High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Refusal of Temporary Injunction; Plaintiff Held Not Prima Facie in Possession

A bench of the High Court (bench composition not specified in the order) heard two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals challenging the dismissal of interim applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed in O.S. No.1143 of 2018. The appeals (CMA No.504 of 2019 and CMA No.505 of 2019) arose from the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar’s orders dated 26.03.2019 refusing interim reliefs sought by the plaintiff for declaration of title and perpetual injunction over an extent of Ac.13.05 gts in Sy. No.494 of Nadergul village, Balapur Mandal.

The Court dismissed both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, upholding the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff did not show prima facie possession of the plaint schedule property on the date of filing the suit and therefore was not entitled to interim injunctive relief. The Court relied on revenue records, sale deeds and pahanis reflecting entries and possession in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and noted suppression of material transactions by the plaintiff. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In this view of the matter, I hold that the Court below did not commit any error of law or fact in refusing to grant relief to the plaintiff in I.A.Nos.931 of 2018 and 29 of 2019; and its finding that the plaintiff was prima facie not in possession of the plaint schedule property on the date of filing of the suit does not warrant any interference by this Court.” The Court also instructed that "the Court below shall decide the suit uninfluenced by the findings given by it in the impugned order or in this order passed in the CMAs."

Background The plaintiff sued for declaration of title and perpetual injunction over Ac.13.05 gts in Sy. No.494, alleging title through his ancestor Tharre Mallaiah and possession by succession from joint tenancy with Sama Raji Reddy, relying on declarations and orders under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. Pending the suit, he filed I.A. No.931 of 2018 seeking an injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his possession and I.A. No.29 of 2019 seeking a restraint on alienation. Defendants opposed, relying on sale deeds, revenue endorsements and pahanis showing entries and possession in their favour and contending bona fide purchaser status and non-joinder of prospective purchasers.

The trial court found, on review of Ex.R-3 to R-13 and Exs.R-36 to R-41, that substantial portions of the plaint schedule land had been sold by successors of N. Raghava Rao to defendant Nos.1 and 2 and to the husband of defendant No.3, and that the plaintiff had purchased certain plots from defendants 1 and 2. It concluded that the plaintiff suppressed material alienations by his ancestors and was not in possession of the larger extent claimed. On appeal, the High Court examined pahanis from 1995-96 to 2017, endorsements of revenue authorities, sale agreement-cum-GPAs and registered sale deeds, and found inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s claim — including absence of Protected Tenancy entries, lack of documentary proof of transfer of title from Raghava Rao’s heirs to the plaintiff’s predecessors, and admissions in sale instruments that undercut the tenancy theory. The Court concluded that the trial court’s factual appreciation was unexceptionable and did not warrant interference, dismissed the CMAs with no costs, and directed that the suit proceed before the trial court uninfluenced by the impugned interim orders. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed.

Case Details: Case No.: CMA No.504 of 2019 & CMA No.505 of 2019 (arising out of O.S. No.1143 of 2018) Case Title: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arising out of O.S. No.1143 of 2018 Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, Senior Counsel for Sri K. Rama Krishna (Counsel for appellant/plaintiff) For the Respondent(s): Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel for Sri G. Purushotham Reddy (Counsel for respondents)