IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR SECOND APPEAL No.103 of 2000 BETWEEN Vunise Venkataramana. …APPELLANT AND Kappala Papanna. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MR. K.G. KRISHNA MOORTHY Counsel for the Respondent: MR. L. PRABHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This is plaintiff’s appeal against the concurred findings of both the Courts below dismissing the suit O.S.No.258 of 1995 for injunction. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for injunction claiming that the land in question belongs to the Government and that he was granted D-Form patta under Ex.A1 dated 17.09.1971. He also filed Exs.A2 to A8, which are patta passbooks, cist receipts and extracts of Adangals, to establish that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land and complaining that the defendant is interfering with the same, he sought permanent injunction against the defendant. 3. The defendant, on the other hand, while denying the plaintiff’s claim, asserted that he was also granted D-Form patta for the very same land much prior to that of plaintiff under Ex.B1 dated 28.02.1957. He claims that the alleged assignment in favour of the plaintiff is not sustainable as it was done without notice to him. The defendant also led evidence in the form of proceedings of the revenue authorities and in particular, Ex.B5 under which the defendant’s claim as against the plaintiff’s patta – Ex.A1 was accepted by the Sub-Collector, Madanapalle and in the said order Ex.B5 dated 10.06.1998, the Sub- Collector held that the cancellation of assignment of the defendant and consequential grant of assignment to plaintiff is irregular, as it is done without notice to the defendant. Accordingly, the Sub-Collector set aside the DKT patta – Ex.A1 dated 17.09.1971 on which plaintiff is placing reliance. The Sub-Collector, further, remitted the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer for de novo enquiry and to pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity to both sides and in the meanwhile, status quo till disposal of the case was ordered. 4. After noticing these developments on the revenue side, the trial Court declined to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that the entitlement of the plaintiff or the defendant for the patta of the aforesaid land is pending adjudication with the revenue authorities and as such, no injunction can be granted to the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court also concurred with the said view and held that there is no valid assignment in favour of plaintiff subsisting on the date of consideration by the lower appellate court and consequently, it dismissed the appeal. 5. This second appeal by the plaintiff, therefore, was admitted on the following substantial questions of law while granting status quo as under: 1. Whether the lower Court can dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction without going into the question as to whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession or not? 2. Whether the lower Court is right in adjudicating upon the validity of cancellation of patta is favour of the defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction? 3. Whether the lower Court is right in recording a finding about the title to the property in a suit filed by the plaintiff to protect his possession? CMP.No.2387 of 2000: Status quo as obtaining today with regard to the suit schedule properties shall be maintained. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the proceedings, which lead to passing of Ex.B5 order, were taken up by the defendant after the present suit. He also points out that though the plaintiff has filed number of documents to establish his possession, the defendant has not filed any documents and as such, the suit for injunction ought to have been decided on its own merits by both the Courts below, rather than awaiting the decision of the revenue authorities as to grant of patta. He also states that much prior to the date of suit and from the date of Ex.A1, for about 23 to 24 years, the plaintiff claims to be in possession and cultivating the land without any objection from the defendant and thereby, he claims that the plaintiff is entitled to injunction 8. It is true that the plaintiff filed several documents in the shape of cist receipts, patta passbooks and adangals, which are exhibited as Exs.A2 to A8, but it has to be remembered that all these documents are based upon Ex.A1 - D-Form patta issued to the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that the very same patta was cancelled under Ex.B5 and the proceedings are still said to be pending to determine as to who is entitled to D-Form patta between the plaintiff and the defendant. When the said issue, therefore, is pending with the revenue authorities, the documents relied upon by the plaintiff to show his possession, having been based on Ex.A1, are not very much relevant for consideration in the suit. Secondly, the burden being entirely that of the plaintiff, the non-production of any document by the defendant showing his possession is of no consequence so far as the present suit is concerned. Thirdly, the Government being the admitted owner of the land and the claim by the plaintiff and the defendant being only as an assignee from the Government, the principle of plaintiff being entitled to injunction merely on the basis of his possession except against true owner is also not applicable to the present case. I am, therefore, not able to see any infirmity in the reasoning and approach of the Courts below. More importantly, the revenue authorities under Ex.B5 itself have directed status quo to be maintained by both the parties and the learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the order of status quo granted in this appeal as on 21.03.2000, extracted above, consistently protects the petitioner’s possession. In view of the fact that Ex.B5 itself directs maintaining of status quo by both the parties till the revenue authorities decide the entitlement of the plaintiff or the defendant through the patta of the said land in question, I am of the view that the substantial questions of law deserve to be answered against the plaintiff confirming the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J January 27, 2011 DSK