caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
P Satyanarayana vs Nandyala Rama Krishna Reddy on 16 December, 2021Author: V. Ramasubramanian
Bench: Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.11286 OF 2021
P. SATYANARAYANA … Petitioner (s)
Versus
NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY … Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. The respondent herein filed a suit (i) for a declaration that he is the
absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property; (ii) for a further declaration that the Gift Settlement Deed
dated 24.07.1987 executed in favour of the petitioner herein was null
and void; and (iii) for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner
herein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2021.12.16
16:27:17 IST
Reason:
1
2. Pending suit the respondent also moved an interlocutory
application for an interim order of injunction restraining the petitioner
herein from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment and possession of
the suit property. By an Order dated 11.02.2020, the trial Court
dismissed the application for injunction.
3. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the respondent filed an
appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By an
Order dated 2.06.2021, the High Court for the State of Telangana at
Hyderabad allowed the appeal and granted an interim order of
injunction in favour of the respondent, pending disposal of the suit. It is
against the said order that the defendant in the suit has come up with
the present special leave petition.
4. We have heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior advocate
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned
advocate appearing for the respondent.
5. The suit schedule property is an agricultural dry land measuring
acres 1.00 Gts, out of the total extent of acres 2.20 Gts, in Survey
2
No.272/A, in Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, Telangana. The case of the respondentplaintiff in the
suit was:
(i) that he purchased the suit schedule property under a
registered Sale deed dated 09.12.2015 from one Mekala Ram
Reddy;
(ii) that the said Mekala Ram Reddy had purchased the suit
property under a registered sale deed dated 25.11.2008 from
one Pannala Ram Reddy and others;
(iii) that after the purchase, he got the revenue records mutated
in his name;
(iv) that the vendor of the plaintiff held Patta bearing No.1159
and the respondent himself got a Pattadar passbook under
Patta No.1464;
(v) that when he started construction of a compound wall and a
room in the suit property in January, 2016, the defendant
attempted to interfere, forcing the respondentplaintiff to
lodge 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 to
demolish the compound wall;
3
(vi) that the petitionerdefendant also lodged a police complaint,
admitting the construction of the compound wall by the
respondent plaintiff;
(v) that when he perused the police compliant, he came to know
that the petitionerdefendant was claiming title by virtue of a
Gift Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1987;
(vi) that however, the enquiries made with the office of the
Tehsildar indicated that what was in possession of the
petitionerdefendant was the land in Survey No.272/AA and
not Survey No.272/A; and
(vii) that, therefore, he was constrained to file the suit.
6. In the written statement, the petitionerdefendant claimed:
(i) that the vendor of the respondentplaintiff had earlier
instituted a suit in O.S. No.603 of 2015 seeking a decree of
permanent injunction;
(ii) that the application for interim injunction filed in the said
suit was dismissed on 11.08.2015;
(iii) that thereafter, the vendor of the respondentplaintiff sold the
property to the plaintiff under a registered Sale Deed dated
9.12.2015;
(iv) that after such sale, the vendor of the respondentplaintiff
4
withdrew his suit as not pressed on 2.03.2016;
(v) that the petitionerdefendant got the suit scheduled property
under 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 of
Pattadar passbook are of no consequence; and
(viii) that, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
7. To substantiate his claim, the respondentplaintiff filed the
registered Sale deed in his favour, the registered sale deed in favour of
his vendor, the original Pattadar Passbook in the name of his vendor,
the original Pattadar passbook in his own name, the original
proceedings for mutation, the copies of the Pahanis for the years 2007
to 2015 in favour of the plaintiff, Pahani for the year 2015 in favour of
the defendant in respect of Survey No.272/AA and the copies of the
police complaints.
8. The petitionerdefendant, on his part filed the Gift Settlement Deed
in his favour dated 24.07.1987, the sale deed dated 08.07.1980, the
Raithu passbook of himself and his predecessor, the encumbrance
5
certificate, 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 of the quash petition filed by the plaintiff before the High Court.
9. The trial Court dismissed the application for injunction primarily
on the ground inter alia that the suit instituted by the vendor of the
respondentplaintiff was dismissed as withdrawn, after the dismissal of
the interim application for injunction; that the proceeding of Revenue
Division Officer dated 08.04.1996 filed by the petitionerdefendant
showed that the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment; and that
since there were nothing to show the subdivision of the land in Survey
No.272, no case was made out by the respondentplaintiff for the grant
of an interim injunction.
10. The Division Bench of the High Court, while reversing the Order of
the trial Court, pointed out: (i) that the predecessor of the respondent
plaintiff was issued a certificate under Exhibit P21 dated 16.12.1975
under Section 38E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy
6
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950; (ii) that the said certificate is proof
enough to show the passing of title in favour of the predecessor of the
respondentplaintiff; (iii) that Exhibit P17, which is Form 1B (Record
of Rights) showed that prima facie the respondent was in possession of
the land on the date of institution of the suit; and (iv) that therefore, the
person in possession was entitled to an interim order of protection.
