18 Sep 2023 11:15 AM GMT
The Telangana High Court has held that relief of injunction cannot be denied merely on the basis of discrepancies in documents irrelevant to the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and that the Court ought to consider the possession of the parties as of the date of filing of the suit.Justice P. Madhavi Devi thus held that an injunction could not be denied merely...
The Telangana High Court has held that relief of injunction cannot be denied merely on the basis of discrepancies in documents irrelevant to the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and that the Court ought to consider the possession of the parties as of the date of filing of the suit.
Justice P. Madhavi Devi thus held that an injunction could not be denied merely for irregularities in the pahanis (records of rights, tenancy and crops) from earlier agricultural years.
"In this case, not only the title is vested with the petitioners but their possession is also being reflected in the pahanies…in a suit for injunction, the possession of the parties as on the date of the suit is to be considered. The suit was filed in the year 2021 and the Courts below ought to have taken into consideration, the records in respect of the said agricultural year and not reflected upon the discrepancy, if any, in the earlier agricultural years. In view of the same, this Court is satisfied that the Lower Courts have not considered the issue in proper prospective and have relied upon the irrelevant documents to deny the relief of injunction to the plaintiffs."
The petitioners claimed that they sold a portion of their land to the respondents and retained a portion for themselves. However, the respondents were trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner's property misusing a clerical error in the transfer documents regarding boundaries and attempting to grab the suit schedule land.
Consequently, the petitioners approached the Trial Court seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, along with the interlocutory relief of ad-interim injunction. The relief of ad-interim injunction was dismissed, against which a CMA was filed. This was also dismissed on the ground that there were discrepancies in the Pahani entries for the years 1994-1996 and in the amended register records for 1998-1999.
The revision petitioner then approached the Court aggrieved by the order of the District Judge dismissing their case.
The Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners argued that while granting the relief of temporary injunction, the Court need not go into the history of the land, and only acknowledge who is in possession as of the date of filing of suit, i.e., in 2021. Further, it was argued that the amended register was not supported by the proceedings of a Tahsildar and could not be relied upon.
The Senior Counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioners had made representations of correction of Pahani entities, and based on such representations, the Pahanis entries were corrected from the subsequent years.
Justice Madhavi held that merely because the names of the petitioners/appellants were omitted from the names of the Pahanis, it should not be assumed that the same was done to create rights in favour of the respondents.
"The discrepancy, if any, is only for the years 1994-1995 and 19951996. Though it is admitted that their names were not reflected for these two years, it is also equally proved that the names of any other person is not reflected in the pahanies. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the said Survey numbers were omitted to be recorded in the pahanies for the years 1994-1995, 19951996. Subsequently also, the pattadar passbooks have been issued in favor of the petitioners and even the latest Dharani Portal also reflects the name of the petitioners herein as the owners and possessors of the property."
Accordingly, the Court was satisfied that the lower courts had not considered the issue in proper perspective and granted an ad-interim injunction, thereby allowing the revision petition.
Case Title: Kadem Sathaiah vs. Mandala Ravindar Reddy
Counsel for petitioner: P LAKSHMA REDDY
Counsel for respondent: P SHASHI KIRAN
Click Here To Read/Download Order