P. SATYANARAYANA versus NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY on 16 December 2021

1. The respondent herein filed a suit (i) for a declaration that he isthe absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduleproperty; (ii) for a further declaration that the Gift Settlement Deeddated 24.07.1987 executed in favour of the petitioner herein was nulland void; and (iii) for a permanent injunction restraining the petitionerherein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment.

2. Pending suit the respondent also moved an interlocutoryapplication for an interim order of injunction restraining the petitionerherein from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment and possession ofthe suit property. By an Order dated 11.02.2020, the trial Court dismissedthe application for injunction.

3. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the respondent filed anappeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By anOrder dated 2.06.2021, the High Court for the State of Telangana atHyderabad allowed the appeal and granted an interim order of injunctionin favour of the respondent, pending disposal of the suit. It is against thesaid order that the defendant in the suit has come up with the presentspecial leave petition.

4. We have heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior advocateappearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, learnedadvocate appearing for the respondent.

5. The suit schedule property is an agricultural dry land measuringacres 1.00 Gts, out of the total extent of acres 2.20 Gts, in Survey No.272/A, in Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, RangaReddy District, Telangana. The case of the respondent-plaintiff in thesuit was:

(i) that he purchased the suit schedule property under aregistered Sale deed dated 09.12.2015 from one MekalaRam Reddy; A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

492SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A(ii)that the said Mekala Ram Reddy had purchased the suitproperty under a registered sale deed dated 25.11.2008 fromone Pannala Ram Reddy and others;

(iii) that after the purchase, he got the revenue records mutatedin his name; B(iv)that the vendor of the plaintiff held Patta bearing No.1159and the respondent himself got a Pattadar passbook underPatta No.1464;

(v) that when he started construction of a compound wall anda room in the suit property in January, 2016, the defendantCattempted to interfere, forcing the respondent-plaintiff tolodge a police complaint on 6.01.2016;

(vi) that since the police did not take any action, the petitioner-defendant came to the spot on 08.01.2016 and tried todemolish the compound wall;

(vi) that the petitioner-defendant also lodged a police complaint,Dadmitting the construction of the compound wall by therespondent plaintiff;

(v) that when he perused the police compliant, he came to knowthat the petitioner-defendant was claiming title by virtue ofa Gift Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1987;E

(vi) that however, the enquiries made with the office of theTehsildar indicated that what was in possession of thepetitioner-defendant was the land in Survey No.272/AA andnot Survey No.272/A; and

(vii) that, therefore, he was constrained to file the suit.F6. In the written statement, the petitioner-defendant claimed:

(i) that the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff had earlierinstituted a suit in O.S. No.603 of 2015 seeking a decree ofpermanent injunction;

(ii) that the application for interim injunction filed in the saidGsuit was dismissed on 11.08.2015;

(iii) that thereafter, the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff soldthe property to the plaintiff under a registered Sale Deeddated 9.12.2015;

(iv) that after such sale, the vendor of the respondent-plaintiffHwithdrew his suit as not pressed on 2.03.2016;

P. SATYANARAYANA v. NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNAREDDY [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

(v) that the petitioner-defendant got the suit scheduled propertyAunder a Gift Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1987;

(vi) that, therefore, all subsequent sale transactions are not valid;

(vii) that any mutation in revenue records and the issuance ofPattadar passbook are of no consequence; and B

(viii) that, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

7. To substantiate his claim, the respondent-plaintiff filed theregistered Sale deed in his favour, the registered sale deed in favour ofhis vendor, the original Pattadar Passbook in the name of his vendor, theoriginal Pattadar passbook in his own name, the original proceedings formutation, the copies of the Pahanis for the years 2007 to 2015 in favourof the plaintiff, Pahani for the year 2015 in favour of the defendant inrespect of Survey No.272/AA and the copies of the police complaints.

C

8. The petitioner-defendant, on his part filed the Gift SettlementDeed in his favour dated 24.07.1987, the sale deed dated 08.07.1980,the Raithu passbook of himself and his predecessor, the encumbrancecertificate, the copies of the plaint and written statement in the prior suit,the order of dismissal of the application for injunction in the prior suit,the order of dismissal of the prior suit after withdrawal and the copy ofthe quash petition filed by the plaintiff before the High Court.

D

E

9. The trial Court dismissed the application for injunction primarilyon the ground inter alia that the suit instituted by the vendor of therespondent-plaintiff was dismissed as withdrawn, after the dismissal ofthe interim application for injunction; that the proceeding of RevenueDivision Officer dated 08.04.1996 filed by the petitioner-defendantshowed that the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment; and thatsince there were nothing to show the sub-division of the land in SurveyNo.272, no case was made out by the respondent-plaintiff for the grantof an interim injunction.

F

10. The Division Bench of the High Court, while reversing theOrder of the trial Court, pointed out: (i) that the predecessor of therespondent-plaintiff was issued a certificate under Exhibit P-21 dated16.12.1975 under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950; (ii) that the said certificateis proof enough to show the passing of title in favour of the predecessorof the respondent-plaintiff; (iii) that Exhibit P-17, which is Form 1-B

G

H

A(Record of Rights) showed that prima facie the respondent was inpossession of the land on the date of institution of the suit; and (iv) thattherefore, the person in possession was entitled to an interim order ofprotection.

