Safiya Malik

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti dismissed a civil revision petition arising from a land possession dispute, affirming the appellate court’s grant of temporary injunction to the plaintiff. Justice Satti observed that Trial Courts must avoid the “short-cut method” of issuing status-quo orders without determining the parties’ possession, as such directions lead to ambiguity and further litigation. In the case, the Trial Court had modified an ad-interim injunction into an order of status-quo without recording who was in possession. Upholding the injunction, the Court directed the plaintiff to furnish security under Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC (A.P. Amendment).

The dispute arose out of a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of certain agricultural lands situated in Naruva village, Srikakulam District. The plaintiff claimed possession over three parcels of land measuring a total extent of 1.53 acres in specific survey numbers, asserting that the lands were part of ancestral property and that his name was reflected in the updated revenue records. He relied on the pattadar passbook, adangal entries, and other revenue documents to establish possession and stated that government benefits had been sanctioned in his name. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, who were his close relatives, attempted to trespass upon the property despite having no right or interest in the same.

Also Read: ‘Genuine Cultivators Should Not Be Made To Fight Prolonged Battles’: Supreme Court Declares Plantation in Wayanad Not a Vested Forest Under the Kerala Private Forests Act, 1971

The defendants contested the claim, contending that the properties were partitioned long ago among family members, and that they were in continuous possession of the land measuring 1.90 acres in the same survey number. They relied on earlier pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued by government authorities in the name of the first defendant to show ownership and possession since 1979. They asserted that the plaintiff had influenced local officials to mutate his name over part of their land.

The plaintiff produced documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P5, including the pattadar passbook and adangal. The defendants submitted Exhibits R1 to R5, including earlier title deeds and revenue records. The Trial Court initially granted an ad-interim injunction restraining interference but later modified it into an order directing both sides to maintain status quo until disposal of the suit. The Appellate Court, after examining the documentary evidence, set aside the modification and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The matter was subsequently brought before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the appellate court’s decision.

Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed: “Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience lies in his favour, and whether he would suffer irreparable injury if the relief is denied.” The Court elaborated that injunctions are preventive measures intended “to protect a litigant from future injury for which damages cannot adequately compensate.”

The Bench discussed the concept of “prima facie case” and cited Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee (AIR 1958 SC 79) and Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719, noting that “a prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt, but one that raises a substantial, bona fide question warranting trial.” It stated that “trial courts should not confuse prima facie case with prima facie title, which must be established at trial.”

Justice Satti stated: “Courts need not conduct a mini-trial while adjudicating injunction applications. The function of the court is only to ascertain if the plaintiff’s claim is not frivolous and whether there exists a serious question to be tried.”

The Bench observed. “Many times, trial courts take a shortcut method of granting status quo without determining the status of the parties,” the Court recorded, adding that “while ordering status quo, the court must specify who is in possession of the property and what status is to be maintained.” The judgment further stated: “Passing an order of status quo without indicating the status of possession leaves the matter in ambiguity and may lead to dangerous consequences.”

Referring to Kishore Kumar Khatiar v. Praveen Kumar Singh (AIR 2006 SC 1474), the Court reiterated that “it is of no use to pass an order of status quo without indicating what is to be preserved.” It clarified that if a trial court intends to preserve the nature and character of a property, it must record the conditions prevailing at the time of the order, failing which the direction becomes vague and unworkable.

The Bench noted that the appellate court had correctly exercised its jurisdiction in granting an injunction after considering documentary evidence from both sides. Citing Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. (1990 Supp SCC 727), it recorded that “an appellate court will not interfere with the discretion of the lower court unless the order is arbitrary, capricious, or perverse.” The High Court found no such illegality in the appellate order.

In dismissing the revision, Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that the appellate court’s order granting temporary injunction “does not suffer from any perversity.” The Court stated that the trial court had “failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it” by issuing an ambiguous status quo order without determining possession. The High Court affirmed the appellate court’s injunction and added a further safeguard under the Andhra Pradesh amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure.

Also Read: GPA-Cum-Sale Agreement Confers No Ownership, Cannot Override Specific Performance Decree: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Bench observed that “while Section 95 and Order XXXIX Rule 3B (A.P. State Amendment) operate post-adjudication, Order XXXIX Rule 3A empowers the Court to call upon the applicant to furnish security for damages at the interlocutory stage itself.”

The Court directed the plaintiff to “file an undertaking affidavit before the Trial Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order,” in accordance with Order XXXIX Rule 3A (State Amendment).

“The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Observations, if any, in the order, made only for the purpose of disposal of the interlocutory application and will not influence or come in the way of trial Court in disposing of the suit on merits. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri A.V. Pardha Saradhi, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Sri Tota Tejeswara Rao, Advocate.

Case Title: Boya Kistamma and Others v. Boya Suri
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 2029 of 2025
Bench: Justice Subba Reddy Satti