2021 INSC 0856
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.11286 OF 2021
P. SATYANARAYANA     ... Petitioner (s)
Versus
NANDYALA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY       ... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. The respondent herein filed a suit  (i)  for a declaration that he is the
absolute   owner   in   possession   and   enjoyment   of   the   suit   schedule
property;   (ii)   for   a   further   declaration   that   the   Gift   Settlement   Deed
dated   24.07.1987   executed   in   favour   of   the   petitioner   herein   was   null
and void; and   (iii)   for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner
herein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment. 
1

2. Pending   suit   the   respondent   also   moved   an   interlocutory
application   for   an   interim   order   of   injunction   restraining   the   petitioner
herein   from   interfering   with   his   peaceful   enjoyment   and   possession   of
the   suit   property.   By   an   Order   dated   11.02.2020,   the   trial   Court
dismissed the application for injunction.  
3. Challenging   the   said   order   of   dismissal,   the   respondent   filed   an
appeal under  Order  XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By  an
Order   dated   2.06.2021,   the   High   Court   for   the   State   of   Telangana   at
Hyderabad   allowed   the   appeal   and   granted   an   interim   order   of
injunction in favour of the respondent, pending disposal of the suit. It is
against the said order that the defendant in the suit has come up with
the present special leave petition.
4. We   have   heard   Mr.   Shyam   Divan,   learned   senior   advocate
appearing   for   the   petitioner   and   Mr.   D.   Ramakrishna   Reddy,   learned
advocate appearing for the respondent.  
5. The   suit   schedule   property   is   an   agricultural   dry   land   measuring
acres   1.00   Gts,   out   of   the   total   extent   of   acres   2.20   Gts,   in   Survey
2

No.272/A, in Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga
Reddy   District,   Telangana.   The   case   of   the   respondent­plaintiff   in   the
suit was: 
(i)   that   he   purchased   the   suit   schedule   property   under   a
registered Sale deed dated 09.12.2015 from one Mekala Ram
Reddy; 
(ii)  that   the   said   Mekala   Ram   Reddy   had   purchased   the   suit
property under a registered sale deed dated 25.11.2008 from
one Pannala Ram Reddy and others; 
(iii) that   after   the   purchase,   he   got   the   revenue   records   mutated
in his name; 
(iv) that   the   vendor   of   the   plaintiff   held   Patta   bearing   No.1159
and   the   respondent   himself   got   a   Pattadar   passbook   under
Patta No.1464; 
(v) that when he started construction of a compound wall and a
room   in   the   suit   property   in   January,   2016,   the   defendant
attempted   to   interfere,   forcing   the   respondent­plaintiff   to
lodge a police complaint on 6.01.2016; 
(vi) that   since   the   police   did   not   take   any   action,   the   petitioner­
defendant   came   to   the   spot   on   08.01.2016   and   tried   to
demolish the compound wall; 
3

(vi) that   the   petitioner­defendant   also   lodged   a   police   complaint,
admitting   the   construction   of   the   compound   wall   by   the
respondent plaintiff; 
(v) that when he perused the police compliant, he came to know
that the petitioner­defendant was claiming title by virtue of a
Gift Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1987;
(vi) that   however,   the   enquiries   made   with   the   office   of   the
Tehsildar   indicated   that   what   was   in   possession   of   the
petitioner­defendant   was   the   land   in   Survey   No.272/AA   and
not Survey No.272/A; and 
(vii)   that, therefore, he was constrained to file the suit.
6. In the written statement, the petitioner­defendant claimed:
(i) that   the   vendor   of   the   respondent­plaintiff   had   earlier
instituted   a   suit   in   O.S.   No.603   of   2015   seeking   a   decree   of
permanent injunction; 
(ii) that   the   application   for   interim   injunction   filed   in   the   said
suit was dismissed on 11.08.2015; 
(iii) that thereafter, the vendor of the respondent­plaintiff sold the
property   to   the   plaintiff   under   a   registered   Sale   Deed   dated
9.12.2015; 
(iv) that   after   such   sale,   the   vendor   of   the   respondent­plaintiff
4

withdrew his suit as not pressed on 2.03.2016; 
(v) that the petitioner­defendant  got the suit scheduled property
under a Gift Settlement Deed dated 24.07.1987; 
(vi) that, therefore, all subsequent sale transactions are not valid;
(vii) that   any   mutation   in   revenue   records   and   the   issuance   of
Pattadar passbook are of no consequence; and 
(viii) that, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
7. To   substantiate   his   claim,   the   respondent­plaintiff   filed   the
registered  Sale deed in  his favour,  the registered  sale deed  in favour   of
his   vendor,   the   original   Pattadar   Passbook   in   the   name   of   his   vendor,
the   original   Pattadar   passbook   in   his   own   name,   the   original
proceedings   for   mutation,   the   copies  of  the  Pahanis  for   the  years   2007
to 2015 in favour  of the plaintiff, Pahani for the year  2015 in favour  of
the   defendant   in   respect   of   Survey   No.272/AA   and   the   copies   of   the
police complaints.
8. The petitioner­defendant, on his part filed the Gift Settlement Deed
in   his   favour   dated   24.07.1987,   the   sale   deed   dated   08.07.1980,   the
Raithu   passbook   of   himself   and   his   predecessor,   the   encumbrance
5

certificate,   the   copies   of   the   plaint   and   written   statement   in   the   prior
suit, the order of dismissal of the application for injunction in the prior
suit,   the   order   of   dismissal   of   the   prior   suit   after   withdrawal   and   the
copy of the quash petition filed by the plaintiff before the High Court.
9. The   trial   Court   dismissed   the   application   for   injunction   primarily
on   the   ground   inter   alia   that   the   suit   instituted   by   the   vendor   of   the
respondent­plaintiff was dismissed as withdrawn, after the dismissal of
the   interim   application   for   injunction;   that   the   proceeding   of   Revenue
Division   Officer   dated   08.04.1996   filed   by   the   petitioner­defendant
showed   that   the   petitioner   was   in   possession   and   enjoyment;   and   that
since there were nothing to show the sub­division of the land in Survey
No.272, no case was made out by the respondent­plaintiff for the grant
of an interim injunction.
10. The Division Bench of the High Court, while reversing the Order of
the   trial  Court,  pointed  out:   (i)   that  the   predecessor   of  the  respondent­
plaintiff   was   issued   a   certificate   under   Exhibit   P­21   dated   16.12.1975
under   Section   38­E   of   the   Andhra   Pradesh   (Telangana   Area)   Tenancy
6

and   Agricultural   Lands   Act,   1950;   (ii)   that   the   said   certificate   is   proof
enough   to   show   the   passing   of   title   in   favour   of   the   predecessor   of   the
respondent­plaintiff;   (iii)   that   Exhibit   P­17,   which   is   Form   1­B   (Record
of Rights) showed that   prima facie   the respondent was in possession of
the land on the date of institution of the suit; and  (iv)  that therefore, the
person in possession was entitled to an interim order of protection. 
11. The   High   Court   also   found   Exhibit   R­6   filed   by   the   petitioner­
defendant   which   is   the   Occupancy   Right   Certificate   issued   on
08.04.1996,   to   be   unbelievable,   as   the   predecessor   in   title   of   the
respondent­plaintiff had already been issued a certificate under Section
38­E   of   the   aforesaid   Act   way   back   on   16.12.1975.   The   High   Court
pointed   out   that   the   person   under   whom   the   defendant   claimed   title,
namely   Gopamma   Yadaiah,   could   not   have   acquired   any   right,   under
the   sale  deed dated  08.07.1980,  after  the  issue  of  the   certificate  under
Section 38­E of the Act in favour  of the predecessor of the respondent­
plaintiff on 16.12.1975.
12. Insofar   as   the   prior   suit   filed   by   the   vendor   of   the   respondent­
7

plaintiff is concerned, the High Court pointed out that it was only a suit
for   permanent   injunction   and   that   the   dismissal   of   the   application   for
injunction   without   recording   any   finding   relating   to   possession   was   of
no consequence. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the High
Court reads as follows:
“ 52.  It   also   seems   to   have   misread   the   order   passed   on
11.08.2015   in  I.A.  No.  510   of    2015   in  O.S.  No.  603  of  2015
(Ex. R10).   In the said order, the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Ranga   Reddy   District   observed   merely   that   the   photographs
filed   by   the   appellant’s   vendor   show   that   the   land   is   open
land without any construction and so also was the property of
the   respondent,   and   easementery   rights   of   air   and   light   are
prescriptive   rights,   and   the   appellant’s   vendor   has   to   prove
acquisition   of   the   said   rights   for  the   prescribed   period.   There
is no mention therein about lack of possession and enjoyment
of   the   appellant’s   vendor.   The   above   finding   as   recorded   by
the   trial   court   also   contradicts   the   claim   of   the   respondent   of
constructing   a   compound   wall   around   Acs.   2.00   gts.   of   land
and   possessed   by   him   as   stated   in   para   no.4   in   Written
Statement filed in O.S. No. 603 of 2015 .”
13. The   High   Court   took   note   of   the   fact   that   under   Exhibit   P­22,
which is the Pahani for the year 2003­2004, there was a sub­division of
the land in Survey No.272 into Survey No. 272/A and 272/AA and that
the Pahanis of all subsequent years in respect of Survey no.272/A were
in   favour   of   predecessors­in­title   of   the   respondent­plaintiff.   On   the
8

