When Title Is Under Cloud, You Can’t Seek Injunction Alone:  Andhra Pradesh High Court

“Binding Effect of Ryotwari Patta Can’t Be Ignored; Suit for Injunction Fails Without Declaration” — In a significant ruling that reiterates settled principles of property law and the binding nature of Estates Abolition Tribunal decisions, the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao, allowing the second appeal, emphatically ruled: “When the title is seriously under cloud due to binding orders of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, a suit for bare injunction without declaration is not maintainable in law.”

This judgment overturns concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had erroneously granted a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.

“A Judgment of the Estates Abolition Tribunal Is Not Mere Paper; It Binds the Civil Court” — Court on Jurisdictional Limits

The High Court scrutinized the historical ownership of the disputed land, which was part of Sy.No.65/1 of Gollavanigunta village, originally an Inam estate vested in the State under the Andhra Pradesh Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The plaintiffs claimed title based on a chain of private sale deeds dating back to 1960. However, the Court noted:

“The vendor’s vendor of the plaintiffs, D. Subramanyam, had already been declared not entitled to ryotwari patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer in 1963, which was upheld in appeal by the Estates Abolition Tribunal in 1966. That finding binds the civil court and renders the plaintiffs’ title defective.”

“Once the Tribunal grants ryotwari patta under Section 15 of the Estates Abolition Act, its order has a binding effect on civil courts,” the Court reiterated, citing the Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan, (1999) 6 SCC 343.

“Possession Alone Doesn’t Confer a Right When Title Itself Is Invalid” — Court on Law of Injunctions

The plaintiffs argued that they were in possession and had built boundary walls on the plots purchased from the alleged vendor, K. Parthasarathy, who traced title to D. Subramanyam. However, the Court dismantled this claim:

“The plaintiffs’ possession claim is not backed by lawful title. When the vendor's title has been judicially negatived under the Estates Abolition Act, possession—if any—is irrelevant unless supported by a legitimate title.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, the Court restated:

“Where title is under serious dispute or cloud, the remedy is a suit for declaration of title with consequential relief—not a bare suit for injunction.”

"Findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court Are Not Just Erroneous; They Are Perverse” — High Court Slams Lower Courts

In a scathing observation, the Court held:

“Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to appreciate binding orders of the Settlement Officer and the Estates Abolition Tribunal. Their findings are perverse and contrary to settled law.”

The Court further noted:

“It is shocking that the courts below ignored that the entire Gollavanigunta village was notified as an Inam Estate and vested in the State on 05.02.1959. Sale deeds executed thereafter, without the backing of patta, have no legal sanctity.”

“Not Every Dispute Invokes Civil Jurisdiction When Special Statutes Apply” — Court on the Estates Abolition Act

Citing Section 15 and Section 3(b) of the Estates Abolition Act, the Court explained:

“Once an estate is abolished and vested in the State, any claim to ryotwari patta is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer. Civil courts cannot entertain title disputes ignoring those findings.”

The Court squarely held: “The orders of the Settlement Officer granting patta to Appa Rao and rejecting the claims of D. Subramanyam are final and binding. They cannot be reopened through indirect proceedings like a suit for injunction.”

On Application for Additional Evidence — “Late Evidence on Irrelevant Matters Deserves Rejection”

Dismissing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking to introduce judgments from unrelated suits, the Court categorically ruled: “Additional evidence cannot be admitted in second appeal when it pertains to different suits, different parties, and different properties. This is a clear abuse of process.”

It added: “Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is not a tool for remedying lethargy or tactical delays.”

Contempt Application — “Disputes Are Alive in Writ Jurisdiction; No Contempt Made Out”

Addressing a contempt plea under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, the Court refused to entertain the application, noting: “With both sides locked in writ proceedings regarding the same property, the contempt application is premature and without sufficient material.”

Setting aside both lower court judgments, the High Court declared: “The title of the plaintiffs is under serious cloud. The vendor’s title has been judicially rejected. The plaintiffs cannot claim an injunction simpliciter when their very right to the property is questionable.”

The Court conclusively ordered: “The second appeal is allowed. The judgments of the Trial Court dated 11.02.2011 in O.S.No.345 of 2006 and the Appellate Court dated 22.12.2017 in A.S.No.71 of 2011 are hereby set aside. The suit is dismissed.”

It further directed: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party shall bear their own costs.”

Date of Decision: 16th June 2025