IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT
MAHABUBNAGAR
Wednesday, the 20th day of October, 2021
Present:- Sri.D.Ramakanth, VII Addl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar.
C.M.A.No. 3 of 2019
Between:- K.Laxmipathy S/o. Sayappa, age 42 yrs, Occ. Agri., R/o.Panchalingala village of Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District …Appellant/Plaintiff
And,
1. Shuvanna Goud S/o. Hussainappa Goud, age 50 yrs, Occ. Agri., R/o. Panchalingala village of Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
2. Janardhan Goud S/o. Hussainappa Goud, age 48 yrs., Occ. Agri., R/o. Panchalingala village of Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
3. Ashok Goud S/o. Hussainappa Goud, age 44 yrs, Occ. Agri., R/o. Panchalingala village of Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
…Respondents
Appeal U/Or. XLIII Rule 1 and 3 r/w. Sec. 104 of CPC., against the order and decree dt.16.02.2018 passed in I.A.No.2/2018 in
O.S.No.1/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet.
-o0o-
Between:-
1. K.Laxmipathy
...Petitioner/Plaintiff
And,
1. Shuvvanna Goud
2. Janardhan Goud
3. Ashok Goud …Respondents/Defendants
Sub:-Petition filed U/Or.XXXIX R.1(a) of CPC.
-o0o-
Page 2 of 10 C.M.A.No.3 of 2019
This application came up for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri.C.Rajender Kumar, advocate for the Appellant/Petitioner and of Sri.K.Sitha Rama Rao, and Sri.Sridhar Rao, Advocates for the Respondents/defendants and upon perusing the documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Application is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order and decreetal order dated 16.02.2018 in
I.A.No.2 of 2018 in O.S. No.1 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,
Narayanpet, wherein, where under the petition in I.A.No.2 of 2018 filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2.The appellant is the petitioner, whereas, the respondents 1 to 3 are the respondents in the interlocutory application. The parties will be herein after referred as they are arrayed in the Interlocutory
Application.
3.The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
The petitioner purchased the suit property under a private sale deed for Rs.12,000/- on 11.4.2006 from the mother of the respondents and since then, he is in possession of the suit property and the petitioner is tying bulls and cattle and raised a tin shed and stocking the fodder heap and he obtained permission from
Grampanchayat Panchalingala in the year 2014 to construct a house but due to lack of funds, he could not complete the construction. It is the further case of the petitioner that when he approached the bank for loan, they asked him to produce the registered sale deed and at that juncture, he approached his vendor
Page 3 of 10 C.M.A.No.3 of 2019 who is the mother of the respondents and requested her to execute a sale deed but she refused to do so at the instance of the respondents and though the matter was called before the elders but nothing could be realised by the petitioner. It is contended that since then the respondents eyed on the suit plot and on 25.12.2007 them came over the suit property and quarreled with the petitioner, beat him and tried to occupy the suit property and matter was also reported to the police. As such, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit for perpetual injunction along with the petition for temporary injunction.
4.The defence of the respondents in nutshell is as follows:
The respondents denied the claim of the petitioner in toto and pleaded that one K.Mallesh purchased the suit property from the wife of respondent No.2 under a registered sale deed and the wife of respondent No.2 got the property from her mother-in-law under a registered gift deed and now the petitioner is trying to grab the property by creating forged documents and filed this false suit. It is contended that the petitioner ought to have filed a suit for specific performance of the suit agreement and he is not in physical possession of the suit property and in fact their mother never sold the suit property to the petitioner. It is contended that even the
Grampanchayat permission as claimed by the petitioner is a created document and that there is no prima-faice and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner and thus, he is not entitled for any relief. The documents relied by the petitioner are the fabricated one and in fact the said K.Mallesh filed a suit for
Page 4 of 10 C.M.A.No.3 of 2019 perpetual injunction in O.S.No.2/2018 on the file of Junior Civil Judge
Court, Narayanpet and the same is pending.
5.During the enquiry, the petitioner got marked Exs.P1 to P6.
Ex.P1 are four original photos along with C.D., Ex.P2 is the Photostat copy of sale document, dt. 11.4.2006, Ex.P3 is the original permission letter of Grampanchayat, Panchalingala with approved plan, dt.2.2.2014, Ex.P4 are the six photographs with C.D., Ex.P5 is the copy of the letter dated 12.1.2018 of SHO, Makthal for alteration of section of Law and Ex.P6 is the Photostat of F.I.R. in
Cr.No.15/2018, dt.12.1.2018.
6.On behalf of respondents, Exs.R1 to R11 are marked. Ex.R1 is the copy of plaint in O.S.No.2/2018 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,
Narayanpet, Ex. R2 is the the copy of affidavit in IA No.23/2018 in
OS No.-/2018 on the file of JCJ, Narayanpet, Ex.R3 is the Photostat copy of the sale deed, dated 13.12.2017 vide document
No.3258/17, Ex.R4 is the Photostat copy of receipt, Grampanchayat
Panchalingala, dt.29.12.2017, Ex.R5 is the Photostat copy of the resolution by Grampanchayat, Panchaligala, dt. 29.11.2017, Ex.R6 is the Photostat copy of the permission proceeding of Grampanchayat,
Panchalingala, dt. 30.12.2017 along with plan, Ex.R7 is the
Photostat copy of the photos Nos.(3), Ex.R8 is the Photostat copy of
E.C., dt.27.12.2017, Ex.R9 is the Photostat copy of the registered settlement deed, dt. 25.3.2013, Ex.R10 is the certified copy of FIR in
Cr.No.17/18, dt.12.1.2018 and Ex.R11 is the certified copy of private complaint in CFR No.18/2018.
