the Joint Collector,
Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad vide Order dt. 02.02.2019 against which the respondents no.1 and 2 filed Writ Petition before the
Hon’ble High Court and the same is pending.
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.4 of 34
It is the further case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that the petitioners/plaintiffs being the Legal Heirs of V. Krishna Brahmamam became the absolute owners and possessors of the said property, that in the capacity of owners, the petitioners/plaintiffs have conveyed land admeasuring Ac.2-12gts in Sy.no. 26/part out of the total Ac.10-01gts of land vide registered sale deed bearing doc.no. 3640 of 2016 dt.19.05.2016 and are in possession of balance land admeasuring Ac.7- 29gts in Sy.no.31, situated at Kokapet, Rajendranagar Mandal, R. R.
District (hereinafter referred as petition schedule property). That on 21.08.2021 at about 11AM the respondents along with their henchmen tried to trespass and interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property and on coming to know about the same, the petitioners with the help of their representatives and friends, resisted the acts of the respondents and lodged a complaint vide Cr.no. 948 of 2021 at PS Narsingi; that inspite of registering said crime, on 12.09.2021, the respondents no.1 and 2 again tried to trespass and interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the petition schedule property which was successfully resisted by the petitioners/plaintiffs; that the respondents no.1 and 2 in collusion with each other brought into existence sale deeds bearing doc.no. 3806 of 1996 dt. 21.10.1996 and 2072 of 1997 dt. 31.07.1997 by playing fraud and said documents are void and non existent in the eye of law and there is no cloud on the title of the petitioners who have succeeded the petition schedule property from their father Late V. Krishna Brahmam and since the respondents are trying to interfere with the petition schedule property and are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the petition schedule property and if they succeed in their attempts, the
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.5 of 34 petitioners/plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss and the balance of convenience is in their favour. Hence this petition praying grant interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the petition schedule property.
3.Respondent no.1 reported died. Respondent no.4 filed counter and respondents no. 2, 3 and 5 filed adoption memo adopting the counter filed by the respondent no.4.
4.Respondent no.4 filed counter contending that the averments made in the petition are false and since the suit is filed through a self claimed GPA, the suit is neither maintainable on facts or under law; the petitioners have not filed any paper with regard to alleged fabricated GPA in support of their claim of possession which is prima facie mandatory requirement to show the possession. It is the further contention of the respondents that the present petition is filed by suppressing the material facts, more so knowingly by arraying a person who expired on 22.08.2020, more than a year back as respondent no.1 herein and by playing fraud before the court the petitioners/plaintiffs obtained Ad-interim Injunction.
The respondents/defendants admitted the possession of land admeasuring Ac.10-01gts at Kokapet village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District by the father of the plaintiffs Late V. Krishna Brahmamam and execution of GPA in favour of P. V. Subba Rao vide registered GPA; that said P. V. Subba Reddy being the GPA holder of V. Krishna Brahmam came in to possession of the said lands applied for mutation in favour of
V. KrishnaBrahmam and the Tahsildar concerned after conducting a
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.6 of 34 detailed enquiry, physical inspection and proper demarcation mutated the land in Sy.no. 31 admeasuring Ac. 07-29gts only in the name of
V.Krishna Brahmam and the remaining extent is not found in physical possession as such the same was kept on hold and not mutated in
Revenue Records; that the MRO, Rajendranagar vide proceedings no.
B/3976/88 dt. 04.03.1989 assigned survey number as 31/1 to the said extent of land and the name of V.Krishna Brahmam was recorded as pattedar in Pahanies for the period from 1989 – 90 to 1995 – 96 with respect of sy.no. 31/1, admeasuring Ac. 07-29gts and the said P. V. Subba
Reddy as possessor with respect thereto and title deeds were issued accordingly; subsequently one V. Malakonda Reddy and another preferred a revision in File no. 3095/90 before Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District, questioning the entries in revenue records existing in the name of V. Krishna Brahmam and P. V.
Subba Reddy and on contest said revision was dismissed vide orders dt.02.12.1995 confirming the entries issued in the name of V. Krishna
Brahmam and P. V. Subba Reddy showing their title and possession for the years 1989 – 1990 to 1996 – 1997 in pahanies.
It is the further contention of the respondents/defendants that the
P. V. Subba Rao in the capacity of GPA holder sold an extent of Ac.05- 35gts forming part of Sy.no. 31/1, situated at Kokapet Village,
Rajendranagar Mandal, R. R. District in favour of respondents no.1 and 2 under two registered sale deeds bearing doc.no. 3806 of 1996 dt.31.10.1996 for land admeasuring Ac. 4-30gts in sy.no. 31/1 and land admeasuring Ac. 01-05gts vide registered doc.no. 2072 of 1997 dt.31.07.1997 and the same were not challenged before a competent civil court till now. Since the date of purchase of the above said lands
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.7 of 34 the respondents no.1 and 2 and subsequent to the demise of respondent no.1 on 22.08.2020 the respondent no.2 herein along with respondents no. 3 to 5 being legal heirs of respondent no.1 are in continuous possession and enjoyment of said lands since more than 25yrs without any interruption and have developed the said land by erecting sheds, servant rooms and dug bore-well and watchman room and also planted mango trees and also grazing cows in the said lands and the respondents no.1 and 2 also obtained electricity vide consumer service number 321700387 and 321700614 and has been paying electricity bills.
Thatthepetitionerno.3behindbackofthe respondents/defendants no.1 and 2 filed an application before the
Dy.Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal in case no.D/1005/2013 seeking correction of entries in revenue record from the year 1996 – 97 and incorporation of the name of legal heirs of Late
Sri.V.Krishna Brahmam in respect of land admeasuring Ac.10-01gts in sy.nos. 26 and 31 including the lands purchased by the respondents no.1 and 2 on the ground that the Registered GPA executed in favour of P. V.
