Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS


<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession
- - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a
petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the
disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case
of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing
over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.

        Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be
exercised - - Laid down.

>HELD:

        Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention,
preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the
suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the
power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is
therefore not well founded. The power is not only with regard to subject matter
of the suit but also with reference to any question that may arise in the suit.
It is within the discretion of the Court to exercise power under relevant rule
even with regard to a question that may arise subsequently.  However, while
exercising the power for passing an order of detention, preservation and
inspection of the subject matter of property no difficulty would arise.
However, in relation to the other aspect as to the questions that may arise in
the situation, the trial Court should be guided by the pleadings of the parties.
In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of
filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental
questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court.  As an alternative
plea, a defendant is always entitled to say that he has been forcibly evicted
prior to filing of the suit and during such operation, some of his belongings
remained in the suit schedule property and in such case it is always a question
in relation to the main dispute between the parties...The concept of possession
in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and
claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession.  There is
nothing wrong to presume that when a person is stated to be in possession of a
residential house, he shall be deemed to be in possession of all the movables in
relation to the house as well as the immovable attachments in the house.  When
the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she
was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption.  Unless the
defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such
movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be
heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property.- 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)