Or.39, rule 1 C.P.C. = When the plaintiff purchased the property from third party, and also prima faice regulation proceedings negatived and further the respondent No. 5 purchased from the legal heir - relative of the original owner , she is not entitled for interim injunction pending suit for declaration of title and injunction = PETITIONER RESPONDENT SMT. S. MADHUMATHI VS SMT. K.LAVNAYA ALIAS B.LAVANYA & 4 OTHERS = Published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CMA&mno=673&year=2013
Or.39, rule 1 C.P.C. = When the plaintiff purchased the property from third party, and also prima faice regulation proceedings negatived and further the respondent No. 5 purchased from the legal heir - relative of the original owner , she is not entitled for interim injunction pending suit for declaration of title and injunction =
Prima facie, the findings of the Court below that the petitioner’s vendor had no right title or interest in the property appears to be correct in the light of the decision in LGC No.6 of 2004 wherein Narender More, the father of the petitioner’s vendor, Sameer Narender More was held to be not related to B.Anantharam, the original owner. The 5th respondent is claiming title through the son of K.Sohanlal, who is the son of K.Balamma, the sister of B.Anantharam.
13. As regards the contentions of the appellant as to the legal effect of (i) the decisions in O.S No.932 of 2002 and L.G.C No.6 of 2004 and (ii) certain ratification deeds executed by respondents 1 to 4 are concerned, these matters have to be considered during the course of trial. I am satisfied that the trial Court has given valid reasons to hold that the appellant has no prima facie case in her favour.
14. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
| CMA 673 / 2013 | CMASR 31555 / 2013 |
|
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
C.M.A. No. 673 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the order dt.14.06.2013 in I.A No.388 of 2013 in O.S. No.735 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the above suit.
She filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and for costs.
The subject matter of the suit is an extent of 200 Sq.yds bearing plot No.71, in survey No.316/1, 317/1 and 318 of Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
3. The appellant claims to have purchased the above land from one Sri Sameer Narendra More and others under a registered sale deed dt.09.12.1998 and contends that she is in continuous and uninterrupted peaceful possession of the schedule property.
She contends that she applied for regularization from GHMC vide application dt.30.09.2008; that such regularization was also granted;
that the vendor of the appellant and one K.Sohanlal and others made rival claims over the plaint schedule property; by virtue of proceedings of MRO, the husband of 1st respondent, father of 2nd respondent and 2nd respondent had withdrawn their claim under a compromise/ memorandum of oral settlement dt.18.12.1993; pursuant to it, the vendors of the petitioner are absolute owners of plaint schedule property. Therefore, interim injunction should be granted in favour the appellant pending disposal of the suit.
4. The respondents 1 to 4 and 5 filed counter affidavits alleging that the 5th respondent is the owner of the property claimed by the appellant; that she had purchased the same under registered sale deed dt.04.08.2011 executed by one B.Shyam, S/o.Late B.Sohanlal; that the GHMC has also regularized the 5th respondent’s plots vide proceedings dt.31.01.2013; and that 5threspondent is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property.
5. By order dt.14.06.2013, the Court below declined to grant temporary injunction in favour of the appellant/ petitioner on the ground that
both the petitioner and the respondents predecessor in title was one B.Anantharam;
that B.Anantha Ram and his wife Sattamma died issueless;
that although Narendra More, the father of vendor of the petitioner claimed to be a brother of late B.Anantharam, the said contention was negatived in LGC No.6 of 2004 in O.S No.932 of 2002; that the plea of oral settlement raised by the appellant was also not accepted in LGC No.6 of 2004; and
that the 5th respondent’s predecessor in title is Sohanlal, who is the son of K.Balamma, the sister of B.Anantaram.
6. The Court below also held that since Narender More is not related to B.Anantaram, the petitioner’s vendor Sameer Narender More could not have right, title or interest in the plaint schedule property. It further held that the findings in LGC No.6 of 2004 are binding on the petitioner even though the appellant was not a party therein and therefore there is no prime facie case in favour of the appellant and she is not entitled to the relief of injunction.
7. Aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred.
8. Heard Sri A.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for Appellant and Sri K.Surender, learned counsel for 5th respondent-caveator.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order passed by the Court below is erroneous; that the Court below ought to have held that there is prima facie case in favour of the appellant apart from balance of convenience. Irreparable injury would be caused to the appellant if temporary injunction is not granted in her favour. He also contended that the appellant is claiming the plaint schedule property under registered sale deed dt.09.12.1998 executed in her favour by Sameer Narender More and that the appellant is not a party in L.G.C No.6 of 2004 and the decision therein would not bind on her. He also contended that O.S. No.932 of 2002 is only a suit for injunction and the findings therein on the aspect of title cannot bind the appellant in the present suit, which is a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. He also contended that certain ratification deeds were executed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in favour of some of the plot owners and this would also not bind the appellant.
10. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent, however, supported the order passed by the Court below and contended that valid reasons have been given by the Court below for not granting the relief sought by the appellant.
11. I have noted the submissions of both sides.
12. Prima facie, the findings of the Court below that the petitioner’s vendor had no right title or interest in the property appears to be correct in the light of the decision in LGC No.6 of 2004 wherein Narender More, the father of the petitioner’s vendor, Sameer Narender More was held to be not related to B.Anantharam, the original owner. The 5th respondent is claiming title through the son of K.Sohanlal, who is the son of K.Balamma, the sister of B.Anantharam.
13. As regards the contentions of the appellant as to the legal effect of (i) the decisions in O.S No.932 of 2002 and L.G.C No.6 of 2004 and (ii) certain ratification deeds executed by respondents 1 to 4 are concerned, these matters have to be considered during the course of trial. I am satisfied that the trial Court has given valid reasons to hold that the appellant has no prima facie case in her favour.
14. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that trial Court shall decide the suit uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the order passed by it or in the order passed herein by this Court. No costs.
15. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
9th October, 2013
knl
Comments
Post a Comment