2005 (2) TMI 877 - SC - Indian Laws

Court denies injunction, tenant can seek possession. Appellant can't challenge jurisdiction post-appeal. Pending proceedings must follow the law.

Kanchusthabam Satyanarayana & Ors. Versus Namuduri Atchutaramayya & Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, concurring with the High Court's decision that the equitable relief of injunction should not have been granted to ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court vs. Tenancy Authorities2. Validity of Permanent Injunction3. Equitable Relief and Restitution4. Directions issued by the High CourtIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court vs. Tenancy Authorities:The High Court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant injunction in favor of the Appellant-Plaintiff due to the provisions of Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956. The High Court emphasized that disputes regarding the jural relationship between the plaintiff and defendant with respect to the suit land could not be brought before the Civil Court. The Appellant argued that Section 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act exempts coconut orchards from the Act, thus making the suit maintainable in a Civil Court. The Supreme Court, while not expressing a considered opinion on this jurisdictional question, assumed for argument's sake that the suit was maintainable.2. Validity of Permanent Injunction:The Appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-tenant from interfering with his possession of the land, which he had obtained through an eviction order that was later set aside on appeal. The High Court found that the Appellant's continued possession was unlawful and amounted to wrongful possession, as it disregarded the lawful order of the Sub-Collector, which was confirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court, noting that the relief of permanent injunction, being an equitable relief, should not have been granted to the Appellant, who was guilty of inequitable conduct by attempting to defeat the process of restitution.3. Equitable Relief and Restitution:The Supreme Court observed that the Appellant had invoked the jurisdiction of the tenancy authorities to seek eviction of the respondent. After losing before the appellate authority, an order for restitution was passed to put the respondent back in possession. The Appellant then sought to challenge these orders through Writ Petitions and subsequently filed a suit for injunction. The Supreme Court held that the Appellant, having obtained possession under an order of eviction that was later set aside, could not retain that advantage by challenging the jurisdiction of the tenancy authorities. The Court emphasized that equitable relief must be granted based on considerations of equity and justice, and the Appellant, being guilty of inequitable conduct, could not claim such relief.4. Directions issued by the High Court:The High Court directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram, to deliver possession of the suit land to the respondent-tenant, if necessary, with police assistance. The Supreme Court noted that the proceedings before the original authority under the Tenancy Act were still pending after remand and should be completed in accordance with law. The Supreme Court found it unnecessary for the High Court to issue such directions, as the law must take its course, and the authorities concerned should take appropriate action as deemed proper. The Supreme Court allowed the Appellant to contend that the proceedings before the Tenancy authorities were not maintainable due to Section 18 of the Tenancy Act, but expressed no opinion on this aspect.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, concurring with the High Court's view that the equitable relief of injunction should not have been granted to the Appellant. The respondent-tenant was granted liberty to seek possession of the land in accordance with law. The Court reiterated that the Appellant, having invoked the jurisdiction of the tenancy authorities, could not challenge their jurisdiction after losing the appeal. The directions issued by the High Court for delivering possession were deemed unnecessary, as the pending proceedings should be completed in accordance with law.