IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Second Appeal No.645 of 1996 Between: 1.S.Perumal and another. ..... Appellant AND 1.S.Munaswamy Gounder and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Mr.C.Ramprasad Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.S.V.Bhatt The Court made the following : Judgment: This Second Appeal is filed by defendant No.3 in O.S.No.320 of 1976, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Kuppam, against the judgment and decree, dated 12-02-1996, in A.S.No.9 of 1984, on the file of the District Court, Chittoor, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 28-02-1984, in the said suit. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 and 3 are brothers and defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. The plaintiff and defendant No.3 entered into an agreement of sale with two persons by name Erramma and Munemma for purchase of the suit schedule properties under Ex.B.1, dated 04-10-1963. Subsequently, the said properties were purchased under Ex.A.1, dated 23-12-1970, by and in the name of the plaintiff. As the plaintiff and defendant No.3 had fallen out, defendant No.3 filed O.S.No.253 of 1972 initially for permanent injunction and later he claimed reliefs of partition and recovery of possession of his purported share of the suit property by way of amendment. The plaintiff contested the said suit claiming exclusive right, title and interest over the suit property. The said suit was dismissed, after a keen contest, by the trial Court by recording a finding that as the sale deed was executed exclusively in the name of the plaintiff, he is entitled to enjoy the property exclusively and; that defendant No.3 was never in joint possession and enjoyment of the said land and that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the same. Questioning the said judgment and decree, defendant No.3 filed A.S.No.160 of 1975 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, which was re-numbered as A.S.No.114 of 1980. The said appeal was also dismissed by the appellate Court by confirming the findings of the trial Court. It is not in dispute that the said judgment had become final. The plaintiff filed the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit properties. The plea of defendant No.3 in the suit is that the plaintiff, being the joint owner of the suit property along with him, is not entitled for injunction as no injunction can be granted against a co-owner. The trial Court, based on certain findings rendered in O.S.No.31 of 1964, filed by a third party by name R.Krishna Murthy, in which the plaintiff and defendant No.3 are the defendants, and also placing reliance on the agreement of sale, held that defendant No.3 is the co-owner of the plaintiff and therefore, injunction cannot be granted. The suit was, accordingly, dismissed. The lower appellate Court reversed the said judgment and held that in view of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.253 of 1972, wherein the relief claimed by defendant No.3 as plaintiff in the said suit for partition and recovery of possession was conclusively rejected by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court, the trial Court has committed an error in refusing to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court has placed heavy reliance upon the various findings rendered in the said suit. These findings include that the plaintiff and defendant No.3 were never in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit land, as claimed by defendant No.3; that plaintiff alone was in exclusive possession of the suit lands; that defendant No.3 did not pay the consideration for the sale deed, dated 23-12-1970, and that it was paid by the plaintiff himself. Having carefully gone through the two judgments of the Courts below, I am of the view that the trial Court has failed to consider the effect of Ex.A.1- sale deed, executed in favour of the plaintiff. The finding rendered by the civil Court in O.S.No.31 of 1964, rejecting the claim of the plaintiff that he was in exclusive possession of the property, was based on Ex.B.1- agreement of sale. With the execution of Ex.A.1- sale deed exclusively in the name of the plaintiff, the complexion of the litigation has undergone a radical change. As Ex.A.1- sale deed stood exclusively in the name of the plaintiff, it was no longer open to defendant No.3 to claim his status as co- owner or joint owner with the plaintiff, more so, when he has failed to convince the Court below to pass a decree for partition and recovery of possession in O.S.No.253 of 1972 filed by him. For the above-mentioned reasons, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel to dismissal of the Second Appeal, CMP.No.18832 of 1996, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 19th February, 2010 lur