HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2704 of 2009 Date : 04.12.2009 Between : Yedavelli Madhusudhan Reddy & others. …..Petitioners And Muthineni Mohan Rao. …..Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2704 of 2009 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.558 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, aggrieved by the order, dated 01.06.2009, passed in C.M.A.No.81 of 2008, by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Warangal at Mahabubabad. 2. The petitioners are plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.558 of 2008 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur. The said suit is filed for perpetual injunction against the respondent-defendant, restraining him from interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit schedule property admeasuring about Ac.12-15 guntas in total, situated in the village limits of Peddavangara village of Kodakandla Mandal, Warangal District. Pending the suit, they have filed an application in I.A.No.274 of 2008 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., with a prayer to grant temporary injunction. The trial Court, by an order dated 26th November 2008, has allowed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.81 of 2008 before the learned VI Additional District Judge, Warangal, at Mahabubabad. The lower appellate Court, by the impugned order dated 1st of June 2009, allowed the C.M.A. by setting aside the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, dated 26.11.2008, passed in I.A.No.274 of 2008 in O.S.No.558 of 2008. Hence, this revision petition. 3. As stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.274 of 2008, it is the case of the petitioners that they are the exclusive owners and possessors of suit A, B and C schedule properties, situated at Peddavangara village of Kodakandla Mandal of Warangal District, and their father had purchased the said lands about two Decades back from its previous owners and developed the same into mango garden and he also obtained electricity Service Connection to the bore-well vide S.C.No.819. They allege that though the respondent is not having any right whatsoever over the property, only to grab the same, is interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment, and made such attempt to dispossess them on 24.09.2008, as such, on the aforesaid ground, they sought injunction orders by filing an application in I.A.No.274 of 2008. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent- defendant to the application in I.A.No.274 of 2008. As stated in the counter affidavit, it is the case of the respondent-defendant that the father of petitioners and the respondent are friends and due to their acquaintance, the father of petitioners had offered to sell the petition schedule properties to the respondent on 01.06.2005, and on such offer, the respondent-defendant had agreed to purchase the suit schedule property at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre and an amount of Rs.1,01,116/- was paid on the same day towards part consideration. It is the further case of the respondent-defendant that the total consideration of Rs.7,63,750/- was paid to the petitioners between the period from 01.06.2005 to 17.05.2006. After payment of the entire sale consideration, the said transaction was reduced into writing by way of an agreement of sale on 17.05.2006, on which date, the possession of petition schedule property was handed over to the respondent-defendant, and since then, he is in actual and peaceful possession of the same. It is also stated that the agreement of sale was attested by the father of petitioners. Precisely, it is his case that since the date of agreement, pursuant to which, possession was delivered to him, he is in continuous possession and the alleged interference on 24.09.2008 by the respondent is false allegation and is created only for the purpose of filing the suit. 5. On filing of counter affidavit, a reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners herein, denying the very execution of sale deed. 6. In the interlocutory application in I.A.No.274 of 2008, no oral evidence was let in, but Exs.P-1 to P-13 were marked on behalf of petitioners-plaintiffs, and Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked on behalf of respondent-defendant. Among the documents filed on behalf of petitioners, Exs.P-1 to P-3 are pattadar passbooks issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kodakandla Mandal, showing the petitioners as pattadars of petition A, B and C schedule properties. Ex.P-4 is the electricity receipt for Rs.980/- to the Service Connection No.819. Ex.P-5 is the electricity passbook for Service Connection No.819. Exs.P-6 to P-9 are pahani patrikas for the year 2002-03. The three certificates, dated 25.09.2008, issued by the Tahsildar are marked as Ex.P-10. Ex.P-11 is the attested copy of agreement of sale, dated 17.05.2006. Ex.P-12 is the letter, dated 03.10.2007, addressed to the Tahsildar, Kodakandla and the photographs of the petition schedule properties are marked as Ex.P-13. Among the documents filed by the respondent-defendant, Ex.R-1 is the copy of agreement of sale, Exs.R-2 and R-3 are Pahanis for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. 7. The trial Court, mainly on the ground that the respondent-defendant has admitted the ownership of petitioners and also on the ground that no proceedings are issued before entering the name of the respondent in the possessory column in Exs.R-2 and R-3, granted injunction. But the lower appellate Court, by recording a finding that Exs.R-2 and R-3 are the public documents, which shows the possession of respondent-defendant over the suit schedule property, has accepted the entries made therein and allowed the appeal. 