P. SATYANARAYANA versus NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 489, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
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 Reddy, Ms. Mehak Jaggi,
Sudipto Sircar, Challa Vivekananda Reddy, Ponnam Mahesh Babu,
Somanadri Goud Katam, Advs. for the Petitioner.
D. Ramakrishna Reddy, S. Asif Ali Zaidi, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. The respondent herein filed a suit (i) for a declaration that he is
the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property; (ii) for a further declaration that the Gift Settlement Deed
dated 24.07.1987 executed in favour of the petitioner herein was null
and void; and (iii) for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner
herein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment.
2. Pending suit the respondent also moved an interlocutory
application for an interim order of injunction restraining the petitioner
herein from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment and possession of
the suit property. By an Order dated 11.02.2020, the trial Court dismissed
the application for injunction.
3. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the respondent filed an
appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By an
Order dated 2.06.2021, the High Court for the State of Telangana at
Hyderabad allowed the appeal and granted an interim order of injunction
in favour of the respondent, pending disposal of the suit. It is against the
said order that the defendant in the suit has come up with the present
special leave petition.
4. We have heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior advocate
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned
advocate appearing for the respondent.
5. The suit schedule property is an agricultural dry land measuring
acres 1.00 Gts, out of the total extent of acres 2.20 Gts, in Survey No.
272/A, in Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, Telangana. The case of the respondent-plaintiff in the
suit was:
(i)
that he purchased the suit schedule property under a
registered Sale deed dated 09.12.2015 from one Mekala
Ram Reddy;
P. SATYANARAYANA v. NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA
REDDY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
(ii)
that the said Mekala Ram Reddy had purchased the suit
property under a registered sale deed dated 25.11.2008 from
one Pannala Ram Reddy and others;
(iii)
that after the purchase, he got the revenue records mutated
in his name;
(iv)
that the vendor of the plaintiff held Patta bearing No.1159
and the respondent himself got a Pattadar passbook under
Patta No.1464;
(v)
that when he started construction of a compound wall and
a room in the suit property in January, 2016, the defendant
attempted to interfere, forcing the respondent-plaintiff to
lodge a police complaint on 6.01.2016;
(vi)
that since the police did not take any action, the petitioner-
defendant came to the spot on 08.01.2016 and tried to
demolish the compound wall;
(vi)
that the petitioner-defendant also lodged a police complaint,
admitting the construction of the compound wall by the
respondent plaintiff;
(v)
that when he perused the police compliant, he came to know
that the petitioner-defendant was claiming title by virtue of
a Gift Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1987;
(vi)
that however, the enquiries made with the office of the
Tehsildar indicated that what was in possession of the
petitioner-defendant was the land in Survey No.272/AA and
not Survey No.272/A; and
(vii)
that, therefore, he was constrained to file the suit.
6. In the written statement, the petitioner-defendant claimed:
(i)
that the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff had earlier
instituted
a suit in O.S. No.603 of 2015 seeking a decree of
permanent injunction;
(ii)
that the application for interim injunction filed in the said
suit was dismissed on 11.08.2015;
(iii)
that thereafter, the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff sold
the property to the plaintiff under a registered Sale Deed
dated 9.12.2015;
(iv)
that after such sale, the vendor of the respondent-plaintiff
withdrew his suit as not pressed on 2.03.2016;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
493
(v)
that the petitioner-defendant got the suit scheduled property
under a Gift Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1987;
(vi)
that, therefore, all subsequent sale transactions are not valid;
(vii)
that any mutation in revenue records and the issuance of
Pattadar passbook are of no consequence; and
(viii) that, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
7. To substantiate his claim, the respondent-plaintiff filed the
registered Sale deed in his favour, the registered sale deed in favour of
his vendor, the original Pattadar Passbook in the name of his vendor, the
original Pattadar passbook in his own name, the original proceedings for
mutation, the copies of the Pahanis for the years 2007 to 2015 in favour
of the plaintiff, Pahani for the year 2015 in favour of the defendant in
respect of Survey No.272/AA and the copies of the police complaints.
8. The petitioner-defendant, on his part filed the Gift Settlement
Deed in his favour dated 24.07.1987, the sale deed dated 08.07.1980,
the Raithu passbook of himself and his predecessor, the encumbrance
certificate, the copies of the plaint and written statement in the prior suit,
the order of dismissal of the application for injunction in the prior suit,
the order of dismissal of the prior suit after withdrawal and the copy of
the quash petition filed by the plaintiff before the High Court.
9. The trial Court dismissed the application for injunction primarily
on the ground inter alia that the suit instituted by the
vendor of the
respondent-plaintiff was dismissed as withdrawn, after the dismissal of
the interim application for injunction; that the proceeding of Revenue
Division Officer dated 08.04.1996 filed by the petitioner-defendant
showed that the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment; and that
since there were nothing to show the sub-division of the land in Survey
No.272, no case was made out by the respondent-plaintiff for the grant
of an interim injunction.
10. 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
P. SATYANARAYANA v. NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA
REDDY [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
(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 petitioner-
defendant 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 respondent-plaintiff 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 appellant’s 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 appellant’s 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 appellant’s 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
495
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, 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
respondent-plaintiff 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 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.
P. SATYANARAYANA v. NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA
REDDY [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
17. In Thota Sridhar Reddy and Ors. vs. Mandala Ramulamma
and Others1, 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.”
19. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that
the impugned order of the High Court does not warrant any interference
under Article 136 of the Constitution. Hence, this Special Leave Petition
is dismissed.
1 2021 SCC Online SC 851
Divya Pandey
Petition dismissed.