DHANPAL VENKAT NARSIMLU Vs. AJJAN SUDHARSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .R.P.No.714 of 2015 The plaintiffs who are 15 in number in O.S. No.230 of 2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad maintained against 19 defendants, with a prayer for permanent injunction based on title and possession, pending suit site for temporary injunction in I.A. No.1029 of 2011. The learned Senior Civil Judge after having granted ad -interim exparte injunction dated 02.01.2013, pending notice and thereafter from respective contest and on hearing both sides and on merits granted the temporary injunction by order dated 22.04.2014 restraining the defendantsrespondents and their men from interfering into plaintiffspetitioners' possession over the plaint schedule plots till disposal of the suit. Impugning the same, defendantsrespondents preferred C.M.A. No.19 of 2014 and the learned I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad under the impugned order dated 17.01.2015 allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal by setting aside the order granting temporary injunction passed by the trial Court by vacating the injunction pending till then. The present revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiffsimpugning the order of the lower appellate Court in reversing and vacating the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court. C.R.P.No.716 of 2015

(2.) THE plaintiffs who are 8 in number in O.S. No.6 of 2013 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad maintained against 19 defendants, with a prayer for permanent injunction based on title and possession, pending suit site for temporary injunction in I.A. No.20 of 2013. The learned Senior Civil Judge after having granted ad -interim exparte injunction dated 03.01.2013, pending notice and thereafter from respective contest and on hearing both sides and on merits granted the temporary injunction by order dated 22.04.2014 restraining the defendantsrespondents and their men from interfering into plaintiffspetitioners' possession over the plaint schedule plots till disposal of the suit. Impugning the same, defendantsrespondents preferred C.M.A. No.18 of 2014 and the learned I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad under the impugned order dated 17.01.2015 allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal by setting aside the order granting temporary injunction passed by the trial Court by vacating the injunction pending till then. The present revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiffsimpugning the order of the lower appellate Court in reversing and vacating the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court.

(3.) 3(a) The contentions in the grounds of the revision as well as the oral submissions by the counsel for revision petitions in both the matters respectively by the two sets of plaintiffs against the self -same respondents -defendants, almost the same are that the learned Senior Civil Judge rightly appreciated the documentary evidence in proper perspective and taking into consideration of the principles laid down for grant of interim injunction pending disposal of the suit allowed the petitions, whereas the appellate Court by giving erroneous reasons/findings reversed the well considered order passed by the trial Court even though the prima facie case, balance of convenience are in favour of the petitioners with irreparable injury for grant of interim injunction with right, title and possession over the plots and substantiated by the documents Exs.P -1 to P -8, that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad found that pursuant to the execution of Ex.P -8 G.P.A, the G.P.A holders have converted the land in Sy.No.269, extent Ac.9 -30 guntas into 170 house plots and the area covered by the said plots was named as Ashok Nagar colony, that the petitioners/plaintiffs purchased the plot Nos.165/1, 129, 56, 55, 95, 160 and 159 and 159/1 under Exs.P -1 to P -7 sale deeds respectively on different dates in the years 1998, 1999, 1993, 2000 respectively, pursuant to the sale deeds they were put in possession of the property,, that some of the purchasers have also raised constructions, that the learned Senior Civil Judge having satisfied that the sale deeds established prima facie possession of the petitioners over the plots as on the date of filing of the suit and also in view of execution of sale deeds by the GPA holders, that the trial Court rightly found that the respondents made an attempt to dispossess the petitioners from the suit schedule plots and found that the prima facie possession and balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioners and if the injunction is refused the petitioners/plaintiffs will be put to irreparable loss and injury, that therefore, the trial Court rightly considered the three principles i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury while granting the interim injunction in favour of the petitioners, but the appellate Court by giving erroneous findings on Ex.P -1 to P -8 reversed the well considered order passed by the trial Court which is nothing but illegal, arbitrary and irregular exercise of jurisdiction vested in by the appellate Court, as such the order under revision is liable to be set aside, that the trial Court exercised its discretion for grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit and the said exercise of discretion was done based upon objective consideration of the material placed before the trial Court by the revision petitioners in support of their case and the order passed by the learned trial Court is supported by cogent reasons, that the appellate Court by coming to erroneous conclusions set aside the order passed by the trial Court though there was no illegality, irregularity or perversity and through there was no manifest injustice was done for warranting exercise of power by the appellate Court, therefore the order under revision is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law and as such the same is liable to be set aside, that the appellate Court ought to have seen that the revision petitioners were in lawful possession of the property and the same was evident from the sale deeds produced by them in support of their case, that admittedly the respondents 1 to 7 have executed development agreement in favour of the respondent Nos.18 and 19 and if the temporary injunction order is not continued pending disposal of the suit, situation over the land may become irreversible by the time the dispute is decided and would preclude fair and just decision of the matter, that therefore the order under revision reversing the trial Court order by the appellate Court is liable to be set aside, that the learned appellate Court ought to have seen that the respondents though denied the existence of Sy.No.269 in the revenue records but they have admitted in their counter that the execution of GPA i.e., Ex.P -8 are co -owners of the land in Sy.Nos.269/A, 269/U, 269/AA, 269/E and 269/EE, that therefore, it is clear that the respondents have admitted that the GPA was executed by the co -owners of the said survey numbers, that the existence of sub -division Nos. 269/A, 269/U, 269/AA, 269/E and 269/EE cannot be sub -divided without the existence of main survey number i.e., Sy.No.269, that the learned appellate Court by saying that the Sy.No.269 is mentioned in the sale deeds and the approved lay out was not filed, cannot draw adverse inference against the existence of Sy.No.269 itself when the respondents themselves have admitted in their counter with regard to execution of GPA by the co -owners of the land in Sy.No.269, that without taking into consideration of the said admitted evidence on record, that the learned appellate Court on erroneous grounds disbelieved the possession of the petitioners and held that the petitioners failed to establish prima facie case in their favour and allowed the appeal by setting aside the well considered order passed by the trial Court which is nothing but arbitrary, illegal and contrary to principles of law laid down by this Honourable Court and the Honourable Apex Court, that therefore the order under revision is liable to be set aside by restoring the interim injunction granted by the learned trial Court pending disposal of the suit.