RONDA NARAPA REDDY Vs. RONDA SATYANARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vijay Chowdary, learned counsel representing the appellants and Sri Anand, counsel representing the respondents. Sri Vijay Chowdary, learned counsel representing the appellants had raised the following substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Whether the Courts below are legally justified in granting the relief of mandatory injunction, though such a relief was not prayed for?

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants had taken this Court through all factual details, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, D.W.1 to D.W.3, Exs.A1 and A2 and Exs.B1 and B2 and also Exs.C1and C2 in detail and also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by both the Courts below and had commented that definitely the Courts below are not legally justified in granting the relief of mandatory injunction without a plea or without a prayer in relation thereto.

(3.) The counsel also would maintain that even on facts both the Courts had totally erred and had recorded erroneous findings and had pointed out to the relevant portion of such finding recorded by both the Courts below. The counsel also would maintain that Ex.B2 F.M.B. plan clearly goes to show that alternative source of irrigation is available, but despite the same, an incorrect finding has been recorded in this regard. Per contra, Sri Anand, learned counsel representing the respondent had drawn the attention of this Court to the findings recorded by both the Courts below in general and the findings recorded by the appellate Court at para 18 of its Judgment in particular and had pointed out that it is clear from the 2nd Commissioner's report that subsequent to the granting of temporary injunction, the defendants closed the canal obstructing the flow of water and hence, taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration in fitness of things, the relief of mandatory injunction also had been granted. The learned counsel in all fairness submitted that this relief of mandatory injunction was granted on the ground of equity suo motu and there is no specific relief prayed for in this regard in the pleadings. However, the counsel would maintain that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, if the relief of mandatory injunction is disturbed on this technical ground, substantial justice would not be done to the respondent-plaintiff, inasmuch as it is clear from the facts that he would suffer heavy loss. Heard both the counsel and also perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court.