Case: P. SATYANARAYANA Vs. NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY

out: (i) that the predecessor of the respondentplaintiff 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 order of protection. 11. The High Court also found Exhibit R-6 filed by the petitionerdefendant which is the Occupancy Right Certificate issued on 08.04.1996, to be unbelievable, as the predecessor in title of the respondent-plaintiff had already been issued a certificate under Section 38-E of the aforesaid Act way back on 16.12.1975. The High Court pointed out that the person under whom the defendant claimed title, namely Gopamma Yadaiah, 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 respondentplaintiff on 16.12.1975. 12. 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 relevant portion of the impugned order of the High Court reads as follows: 52. It also seems to have misread the order passed on 11.08.2015 in I.A. No. 510 of 2015 in O.S. No. 603 of 2015 (Ex. R10). In the said order, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District observed merely that the photographs filed by the appellants vendor show that the land is open land without any construction and so also was the property of the respondent, and easementery rights of air and light are prescriptive rights, and the appellants vendor has to prove acquisition of the said rights for the prescribed period. There is no mention therein about lack of possession and enjoyment of the appellants vendor. The above finding as recorded by the trial court also contradicts the claim of the respondent of constructing a compound wall around Acs. 2.00 gts. of land and possessed by him as stated in para no.4 in Written Statement filed in O.S. No. 603 of 2015. 13. 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 respondentplaintiff. Therefore, we do not think that this is a case warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. 14. 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. Therefore, this Court, while ordering notice on 2.08.2021 recorded as follows: Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the predecessor of the plaintiff filed O.S. No.603 of 2015 claiming permanent injunction in respect of land measuring 1 acre comprising Survey No.272 ad measuring 2 acres. Such suit was dismissed as not pressed on 02.03.2016. The plaintiff has purchased the property comprising in Survey No.272 on 09.12.2015. The purchaser filed a suit after purchase of the land in respect of which predecessor of the plaintiff has withdrawn suit. Therefore, the suit of the 2 plaintiff was not maintainable. Notice, returnable within four weeks. In the meantime, parties to maintain status quo regarding possession. 15. On the basis of the above order, it was contended by Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the respondentplaintiff was a purchaser pendente lite and that when his suit itself is barred by law, he cannot be rewarded with an interim injunction. 16. But we are not impressed with the said submission. We have already extracted paragraph 52 of the Order of the High Court which records reasons as to why the High Court thought that the previous proceeding will not be an impediment in the way of the respondentplaintiff 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. 17. In Thota Sridhar Reddy and Ors. vs. Mandala Ramulamma and Others 2021 SCC Online SC 851 , this Court had an occasion to consider in extenso the rights conferred by Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. 18. Paragraph 48 of the said decision which reads as follows actually supports the view taken by the High Court in paragraph 49 of the impugned order. The appeals allegedly filed by the protected tenant against the grant of occupancy rights certificate and subsequently being withdrawn is wholly inconsequential as after the grant of ownership certificate in terms of Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, the protected tenants are deemed to be owners. Once the protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not be any occupancy rights certificate as the purchasers were divested of their ownership by virtue of the grant of ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. Such certificate was also not disputed by the purchasers. Therefore, title of the protected tenants is complete and the ownership unambiguously vests with them.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]16. But we are not impressed with the said submission. We have already extracted paragraph 52 of the Order of the High Court which records reasons as to why the High Court thought that the previous proceeding will not be an impediment in the way of the respondentplaintiff 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.17. In Thota Sridhar Reddy and Ors. vs. Mandala Ramulamma and Others 2021 SCC Online SC 851 , this Court had an occasion to consider in extenso the rights conferred by Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act.18. Paragraph 48 of the said decision which reads as follows actually supports the view taken by the High Court in paragraph 49 of the impugned order.The appeals allegedly filed by the protected tenant against the grant of occupancy rights certificate and subsequently being withdrawn is wholly inconsequential as after the grant of ownership certificate in terms of Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, the protected tenants are deemed to be owners. Once the protected tenants are deemed to be owners, there could not be any occupancy rights certificate as the purchasers were divested of their ownership by virtue of the grant of ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act. Such certificate was also not disputed by the purchasers. Therefore, title of the protected tenants is complete and the ownership unambiguously vests with them.