TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he owner of the suit property consisting of coconut garden in R.S. No.103 measuring about 16.93-1/2 acres and a vacant land measuring 38 cents in R.S.No.107/1 of Village Serilanka in Ramachandrapuram Taluk, East Godavari District. The case of the Appellant was that he had leased out the said land to the defendant-respondent under an agreement dated 21.12.1967 for a period of 5 years on certain terms and conditions. The appellant filed a petition A.T.P.No.21 of 1973 under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956 before the Tenancy Tehsildar, Ramachandrapuram for eviction of the respondent alleging that the respondent-tenant had committed default in payment of rent and therefore, was liable to be evicted. A Receiver was appointed in that proceeding who took possession of the land. Ultimately the Eviction Petition was allowed and the Respondent-tenant was directed to be evicted. Against the order of eviction the respondent preferred T.A.No.2 of 1974 before the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry. While the appeal was pending the Appellant filed Execution Petition No.1 of 1974 before the Tehsildar and obtained delivery of possession of the suit land on 18.1.1974. Ultimately, the T.A.No.2 of 1974 fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956. It was held that in view of the jural relationship between the plaintiff and defendant with respect to suit land, such a dispute could not be brought before the Civil Court. It was further held that the Courts below failed to comprehend that the Appellant-plaintiff's continued possession was not lawful and in fact amounted to wrongful possession of the land as he retained the same in disregard of the lawful order of the Sub-Collector which was confirmed by the High Court by dismissal of his Writ Petition and Writ Appeal. The High Court, therefore, held that this was not a case in which the relief sought for by the Appellant for permanent injunction, being an equitable relief, could be granted. The High court has made certain other directions. It has held that the respondent is entitled to be put in possession of the suit land till A.T.P. 21/73 is disposed of afresh by the Tenancy Tehsildar. Apprehending that the Appellant-Plaintiff may not hand over possession, the High Court felt compelled to issue a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram to deliver possession of the suit land to the defendan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant-Plaintiff having secured possession of the land in question under an order of the original authority was bound to restitute, pursuant to the order of the appellate authority which allowed the Respondent's appeal and dismissed his application. Counsel for the Appellant-Plaintiff replied that there could be no estoppel against a statute, and in any event equitable considerations cannot override a statutory prohibition. Having heard the parties, we are satisfied that no interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is called for. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the Appellant himself invoked the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act to seek eviction of the tenant. He succeeded before the original authority and in execution of the order obtained possession of the land, but lost before the appellate authority. The appellate authority directed restitution and therefore, an order was passed for putting the respondent in possession of the suit land pursuant to the appellate authority's order dismissing the application for eviction of the respondent. The Appellant sought to challenge th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suit in question should not have been granted in favour of the Appellant so as to defeat the order of restitution passed by the revenue authorities under the Tenancy Act whose jurisdiction under the Tenancy Act was invoked by the Appellant himself. The appellant cannot be permitted to retain possession by challenging the order as being without jurisdiction particularly when the jurisdiction was invoked by the appellant himself, only because the ultimate order has gone against him. The grant of discretionary relief such as injunction being in the nature of equitable relief must be granted inter-alia on considerations of equity and justice, and the Appellant who is himself guilty of inequitable conduct cannot claim such relief. Therefore, we find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, assuming for the sake of argument that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and even going to the extent of assuming that the tenancy courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition filed by appellant himself, this was an appropriate case in which injunction ought not to have been granted. Having obtained an advantage by invoking the jurisdiction of the authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
