P. SATYANARAYANA versus NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 489 · Decided: 16-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
489
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 489
489
P. SATYANARAYANA
v.
NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11286 of 2021)
DECEMBER 16, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA  AND  V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Suit – Respondent-plaintiff filed suit inter alia for declaration
that he is the absolute owner of the suit property – Also sought
interim injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from
interfering with his possession thereof – Interlocutory application
dismissed – Appeal by respondent – Allowed – While issuing notice
in the petition, Supreme Court observed that the withdrawal of prior
suit by vendor of the respondent would have bearing upon the
prayer for interim injunction in the present suit – Held: Prior suit
filed by the vendor of the respondent was only a suit for permanent
injunction and the dismissal of the application for injunction without
recording any finding relating to possession was of no consequence
– Previous proceeding will not be an impediment in the way of the
respondent filing the present suit and seeking an injunction –
Impugned order of High Court does not warrant any interference –
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1950 – s.38-E – Constitution of India – Art.136 – Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLIII, r.1.
Dismissing the petition, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The Division Bench of the High Court, while
reversing the Order of the trial Court, pointed out: (i) that the
predecessor of the respondent-plaintiff was issued a certificate
under Exhibit P-21 dated 16.12.1975 under Section 38-E of the
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1950; (ii) that the said certificate is proof enough to show
the passing of title in favour of the predecessor of the respondent-
plaintiff; (iii) that Exhibit P-17, which is Form 1-B (Record of
Rights) showed that prima facie the respondent was in possession
of the land on the date of institution of the suit; and (iv) that
therefore, the person in possession was entitled to an interim
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
order of protection. The High Court pointed out that the person
under whom the defendant claimed title could not have acquired
any right, under the sale deed dated 08.07.1980, after the issue
of the certificate under Section 38-E of the Act in favour of the
predecessor of the respondent-plaintiff on 16.12.1975. Insofar
as the prior suit filed by the vendor of the respondent plaintiff is
concerned, the High Court pointed out that it was only a suit for
permanent injunction and that the dismissal of the application for
injunction without recording any finding relating to possession
was of no consequence. The High Court took note of the fact
that under Exhibit P-22, which is the Pahani for the year 2003-
2004, there was a sub-division of the land in Survey No.272 into
Survey No. 272/A and 272/AA and that the Pahanis of all
subsequent years in respect of Survey no.272/A were in favour
of predecessors-in-title of the respondent-plaintiff. On the basis
of these findings, the High Court reversed the Order of the trial
Court and granted an interim injunction in favour of the
respondent-plaintiff. Therefore, this is not a case warranting
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Paras 10-
13][493-G-H; 494-C-D; 495-A-B]
1.2 At the time when this Court ordered notice in the above
special leave petition on 2.08.2021, this Court was impressed
prima facie with the argument that the withdrawal of the prior
suit by the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff would have a serious
bearing upon the prayer for interim injunction in the present suit.
Paragraph 52 of the Order of the High Court records reasons as
to why the High Court thought that the previous proceeding will
not be an impediment in the way of the respondent-plaintiff filing
the present suit and seeking an injunction. As rightly observed
by the High Court, the dismissal of the application for
injunction in the prior suit, was on account of the fact that the
photographs showed the land to be an open vacant land.
[Paras 14, 16][495-B-C, G-H]
Thota Sridhar Reddy and Ors. vs. Mandala Ramulamma
and Others 2021 SCC Online SC 851 – relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.11286 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.06.2021 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No.421 of 2020.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
491
Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., D. Venkat 

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