IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.682 of 2010 Between: The Indian Pentacostal Church of God Nalgonda. … Petitioner And Y. Yachob & others. … Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sri K. Srinivas Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri M. Rama Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.682 of 2010 ORDER:- This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree, dated 05.02.2010, in A.S.No.11 of 2008 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, whereby he has confirmed the judgment and decree, dated 17.11.2007, in O.S.No.108 of 2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit and the Courts are referred to as the trial Court and the appellate Court. The suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from causing any sort of interference with the physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s society over the plaint scheduled property i.e., the church. The plaintiff, which is the Indian Pentecostal Church of God Fellowship Society (for short, “the Society”) averred that it is the absolute owner of the suit scheduled property bearing municipal No.4-10-692 of Sidhartha Colony, Shantinagar, DVK Road, Nalgonda Town, that the President of the plaintiff society Rev. E.S. Yohan is the Ex-officio Pastor of the said church, that he conducts prayer meetings on all Sundays and also on festival days and that the members of the plaintiff society attend the prayer meetings with devotion. The plaintiff further averred that the defendants are neither the members of the plaintiff society nor having any right whatsoever over the suit scheduled property and that they are interfering with the right of the members to have peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit scheduled property, that when the plaintiff society was constructing one additional room in the months of August and September, 2004, the defendants and their men along with hired gundas caused interference to the construction work and threatened the President and the members of the society with dire consequences. After the suit was filed, Pastor Noel Samuel, President of the Indian Pentecostal Church of God (for short, “the Church”) got himself impleaded as defendant No.4. It is the case of the defendants that the Church has got various branches all over the State of A.P., that one such branch is located in the suit scheduled premises, that the Church has purchased a site from its original owner for a valuable consideration vide registered sale deed bearing document No.2436/71, dated 24.09.1975 (which is marked as Ex.A11) and that the said document sands in the name of the Church, but not in the name of the plaintiff society. The defendants have further pleaded that they have obtained permission from the Nalgonda Municipality for construction of Church and since the date of purchase of the property and construction of church and the residence of the Pastor over the suit plot, the Church has got absolute rights and possession over the said property. The defendants marked the building permission as Ex.A8 and sanction plan as Ex.A7. It is further averred that E.S. Yohan, examined as PW.1, was selected as Nalgonda area Pastor and State Council Member and instead of serving the organisation with loyalty, he has been acting to the detriment of the interest of the organisation and misappropriated the funds and that he tried to occupy the church properties for his own personal benefits with evil motive. That due to the alleged illegal activities of PW.1, he was transferred to Eluru from Nalgonda on 06.12.2003. It is thus pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff has neither possession nor any manner of right over the suit schedule property. On behalf of the plaintiff, E.S. Yohan was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked on its behalf. DWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the defendants and Exs.B1 to B26 were marked on their behalf. Having regard to the rival pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. “1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction as sought for? 2) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? 3) To what relief?” The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence held issue No.1 in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. On issue No.2, the trial Court held that there was nothing on record to show that the suit was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. The suit was accordingly dismissed on the basis of the finding on issue No.1. The appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal is filed by the plaintiff. At the hearing, Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that even assuming that the findings rendered by both the Courts below that the plaintiff has no manner of right over the suit schedule property is correct, the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction simplicitr ought not to have dismissed for the reason that the President of the plaintiff society is in physical possession of the Pastor’s room forming part of the suit schedule property and that he cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law by defendant Nos.1 to 3, who are illegally interfering with his possession. Sri M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the defendants, submitted that the plaintiff is not the individual, but a society, which came into existence only in the year 2004 and it has failed to show that it has any semblance of right over the property, which was purchased by the Church as far back as the year 1971 by which time the plaintiff was not in existence. He further submitted that the jurisdiction of the Court for granting relief of injunction being discretionary, both the trial and the appellate Courts have rightly declined to exercise such discretion in favour of the plaintiff, who failed to establish any semblance of right and possession over the suit scheduled property. A perusal of the judgment of both the Courts below would show that on appreciation of evidence they have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff, which came into existence only in the year 2004, has no right over the suit schedule property, which was purchased under a registered sale deed (Ex.A1) as far back as the year 1971 by the Church, which was established in the year 1932 under the Societies Registration Act No.21 of 1860. The Courts have specifically held that the plaintiff, which came into existence only in the year 2004, failed to show that it has any semblance of right over such property or that it is in possession of the same. The defendants have admitted that the President of the plaintiff society was the Pastor in respect of the Church in question and that as the Church has found that he was indulging in the acts, which were detrimental to the said society, he was transferred to Eluru from Nalgonda on 06.12.2003 and one Mr. Joseph was posted in his place. A specific finding was rendered by the trial Court that neither PW.1 in his individual capacity nor the plaintiff as a society is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property at any point of time and that PW.1 was in possession of the property only in his capacity as Pastor and that he cannot claim any right to continue in possession once he is transferred. This reasoning of the trial Court, as confirmed by the appellate Court, in my opinion, does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The jurisdiction of the Courts below, while adjudicating the suit for injunction, being discretionary in nature, they are justified in not extending such jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff, which failed to establish any semblance of right over the suit schedule property. PW.1 cannot be permitted to take personal advantage by pressing into service the plea that even if he is in unlawful possession, the defendants cannot be permitted to dispossess him without following due process of law. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the suit was filed in the name of the society and PW.1 only represented the society. The plaintiff society failed to show that it was ever in possession of the property in question. Therefore, in the suit filed by it, PW.1 cannot be permitted to serve his individual cause by pressing into service the abovementioned plea. For all the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any substantial question of law in this second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). As a sequel to dismissal of the second appeal, SAMP.No.1531 of 2010 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.11.2011 ES