Judgment · High Court

Heard Sri G. Dhananjai, learned counsel representing the appellants and Ms. Kiran Mai, learned counsel representing Sri J. Venkata Prasad, learned counsel representing the respondents. Sri G. Dhananjai, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, point out to the relevant findings recorded in judgment dated

06.10.1988 passed in O.S.No.17 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the Agent to Government, Khammam, and would maintain that having positively recorded a finding relating to the factum of possession to hold that possession is unlawful and hence, the relief of perpetual injunction cannot be granted, these findings are unsustainable

findings. The learned counsel also strongly relied on the decision of this Court in Chama Narsimha Reddy, late Yadagiri alias Yadagiri Reddy vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District[1]. On the contrary, Ms. Kiran Mai, learned counsel representing Sri J. Venkata Prasad, learned counsel respondents/defendants, would maintain that even on prior occasion, an order of remand was made and at any rate, in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Agent to Government, Khammam, the order under appeal need not be disturbed. Heard the counsel on record. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal:-

Whether the findings recorded by the learned Agent to Government, Khammam, in O.S.No.17 of 1976, by judgment dated 06.10.1988, be confirmed or disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case?

If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to? Point No.1:- The parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants, as shown in O.S.No.17 of 1976. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 had purchased the suit schedule property from defendant Nos.1 to 9 for a consideration of Rs.9,265/-. The defendants had executed an agreement of sale dated

10.02.1968, received the entire sale consideration and inducted her into possession of the land. Plaintiff No.2, who is the nephew of plaintiff No.1, is cultivating and looking after the land. On the instigation of some persons, who are enmical to the plaintiffs, the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. The said suit was resisted. However, the learned Agent to Government, after recording the findings, came to the conclusion that the relief of injunction cannot be granted. No doubt, certain submissions had been made that unless the suit for specific performance of contract of sale is filed and a regular sale deed is obtained, the relief of injunction cannot be granted. Learned Agent to Government framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction prayed for? (ii) To what relief are they entitled? The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and also Exs.A-1 to A-3 had been appreciated and the findings had been recorded at paras 6 to 10 and ultimately, the learned Agent to Government held that the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants cannot be granted as the possession of the plaintiffs cannot be said to be lawful, and accordingly dismissed the suit with costs.

Specifically the observations made at para 8 in particular had been pointed out. Further, strong reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Chama Narsimha (supra). Incidentally, Rule 49 of the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924, also had been relied on. It is no doubt true that certain submissions were made on behalf of the respondents that unless a suit for specific performance is filed and a regular registered sale deed is obtained, suit for perpetual injunction as such cannot be maintained. However, certain submissions were made by Sri G. Dhananjai that in the light of Sections 3 to 8 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short Inams Act’), the document has to be taken as sale deed and hence, in the light of the same, the suit is perfectly maintainable. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to this aspect, and both the parties are at liberty to advance their submissions before the learned Agent to Govenrment, Khammam.

On appreciation of evidence available on record, since this Court is satisfied that the decision on the points and also the respective stands taken by the parties had not been appreciated by the learned Agent to Government in proper perspective, this is a fit case, where the matter is to be remanded. Point No.2: In the result, the decree and judgment of the Agent to Government, Khamma, dated 06.10.1988 passed in O.S.No.17 of 1976, are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Agent to Government, Khammam, who shall give opportunity to both the parties to let in further evidence, if they choose to do so, and decide the matter, afresh, in accordance with law, in the light of the submissions which may be made by the respective parties, at the earliest point of time. It is stated that the appellants have been in possession by virtue of an interim order. In view of the same, let the parties maintain status- quo obtaining as on today till an appropriate decision is taken by the Agent to Government, Khammam.

It is stated that the proceedings under the Inams Act are pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem. It is made clear that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, is at liberty to further proceed with the said proceedings. With the above directions, the Appeal Suit is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. P.S. NARAYANA, J _______________________ 10th June, 2010 GHN [1] 2007(3) ALT 265 = 2007 (2) ALD 28 = 2007 (TLS) 434406