Subba Reddy was cancelled on 24.05.1989 and said V. Krishna Brahmam said to have expired on 05.10.1989 and the said sale deeds executed in favour of the respondents no.1 and 2 herein are subsequent to the alleged cancellation of GPA and demise of V. Krishna Brahmam. On coming to know about the said fraud played by the petitioner no.3, the respondents no.1 and 2 sought to implead themselves as parties to the said proceedings and placed all the material facts, documents and records by way of affidavit on 29.06.2013 and on contest the
Dy.Collector, Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal issued orders on
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.8 of 34 21.12.2013 with an observation that the Tahsildar is not competent for correction of entries and directed to approach competent authority for their redressal. Subsequently on representation of petitioner no.3, the
Joint Collector – II, Ranga Reddy District has taken up Suo Moto revision in File No. D1/2755/2014 for enquiry under sec. 9 of AP ROR Act, 1971 and passed order dt. 22.08.2015 with an observation that the person objecting transfer effected through a sale deed has to constitute a civil suit especially when alleging forgery and fabrication because the
Revenue Authorities jurisdiction and authority is limited and directed to approach civil court which is competent to try such matters and after adjudication of matter to approach the revenue authorities for relief if any. That inspite of said observation by the Joint Collector, the petitioner no.3 failed to follow the said observations.
That the respondents no.1 and 2 got mutated their names in revenue records as pattedars with respect to land lying and forming part of Sy.no. 31/1/EE-AA.1, 31/1/EE-AA/2, totally admeasuring Ac. 05-15gts situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R. R. District; aggrieved by the same petitioner no.3 once again preferred appeal
before Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, and inspite of
directions of the Joint Colector, R. R. District to approach competent civil court and get the rights adjudicated, the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Rajendranagar misconstrued itself and passed the impugned orders and overreached and superseded the findings of the Joint Collector passed in
Case no. D1/2755/2014, upon that the respondents no.1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, R. R. District and after perusing the record, the Joint Collector passed suspension of orders passed by the
Revenue Divisional officer, Rajendranagar, and on receipt of notice of the
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.9 of 34 said orders, the petitioner no.3 herein challenged the said orders before
Hon’ble High court vide WP no. 28836 of 2018 and thereafter the
Tahsildar Gandipet Mandal despite the notice of interim stay to the said order by Hon’ble High court in said WP no. 28836 of 2018, has passed orders in case no. 918/2018 dt. 06.09.2018 with respect to said lands as such the respondents no.1 and 2 herein preferred WP no. 33643 of 2018 against the same and again interim orders have been passed by Hon’ble
High Court on 18.09.2018 by granting interim suspension of said orders of Tahsildar and ordered “NOT TO DISTURB THE POSSESSION OF
PETITIONERS i.e., Respondents no.1 and 2 herein UNTIL FURTHER
ORDERS”, the said material fact was deliberately suppressed by the petitioners/plaintiffs herein and their alleged GPA holder before the court. The said Writ petition is pending before Hon’ble High Court for adjudication and interim orders passed therein are in subsistence.
Thereafter the Joint Collector has passed ambiguous orders in said revision D1/2800/2018, dt. 02.02.2019, wherein it having observed the earlier order passed by its predecessor in Case no. D1/2755/2014 and pendency of the above said Writ Petitions filed by the respondents no.1 and 2 and petitioner no.3 in respect of suit property, has erroneously confirmed the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Rajendranagar Mandal, and aggrieved by the same, the respondents no.1 and 2 herein have preferred Writ before the Hon’ble High Court vide
Writ Petition no. 3423 of 2019 and the said Writs filed in the year 2018 along with above said Writ are pending for adjudication before the
Hon’ble High Court. That by suppressing all these material Revenue
proceedings and Hon’ble High Court orders the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present petition. Further, the Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.10 of 34 in Case no. D/732/2019 dt. 25.06.2021 passed an order with falsify the claim of the petitioners. That several doctors also filed LGOP no. 920 of 2016 before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B.
Nagar, to seek possession from these respondents and their vendors affirming the possession of these respondents over the said lands since
March 1997 and even without admitting the case of the petitioners herein, the respondents have been perfected their title and possession over the property in their possession without any interruption since year 1996 by way of adverse possession till now and continuing the same.
Therefore, the burden is cast upon the petitioners/plaintiffs to establish their possession over the suit schedule property and not even a single paper is filed before this court showing their possession and the petitioners/plaintiffs and their alleged GPA have committed fraud upon the court and also suppressed material facts and orders passed by the courts have obtained exparte orders from the Hon’ble High Court and thereby approached the court with unclean hands and hence the petitioners/plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any relief much less the relief of injunction or ad-interim injunction from the Court. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
5.On receipt of copy of counter filed by the respondents/defendants, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed reply denying the contentions of the counter filed by the respondents/defendants and further submitted that petitions/plaintiffs have filed various documents and photographs which categorically show the possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the petition schedule property; that the petitioners/plaintiffs had no knowledge about the demise of respondent no.1 and as the other defendants and their henchmen were acting and
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.11 of 34 trying to trespass into the petition schedule property on behalf of the defendant no.1, the petitioners/plaintiffs were constrained to array defendant no.1 as a party to the present suit; that the present application and suit are constituted only due to various illegal actions and malafides on the part of respondents in trying to grab petitions’/plaintiffs’ possession over the petition schedule property and all the averment with regard to technicality of GPA is denied and the same cannot be considered for adjudication of the merits of the case and the said issue is curable in nature; that the cancellation of registered
GPA issued in favour of P. V. Subba Reddy was through a registered cancellation document bearing no. 25 of 1989 and once a document is being registered before the concerned Sub-Registrar, the document itself serves a notice to public at large, further the petitioners have published a news publication informing the general public at large about the demise of Krishna Brahamam and cautioned about the illegal intention and actions of P. V. Subba Reddy in trying to sell the petition schedule property and cautioned the public at large to not to enterinto any conveyance in respect of the petition schedule property and inspite of afore said cautions, the respondents illegally fabricated registered sale deeds in their favour by vexatious personal reasons which otherwise is only to defeat the legitimate rights of the petitioners and to grab the petition schedule property.
It is further submitted by the petitioners/plaintiffs that Late V.
Krishna Brahmam himself successfully defended the cases before the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar and obtained suitable favourable orders, but not his alleged GPA P. V. Subba
Reddy. That under the grab of general power of attorney even after its
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.12 of 34 revocation and issuance of public notice, P. V. Subba Reddy without the knowledge of the petitioners with a malafide and ill intention, might have represented in various revenue proceedings and pleaded befroe revenue authorities impersonating the petitioners. That it is observed from the documents filed by the respondents that in the orders passed by the RDO, Rajendranagar Division in case No. Cd/2566/2017 dt.
26.05.2018 it is observed that the Tahsildar, Gandipet had not followed rules and inserted the name of P. V. Subba Reddy and he himself cannot execute any document after 24.09.1989 and erroneously the respondents purchased the property from unauthorized person. The alleged agreement of sale is of the year 1990 which is way after the cancellation of the GPA dt. 24.05.1989 and therefore the respondents with a malafide intention have created sale deeds bearing doc.no. 3806 of 1996 and 2072 of 1997. that the petitioners are constrained by the acts of respondents/defendants and it was imperative on the part of the petitioner to seek urgent remedy of perpetual injunction and infact the petitioners have categorically in their plaint reserved their right to file other suitable suits to safeguard the interests of the petitioners in respect of petition schedule property. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed Writ petition challenging orders of the Joint Collector and the same is pending and further, the suit is filed only for the reason that the respondents/defendants have tried to encroach into the property of petitioner causing hindrance to the possession of petitioners, hence petitioners/plaintiffs being left with no other alternative have approached this court seeking perpetual injunction.
It is further submitted by the petitioners/plaintiffs that the documents filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs clearly shows the possession
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.13 of 34 of the petitioners and their ancestors and document no.13 which is a registered document shows that petitioners have sold an extent of Ac.2- 12gts adjacent to suit schedule property for a valid sale consideration to third parties vide doc.no. 3640 of 2016 dt. 19.05.2016 and the same was not challenged by the respondents in any forum at any point of time, that the above sale deed shows the possession of the petitioners in respect of property conveyed by them. Further, the respondents/defendants apart from playing fraud upon the petitioners, the respondents no.1 and 2 in collusion with each other have also played fraud upon the registration officials and revenue officials and tried to illegally mutate their names on the basis of the fabricated, null and void documents and all the permissions obtained by the respondents are ipso facto illegal and do not pertain to the extent of the petition schedule property. With regard to the averment that petitioner no.3 herein came to file appeal no. D5/4173/99, challenging the orders passed in proceedings no. 3095/90 Dt. 02.12.1995, before Joint Collector, R. R.,
District and that the same was also dismissed by the Joint Collector vide its order dt. 10.03.2006 is concerned, it is submitted that the same have not attained finality and in fact the petitioners challenged the illegal entries of respondents/defendants before the revenue authorities which were all adjudicated in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. That only because the respondents illegally tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule property and also created a cloud over the petitioners title, the petitioners are constrained to file the present suit and the respondents have not shown any title as to how they have been inducted into the possession of the suit schedule
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.14 of 34 property even after cancellation of the registered GPA and even after issuing a public notice. Hence prayed to grant temporary injunction.
6.To substantiate their case, the petitioners got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and on the side of Respondents Ex.R1 to R23 are marked.
7.Heard the arguments of both sides, perused the record.
8.Now, the point for determination is “whether the
petitioners are entitled to the relief of interim injunction
restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with
their possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule
property pending disposal of the main suit?”
POINT:
9.As extracted by me above, it is the case of the petitioners that they filed the main suit for grant of permanent injunction pending disposal of the said suit the present petition is filed to grant interim injunction in their favour thereby to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession over the petition schedule property. It is the claim of the petitioners that since they are in possession of the petition schedule property that filed the suit for permanent injunction their possession over the petition schedule property need to be protected by granting interim injunction. The primary requirement to maintain and to order this petition is the possession of the petitioners over the petition schedule property and the threat posed by the respondents to interfere with the said possession.
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.15 of 34
10.It may be noted that the suit as well as this petition is filed by the petitioners no.1 to 3 as plaintiffs that are represented by their
GPA holder T. Venkateswarlu. The affidavit for this petition Sworn in by the said GPA holder that signed and filed.
11.At the first instance it is argued for the respondents that the
GPA filed along with the suit is signed only by one petitioner and the other two petitioners have not signed, that it can be said that it was only one petitioner that gave GPA in favour of T. Venkateswarlu, as such, the petition filed by T. Venkateswarlu on behalf of the other two petitioners is not maintainable and even the said GPA suffers for want of stamp duty and penalty which amounts to more than Rs. 2 Crores and odd to be collected, that after the filing of the counter and raising of objection one lady among the petitioners herself filed rejoinder and not by the GPA holder that it is not known whether the GPA was cancelled with the permission of the court or without the permission, that no discharge petition is filed to discharge the GPA, that though the petition got filed through the GPA he has been thrown away after obtaining exparte orders. Therefore, the suit as well as the petition filed representing the petitioners by the GPA is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is argued for the petitioners in the reply arguments that the insufficient stamp on the GPA can be cured and at any stage the stamp duty and penalty can be paid.
