THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1208 of 2010 DATED: 16-04-2010 Between: Shaik Chand Basha & 8 others. ..... PETITIONERS And Kayam Balachandra Reddy & 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 05-02-2010, in C.M.A.No.20 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar, confirming the order, dated 07-01-2009, in I.A.No.612 of 2008 in O.S.No.131 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby the Court below refused to grant injunction i.e. restraining the respondents from changing the nature of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.7.04 guntas in Sy.No.156; Ac.4.23 guntas in Sy.No.157 and Ac.0.35 guntas in Sy.No.158, totalling an extent of Ac.12.22 guntas situated at Siddapur village. According to the petitioners, they inherited the said property from late Madar Saheb, after his expiry on 09-10-1996 at Visakhapatnam. Coming to know that the respondents are trying to encroach into the suit schedule property in the year, 2005 the petitioners got issued a lawyer’s notice stating that the said land is their property and as such the respondents shall not interfere with the peaceful possession of the same. 3. Though nothing happened for a period of three years, on 27-02-2008, respondents illegally, without any authority or right, occupied the suit schedule land and started excavating work with the help of bulldozers and tractors. Despite the fact that the petitioners requested them not to enter into the said land the respondents paid a deaf ear. On enquiries, petitioners came to know that the 1st respondent created a false document i.e. registered sale deed, dated 10-01-1997, to the effect that late Madar Saheb had executed the said sale deed during his lifetime and thus the respondents have come into possession of the said land. As it is the case of the petitioners that the said Madar Saheb expired on 09-10- 1996 and hence, the question of executing a sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent on 10-01-1997 does not arise and further according to them as they are in continuous possession of the land ever since the death of the said Madar Saheb, they approached the Court below and filed O.S.No.131 of 2008 for declaration of their title, recovery of possession, cancellation of the said sale deed, dated 10-01-1997, and the subsequent sale deeds. As the respondents are trying to excavate the said land, petitioners also filed I.A.No.612 of 2008 seeking an injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the said excavation. 4. The Court below ordered notice and thereupon the respondents have entered appearance and filed a detailed counter. As per the counter of the 1st respondent, the land in question was sold by the 1st respondent during his life time on 10-01-1997 vide registered document No.32 of 1997 and when the brother of the said Madar Saheb, namely Khasim Saheb, tried to interfere with his peaceful possession, the 1st respondent was constrained to file the suit in O.S.No.70 of 2001 seeking an injunction against the said Khasim Saheb and the said suit was compromised and thereafter the said land was sold by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent. It is further stated in the counters filed on behalf of the respondents that the land in question is virtually a mine containing stoneware and hence the same was leased out to the third parties after obtaining necessary permission from the Mines Department and the Government. According to them, the lease is for a period of twenty years, commencing from 2004. Coming to know that it is a mine, according to the respondents, petitioners developed ill-will with a view to grab the said property and thus filed the said suit as if they continue to be the owners of the said property. 5. Having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel, the trial Court refused to grant interim injunction during the pendency of the said suit and the said order was confirmed by the appellate Court, as stated supra. As against the said orders, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 6. Heard Sri N.Subbarao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 7. It is true that the Courts below have refused to grant interim injunction, and normally this Court would not have interfered in a concurrent finding of this nature but the fact is that the petitioners filed the said suit for declaration of their title claiming to be the owners of the said land. If ultimately, the said suit is decreed after some time and if there is no injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the excavation work/digging of the land, there would not be anything. This aspect alone is prompting this Court to pass an equitable order so that the interest of both the parties will be safeguarded. Hence, this Court directed the learned counsel for the respondents to ascertain the views of his clients to furnish some security, however the learned counsel expressed his inability stating that the respondents are not in a position to furnish any security. Hence, this Court directs that there shall be an injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the said excavation work or changing the nature of the property. However, as the respondents expressed their willingness to cooperate with the trial of the suit, the Court below i.e. the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar is hereby directed to give utmost priority to the suit and decide the same at the earliest, preferably, on or before 31st day of July, 2010. It is made clear that the petitioners as well as the respondents shall cooperate with the Court below and see that the Court disposes of the said suit within the time stipulated above. 8. Accordingly Civil Revision Case is allowed, granting injunction upto 31st July, 2010. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 16th April, 2010. Tsy