Page 5 of 10 C.M.A.No.3 of 2019
7.After hearing arguments of both parties counsel, the learned
Senior Civil Judge, framed a point for consideration as:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for temporary injunction against the respondents/defendants as prayed for?
8.After considering the material available the learned Judge has dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to make out a prima-facie and balance of convenience in his favour and the Trial Court also dis-believed the Grampanchayat permission as relied by the petitioner and that it is not establishing the possession of the petitioner.
9.Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the respondents filed this appeal mainly on the grounds that; The petitioner purchased the suit property under simple sale deed (Ex.P2) from the mother of the respondents on 11.4.2006 and came into possession and obtained permission for construction of house and as the bank authorities are insisted to produce the regular sale deed, he approached the mother of the respondent for execution of the sale deed but at the instance of respondents, she refused to do so demanding to pay present rate of land. Though the petitioner filed Exs.P1 to P6, but the Trial Court has not looked into Ex.P4 and came to conclusion that the said photographs are not revealing the existence of shed and blindly refused the claim of the petitioner.
Page 6 of 10 C.M.A.No.3 of 2019 The Trial Court has not considered the Ex.P1 photos and not taken into account the delay in obtaining the permission for construction by the petitioner from Grampanchayat.
When the petitioner asked for regular sale deed, the respondents created the documents showing that the mother the respondent has gifted the land including the suit property which is in use by the petitioner for tying the cattle and that the property purchased by the alleged Mallesh is not delivered to him and the said facts are not considered by the Trial Court and erroneously dismissed the petition of the petitioner. Thus, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
10.Arguments of both parties counsel are heard.
11.Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the trial court committed error in the impugned order?
12.Point:-On careful perusal of the record, it shows that the petitioner is claiming the purchase of suit property under un- registered sale deed dated 11.4.2006 and according to him the original document was mis-placed and that he also obtained permission from Grampanchayat to construct a house in the suit property. According to the petitioner he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property since the date of purchase and he is using the suit property to tie the cattle and to store the fodder heap.
Page 7 of 10 C.M.A.No.3 of 2019
13.Admittedly, the petitioner could not produce the original sale document dated 11.4.2006 and he produced only a photo copy of document and it is marked by the Trial Court as Ex.P2. The contents of Ex.P2 reads that on 11.4.2006, the mother of the respondents sold a plot measuring 45 feet x 43 feet at
Panchalingala for Rs.12,000/-. However, the contents of the said documents are not disclosing whether the sale consideration was paid to the vendor and whether the possession was handed over to the purchaser. When the original sale document is not produced
before the court and as the said document dated 11.4.2006 marked
as Ex.P2 is not showing about the passing of consideration and delivery of possession clearly and the terms of Ex.P2 are ambiguous in nature, I hold that there is no much force in the case of petitioner.
If the contents of the said sale document are construed as not a completed sale, then it may be construed as an agreement to sell the immovable property. It is the settled Law that an agreement to sell does not confer title to the purchaser as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ram Baran Prasad vs. Ram Mohit Hazra, AIR 1967 SC 744, and the said Law was again reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Balwant Vithal Kadam vs. Sunil Babu Rao
Kadam, (2018) 2 SCC 82.
Therefore, in view of the said legal position, the petitioner cannot contend that he is the absolute owner of the suit property as claimed.
14.The petitioner is also relying on the permission allegedly issued by the Grampanchayat on 2.2.2014 marked as Ex.P3 along
Page 8 of 10 C.M.A.No.3 of 2019 with sanction plan. Though this document is showing that the petitioner was permitted to construct a house over the plot in
Sy.No.277, it is settled Law that a house construction sanction or permission is not a document of title and it confers no right or title to the person in whose favour it is granted. The petitioner is mainly relying on the said permission along with sanction plan and claiming that they are also showing his ownership, possession and enjoyment over the suit property. The Hon’ble High Court in Arwapally
Narayana Vs. Grampanchayat, Kamareddy, 1990(3) ALT
568(DB) has clearly held that sanction or permission issued by the
Grampachayat is not a document of title and it does not create any interest in the immovable property.
15.Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a suit for perpetual injunction in which an injunction petition is filed. The petitioner has not filed any suit for specific performance on the strength of the alleged sale document dated 11.4.2006.
16.Since it is found that the original un-registered sale document as relied by the petitioner dated 11.4.2006 is not produced and as such sale document will not confer any title and as it is clear that the sanction plan or permission also does not confer any title, I hold that the petitioner could not make out any prima-facie in his favour.
The other documents produced by the petitioner which are the photographs, sale deed etc., cannot be relied upon as the petitioner could not make out a possession over the suit property. The petitioner cannot depend upon the weakness of the other side.
Page 9 of 10 C.M.A.No.3 of 2019
17.The respondents are denying the case of the petitioner in toto and according to them, the suit property was sold to one K.Mallesh under a registered sale deed said to have executed by the wife of respondent No.2, and in fact the said K.Mallesh filed a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.2/2018 against the petitioner herein and it is pending. The title and rights of the parties will be decided after due trial in the case but not at this stage.
18.In the light of the above circumstances, as the petitioner failed to make out a prima-facie, balance of convenience in his favour and as he failed to establish his claim and possession over the suit property, I hold that there is no irregularity or any illegality committed by the Trial Court in refusing the relief of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and this Court is of the view that the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Point is answered accordingly.
19.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Application is dismissed confirming the order passed by Senior Civil Judge,
Narayanpet dated 16.02.2018 in I.A.No. 2/2018 in O.S.No.1/2018.
There is no order as to costs.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the, this the 20th day of October, 2021.
VII Addl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar
Page 10 of 10 C.M.A.No.3 of 2019
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined Exhibits marked -Nil-
VII Addl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar