The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents / Defendants ..2 OF 20 22 IA NO Petition u nd()l the affidavit filed- tn ^ suspend the oPet a,''" District Judge' r' ' ' iO21 Pending o tsF't ' ^' l?["'"']ii'i'i,'i,fi + { t iflfl [ iil,,ffi IA 22 20 OF NO :3 Petition trn' lt'r circumstances tl1 : 'l ] mav be Pleaseo 'c I I aside abatement tn - ' .ff-**#ttl'r rff*'*{ri}t} IANO:4 OF 2021 Petitior urtrle circumstances s;tat€ mav be Pleased t I respondent No 3 IA NO:5O F 2021" Petition t r d the circumsta nc e s Court maY be P l(ria respondent Nos / respondent No.3 a IANO:6OF20 ??. )rder 22n,!:;? T/I ^s.?lJi"?i..t:: :' iJff "':'oo#l'j:i llflt tsili I ;il'f ii: U;;it'' a 1 ai nst dece ased "Jil,H r order 22 Rule 3 & 4 R/w Sec 151 o{ lFC.praying that in s,latedintheaffidavitfiledin-supportoftl'eletition,theHigh ;:;d to bring on record tne respond'ent No; i I and I herein as '; ;;'r" in Crtrn No ae tiozz " legal htrirs of deceased ,I interlocutory applications therein ' Petiti,:n I r< t t Order -41 Rule 27 Rtw Sec .l 51 of CP() tlraying that in the iited in support of the pelrtion' the-High Court circumstances sta r.d in tnu mav be pleasecl o grrni l"'"L to the petitioners to file c opy of orders dt 'ifloatzoii'-r1 , r.ro" rs*ozlzoil in os i.lo 533/2021 passeJ by th^e.:9Y1"f Prl.Jr.Civil Jucg' frrf"Oct ef and certified copy of o'de:rs dl'2411112021 1A.No.1502,/2021 r OS N;533/2021 passed by the cour >f Prl Jr'Civil Judge' ftf"j"n"l (exte r,;i' ' orders) on record in C t\ilA No 88/20i)-2 and mark the same as Ex.R-B and Ex tl- ) respectively on behalf of petitioners / appe lla rts "ttiO"'t Counsel for th€ / ppellants: SRI' DEEPAK BHATTACHAR"JEE' SENIOR COUNSEL FOR S. I-T.KSiHMI KANTH counsel for the F espondents: SRI SUNIL B GANU The Court deli,rr:r r,J the following Judgment: -1 THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA CI WL MISCELLANE OUSAPPE AND AL No.8 8of 2022 JUD G MENT : (Per Hort'ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kwnar) This civir Misceilaneous Appear is filed agai,st the order d,ated.2t.t2.202 tin I.A. No. 758 of 202tin O.S. No. 158 of 2021 on the file of XVI Additional distr.ict and sessions judge cum Addl. Family Court Ranga lleddy districr at Malkajgiri. 2. The Appellants herein are respondent Nos. I and 2 in the underlying Interlocutory Application and defendant Nos.I and 2 in the O.S. No. I5g of 2021 filed by tlie r.espondent no. I to 3 herein as plaintiff for perpetual injunction. 3. In the aforesaid suit, the respondent No.l to 3/plaintiffs have filed the underlying Interlocutory Application under Order XXXX Rule I and 2 r/w Section l5l C.p.C. to grant interim relief oI injunction restrair.ring the appellants herein from interfering with the peacefur possession of the petition schedule 'B'property. 2 4 executed thr')o The case c i the appellants is that' one Hari Kuvar lerr;had .'llistered sale deeds' one in favour ol E San'leep rt Ac. 0-38 guntas in Sy' No' 859 via'e <locutnent Raj to an r:x'e n darcd ztt lli'1((i8 and two documents dated' 29 12 199'8 &' 23.11.1998 to irn extent of Ac 2-00 guntas in SYN'I 859 in favour ol' I\{':; ''trava Durga Puleers Earth Pvt' Ltci" repre:'ented by its Chairrn rr E" Sambaiah' in all admeasuring to arL i:xlsnt of Ac.2-38I''lIt.tSinSurveyNo.S5g.Theselall<Lswere subsequetr'lu : :nveyed to appellants' 5. The u.5p lants contend that' the respondents Nos to 3 had purchased t r": petition schedule 'B' propen) -i'lnr their - tlors and the vendors in tum purchased liorn Srnt' respeclive "e Balaman.i'llL,:alienationofthesubjectlandsbySmt.Blrlamani (legal ht:ir r1- deceased Veerana) to the r'end'rrs of the respontle.t s r to 3 is in violation of Section 48-A (1' of 'he A'P' (Telangair \r'ea) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands A'cL' 950 (in :rs the transfers were affecte d within c iglrt years short 'A: from the d rt: of issuance of the ownership certifi':at3 under Section lili- ; of the Act. The Civil Revision Feriti,rns filed by bcth Smt.. I rr amani and Kum. Hali Kuval Pershac rrqainst the -l 3 orders of the Joint Cc prorecred tenant in .".ol"""tott declaring Srnt. Balamani as a s'lirr Pending ;),':'n" """1'" ;;:"':' ;;:,?: naffer is ru6

6. Tfie appellants injun*ion against -":'":" th.at' thev had filed suit for perpetual de's N' 533 #il:j:J:p #, :,::,:,' interimrnjunction ,n rhe respondents remporary injunction and Sessions Judge c DisrrictarMarkajgiri,ru* "^: 2021 isdirecrry in conl Junior civil Jrdg., M.,ll the order d,ated. 2t.rr.r",nu'in amil and comity. The hiar '"nu'' ""* *:t;;'r":::: favour of appe'uants in the above said I.A. hand obtained an order of .:": the Court of XvI Addirionar District ooo'' Family court Ranga Reddy No' 758 of 2021in o'S' No' 158 of t with the order passed by Principal I'A' No'I50 7 of 202l and thus l2l is in violation to the doctrine of

7. Per contra, the respondent Nos. I to 3 contend that respondent No. I purchased Item No. I which is part of Suit 'schedule property A, fronr one Dr. K. Narsimha Rao vide i ) I l 4 Balamanl tlur: rrlh registered registered sale d \''|1 dated 25'04'2001' Respondent No 2 hrd purchased ltenL N I tI fiom Dr' K' Ratna Kum ari vide a legistered sale deed dateC I i 0l'2001 and Respondent No'3 had putcrat'ed Item No.lll ftctr [). M]thili Sundarshwar vide a registere'1 :ale All the three properties viz'' Itenr \c's l deed datecl ?.:'.0' '1001' to lll collect'r'e' constitute the petition schedule 'B' propt:rty The vendors .. respondents had acquired title fronr on: r'imt sale deeds dated '16 0l'1991' respectivelY' Smt BalaniiLni had obtained r i 1;lrt over the said property pursuant to procee'lings dated 15.01. 9 i) t in SY' No. 859 of Medchal village' 8. The resl r'rldent Nos' 1 to 3 contend that' sirx e' 200 1 respondent 'l I has been in continuous possession ol the entire Suit schecu t property' including the industrial sheds' rnachinery, : l'J other movable assets by virtue of leasr: deed dated l3,06.i.r01executedby respondents No 2 and liir fa'''our of respoudetrt lt r' l, which was subsequently renewed fio n itne to zn I 16.04'1991 1 1.07.199i trme.

9. The -r.s ondent Nos. I to 3 contend that, the appellants rnade altenrp.; to unlarvfully interfere with their pe,aceful i ,:} 5 possession of the s< and 2g.0g.2021, wir and eafihraov*, *,r.n . atternpts *"." ."r,rr.,h propetty on 17.08 the help of anti-sociar ,''0"'27'08'2021' the intent to cause o*'"*'u' vehicles' and the said the assistance "t'1"*" a,d compra;,,;il;", ;;' Nos. I 2001for granting r"..r::,1r::i""i The trial court by co nuo *o,r"''"ring ,;'rt,r"::t; Iabourers, ttt the respondent and rocar..'*''' the porice, ,nr, ,n***]".lts' suit video.s. No. ,.r, against the apper,ranrs .of and titre and injunction in favour of th< in LA. No. 758 ot 202riH)respcndentszpetitioners O.S. No. 158 of200l. I0. The respondents possessio, documents No.4 and 5, in violation of a High courl in cRp *o' Ig.01.2005,'unrawfury 3 contended that' Respondents t'ut" 9uo order passed by the Hon'b.re s'2895 of 2003 and 2901 of 2003 dated &06.04.202 t*rr.r,*,, lr':::; ff ""::',' ^: ::, ^ the suit schedule properry; that appellants and Respondents No.4 to 6 acted in collusion and insrituted O.S. No.533/2 021 on the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal and obtained an m respect of file of the principal 6 )n in LA. No'1507/2021 by suppressi:rg' tlie ad-interim injurc' material facts '

11. RespondtrLr )los' I to 3 further contended that thc s<hcdrrle A and B pr(\x)r L'js forming the subject matter of the srri: ride O.S. No. l5t l 2OZl are distinct and separate fronr the properties t'''i'.p:':[ by the appellants in O'S' No' 533 of 202t as the appellants : '';ert rights only to an extent ol Ac'2-38 r1t nt ts in SurvcY Ntr'E5()

12. The tr e I llourt vide order dated' 21'12 2021 has grirnted temporary Lrr't' rrction in favour of respondent nos' 1 t I i and against the rip:tllants' Aggrieved by thc aforesaiti orlcr lf the trial Courl i'r : Appellants/respondent No' 1 and 2 ha'l trl':d the present (li,'' I ' tiscellaneous Appeal'

13. Flear,l S Deepak Bhattacharjee' ieamed SenirJr r('urlscl tbr Sri S. L,al::,h r i Kanth, learned Counsei for the Appellatts and Sri Sunil. Ii. (ianu, learned Senior counsel for Responrlerts' and perused t.lLt t :,:ord.

14. It is ;,:[ -,rnently contended on behalf of the Appe ]a rls that the tria.l lo I has erred tn granting injunctiorr appellant:; atrl in favour of respondents inastnuch as an e erir;st : I r I I I I 7 subsisting and the said fact was not contcnd that it is lnJunction order is considered.

15. The appellants l principre that grant "f.tnntt equitab,re remedy. oo.'"'oo''o must esrabrish 0,,,,,,;::"n "'::^'"',: lies irr their ,urour, ^'rl'" irreparabre injury thatnd damages, if the i*iunctio::: has erred in granting ,r,o and even without estabr injunction ,, , -..."t#';l * granred, rhe respondenrs case' and the balance of convenience dernonstt'ate that they wourd suffer tre cotnpensated bv nronetary " not granted' and that the hial court without recording any reasons facie case, balance of convenience una i,.,"pu.ut tin:rrr'''*

16. The appellants further contend that, the trial Court erred in granting injunction against the appellants, who are the true owners of the suit schedule properties and that the trial Court ought to have directed the parties to maintain stutus_quo, rather than granting an injunction by considering the pending title disputes between the parties before various courts. 17. The appellants contend that, the trial Court has ered in granting injunction in I.A. No. 75g of 2021in O.S. No. l5g of 2021 inasmucrr a ird-interim injunction is subsisting in I A' IIo' 1502 oi2()21 n'.)'S' No' *3 of 2021 on the hle of Pr.inci pal Junior Civil Jucl :' at Medchaf in favour of appellants' irrd lrat in view of suor rrtence of said injunction order' the inturrc'ion order passc'l in t A No' 758 of 2021in O'S' No' 158 ol ll0ll i is in violation I I r -e doctrine of amity and comity ' ln support cl his contention s, rr Ir ance is placed on the follorving decisions c'l the Hon'ble Supre 're Court viz'' India Household and Hetllltr:ure Ltd. V. L't- 'louseholtl and Heallhcare Llcl'tanC Shankara Coop. Hrtusin i Sociely Ltd' V' M' Prabhakar2 ' 18. B1 cc'rlt tlling as above' appellants sought for sefl n!] aside the order ,r - - t: trial Court in granting the tempcrary irjtrnction vide order <'tt td 2l'12'2021' 19. P,::, ir()/ i2, responderrt Nos' 1 to 3 contend thal- :ls doctrint: ti : t'i4' and comity' a couft cannot pass an orle which would be n onflict with another order passed by i ':or npetent Court ol'liir lrnd it requires the court of concurrent jrl'i ;diction to pass s rrj rrr orders. Both the said orders are ncl (rol.current 'oer '1:ooz; s 5 <.1, ., 1 lzor r;: sc c r o 9 Inasmuch interim iniunction passed ' of 202lwas passed the ad_t 2a21 ino.s. No. renrporary rr*.rr""' 158 or 2o2t - *-'r' :::::r;'o 20. Therespondent No' 1502 of ''o' * ;,',':,:;,' :ll Jl' "n orders are not in reli 1502 of 2021rn o.r. Nos' I to 3 contend thal "'o" ro rhe same ,.rr"*or:,:.^':: in sy. No. g59/parto g5g to an extent oa Matkaigiri,while an act-inrerim,rjrr.,,::"',:',,^:.t ^', rhe triar courr has granred t' relation to schedule A & B properries ' "*"" of Ac' 0-38 guntas and in sy,No. 'oo guntas situated at Medchal orary injunction granted vide order of 2021i, o'S' No. r58 of 2021 is in Sy'No' 859 ) guntas situated at Medchal, Ranga the ,ro"' dt.21 .r2.202ri, I.A. No. in reration with the petitir to aa extent ", o.. ,-0,'n schedule'B'property Reddy.

21. The respondent Nos. I to 3 further contend that the trial courr has rightly allowed the interlocutory application and granted temporary injunction in favour.of the respondent Nos. I to 3, in view of the existence of a prima facie case,balance of convenience ir i'vour of the resPondents and ineparab te injury/loss '

22. Nehave t:rk :rt note of resPective contentions urged'

23. It is Penirr submisstotrs determinattolt a grounds ltrr t i' resPondents tlr r' petitioners rtt'': t to note that the trial Court' considetirLg the ,ra i r bY both the counsels had framedaPontfor "Whether the petitioners have shorvtr s'rllic ient rnt of temporary injunction restrainirlg the ' interfering with the peaceful possessicrr cf the pctition schedule B property' as pray':d tt r? ' 1; the fact that the trial Court upon pertrsri rf the 24. ConsLrk:r : rr-raterial eri'le 't:e ploduced in support of the case' ohselved that the respon'l':r nos' i to 3 have clearly estabiished their right and possession rr : r the petition schedule 'B' propertl' anrl rlsc their continuor: I i-' I isession from 2001 by running Srinath Spinne rs Pvt. Ltcr., thL I prima/acie case and balance of corvenien':e is in their firvour- r'td greater inconvenience rvould be cau;ed ro them rather than a rrrellants if injunction is not granted' 25. Il is als I perlinent to note that I'A No 1502 of 11021 in O'S' No. 5,1 I rt r')ll an ad-interim injunction order grall3d is only till 27.(t8.20 end no document/orCer is filecl shciu,in: tre said I :;-_* L . ::-, .i 1 :4. rWeww*mffiaffiemiy l 11 order granted in I.A. order was extended. firrt ot the other hand' the temporary injunction was granted ,rntt r I.A. No. 758 of 2021in O.S. No. I58 of 2021 vicle order dt.21.12.2021. Thus, it evident thar as on 21.12.2021 the ad_iitterinz injunction order gr.anted in I.A. No. i502 of 202l in O.S. No. 533 was nor subsisting. 26. Considering that ad_interintinjunction No. I502 of 2021in O.S. No. 533 was not subsisting, there is no Icgal bar pr.eventing the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Additional Family Couit, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri fiorn granting the tempcrary injunction in I.A. No. 758 of 2021 in O.S. No. l5g of 202lThus, in rhe consiclered view of this Court, the contention of the Appellants that there is violation of doctrine of Amity and Comity does nor apply. 27. It is fufther relevant to note that though the appellants contended that the orderr in I.A. No. 1502 of 2021 in O.S. No. 533 was subsisting, they did not raise any objection before the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri regarding the same' considering the issue, the appellants courd have sought for 12 the clubbing of l-J i suits in order to address the potential r)l erlap or conflict betq e t the proceedings'

28. It is also pe t n3nt to note that though the appellants r:cttt:nd that the trial :,ri rr. t-aited to appreciate that' the title to pr')pr)fty cannot be pa:s('r on through the sale deed executed by tht: (iPA holder of perrio I prior to issuance of section l$-ll q("1!iflr:ate trnder the pr()\,il i,lI1S of the Tenancy Act, contrary to th.: abllve, the appellanls ir thc counter filed by them in I A No 75ll of 2021 inO.S. ]'r 158 of 2021have stated that one Smt Ralallani had acquirctl ti l.: over the property through the ccrtitlcrrte u/s' 38-Eofth:l.tandrvasconfirme<lbytheRDo'Thrs.this Court is ol lii rievr that the appellant cannot be allovrt:d to approbate anll .' llt obate to note that the trial co-rrt had

29. It is 1L r'1 r.;r Pertinent categori<:a)ly :r:orded the reasons and clearly held .het the respoudent ]', c ' I to 3 have establishecl prima lacie cas':' balance of convenl.e r r: ,rnd irreparable loss ir: their favour'

30. For the r 'rresaid reasons, this Courl is of the order o1'11;21 . ourt does not suffer from infirmitl' or p:rr ersity "iew ttLat the wan'antillq i rl )rference by this Cottrt' * 13 3t Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and is dismissed 32 As a seque[, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SRINIVASA o JOINT REGIS RAR SECTION OFFICER To, l The XVr Additionar District & sessions Judge -cum- r, Additionar Famiry Judge, Ranga Reddy Districr rirtllffrtgir';-"" - 2. One CC to SRI. S. LAKSHMT KANTH, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRt. SUNTL B GANU, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies kul/gh p- I t I I I I l i HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.88 ot 202.2 DISMISSING Trllr ( l\ WITHOT,II CO:i'IS 6q(+ k ,-56r' C <\ J 12 Jir M i ,i','l t) ,i, a,2/