Pabba Thi Venkataramaiah Chetty v. Pabbathi N. Rathnamaiah Chetty and Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: R. V. Raveendran
Dalveer Bhandari
Judgment Date: 2007-02-02
Court Decision / Holding: The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s interim order, granting a stay of dispossession to the appellant during the pendency of the appeal on payment of Rs. 25,000 per month to the first respondent. The stay is conditional, subject to default resulting in vacatur. The Court stated the order is interim and does not express an opinion on merits or mesne profits. The High Court was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously and the parties were to bear their own costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Pabba Thi Venkataramaiah Chetty

Respondents

Pabbathi N. Rathnamaiah Chetty and Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• L. Nageshwara Rao
• V. Sridhar Reddy
• K.Y. Kameshwaran

Counsels for Respondents

• A. Subba Rao

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court order concerns an interim stay related to a partition suit involving a commercial building in which the appellant, Pabba Thi Venkataramaiah Chetty, occupies the premises as a lodge. The building’s final decree in the partition suit had already been passed, and an appeal was filed before the High Court. The High Court had granted an interim stay, directing that the appeal be listed for final hearing after Dassara Vacation and that the building not be demolished until then. The appellant sought a stay of dispossession rather than demolition, arguing that dispossession would render the appeal infructuous and deprive him of his livelihood as he runs a lodge on the premises. The first respondent contended that he is entitled to two-thirds share and that the appellant’s continued possession and income from the lodge adversely affected the respondent’s rights. In balancing interests, the Court held that while the stay of dispossession is justified to avoid infringing the appeal, it must be conditioned to protect the respondent’s interests. Consequently, the interim order was modified to stay dispossession during the pendency of the appeal on payment of Rs. 25,000 per month by the appellant, with default vacating the stay. The High Court was directed to expeditiously dispose of the appeal, and costs were allocated between the parties. The ruling is strictly interim and does not express an opinion on merits or mesne profits.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Appellant contended that the appeal in the partition suit concerns a final decree and that, since he occupies the suit premises as a lodge, a mere stay of demolition would not protect his rights. He urged that dispossession would render the appeal infructuous and requested a stay of dispossession during the pendency of the appeal, or at least a measure that would safeguard his livelihood until the appeal is decided. The counsel emphasized the need for an expedited hearing of the appeal to resolve the dispute without unnecessary hardship to the appellant.

Contentions of Respondents

The Respondents argued that the appellant’s continued possession and operations of the lodge undermine the respondents’ rights, as the first Respondent is entitled to two-thirds share and has not received income from the property. He contended that a stay of dispossession should balance the loss to the respondent with the appellant’s occupation, but that indefinite protection would prejudice the respondent’s financial interests. The respondent’s counsel maintained that the High Court’s order should safeguard the respondent’s financial and proprietary rights while ensuring the appeal proceeds expeditiously.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ## PABBA THI VENKATARAMAIAH CHETTY _v._ ## PABBATHI N. RATHNAMAIAH CHETTY AND ORS. ## FEBRUARY 2, 2007 B [R.V. RA YEEND RAN AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] _Interim Order: Stay of execution of final decree in a partition suit-Suit for partition of commercial building-Final decree passed-Appeal against-_ C _Pending appeal stay of execution of final decree sought-High Court directing appeal to be listed for final hearing and staying demolition of buildingHeld, since appellant_ is _running a lodge in the suit premises, his appeal would become infructuous if stay of dispossession_ is _not granted-But at the same time interests of respondent also require to be protected-Therefore, interim order granted by High Court_ is _modified to the effect that there shall_ D _be stay of dispossession of appellant pending appeal subject to appellant paying Rs.25,0001- per month to the respondent-High Court would dispose of the appeal expeditiously._ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 444 of2007. E From the interim Order dated I .9.2006 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in ASMP No. 1555/2006 in A.S. No. 454/2006. L. Nageshwara Rao, V. Sridhar Reddy and K.Y. Kameshwaran for the Appellant. F A. Subba Rao for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered by ## **ORDER** G I. Delay condoned 2. Leave granted. **H** 3. Learned counc.el for the Appellant submitted that the first Respondent is the only contesting Respondent and prayed that notice to Respondent 286 _';f_ _'x:'_ \ ~ I ..--, PABBA THI VEN KA TARAMAIAH Cl-I ETTY r. PABBA THIN. RA THNAMAIAH CH ETTY 287 Nos_ 2 to 8, who are proforma Respondents may be dispensed with_ Notice A to respondents 2 to 8 is accordingly dispensed with. 4. This appeal arises from an interim order of the High Court. The Appellant herein has filed an appeal against the final decree in a suit for partition. In the said appeal, he sought stay of execution of the final decree, which required _division of a commercial building which is in the occupation[B ] of the Appellant who is running a lodge therein. The High Court, considered the application for stay filed by the Appellant and made an order dated 1.9.2006 directing that the appeal itself should be listed for final hearing after Dassara Vacation and till then, the building shall not be demolished. 5. The said order is under challenge. The learned counsel for Appellant[c ] submits that he is in possession of the suit premises and his prayer was for interim stay of dispossession as he is running a lodge and an order of stay of demolition will not, therefore, protect his rights, pending appeal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first Pespondent submitted that the Appellant has been enjoying the suit premises and though the first D Respondent is entitled to two third share therein, he has been kept out of possession and he is also not receiving any income therefrom. It is not in dispute that Appellant is running a lodge in the suit premises. The appeal against final decree filed before the High Court may become infructuous if stay of dispossession is not granted. But at the same time, the interests of E first Respondent require to be protected. The learned counsel for first respondent estimates the minimum loss to his client as Rs. 25000/- per month. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, interests of justice would be served if the Appellant is directed to pay to the first Respondent Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) per month unconditionally during F the pendency of the Appeal. 7. We, accordingly dispose of this appeal as follows: (i) The interim order dated 1.9.2006 granted by the High Court is modified as follows: There shall be stay of dispossession of the G Appellant during the pend ency of the Appeal before the High Court subject to the Appellant paying Rs. 25, 000/- per month to the first Respondent, every month commencing from 1.2.2007. If there is any default on the part of the Appellant, the stay order shall stand vacated." H 288 ## A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R. (ii) Nothing stated above shall be construed as expression of any opinion on the merits of the appeal before the High Court or quantum of _mesne_ profits. The order is purely interim in nature, Pending disposal of the appeal. (iii) The High Court is requested to hear and dispose of the appeal B expeditiously as already directed by it, in its order dated 1.9.2006. (iv) Parties to bear their respective costs in this appeal. RP. Appeal disposed of. _1_