8. When the name of respondent-defendant is entered in the Pahani Patrikas under Exs.R-2 and R-3, the petitioners have challenged the said entries by way of appeal, before the Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar) and Executive Magistrate of Kodakandla Mandal. When they approached this Court in W.P.No.13055 of 2009, questioning the authority of the Village Revenue Officer in issuing the copies of Pahanis by making the entries, which are approved by the Deputy Tahsildar, this Court has called for a report from the District Collector, Warangal. When such report is submitted during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, an application is filed in C.R.P.M.P.No.7159 of 2009, to receive the said report as additional evidence, which is allowed by this Court by an order dated 11.11.2009. 9. Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao for petitioners and Sri J.Prabhakar for the respondent. 10. In this revision petition, it is mainly contended by the learned counsel for petitioners Sri Adinarayana Rao that though petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the land in question, their possession is being interfered with by the respondent without any manner of right. It is submitted that even a perusal of the recitals of the agreement of sale dated 17.05.2006, would go to show that it is a sale deed, and in that view of the matter, it is not admissible in evidence at all. It is further submitted that the lower appellate Court has erred in relying on the entries made in Exs.R-2 and R-3, though they cannot be construed as certified copies. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent, by fabricating the document alleged to be an agreement of sale, is trying to grab the land belonging to the petitioners. It is the submission of the learned counsel that though the interlocutory application was rightly allowed by the trial Court, said order is vacated by the lower appellate Court without recording any valid reasons. 11. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for respondent that the Village Revenue Officer is empowered to issue certified copies of pahani patrikas and it is submitted that the maintenance of village records and village accounts is one of the duties entrusted to the Village Revenue Officers, as per the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that when the entries in Exs.R-2 and R-3 are challenged by way of an appeal, their appeal is also dismissed, as such, it is not open for the petitioners to plead that the entries made in the public documents are either wrong or incorrect. 12. With reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is to be seen that the suit is of the year 2008. It is settled law that granting of injunction depends on the evidence with regard to proof of possession as on the date of filing of the suit. Though it is the case of the petitioners that they are in actual and physical possession of the land and the said land was purchased by their father about two Decades back, except the documents in Ex.P-1 to P-13, there is no other valid evidence adduced to show their possession as on the date of filing of the suit. At the same time, it is the case of the respondent-defendant that he has purchased the property through an agreement of sale, dated 17.05.2006, which is marked as Ex.R-1. Even under Exs.R-2 and R-3, which are the pahanis for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively, the name of respondent-defendant is entered in possessory column with regard to suit schedule lands. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel Sri Adinarayana that Exs.R-2 and R-3 cannot be construed as certified copies, as there is no authority for the officers who have issued them to issue such copies, but I do not find any merit in the said contention of the learned counsel. The documents, which are issued, are issued by the Village Revenue Officer, and they are attested by the Deputy Tahsildar. Although a further contention is advanced that no proceedings are initiated under the Record of Rights Act to record the name of the respondent-defendant in possessor column of Exs.R-2 and R-3, but, whether making of entries in the pahanis would constitute Record of Rights, is also a matter which is to be considered at the stage of final disposal of the suit. 13. The other argument of the learned counsel for petitioner that the recitals of Ex.R-1 also constitute sale deed, and hence, such document is not admissible in evidence in the absence of registration, is also a matter, which is to be gone into during the course of trial. In view of the contention of the respondent about the purchase of the land in question at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre and payment of entire amount during the period from 01.06.2005 to 17.05.2006 and execution of the agreement of sale dated 17.05.2006, coupled with the entries made in the pahanis, prima facie, I am of the view that the respondent-defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Even the report submitted by the District Collector pursuant to the orders passed in W.P.No.13055 of 2009, which is received as additional evidence, shows that the entries in Exs.R-2 and R-3 are made by the Village Revenue Officer, as per Rules. It is also to be noticed that though the petitioners have challenged the entries with regard to possessory column in Exs.R-2 and R-3 recorded in the name of the respondent-defendant, by way of appeal, such appeal is also ended in dismissal. In that view of the matter, unless the entries are corrected by the authority competent, there is presumption in favour of correctness of such entries made in the pahani patrikas. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any other evidence to show that the petitioners are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, the lower appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent- defendant. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this revision filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, warranting interference of this Court. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, this civil revision petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th December 2009 ajr