11. The High Court also found Exhibit R6 filed by the petitioner
defendant which is the Occupancy Right Certificate issued on
08.04.1996, to be unbelievable, as the predecessor in title of the
respondentplaintiff had already been issued a certificate under Section
38E of the aforesaid Act way back on 16.12.1975. The High Court
pointed out that the person under whom the defendant claimed title,
namely Gopamma Yadaiah, could not have acquired any right, under
the sale deed dated 08.07.1980, after the issue of the certificate under
Section 38E of the Act in favour of the predecessor of the respondent
plaintiff on 16.12.1975.
12. Insofar as the prior suit filed by the vendor of the respondent
7
plaintiff is concerned, the High Court pointed out that it was only a suit
for permanent injunction and that the dismissal of the application for
injunction without recording any finding relating to possession was of
no consequence. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the High
Court reads as follows:
“52. It also seems to have misread the order passed on
11.08.2015 in I.A. No. 510 of 2015 in O.S. No. 603 of 2015
(Ex. R10). In the said order, the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Ranga Reddy District observed merely that the photographs
filed by the appellant’s vendor show that the land is open
land without any construction and so also was the property of
the respondent, and easementery rights of air and light are
prescriptive rights, and the appellant’s vendor has to prove
acquisition of the said rights for the prescribed period. There
is no mention therein about lack of possession and enjoyment
of the appellant’s vendor. The above finding as recorded by
the trial court also contradicts the claim of the respondent of
constructing a compound wall around Acs. 2.00 gts. of land
and possessed by him as stated in para no.4 in Written
Statement filed in O.S. No. 603 of 2015.”
13. The High Court took note of the fact that under Exhibit P22,
which is the Pahani for the year 20032004, there was a subdivision of
the land in Survey No.272 into Survey No. 272/A and 272/AA and that
the Pahanis of all subsequent years in respect of Survey no.272/A were
in favour of predecessorsintitle of the respondentplaintiff. On the
8
basis of these findings, the High Court reversed the Order of the trial
Court and granted an interim injunction in favour of the respondent
plaintiff. Therefore, we do not think that this is a case warranting
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
14. At the time when this Court ordered notice in the above special
leave petition on 2.08.2021, this Court was impressed prima facie with
the argument that the withdrawal of the prior suit by the vendor of the
respondentplaintiff would have a serious bearing upon the prayer for
interim injunction in the present suit. Therefore, this Court, while
ordering notice on 2.08.2021 recorded as follows:
“Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
predecessor of the plaintiff filed O.S. No.603 of 2015 claiming
permanent injunction in respect of land measuring 1 acre
comprising Survey No.272 ad measuring 2 acres. Such suit
was dismissed as not pressed on 02.03.2016. The plaintiff
has purchased the property comprising in Survey No.272 on
09.12.2015. The purchaser filed a suit after purchase of the
land in respect of which predecessor of the plaintiff has
withdrawn suit. Therefore, the suit of the 2 plaintiff was not
maintainable.
Notice, returnable within four weeks. In the meantime,
parties to maintain status quo regarding possession.”
15. On the basis of the above order, it was contended by Mr. Shyam
9
Divan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the respondent
plaintiff was a purchaser pendente lite and that when his suit itself is
barred by law, he cannot be rewarded with an interim injunction.
16. But we are not impressed with the said submission. We have
already extracted paragraph 52 of the Order of the High Court which
records reasons as to why the High Court thought that the previous
proceeding will not be an impediment in the way of the respondent
plaintiff filing the present suit and seeking an injunction. As rightly
observed by the High Court, the dismissal of the application for
injunction in the prior suit, was on account of the fact that the
photographs showed the land to be an open vacant land.
17. In Thota Sridhar Reddy and Ors. vs. Mandala Ramulamma
and Others1, this Court had an occasion to consider in extenso the
rights conferred by Section 38E of the Tenancy Act.
18. Paragraph 48 of the said decision which reads as follows actually
supports the view taken by the High Court in paragraph 49 of the
1 2021 SCC Online SC 851
10
impugned order.
“The appeals allegedly filed by the protected tenant against
the grant of occupancy rights certificate and subsequently
being withdrawn is wholly inconsequential as after the grant
of ownership certificate in terms of Section 38E of the
Tenancy Act, the protected tenants are deemed to be owners.
Once the protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there
could not be any occupancy rights certificate as the
purchasers were divested of their ownership by virtue of the
grant of ownership certificate under Section 38E of the
Tenancy Act. Such certificate was also not disputed by the
purchasers. Therefore, title of the protected tenants is
complete and the ownership unambiguously vests with them.”
19. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the
impugned order of the High Court does not warrant any interference
under Article 136 of the Constitution. Hence, this Special Leave Petition
is dismissed.
…..…………………………..J.
(Hemant Gupta)
.…..………………………….J
(V. Ramasubramanian)
11
DECEMBER 16, 2021
NEW DELHI.
12
Comments