basis   of   these   findings,   the   High   Court   reversed   the   Order   of   the   trial
Court   and   granted   an   interim   injunction   in   favour   of   the   respondent­
plaintiff.   Therefore,   we   do   not   think   that   this   is   a   case   warranting
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
14. At   the   time   when   this   Court   ordered   notice   in   the   above   special
leave petition on  2.08.2021, this  Court was  impressed   prima  facie   with
the argument that the withdrawal of the prior suit by the vendor of the
respondent­plaintiff   would   have   a   serious   bearing   upon   the   prayer   for
interim   injunction   in   the   present   suit.   Therefore,   this   Court,   while
ordering notice on 2.08.2021 recorded as follows:
“ Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   contends   that   the
predecessor of the plaintiff filed O.S. No.603 of 2015 claiming
permanent   injunction   in   respect   of   land   measuring   1   acre
comprising   Survey   No.272   ad   measuring   2   acres.   Such   suit
was   dismissed   as   not   pressed   on   02.03.2016.   The   plaintiff
has   purchased   the   property   comprising   in   Survey   No.272   on
09.12.2015.   The   purchaser   filed   a   suit   after   purchase   of   the
land   in   respect   of   which   predecessor   of   the   plaintiff   has
withdrawn   suit.   Therefore,   the   suit   of   the   2   plaintiff   was   not
maintainable. 
Notice,   returnable   within   four   weeks.   In   the   meantime,
parties to maintain status quo regarding possession.”
15. On   the   basis   of   the   above   order,   it   was   contended   by   Mr.   Shyam
9

Divan,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   petitioner   that   the   respondent­
plaintiff   was   a   purchaser   pendente   lite   and   that   when   his   suit   itself   is
barred by law, he cannot be rewarded with an interim injunction.
16. But   we   are   not   impressed   with   the   said   submission.   We   have
already   extracted   paragraph   52   of   the   Order   of   the   High   Court   which
records   reasons   as   to   why   the   High   Court   thought   that   the   previous
proceeding   will   not   be   an   impediment   in   the   way   of   the   respondent­
plaintiff   filing   the   present   suit   and   seeking   an   injunction.   As   rightly
observed   by   the   High   Court,   the   dismissal   of   the   application   for
injunction   in   the   prior   suit,   was   on   account   of   the   fact   that   the
photographs showed the land to be an open vacant land.
17. In   Thota   Sridhar   Reddy   and   Ors.   vs.   Mandala   Ramulamma
and   Others 1
,   this   Court   had   an   occasion   to   consider   in   extenso   the
rights conferred by Section 38­E of the Tenancy Act.
18. Paragraph   48   of   the   said   decision   which   reads   as   follows   actually
supports   the   view   taken   by   the   High   Court   in   paragraph   49   of   the
1       2021 SCC Online SC 851
10

impugned order.
“ The   appeals   allegedly   filed   by   the   protected   tenant   against
the   grant   of   occupancy   rights   certificate   and   subsequently
being withdrawn is wholly inconsequential as after the grant
of   ownership   certificate   in   terms   of   Section   38­E   of   the
Tenancy Act, the protected tenants are deemed to be owners.
Once   the   protected   tenants   are   deemed   to   be   owners,   there
could   not   be   any   occupancy   rights   certificate   as   the
purchasers   were   divested   of   their  ownership  by   virtue   of   the
grant   of   ownership   certificate   under   Section   38­E   of   the
Tenancy   Act.   Such   certificate   was   also   not   disputed   by   the
purchasers.   Therefore,   title   of   the   protected   tenants   is
complete and the ownership unambiguously vests with them.”
19. In   view   of   the   above,   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion   that   the
impugned   order   of   the   High   Court   does   not   warrant   any   interference
under Article 136 of the Constitution.  Hence, this Special Leave Petition
is dismissed.
 
… ..…………....................J.
      (Hemant Gupta)
.…..………......................J
(V. Ramasubramanian)
11

DECEMBER 16, 2021
NEW DELHI .
12