High Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Under Article 227 To Interfere With Concurrent Findings On Temporary Injunction: Telangana HC

"The concurrent findings recorded by the both the trial Court and appellate Court are based on a proper appreciation of the material available on record and cannot be said to suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227." Telangana High Court, in a recent judgment, held that concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and appellate courts regarding the grant of a temporary injunction cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution unless they suffer from patent illegality or perversity.

A bench of Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda observed that while considering an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a civil court is fully competent to incidentally examine title to determine if a prima facie case of possession exists. The court stressed that revenue records like Pattadar passbooks provide sufficient backing to establish such temporary possession.

The dispute arose over an agricultural property measuring 2 acres and 35 guntas in Survey No. 27 of Jangama Village. The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a perpetual injunction, claiming succession to the property from his maternal grandfather and relying on subsequent mutation entries in his favour in the revenue records. The defendants, claiming to be the legal heirs of the plaintiff's grandfather's brother, filed a counterclaim asserting their own continuous possession over the exact same parcel of land. Both parties sought temporary injunctions; the trial court granted interim relief to the plaintiff and dismissed the defendants' plea, a decision which the first appellate court subsequently upheld.

The primary question before the court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts in granting the temporary injunction to the plaintiff suffered from perversity. The court was also called upon to determine whether the lower courts had failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and whether the impugned orders warranted interference under the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Scope Of Article 227 Is Strictly Supervisory

Before delving into the merits of the property dispute, the High Court extensively examined the boundaries of its own jurisdiction. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others, the bench reiterated that the power under Article 227 is strictly one of judicial superintendence and not an appellate or revisional mechanism. The court clarified that this jurisdiction is intended merely to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and must be exercised sparingly.

No Substitution Of Conclusions Based On Alternate Views

The bench emphasized that a High Court cannot act as a court of first appeal to reweigh facts or substitute its own decision merely because another view is possible. Drawing on the apex court's ruling in Garment Craft v. Prakash Cand Goel, the court noted that interference is justified only in cases involving gross miscarriage of justice or when the lower court's finding is so perverse that no reasonable person could have reached it. The court stated that a mere error of fact or a legal flaw does not invite Article 227 intervention if the final finding is otherwise supported by evidence.

Principles Governing Temporary Injunctions

Addressing the parameters for granting interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the High Court relied upon the landmark judgment in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh. The bench observed that the grant of an injunction is a discretionary relief intended to preserve the subject matter of the suit in status quo. The court noted that a plaintiff must cross the triple test of demonstrating a serious triable issue (prima facie case), a balance of convenience in their favour, and the threat of irreparable injury that cannot be compensated by damages.

"The existence of the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial."

Revenue Records Valid For Showing Prima Facie Possession

Turning to the evidentiary value of the documents presented, the High Court rejected the defendants' argument that the lower courts had placed undue reliance on mutation entries. The bench observed that the plaintiff successfully produced Pattadar Pass Books showing the lands in Survey No. 25 and Survey No. 27 recorded in his name. The court held that these revenue records sufficiently supported the plaintiff's claim regarding his immediate possession over the suit schedule property at the interlocutory stage.

Incidental Examination Of Title Permissible

The defendants had heavily relied on older Adangal and Pahani records, alongside a panchanama, to assert their continuous possession. However, the High Court validated the trial court's meticulous examination of the entire documentary material. The bench noted that while the primary concern in an injunction application is possession, the civil court is not barred from looking into ownership claims to assess the bona fides of the application.

"while considering an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is competent to incidentally examine the question of title for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists."

No Perversity In Concurrent Findings

Concluding its analysis, the High Court found that the appellate court had conducted an independent re-appreciation of the material on record and rightly concurred with the trial court. The bench observed that the name of the plaintiff had been continuously reflected in the revenue records as the pattadar and possessor for several years prior to the institution of the suit. Consequently, the High Court ruled that the concurrent findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error.

Finding no merit in the grievances raised by the defendants, the High Court dismissed both Civil Revision Petitions. The court concluded that the lower courts had rightfully exercised their judicial discretion in granting the temporary injunction to the plaintiff, and there was no justification to interfere with those well-reasoned orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Date of Decision: 10.07.2026