11. The High Court also found Exhibit R-6 filed by the petitioner-Bdefendant which is the Occupancy Right Certificate issued on 08.04.1996,to be unbelievable, as the predecessor in title of the respondent-plaintiffhad already been issued a certificate under Section 38-E of the aforesaidAct way back on 16.12.1975. The High Court pointed out that the personunder whom the defendant claimed title, namely Gopamma Yadaiah,could not have acquired any right, under the sale deed dated 08.07.1980,Cafter the issue of the certificate under Section 38-E of the Act in favourof the predecessor of the respondent-plaintiff on 16.12.1975.

12. Insofar as the prior suit filed by the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff is concerned, the High Court pointed out that it was only a suitfor permanent injunction and that the dismissal of the application forDinjunction without recording any finding relating to possession was of noconsequence. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the HighCourt reads as follows:

“52. It also seems to have misread the order passed on11.08.2015 in I.A. No. 510 of 2015 in O.S. No. 603 of 2015E(Ex. R10). In the said order, the Principal Senior Civil Judge,Ranga Reddy District observed merely that the photographsfiled by the appellant’s vendor show that the land is openland without any construction and so also was the propertyof the respondent, and easementery rights of air and lightFare prescriptive rights, and the appellant’s vendor has to proveacquisition of the said rights for the prescribed period. Thereis no mention therein about lack of possession and enjoymentof the appellant’s vendor. The above finding as recorded bythe trial court also contradicts the claim of the respondent ofconstructing a compound wall around Acs. 2.00 gts. of landGand possessed by him as stated in para no.4 in Written Statementfiled in O.S. No. 603 of 2015.”

13. The High Court took note of the fact that under Exhibit P-22,which is the Pahani for the year 2003-2004, there was a sub-division ofthe land in Survey No.272 into Survey No. 272/A and 272/AA and thatH

the Pahanis of all subsequent years in respect of Survey no.272/A werein favour of predecessors-in-title of the respondent-plaintiff. On the basisof these findings, the High Court reversed the Order of the trial Courtand granted an interim injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.Therefore, we do not think that this is a case warranting interferenceunder Article 136 of the Constitution.

14. At the time when this Court ordered notice in the above specialleave petition on 2.08.2021, this Court was impressed prima facie withthe argument that the withdrawal of the prior suit by the vendor of therespondent-plaintiff would have a serious bearing upon the prayer forinterim injunction in the present suit. Therefore, this Court, while orderingnotice on 2.08.2021 recorded as follows:

“Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that thepredecessor of the plaintiff filed O.S. No.603 of 2015 claimingpermanent injunction in respect of land measuring 1 acrecomprising Survey No.272 ad measuring 2 acres. Such suitwas dismissed as not pressed on 02.03.2016. The plaintiffhas purchased the property comprising in Survey No.272 on09.12.2015. The purchaser filed a suit after purchase of theland in respect of which predecessor of the plaintiff haswithdrawn suit. Therefore, the suit of the 2 plaintiff was notmaintainable.

Notice, returnable within four weeks. In the meantime, partiesto maintain status quo regarding possession.”

15. On the basis of the above order, it was contended by Mr.Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that therespondent-plaintiff was a purchaser pendente lite and that when hissuit itself is barred by law, he cannot be rewarded with an interiminjunction.

16. But we are not impressed with the said submission. We havealready extracted paragraph 52 of the Order of the High Court whichrecords reasons as to why the High Court thought that the previousproceeding will not be an impediment in the way of the respondent-plaintiff filing the present suit and seeking an injunction. As rightly observedby the High Court, the dismissal of the application for injunction in theprior suit, was on account of the fact that the photographs showed theland to be an open vacant land.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A17. In Thota Sridhar Reddy and Ors. vs. Mandala Ramulammaand Others[1], this Court had an occasion to consider in extenso the rightsconferred by Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act.

18. Paragraph 48 of the said decision which reads as followsactually supports the view taken by the High Court in paragraph 49 ofBthe impugned order.

“The appeals allegedly filed by the protected tenant againstthe grant of occupancy rights certificate and subsequentlybeing withdrawn is wholly inconsequential as after the grantof ownership certificate in terms of Section 38-E of theCTenancy Act, the protected tenants are deemed to be owners.Once the protected tenants are deemed to be owners, therecould not be any occupancy rights certificate as thepurchasers were divested of their ownership by virtue of thegrant of ownership certificate under Section 38-E of theTenancy Act. Such certificate was also not disputed by theDpurchasers. Therefore, title of the protected tenants is completeand the ownership unambiguously vests with them.”

19. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion thatthe impugned order of the High Court does not warrant any interferenceunder Article 136 of the Constitution. Hence, this Special Leave PetitionEis dismissed.

Divya Pandey

Petition dismissed.

F

G

H