12.There is no reply with regard to lapses of giving GPA by one petitioner among the three petitioners. A perusal of the document i.e., the GPA reveals that it was V. Srilakshmi i.e., petitioner no.3 that is found executed the GPA in favour of T. Venkateswarlu and two petitioners
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.16 of 34 namely Smt.N.Annapurna, petitioner no.1, and Smt. Veturi Anjani petitioner no.2 that have not signed the GPA and gave the GPA in favour of T.Venkateswarlu. As rightly pointed out by the respondents side no subsequent proceedings are found taken up during the course of enquiry in this petition and with regard to execution of the GPA in favour of
T.Venkateswarlu or that the GPA was cancelled by the petitioners. The reply affidavit against the counter averments is found signed by the first petitioner N. Annapurna only. The said ambiguity is not explained by the petitioners counsel to maintain this petition filed by the GPA initially on behalf of the three petitioners that have not executed the GPA in favour of T. Venkateswarlu. In lieu of the said lacunae in giving GPA in favour of
T. Venkateswarlu and in turn the said T. Venkateswarlu filing petition for grant of interim injunction under the guise of defective GPA given to him and the subsequent conduct of the petitioner no.3 that filed reply affidavit without obtaining any permission or initiating any steps for discharge of the GPA that filed the petition all that will lead to suspicion as to the maintainability of the petition itself.
13.Coming to the point as to possession it is a settled position that in a petition for injunction against interference of the possession and enjoyment of the property the prima-facie case is possession. It has been recognized and repeatedly held that possession is nine points in law of granting the relief of temporary injunction. In the case on hand, the petitioners claim that their father was the owner of the property and they being the daughters of Krishna Brahmam they succeeded their father, that under the Indian Evidence Act, presumption is that the title follows possession, that they have established prima-facie title as against the respondents that obtained sale deeds from the GPA holder of
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.17 of 34 their father whose GPA was cancelled and by the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondents the GPA was not in existence as it was cancelled by their father. Therefore, they have been in possession of the petition schedule property. It is also argued for the petitioners that the documents filed by the petitioners prove that the petitioners are in possession of the petition schedule property.
14.In the light of the above said contention of the petitioners and the arguments of their learned counsel it is appropriate to look into the documents filed by the petitioners. They are Ex.P1 is the Death
Certificate of V. Krishna Brahmam father of the petitioners, Ex.P2 is the
GPA under document bearing no. 39 of 1988 executed by V. Krishna
Brahmam father of the petitioners in favour of P. Venkata Subba Reddy, the vendor of the respondents, Ex.P3 is the GPA cancellation document no. 245 of 1989 dt. 24.05.1989, Ex.P4 is the proceedings of the joint collector dt. 02.02.2019, Ex.P5 is the FIR in Cr.no. 1411 of 2021 dt.
23.11.2021, Ex.P6 is the 8nos of positive photographs, Ex.P7 is Certified copy of sale deed bearing doc.no. 3640 of 2016 dt. 19.05.2016, Ex.P8 is the certified copy of cancellation of development Agreement cum GPA bearing doc.no. 3356 of 2018 dt. 10.04.2018, Ex.P9 is certified copy of order in Case no. D/732/2019 dt. 25.06.2021, Ex.P10 is certified copy of orders in WP. no. 27570 of 2021 dt. 02.11.2021, Ex.P11 Compact Disc.
15.None of the above said documents are in respect of proof of possession of the petitioners over the petition schedule property.
Petitioners claimed that they erected structure, but no supportive document is filed by them to strengthen their contention. Except the document marked as Ex.P6 photographs and even the said photographs
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.18 of 34 pertain to some third parties and the presence of the petitioner is not established. Even otherwise considering the nature of the petition schedule property which is landed property the said photographs are not satisfactory proof as to possession of the petitioners. In the proceedings
before the revenue authorities it was only claimed for mutation of their
names in respect of the petition schedule survey number and no where it is found claimed by the petitioners that they demanded for mutation of their names in the possessor column as they were in possession of the petition schedule property.
16.As against the above said claims of the petitioners, the respondents herein who are equally claiming their rights over the petition schedule property in support of their case they filed and marked documents on their side and in the process of proof of their possession over the petition schedule property. It is argued for the respondents that the respondents have been in possession over the petition schedule land by raising a compound wall by digging a bore well and by obtaining electricity service connection, they have also erected CCTV Camers and the documents filed by them prove that the respondent no.1 late
Kedermal Agarwal during his life time was found present at the petition schedule property and the documents filed by them establish that the respondents land is not a open land but there are cattle shed, mango garden. It is also argued for the respondents that their possession was duly recognized by the Hon’ble High court that passed orders not to interfere with their possession. Even the Revenue record also discloses the fact that the respondents have been in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule land. In support of the oral arguments of the respondents side, the documents that are filed by the respondents which
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.19 of 34 are marked as Ex.R1 seven electricity bills and receipts, Ex.R2 is complaint to SHO, PS Narsingi dt. 17.10.2021, Ex.R3 is Certificate issued by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Primary Veterinary Center, Narsingi,
Gandi Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Ex.R4 Certified copy of sale deed bearing doc.no. 3806 of 1996 dt. 31.10.1996, Ex.R5 is certified copy of sale deed bearing doc.no. 2072 of 1997 dt. 31.07.1997, Ex.R6 true copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1995 – 96, Ex.R7 True copy of Adangal
Pahani for the year 1996 – 97, Ex.R8 True copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1997 – 98, Ex.R9 is True copy of Adangal pahani for the year 1998 – 99, Ex.R10 is true copy of adangal pahani for the year 1999 – 2000,
Ex.R11 is true copy of adangal pahani for the year 2001 – 2002, Ex.R12 is Proceedings of Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District no. D/214/2015 dt. 07.05.2015, Ex.R13 is certified copy of orders in C/3095/90 dt. 02.12.1995 issued by Revenue Divisional
Officer, Chevella Division, R. R. District at Domalguda, Hyderabad,
Ex.R14 is certified copy of orders in Case No. D1/2735/2014 dt.
22.08.2015 passed by Joint Collector – II, Ranga Reddy District, Ex.R15 certified copy of Adangal pahani for land in Sy.no. 31/1/EA/1 dt.
05.08.2017 and certified copy of Adangal Pahani for the land in Sy.no.
31/1EA/2 dt. 05.08.2017, Ex.R16 certified copy of orders in WP no.
33643 of 2018 dt. 18.09.2018, Ex.R17 Death Certificate of Late
Kedarmal Agarwal, Ex.R18 certified copy of petition in LGOP no. 9 920 of 2016, Ex.R19 complaint to Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Ranga
Reddy District at Gachibowli dt. 10.10.2021, Ex.R20 complaint lodged with SHO, PS Narsingi, Ranga Reddy District, Gandipet Mandal dt.
13.10.2021, Ex.R21 copies of photographs along with CD, Ex.R22 Orders in Case no. D5/4173/99 dt. 10.03.2006 issued by Joint Collector, R. R.
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.20 of 34
District, Ex.R23 orders passed in Case no. D/1005/2013 dt. 21.12.2013 by Deputy collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, R. R. District.
17.The above said documents which are authentic and reliable in all probability are sufficient that throw light as to the possession of the respondents over the petition schedule property. It is a settled position that the person in possession even if it is unlawful need to be protected until he is evicted under due process of law. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are claiming for recovery of possession from the respondents. The main suit is for the relief of permanent injunction simplicitor and pending the said suit the present petition is for interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession and the petitioners failed to prove their possession over the petition schedule property as such the question of protecting the said possession does not arise. As rightly argued for the respondents that not a single document is found filed by the petitioners for proving their possession over the petition schedule property and on the other hand the respondents have been in possession for the last 25yrs i.e., from the time of their purchase in 1996.
18. It is appropriate to refer the decisions relied by the respondents side for the preposition as to proof of possession to grant the relief of injunction which are as follows:
1. In a decision reported in 2021 (1) ALD 600 (TS)(DB) at paragraph no.20 between Kopalle Venu Gopal and another Vs. P.
Subrahmanya Prasad and others wherein it was held as follows:
Plaintiff has to establish his possession of suit proper on the date of filing of suit prima facie, if he seeks injunction in suit
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.21 of 34 restraining defendants and others to interfere with his possession of said property.
2. In the decision reported in 2019 (3) ALD 302 between Uppara
Anjinappa (died) and others Vs. T. Khasim Sab (died) per Lrs wherein it was held as follows:
Burden squarely upon plaintiffs to prove that they have title over suit property and also possession on date of suit – It is only if plaintiffs proved their possession, they will be entitled to injunction.
3. In the decision reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 296 between Kashi Math Samsthan and Anr. Vs. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha
Swamy and Anr wherein it was held as follows:
In order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. But it is equally well settled that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned would not be material at all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it is not open to the court to grant injunction in his favour even if he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted.
4. In the decision reported in 2012 (1) ALD 142 between Yerra
Venkatesh Vs. Nathi Mallesh and others wherein it was held as follows:
Failure of plaintiff to establish his possession over suit property on date of filing suit, effect of – Plaintiff, if failed in proving his prima facie case based on possession to go for trial, it is not open to court to grant injunction in his favour even if he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and that he would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction is granted.
To make out his case the plaintiff must first statisfy the Court that he has a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience is in his favour and that he would suffer irreparable loss or injury if injunction is not granted. To make out his prima facie case, the plaintiff must first and foremost establish his possession over the suit schedule property on
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.22 of 34 the date of the suit by adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence and he cannot rely upon the weakness, if any,in the case of the defendant(s) for this purpose.
5. In the decision reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1727
Crl.Apl.no. 2968 of 2021 arising out of SLP No. 15382 of 2009 dt.
2.03.20112 between Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Others Vs.
Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through Lrs. Wherein it was held as follows:
The person averring a right to continue in possession shall, as far as possible, give a detailed particularized specific pleadings along with documents to support his claim and details of subsequent conduct which establish his possession.
…….
It would be imperative that one who claims possession must give all such details as enumerated hereunder. They are only illustrative and not exhaustive.
(a) who is or are the owner or owners of the property;
(b) title of the property;
(c) who is in possession of the title documents
(d) identity of the claimant or claimants to possession;
(e) the date of entry into possession;
(f) how he came into possession - whether he purchased the property or inherited or got the same in gift or by any other method;
(g) in case he purchased the property, what is the consideration; if he has taken it on rent, how much is the rent, license fee or lease amount;
(h) If taken on rent, license fee or lease - then insist on rent deed, license deed or lease deed; (i) who are the persons in possession/occupation or otherwise living with him, in what capacity; as family members, friends or servants etc.;
(j) subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might have extinguished his entitlement to possession or caused shift therein; and
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.23 of 34
(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue in possession.
6. In the decision reported in 1995 (2) ALT 678 arising out of CRP
No. 4071 of 1994 dt. 01.08.1995 between D. Apparao Vs. D. Rama
Mohanarao wherien it was held as follows:
Plaintiff cannot rely upon weakness and lacunae in defendant’s case – Plaintiff has to establish his possession and enjoyment on date of suit.
19.In a petition filed for temporary injunction, as laid down above, the prima-facie case is possession which need to be established and the title is for consideration of the balance of convenience. Since the petitioners failed to prove their possession over the petition schedule property it can be said that no prima-facie case is made out by the petitioners which is the primary and foremost ingredient to order for the relief of interim injunction. As the petitioners failed to make out a prima- facie case it can be said that they are not entitled for grant of interim injunction against the respondents.
20.It is argued for the respondents that the petitioners approached this court with unclean hands and by suppressing the material facts, that the petitioners did not disclose the earlier litigation
before the revenue courts so also the orders passed by the Hon’ble High
Court not to interfere with the possession of the respondents herein over the petition schedule property under document Ex.R16. It is argued that in order to protect their possession they filed Writ Petition and obtained orders. The said fact is suppressed, that the joint collector in his orders
dt. 22.08.2015 directed to approach the Civil Court with regard to the
title dispute and the same is also suppressed, that the petitioners
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.24 of 34 suppressed the proceedings before the RDO dt. 02.12.2015 under the document Ex.R18 and orders of the Joint Collector dt. 10.03.2006 under document Ex.R19, and complaint lodged with SHO, PS Narsingi, Ranga
Reddy District, Gandipet Mandal dt. 13.10.2021 Ex.R20, copies of photographs along with CD Ex.R21, Orders in Case no. D5/4173/99 dt.
10.03.2006 issued by Joint Collector, R. R. District Ex.R22, Orders passed in Case no. D/ 1005/2013 dt. 21.12.2013 issued by Deputy collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar mandal, R. R. District Ex.R23.
21.It is argued for the respondents that neither the proceedings under the above said documents nor the orders passed by the revenue courts or the Hon’ble High Court are filed by the petitioners before this court which are material, thereby they suppressed all material facts that dis-entitle the petitioners for grant of the relief of interim injunction. It is also argued that in the petition pleadings what all the proceedings that were held during the last 25yrs period did not find place. On the other hand it is the respondents that gave all the details in their counter supported by the documents with include all those litigations before the
RDO, and Joint collector which are in the knowledge of the petitioners that have purposefully suppressed.
22.It is significant to note that injunctions are a form of equitable relief that are to be granted in aid of equity. A person that approaches the court seeking the equitable relief of injunction must make an honest disclosure of the material facts which may include both for and against them. Any suppression of the material facts, dis-entitles the person for the said equitable relief. As rightly argued for the respondents herein the documents filed and marked by the respondents
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.25 of 34 as Ex.R18 to Ex.R23 clinchingly throw light as to the conducting of proceedings before the revenue authorities way back from the year 1995. There is no explanation on the part of the petitioners as to why there was no disclosure of the said proceeding. In other words, it amounts to suppression of material facts thereby it can be said that the petitioners are not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction sought for by them under this petition.
23.In the above said context, it is proper to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in a decision reported in (2013) 2 SCC 398 arising out of Crl.Apl.no. 1406 of 2012 dt. 18.10.2012 between
Kishore Samrite Vs. State of UP and others which was relied by both the counsels wherein it was held as follows:
29. Now, we shall deal with the question whether both or any of the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 111/2011 and 125/2011 are guilty of suppression of material facts, not approaching the Court with clean hands, and thereby abusing the process of the Court. Before we dwell upon the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, let us refer to some case laws which would help us in dealing with the present situation with greater precision. The cases of abuse of the process of court and such allied matters have been arising before the Courts consistently. This Court has had many occasions where it dealt with the cases of this kind and it has clearly stated the principles that would govern the obligations of a litigant while approaching the court for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of abuse of the process of court. We may recapitulate and state some of the principles. It is difficult to state such principles exhaustively and with such accuracy that would uniformly apply to a variety of cases. These are:
(i) Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with ‘unclean hands’. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief.
(ii) The people, who approach the Court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.26 of 34
(iii) The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.
(iv) Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have over- shadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains.
(v) A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
…..
31. It has been consistently stated by this Court that the entire journey of a Judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties, as truth is the basis of the Justice Delivery System.
32. With the passage of time, it has been realised that people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the Courts, irrespective of the consequences but that practice no longer proves true, in all cases. The Court does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to who has won and who has lost but it has a legal duty of its own, independent of parties, to take active role in the proceedings and reach at the truth, which is the foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the truth should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the Courts to become active seekers of truth. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood, must be appropriately dealt with. The parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court
24.It is significant to note that at length it is argued for both the petitioners and the respondents with regard to the title dispute over the petition schedule property. It is an admitted fact that the father of the petitioners Krishna Brahmam was the original owner of the petition schedule property. It is also an admitted fact Late Krishna Brahmam gave GPA in favourof P. V. Subba Reddy by executing registered GPA dt.01.08.1988,
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.27 of 34
25.It is the contention of the petitioners that later the GPA was cancelled by Krishna Brahmam by executing a cancellation deed. It is the claim of the respondents that they have purchased the petition schedule property from the GPA holder of Late Krishna Brahmam in the year 1996 as the GPA holders name was found mutated in the revenue record and that they were not aware of the cancellation of the GPA given by Late Krishna Brahmam in favour of their vendor. The respondents claim that they have purchased under the bonafide impression as to the title and possession of their vendor, that since the date of their purchase in the year 1996 they have been in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. At length both the counsels argued as to the merits of the GPA given in favour of P. V. Subba Reddy by Late Krishna
Brahmam and as to its cancellation and on the validity of the sale deeds obtained by the respondents in respect of the petition schedule property.
26.It is significant to note that in the limited scope of enquiry for the grant or refusal of the interim injunction it is only on proof of the prima-facie case incidentally the title has to be gone into to determine the balance of convenience and to tilt the balance in favour of either of the parties to this petition. In the limited scope of enquiry it is premature to consider the merits of the passing of the title and the validity of the documents executed on both sides. Therefore, I am of the considered view that it is not appropriate to go deep into the merits of the title in favour of either of the parties to this petition. As such, it is enough to consider the relief sought for by the petitioner whether they have satisfied the tripets laid down i.e., prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.28 of 34
27.It is appropriate to rely on the citations referred by the petitioner’s counsel as reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719 between Dalpat
Kumar and Another Vs. Prahlad Singh and others so also cited and reported on the side of respondents side wherein it was held that Prima
facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has
to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case
is a substantial question raised, bonafide, which needs
investigation and a decision on merits. …. The court while
granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound
judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or
injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the
injunction is refused and compare it with that which islikely to
be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on
weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of
injury and if the court considers that pending the suit, the
subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction
would be issued. Thus the court has to exercise its sound
judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad-interim
injunction pending the suit.
28. On the petitioners side the learned counsel referred and relied on the following reported decisions for the prepositions referred by the petitioners side which is as follows:
1. In a decision reported in MANU/KA/7669/2019 between M.S.
Ananthamurthy & Others Vs. J. Manjula & Others and reported in AIR 2007 Raj 166 between Prahlad and others Vs. Laddevi and others wherein it was held that A power of attorney granted by the
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.29 of 34
Principal to the Agent is operative and effective only during the
lifetime of the Principal and naturally such a power of attorney
cannot be operative or be effective after the demise of the
Principal.
2. In a decision reported in MANU/KA/2957/2013 between Wajid
Pasha Vs. The Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority and others and reported in MANU/SC/0522/1989 between Southern Roadways Ltd.,
Vs. S.M. Krishnan wherein it was held that Once the agency is
terminated on account of the operation of law or by the act of
the principal, the agent cannot act on the basis of the power
conferred upon him under the deed of power of attorney.
3. In a decision reported in MANU/SC/0506/1989 between
Chandrakantaben Vs. Vadilal Bapalal Modi and others and reported in
MANU/UP/4144/2019 between Vishwanath Mishra Vs. XIII ADJ, Varanasi and others wherein it was held that The possession of the agent is
the possession of the principal and the agent cannot be
permitted to claim his own possession.
4. In a decision reported in 2012 (4) ALD 411 between Mir Khader
Ali khan Vs. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy wherein it was held that
Power of Attorney can be unilaterally cancelled.
5. In a decision reported in MANU/SC/1222/2011 between Suraj
Lams and Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Haryana and reported in
MANU/PH/3749/2013 between Rajiv Mahajan and others Vs. Ajit Kaur and others wherein it was held that Once a registered power of attorney
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.30 of 34
is cancelled by registered cancellation deed, then cancellation
operates as constructive public notice.
6. In a decision reported in MANU/TN/1589/2017 between
G.Muniratnam and others Vs. The District Collector, Tuticorin and others wherein it was held that After revocation of the power of attorney,
any document created on the the strength of the power of
attorney deed is non est law.
7. In a decision reported in (1994) 12 SCC 406 between S.P.
Chengalavaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath & others and reported in (2008 ) 12
SCC 306 between Behari Kunuj Sahkari Avas Samiti Vs. State of UP wherein it was held that Fraud vitiates everything, even themost solemn judicial proceedings.
8. In a decision reported in MANU/OR/0016/1990 between
RankanidhiSahu Vs. Nandakishore Sahu wherein it was held that A void
ab intio document need not be challenged as there is no legal
sanctity to such documents.
9. In a decision reported in MANU/AP/1795/2013 between
Deutsche Bank AG Vs. Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd., wherein it was held that A GPA is curable defect.
10. In a decision reported in MANU/AP/0852/2008 between
Tirumala Venkata Reddaiah Chowdary and Another Vs. Potla Krishna
Prasad wherein it was held that No person can convey a better title than what he possesses.
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.31 of 34
11. In a decision reported in MANU/DE3224/2015 between Raj Pal
Vs. Ram Phal wherein it was held that One cannot claim property by
both adverse possesses and title as the same are inconsistent
and contradictory pleas.
12. In a decision eported in MANU/TN/0265/1986 between Sekar
Mudaliar Vs. Shajathi Bi wherein it was held that A document
presented by Power of Attorney after the death of the Principal
is an invalid and void document.
13. In a decision reported in MANU/TN/7847/2021 between S.
Saravanan Vs. M. Dhanalakshmi wherein it was held that There is no limitation to challenge fraudulent documents.
14. In a decision reported in MANU/SC/0565/2002 between
Dghannal Vs. Kalavanthi and in MANU/SC/0564/2011 between Shankara
Co-operative housing society Vs. M. Prabhakar wherein it was held that “One owner can file suit on behalf of other co-owners.
15. In a decision reported in AIR 1989 SC 1809 between
Corporation of the City of Bangalore Vs. M. Papaiah and others, reported in MANU/SC/0399/1994 between Jatt Ram Vs. Hakam Singh, reported in
MANU/SC/7303/2007 between SurajBhan Vs. Financial Commissioner wherein it was held that Revenue records does not confer title.
16. In a decision reported in 1995 (1) ALT 1995 between Abu Taher
Vs. Abdul Majeed it was held that the defects in a General Power of
Attorney are only curable irregularity and not an illegality.
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.32 of 34
29.The above referred judgments are not applicable in the present situation wherein the petition taken up for consideration is for grant of temporary injunction. The said reported judgments and the prepositions laid down therein may be useful for consideration for determining the rights of the parties both to maintain the suit filed for permanent injunction and for resolving the merits of the said suit and as to the passing of the title to the parties. Hence, I considered that the said citations are not relevant for the time being in the present petition.
30.Since it is already observed by me above that the petitioners herein failed to make out a prima-facie case, the question of establishing the other two following ingredients do not arise. In other words the petitioners failed to prove their entitlement for grant of the interim injunction against the respondents under this petition. Therefore petition is to be dismissed.
31.In the result, the petition is dismissed. The exparte Ad- interim injunction orders dt. 01.10.2021 stands vacated.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2022.
II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.P1: Death Certificate of V. Krishna Brahmam father of the petitioners, Ex.P2: GPA under document bearing no. 39 of 1988 executed by V. Krishna Brahmam father of the petitioners in favour of P. Venkata Subba Reddy
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.33 of 34
Ex.P3: GPA cancellation document no. 245 of 1989 dt. 24.05.1989 Ex.P4: Proceedings of the joint collector dt. 02.02.2019 Ex.P5: FIR in Cr.no. 1411 of 2021 dt. 23.11.2021 Ex.P6: 8nos of positive photographs Ex.P7: Certified copy of sale deed bearing doc.no. 3640 of 2016 dt. 19.05.2016 Ex.P8: Certified copy of cancellation of development Agreement cum GPA bearing doc.no. 3356 of 2018 dt. 10.04.2018 Ex.P9: Certified copy of order in Case no. D/732/2019 dt. 25.06.2021 Ex.P10: Certified copy of orders in Wpno.27570 of 2021 dt.02.11.2021 Ex.P11: Compact Disc
FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R1: 7 nos of electricity bills and receipts Ex.R2: Complaint to SHO, PS Narsingi dt. 17.10.2021 Ex.R3: Certificate issued by the Veterinary Asst. Surgeion, Primary Veterinary Centre, Narsingi, Gandi Mandal, Ranga Reddy District
Ex.R4: Certified copy of sale deed bearing doc.no. 3806 of 1996 dt. 31.10.1996 Ex.R5: Certified copy of sale deed bearing doc.no. 2072 of 1997 dt. 31.07.1997 Ex.R6: True copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1995 – 96 Ex.R7 : True copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1996 – 97 Ex.R8 : True copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 1997 – 98 Ex.R9 : True copy of Adangal pahani for the year 1998 – 99 Ex.R10: True copy of adangal pahani for the year 1999 – 2000 Ex.R11 : True copy of adangal pahani for the year 2001 – 2002 Ex.R12: Proceedings of Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District no. D/214/2015 dt. 07.05.2015, Ex.R13: Certified copy of orders in C/3095/90 dt. 02.12.1995 issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R. R. District at Domalguda, Hyderabad Ex.R14: Certified copy of orders in Case No.D1/2735/2014 dt.22.8.2015 passed by Joint Collector – II, Ranga Reddy District Ex.R15: Certified copy of Adangal pahani for land in Sy.no. 31/1/EA/1 dt.05.08.2017 and certified copy of Adangal Pahani for the land in Sy.no. 31/1EA/2 dt. 05.08.2017 Ex.R16: Certified copy of orders in WP no.33643 of 2018 dt.18.09.2018 Ex.R17: Death Certificate of Late Kedarmal Agarwal Ex.R18: Certified copy of petition in LGOP no. 9 920 of 2016
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.34 of 34
Ex.R19: Complaint to Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, R.R. District at Gachibowli dt. 10.10.2021 Ex.R20: Complaint lodged with SHO, PS Narsingi, R.R. Dist, Gandipet Mandal dt. 13.10.2021 Ex.R21: Copies of photographs along with CD Ex.R22: Orders in Case no. D5/4173/99 dt. 10.03.2006 issued by Joint Collector, R. R. District Ex.R23: Orders passed in Case no. D/1005/2013 dt. 21.12.2013 issued by Deputy collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar mandal, R. R. District
II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.35 of 34
1. Reported in (2011) 8 SCC 249 between Rameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi.
2. reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 between S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) Per LRS Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs and others
3. (2010) 2 SCC 114 between Dilip Singh Vs. State of UP and others
4. (2013) 2 SCC 398 between Kishore Samrite Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
5. (1995) 5 SCC 545 between Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd., and others
6. 2020 (1) Indian Civil Cases 641 (Cal.) between Calcutta
Landing @ Shipping Company Limited Vs. Manbasa Devi and
others.
7. 2015 (3) ALD 372 between Dasari Laxmi Vs. Bejjenki Sathi Reddy and another 8.
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.36 of 34
Order pronounced (VSO)
In the result, the petition is dismissed. The exparte Ad-interim injunction orders dt. 01.10.2021 stands vacated
IIADJ
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.37 of 34
IA no. 44 of 2017
in
OS no. 37 of 2017
24.12.2021
This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to grant Ad-interim injunction against the respondents from alienating the petition A and B schedule properties to third parties. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the daughter of the respondent no.1 and that the petition A and B schedule properties are the properties of her father who is the husband of the respondent no.1 that died leaving behind them as his successors, that as they both constitute Hindu Undivided Joint Family, suit filed for partition and separate possession of the share of the petitioner in the petition A and B schedule properties. The present petition is to grant interim injunction against the alienation of the petition schedule properties to third parties pending disposal of the main suit. The respondents no.1 and 2 failed to file counter opposing the claim of the petitioner in this case, as such, they conceded to the claims of the petitioner and for grant of interim injunction as prayed for by the petitioner. Since the petition is not resisted by the respondents, there is no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the petition A and B schedule properties to third parties pending disposal of the main suit. Accordingly, petition is to be allowed. In the result, petition is allowed grantingAd-interiminjunction restraining the respondents from alienating the petition A and B schedule properties to third parties.
II ADJ
I.A.No.671 of 2021 in OS no. 428 of 2021 Page No.38 of 34