Minhaj Mohiuddin vs Mohd. Abdul Aslam

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in C.M.A.No.108 of 2019 dt.16-06-2022.

Heard Sri A.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the respondents.

It has been contended by the petitioners that the respondents have filed a suit seeking injunction simpliciter i.e. O.S.No.1390 of 2018 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, and the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge has not granted any injunction and the same was rejected vide orders dt.28-10-2019 on the ground that there is a dispute among the boundaries of the property claimed by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein have preferred C.M.A.No.108 of 2019 before the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, claiming injunction and the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy had reappreciated the entire facts and granted injunction in favour of the respondents on 16-06-2022 without appreciating the fact that there are certain boundary disputes between the petitioners and the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the property originally belongs to Mohd. Isaaq and the family members of Mohd. Isaaq have sold the property to one P.Venkat Reddy and that the petitioners as well as respondents are claiming title through P.Venkat Reddy and there is some over lapping of land between the petitioners and the respondents and without disclosing the said fact, the respondents have filed a suit claiming injunction and the Principal Senior Civil Judge has rightly declined to grant injunction in favour of the respondents but the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, had reversed the same and granted injunction in favour of the respondents vide orders dt.16-06-2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the Supreme Court in Kashi Math Samsthan and another v. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and another (2010) 1 S.C.C. 689 has specifically held that it is well settled that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. In those set of circumstances only the Courts must grant injunction.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court reported in Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs. And others (2008) 4 S.C.C. 594 and contended that the Supreme Court has dealt the various cases and has come to the following conclusions:

“3.1. Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.

13.2. Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.

13.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.

By relying on the above said circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the property itself is disputed as there are certain boundary issues and the respondents are also claiming the road as their personal property and the Principal District Judge has granted injunction even against the road which is a public road and when there is a dispute to the title of the respondents, the only remedy available to the respondents is to file a suit for declaration of title along with consequential injunction.

In the instant case, the suit is only for simple injunction, when there is a title dispute, the Principal District Judge ought not to have granted injunction in favour of the respondents in C.M.A.No.108 of 2019 dt.16-06-2022. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that appropriate orders be passed in the Revision Petition by setting aside the orders of the learned Principal District Judge in the C.M.A.

Learned counsel for the respondents had contended that the Principal District Judge has rightly passed injunction orders in his favour as the respondents could establish before the Principal District Judge that the properties are mutated in the name of respondents and the revenue authorities have also issued pattadar pass books in favour of the respondents and it is for the respondents to file a suit for simpliciter. The petitioners cannot guide the respondents as to what suit has to be filed by the respondents.

As admittedly the respondents are in possession and it could be demonstrated before the Principal District Judge. The Principal District Judge has rightly granted injunction in favour of the respondents by looking into the totality of the case by duly taking into account the documents filed by the respondents and a perusal of the documents which were filed before the Principal District Judge would make it abundantly clear that the respondents are in possession of the property and it is a case of injunction simpliciter. If the respondents have proved their prima facie case that they are in possession, then the Courts must grant injunction. As admittedly, they have filed all the documents including mutation documents and also pattadar pass book which could demonstrate that the respondents are in possession, the Principal District Judge has rightly granted injunction in favour of the respondents. Therefore, there are no merits in the Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

This Court having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of the considered view that the respondents have produced Exs.P-12 and 14 which are certified copies of Namoona ROR showing the mutation effected in favour of respondents and Exs.13 and 15 are certified copies of adangal and pahanies showing the incorporation of names of the respondents in the revenue records and Ex.P-16 is Encumbrance Certificate showing the title of the respondents to the petition schedule property and no documents were filed by the petitioner before the Court below to disprove the claim made by the respondents and therefore the Principal District Judge has rightly granted relief in favour of the respondents by relying on the documents i.e. Exs.P-12 to P-16 and also Ex.P-17.

The only issue before the Court below that has to be taken into consideration is whether a person is in possession, prima facie, or not. As the respondents could prove their prima facie possession of the property, the Principal District Judge was justified in granting injunction in favour of the respondents in C.M.A.No.108 of 2019 dt.16-06-2022. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the initiation of injunction simpliciter suit filed by the respondents, it is always open for them to file application under Order VII Rule 11 to see that the suit filed by the respondents is dismissed as there are certain title disputes, but as far as injunction is concerned, the Principal District Judge prima facie on appreciating the evidence based upon the documents has rightly granted injunction in favour of the respondents.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders of the learned Principal District Judge passed in C.M.A.No.108 of 2019 dt.16-06-2022.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.