HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CMA.No.521 of 2014 Date:06.06.2014 Between:
J.Ramalakshmamma, W/o Thimmaiah and four others.
And:
Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundationi, Madanapalle, reptd by its authorized Representative-Dr.Mallela Guravaiah, S/o Gunnaiah …… Appellants …… Respondent Counsel for the appellants: Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Counsel for the respondent: Sri M.Venkata Ramana Reddy The Court made the following:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CMA.No.521 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order, dated 01.05.2014, in I.A.No.307 of 2013 in O.S.No.50 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.
The respondent herein filed the above-mentioned suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also for restraining the appellants from alienating the suit schedule property by grant of permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.307 of 2013 for temporary injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Initially, an order of status quo was granted by the trial Court. After hearing both parties and considering the documentary evidence adduced by both parties, the lower Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent by the order under appeal.
I have heard Sri Suresh Kumar Kalava, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.Venkata Ramana Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent at length.
The respondent claimed its title through the registered gift deed, dated 07.12.2012, (Ex.P-8) stated to have been executed by Smt T.N.Shakunthalamma, in its favour. It is also the pleaded case of the respondent that under Ex.P-1, Smt T.N.Shakunthalamma was granted original patta by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle under Freedom Fighters’ quota in respect of the suit schedule property and as a measure of philanthropy, the said assignee has executed a registered gift deed in favour of the respondent, which is a spiritual foundation center. The respondent has also pleaded that when the appellants have raised a dispute over the property in question, Smt T.N.Shakunthalamma filed a suit which was compromised in Lok Adalat under Ex.P-12-award, under which the appellants have settled the dispute by taking Ac.0.40 cents of land.
The appellants have based their claim on the assignments stated to have been granted in favour of their predecessors in title-Sri Chinthala Nagappa and Sri Avula Venkataswamy under Ex.R-10. However, the appellants admitted that the said patta was cancelled in the year 1993. It is, however, the pleaded case of the appellants that they were not aware of the cancellation of the patta and as soon as they came to know of the same, they have filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle and that the same is pending.
At the hearing, Sri Suresh Kumar Kalava, the learned counsel for the appellants, has strenuously contended that the very claim of the respondent that Smt T.N.Shakunthalamma was granted assignment cannot be accepted in view of the endorsements under Exs.R-13 and R-14 issued by the Public Information Officer and Tahsildar, Madanapalle, informing the appellants that the record relating to issue of patta in favour of Smt T.N.Shakunthalamma is not available.
There is a serious contest between the appellants on one side and the respondent on the other with regard to possession over the suit schedule property.
The lower Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the respondent has made out a case for grant of permanent injunction. In arriving at this conclusion, it has relied upon the documentary evidence such as Ex.P-1-original patta, Ex.P-8-registered gift deed, dated 07.12.2012 and Ex.P-10-passbook issued in favour of Smt T.N.Shakunthalamma, etc. The lower Court has also considered the fact that the assignment made to C.Nagappa was cancelled as far back as 1993. As the suit is pending, this Court refrains from rendering conclusive findings on the rival claims of the parties.
Having regard to the documentary evidence produced by both parties and the reasons given by the lower Court in accepting the claim of the respondent that it is in possession of the suit schedule property, based on the above discussed documentary evidence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the lower Court.
Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the findings rendered by the lower Court in the order under appeal shall not influence it while disposing of the suit. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit-O.S.No.50 of 2013 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, CMAMP.No.723 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous.
06th June, 2014 DR
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY