KANCHUSTHABAM SATYANARAYANA AND ORS. versus NAMUDURI ATCHUTARAMAYYA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 294 · Decided: 22-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
• 
KANCHUSTHABAM SA TY ANARA Y ANA AND ORS. 
v. 
NAMUDURI ATCHUTARAMAYYA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 22, 2005 
[B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Equity-Equitable relief-Grant of-Held : Equitable relief must be 
granted on considerations of equity and justice-Lessor having obtained 
C advantage by invoking the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Tenancy 
Act, later on turned around and challenged the jurisdiction of the same 
authorities, as such guilty of inequitable conduct-Therefore, relief of injunction 
being in the nature of equitable relief should not be granted in favour of 
lessor so as to defeat the restitution. order passed by authorities under the 
Tenancy Act-Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956-Constitution of India, 
D 1950-Article 136. 
Appellant - lessor filed eviction petition against the respondent -
tenant under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956 with regard to the 
land leased out by him to the respondent. Tenancy Tehsildar allowed the 
eviction petition and in execution of the order, appellant obtained 
E possession of suit land. Aggrieved respondent filed an appeal. Sub-
Collector allowed the appeal, passed an order for restoration of possession 
of land to tenant, and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. Appellant 
then filed writ petition challenging the order of restoration and also the 
remand order. Interim stay was granted but was subs.equently vacated. 
F Appellant filed writ appeal but the same was dismissed. Appellant then 
filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent- tenant from 
interfering with his possession of land, which he secured pursuant to 
eviction order. Respondent contended that he had restored possession of 
suit land as per the direction of Sub-Collector. District Munsif decreed 
the suit in favour of the appellant. Appellate Court upheld the order. 
G Thereafter, respondent filed a Second Appeal. High Court allowed ·the 
appeal holding that the appellant could not be granted relief of permanent 
injunction, since it was by way of equitable relief. High Court also directed 
the Revenue Officer to deliver possession of the suit land to the respondent 
tenant with help of police. Hence the present appeals. 
H 
294 
. 
) 
, .... 
K. SATYANARAYANA "· N. ATCHUTARAMAYYA 
295 
Appellant - lessor contended that the concurrent judgments of the A 
Courts below ought not to ha~e been interfered with in the Second Appeal; 
that the directions made by the High Court were not justified; and that 
there could be no estoppel against a statute, and in any event equitable 
consideration cannot override a statutory prohibition. 
Respondent - tenant contended that in any event the application for B 
permanent injunction was not bonafide and was only a device to 
circumvent the restitution order passed by the authorities under the 
Tenancy Act. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1. The grant of discretionary relief such as injunction being 
in the nature of equitable relief must be granted inter-alia on considerations 
of equity and justice. The equitable relief of the nature asked for in the 
suit in question should not have been granted in favour of the appellant 
since he was guilty of inequitable conduct. The appellant filed the suit to D 
defeat the order of restitution passed by the revenue authorities under the 
Tenancy Act whose jurisdiction under the Tenancy Act was invoked by 
the appellant himself. He cannot be permitted to retain possession by 
.. challenging the order as being without jurisdiction particularly when the 
jurisdiction was invoked by himself, only because the ultimate order has E 
gone against him. Even under the Code of Civil Procedure an order of 
restitution is stayed only in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, in the 
facts and circumstances of the case, assuming that the suit for permanent 
injunction was maintainable before the District Munsif in view of the 
provisions of Section 18 of the Act, and even going to the extent of 
assuming that the tenancy courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the F 
eviction petition filed by the appellant himself, this was an appropriate 
case in which relief of permanent injunction by way of equitable relief 
ought not to have been granted. Therefore, interference by this Court in 
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is not called 
for and the view of the High Court is upheld. (299-F; 300-G-H; 301-A) G 
1.2. With regard to the directions issued by the High Court

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.