Bhupendra Solanki and others vs M/s. Raghavendra Filling Station Outlet of Petroleum Products and another

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The appellants have called in question the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.41/2012 by Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Raichur, wherein, the First Appellate Court has set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.119/2005, wherein, the trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

For the purpose of easy understanding and convenience and to avoid repetition, ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the Trial Court is retained.

The plaintiff M/s. Raghavendra Filling Station, Sales Outlet of Petroleum Products under Indian Oil Corporation, by its proprietor, filed a suit for bare injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is the proprietary firm engaged in business of sale of petroleum products like petrol, diesel and oil lubricants etc., having its prime business in Mpl. No. 1-1-122, Udayanagar, Station Road, Raichur. The said firm is the lease hold property of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited has taken no objection from Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, and also from other departments like GESCOM, Tahsildar, Health and Family Welfare, PWD, Police and Regional Fire Factory Departments and also from CMC Raichur and thereafter allowed the plaintiff as licensee to store and sell the petroleum products in the suit schedule property. The defendants are the neighbours residing surrounding the suit property and in fact, they started interfering with the plaintiff�s possession and enjoyment of the suit property on the ground that plaintiff is not entitled to continue the said business since running of the petrol bunk is causing nuisance and health hazard to the locality people. In order to restrain the defendants, a suit has been filed by the plaintiff.

The defendants appeared before the Court and defendant No. 1 has filed written statement and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have adopted the same. It is contended by the defendants that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and the plaintiff has taken signature of the defendants on blank paper to show no objection to the plaintiff to run the petrol pump etc. It is also contended that behind the back of the defendants the plaintiff has secured no objection certificate from some authorities and therefore, it will not create any right upon them. It is contended that defendant No. 1 and other surrounding people are facing health hazards due to pollution and lot of disturbance is created by running the petrol pump. The plaintiff has also put up 10 KV., diesel generator and air compressor etc., which emerge lot of noise and obnoxious materials therefore, the plaintiff has to stop the said business etc. The defendants have complained against the functioning of the petrol pump by the plaintiff to the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, and other authorities.

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

i. Whether plaintiff proves that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

ii. Whether the plaintiff further proves that alleged interference by the defendants?

iii. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed ?

iv. What order or decree?

The plaintiff examined himself as PW. 1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P28 and defendant No. 1 has examined himself as DW 1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D42.

The Trial Court after evaluation of the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that possession of the plaintiff as that of the licensee cannot be called as legal possession and therefore, injunction cannot be granted. The Trial Court has also observed that licence is only a personal right and does not create any interest in the land whereas a lease hold will create an interest in land etc. and the plaintiff has admitted that he is the licensee under Messrs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited to store and sell petroleum products which is also not denied by the defendants at all In spite of that, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit holding that plaintiff�s possession cannot be called as legal possession against the defendants.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.41/2012 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Raichur. The First Appellate Court has re-looked into the matter and in fact, decreed the suit of the plaintiff by allowing the appeal.

On perusal of both the judgments, when a suit for injunction is filed, the issues that would arise for consideration of the Court is, whether the plaintiff establishes his possession over the suit schedule property and interference by the defendants. Even if it is considered that plaintiff�s possession is illegal but the defendants have to establish before the Court that they have got better title or possession over the suit schedule property. If the settled possession of the plaintiff is shown to the Court, then irrespective of any other claim of the defendants, the Court has to grant decree in order to protect such possession of the plaintiff till the plaintiff is evicted from the suit schedule property by known course of law. The defendants never claimed in this case that they are in possession of the property, on the other hand, they admit that plaintiff is the licensee under the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and he has been running petrol pump in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that when the plaintiff has proved the possession over the property, his possession has to be protected and the injunction has to be granted against the defendants. Perhaps, the Trial Court being persuaded by the difficulties of the defendants who are the residents of the locality wherein the petrol pump is being run by the plaintiff has dismissed the suit. That cannot be a ground for the Court to refuse to grant injunction when it is specifically stated and admitted by the defendants that before starting of the petrol pump the plaintiff has obtained necessary licence and permission from the competent authorities. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for injunction.

The learned counsel for the appellants before this Court submitted that the plaintiff has not obtained any permission from the Pollution Control Board in order to run the petrol pump. That cannot be a ground for the Court to refuse injunction when the possession of the plaintiff is established. However, it is made clear that if there is any violation of law for the time being in force by the plaintiff, the defendants are at liberty to move the appropriate authorities for appropriate action.

Under the above circumstances, on facts the First Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and therefore, in order to protect his possession, an order of injunction was granted against the defendants. When such being the case, no substantial question of law arises for consideration before this Court. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.