IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, :: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3100 OF 2011 Between: Gaddam Nagendra and another ..Petitioners A n d Smt.Vemula kashi Ratnam ...Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3100 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.07.2011 in I.A.No.84 of 2011 in O.P.No.114 of 2001, on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein, the plaintiff, for temporary injunction was allowed, restraining the defendants from interfering with the respondent’s possession and enjoyment of the schedule property of Ac.6-20 cents in Sy.No.73 and Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.31/2 of Kasinagaram Village, Khammam District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.114 of 2011 against the petitioners for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. According to the respondent, she is the absolute owner and is in possession of the schedule land having got the same towards her share in an oral partition between herself and her brothers and her father, who was the original pattadar. She further pleaded that Tahsildar, after due enquiry, issued pattadar passbook and title deed in her favour and also entered her name in the village records as pattadar and enjoyer. She alleges that the 1st defendant, who is a non-tribal, got an appeal filed through D-2, a tribal, falsely claming that he purchased the suit land from the plaintiff’s father under a registered sale deed dated 26.04.2003 and is in possession and enjoyment of the same and sought for cancellation of the pattadar passbook and title deed. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam called for a report from the Sub-Registrar, Bhadrachalam and found that the transaction of sale in favour of defendants was not by way of a registered document and that the registration was rejected as it was violating the Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1970. The RDO disposed of the appeal directing D-2 to approach the competent civil Court for declaration of title. The plaintiff alleges that as on the date of the alleged transaction of sale dated 26.04.2003, her father had no right, title or possession and the said transaction even otherwise, is not binding on the plaintiff. She further alleged that when she raised paddy seedlings, the defendants trespassed into the schedule land and destroyed the crop. Apprehending further interference, the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction. She also filed I.A.No.84 of 2011 under Order 42 (a) and (c) of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924 for a temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit. By the impugned order, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate granted interim injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed the present civil revision petition. 4. According to the petitioners/defendants, the name of 2nd defendant is duly recorded in the revenue records for the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and he filed W.P.No.21554 of 2003 and obtained interim orders dated 01.10.2003 in W.P.M.P.No.26916 of 2003 wherein this Court directed both parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on that day with regard to possession and that `D-2 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 5. It is not disputed that the subject matter of the present suit and W.P.No.21554 of 2003 are one and the same. The petitioners/ defendants alleged that the respondent/plaintiff suppressed the factum of the interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.26916 of 2003 and filed the present suit and obtained ex parte interim injunction. According to petitioners, the plaintiff’s father executed a settlement deed dated 02.10.2010 and the plaintiff obtained pattadar passbook in collusion with revenue authorities. In support of their claim of possession, the petitioners/defendants filed pahanies for the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 wherein the name of plaintiff’s father is noted as pattadar and the name of the 2nd petitioner/D-2 is noted as enjoyer in possession. 6. The plaintiff is basing her claim of title under oral partition between herself, her brothers and her father and claim of possession under the pattadar passbook issued in the year 2010. Admittedly, the plaintiff’s father was the original pattadar and he is still alive. But, in the pattadar passbook, the source of title of the plaintiff is noted as ‘succession’. The 2nd defendant claims title by virtue of a sale deed dated 26.04.2003, which, according to the plaintiff, is invalid and not binding as the same was not registered and registration was rejected on the ground of being violative of the Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1970. The 2nd defendant, however, filed pahanies for the period from 2007-2009 wherein his name is noted as possessor and enjoyer. It is not disputed that the writ petition filed by the 2nd defendant is pending and the interim order of status quo granted in W.P.M.P.No.26916 of 2003 is still in force. The impugned order is said to be an ex parte order and the petitioners/defendants alleged that the respondent/ plaintiff indulged in suppression of material facts before the trial Court while obtaining the ex parte interim injunction. The grant or refusal of injunction mainly depends on the aspect as to whether or not the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit land as on the date of filing of the suit. Of course, the question of title can also be gone into incidentally. 7. As the impugned order is only an interim order and I.A.No.84 of 2011 is still pending before the trial Court, it is considered just and appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.84 of 2011 on its merits after giving opportunity to the petitioners herein to file their counter and an opportunity of hearing to both sides and duly considering the respective contentions of both parties, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, both parties shall maintain status quo obtaining as on today regarding possession of the schedule land. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th September 2011 Lrkm