P. Srinivasa Rao vs M.Rajaratnam And Another

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 26.03.2007, in O.S. No.14 of2003 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam[for short ‘the trial Court’]. The 1stRespondent herein is the defendant in the said Suit. Second respondent is added as legal representative of deceased first respondent.

The appellant/plaintiff filed a Suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her men and agents from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land and for costs.

Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 12.04.1996 from one Vijaya Rama Murthy and his possession was recognized by the revenue authorities by virtue of pattadar pass book under Ex.B7 and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.14 of 2003 and the defendant in the suit is trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property.

The case of the defendant is that she is the wife of late M.Narayana Murthy, who is the owner of the schedule property, who died issueless leaving Rajaratnam, his wife, as sole legal representative during the life time of her husband and she fostered a girl by name Rajeswari and after the death of the plaintiff’s husband, she performed the marriage of her fostered daughter Rajeswari with one Venkata Ramana and brought him as illatum son-in-law. The defendant further pleaded that later on, her son-in-law, who is rich person by himself, in and around 1980 purchased the landed properties in Karnataka and intended to shift the family, upon which, the plaintiff due to her old age and as she had no other to look after her, she left to Karnataka in or about 1983, while leaving the village, she permitted Velecheti Butchi Raju, who is no other than her nephew, to manage the properties in her absence with condition that the said Butchi Raju to deliver the possession of the lands and for managing the lands and to pay whatever amounts he thinks fit and just, after deducting the expenses incurred.

Infact, the defendant in O.S.No.14 of 2003 filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2000 against the defendants for claiming the relief of declaration of title in the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property in the case on hand is also a part of the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.17 of 2000. The trial Court clubbed all the three suits O.S.No.17 of 2000, O.S.No.1 of 2002 and O.S.No.14 of 2003 i.e., the case on hand and common judgment was pronounced by the trial Court and the trial Judge decreed the suit in O.S.No.17 of 2000, which is filed for declaration of title. It is brought to the notice during the course of arguments by both sides that aggrieved against the said decree and judgment passed in OS.No.17 of 2000, an appeal in A.S.No.326 of 2007 was filed and the same was dismissed for default in the year 2015, the appellant in the said appeal failed to take any steps to restore the appeal. Therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.17 of 2000 ended with finality.

Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff got right, title over the suit land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 12.04.1996?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession over the suit land?

(iii) Whether the defendant interrupted with the lawful possession of plaintiff over the suit land?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against defendants as claimed?

During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, in the common judgment, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 to DW7 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 were marked.

After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.17 of 2000 and dismissed the suits in O.S.No.1 of 2002 and O.S.No.14 of 2003vide its common judgment, dated 26.03.2007, against the judgment in O.S.No.14 of 2003 the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.

Heard Sri B.M.Patro, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Lalith, learned counsel, representing Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for respondents.

Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following point would arise for determination:

Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference, if so, to what extent?

Point:

The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed under Ex.B6 and after purchase of the plaint schedule property he obtained pattadar pass book from the revenue department under Ex.B7. He claims that he purchased the property from one Vijaya Rama Murthy. The contention of the respondent herein is that the said Vijaya Rama Murthy is not having any right and title over the plaint schedule property. The case of the defendant herein is that the plaint schedule property in the case on hand is also a part of the schedule property in O.S.No.17 of 2000, in the said suit, the trial Court gave a finding in a common judgment that the defendant herein is having valid right and title in the total plaint schedule property, which includes the schedule property in the case on hand. As stated supra, the said decree and judgment is ended with finality.

The contention taken by the respondent in the case on hand is that the alleged vendor of the appellant is not having any valid right and title in the plaint schedule property. As stated supra, the trial Judge came to conclusion that the respondent/defendant in the case on hand is having valid right and title over the plaint schedule property and also came to conclusion that the suit for permanent injunction against true owner is not at all maintainable. The material on record reveals that A.S.No.326 of 2007 was filed by the appellants against the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.17 of 2000. As stated supra, the said appeal was dismissed for default in the year 2015, no steps were taken by the appellants to restore the said appeal. The plaintiff herein is also examined as DW2, since the trial Court clubbed all the three suits and common judgment was pronounced in all three suits vide judgment dated 26.03.2007. The plaintiff herein as DW2 admits in cross examination itself that he is not aware as to who is the original owner and later he came to know that his vendor is the distant relative of the respondent herein and on enquiries from his vendor, he came to know that the said property is originally belongs to his vendor’s mother. The own admissions of the appellant before the trial Court clearly goes to show that he does not know who is the original owner of the plaint schedule property and he pleaded ignorance about the original owner of the plaint schedule property. As stated supra, the trial Court, on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, came to conclusion that the defendant herein is the original owner of the plaint schedule property in the case on hand and the trial Court rightly came to conclusion that the suit for injunction against true owner is not at all maintainable. The law is well settled by the Apex Court in Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (deceased) through L.Rs. vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (deceased) through L.Rs 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241. In that case, the Apex Court held as follows:

In a given case, the plaintiff may succeed in getting the injunction even by filing a simple suit for permanent injunction in a case where there is a cloud on the title. However, once the dispute with respect to title is settled and it is held against the plaintiff, in that case, the suit by the plaintiff for permanent injunction shall not be maintainable against the true owner. In such a situation, it will not be open for the plaintiff to contend that though he/she has lost the case so far as the title dispute is concerned, the defendant-the true owner still be restrained from disturbing his/her possession and his/her possession be protected.

In the case on hand also, the trial Court rightly held that the respondent/defendant herein is having valid right and title in the plaint schedule property, a specific finding was given in the common judgment in O.S.No.17 of 2000 along with case on hand by the trial Court, as stated supra, as all the three suits O.S.No.17 of 2000, O.S.No.1 of 2002 and O.S.No.14 of 2003, the case on hand, clubbed together and common judgment was pronounced by the trial Court and the judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.17 of 2000 ended with finality, the same is not set aside. Therefore, there are no merits in the present appeal and the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. Accordingly, the point is answered.

In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the decree and Judgment dated 26.03.2007 in O.S.No.14 of 2003 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. No order as to costs.

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