SHAM SUNDER RAO Vs. SARASWATHI VIDYA PEETHAM HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P. 2437 of 1997 is filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 24th April 1997 in O.S.No.159 of 1992 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal. C.R.P. 2232 of.1999 is filed by the defendants against the order dated 30th April 1999 in LA. 247 of 1999 in O.S.No. 11 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

(2.) As the parties and the property involved in both the C.R.Ps. are common, these two civil revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order. The necessary facts for the disposal of these two revision petitions are as follows: The suit in O.S. 159 of 1992 was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Under the letter Ex.A-1 dated 7-1-1992, the defendants in the suit requested the plaintiffs to permit them to hold 'Yagna' in the plaint schedule premises and the plaintiffs passed a resolution Ex.A-2 dated 20-1-1992 permitting the defendants to conduct Yagna in the plaint schedule premises. The plaintiffs delivered possession of plaint schedule property to the defendants on 3-2-1992. As per the agreement, the defendants have to handover possession of plaint schedule premises to the plaintiffs by 17-2-1992. A school was being run in the plaint schedule premises. Alleging that the defendants failed to handover possession to the plaintiffs by 17-2-1992 and also alleging that the defendants have high-handedly closed the gate of the premises and locked it, thus preventing the plaintiffs from entering into the plaint schedule property, the plaintiffs filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking recovery of the plaint schedule property from the defendants. In addition to the recovery of possession, the plaintiffs sought for two other reliefs, namely, (i) mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to break open the locks of the gate of the plaint schedule property and (ii) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs. The defendants contested the suit on various allegations. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs are licencees of the defendants and they asserted that they revoked the licence to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs agreed for the same, kept all their belongings in one room of the school building agreeing to remove the same within a couple of days and subsequently they did not remove their belongings. It is their contention that as the plaintiffs did not remove their belongings, the defendants locked the gate of the suit premises where they kept the property. They also claimed that the plaintiffs are running a school in another premises without any hardship.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Junior Civil Judge framed appropriate issues in the suit. Plaintiffs examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-4 on their behalf. Defendants examined D.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. B-l to B-5 on their behalf. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Junior Civil Judge answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by that judgment and decree of the trial Court, C.R.P. 2437 of 1997 is filed by the defendants in the suit.