IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.3358 of 2010 Between: Manthuri Jagannatham and others ..Petitioners AND Andem Narsimha Reddy .. Respondent ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment in C.M.A.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Siddipet, dated 7-07-2010, by which the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet, in I.A.No.1175 of 2009 in O.S.No.295 of 2009 on 9-6-2010 was confirmed. O.S.No.295 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Siddipet, was filed by the respondent herein against the revision petitioners for a permanent injunction in respect of the land in Sy.No.801 to an extent of Acs.5.00 of Chepyala village, Mirdoddi Mandal, Medak District, bounded by the land of Lingapur village shivar on the east, land in Sy.No.798 of Balreddy and others on the west, land in Sy.No.797 of Jagannatham on the north and the land of the plaintiff himself to an extent of Ac 0.26 guntas in Sy.No.801 on the south. The claim of the plaintiff was one of ownership and possession of the said land, which is claimed to be his ancestral property to which he succeeded on the death of his mother. He claimed to have got his name mutated in the revenue records and to have obtained a passbook and title deed in respect of the land with which the defendants are trying to interfere. He sought for a temporary injunction pending the suit in I.A.No.1175 of 2009. The 1st defendant contested the claim contending that the suit property is not the ancestral property of the plaintiff. He purchased the same from Andam Agireddi @ Agaiah long back and that the plaintiff obtained pattadar pass books and title deed recently. The plaintiff filed a false private complaint though he was not in possession and enjoyment. The 1st defendant in peaceful possession and enjoyment since 10-4-1977 got his sale deed regularized in 1991 and obtained a Section 13-B certificate from the Tahsildar. The 1st defendant also dug a bore well, obtained an electricity service connection and converted the land into wet land with huge investment. He is raising paddy, maize, sunflower and other commercial crops and the revision petition filed by the mother of the plaintiff against the 1st defendant was dismissed holding the 1st defendant to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment. The revenue officials held in favour of the 1st defendant in all the proceedings and in W.P.No.7700 of 2009, the High Court directed the petitioners therein to avail the remedy of a suit for declaration of title and the said writ petitioners are behind the plaintiff herein. The 1st defendant further contended that the plaintiff managed the revenue officials and filed the false suit against the 1st defendant, who also perfected his title by adverse possession. On such rival contentions, the trial Court conducted an enquiry into I.A.No.1175 of 2009 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.12 and B.1 to B.22 during the enquiry. The trial Court pronounced its order on 9-6-2010 upholding the claim of the plaintiff after referring extensively to the rival contentions and documents. The trial Court noted that Sy.No.801 is Acs.17.00 in extent out of which Agireddy got Acs.11-14 guntas and his sister Lachavva got Ac.5.26 guntas. The trial Court referred to C.C.No.331 of 2007 filed at the instance of the plaintiff against the defendants in which the investigation by the police was stated to have revealed the simple sale deed said to have been executed by Agireddi in favour of the 1st defendant to be forged and for the said conclusion, the investigating agency was also stated to have relied on the opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. The trial Court also further referred to the other revenue record showing the plaintiff as the pattadar or possessor of an extent of Ac.5.26 guntas in the suit survey number and the proceedings before the Mandal Legal Services Committee. The trial Court further observed that the revenue officials found the 1st defendant to be in possession of Ac.4.38 guntas and supported the Section 13-B certificate issued in favour of the 1st defendant. The possession of Acs.5.26 guntas with the plaintiff succeeding his mother and Acs.4.38 guntas with the 1st defendant was considered by the trial Court with reference to the identity of the suit schedule property. The trial Court opined that the genuineness of the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant is to be decided in the criminal cases, but when the plaintiff is claiming Acs.5.26 guntas allotted to his mother in family partition and when the 1st defendant did not purchase any land from the plaintiff’s mother, under the guise of the purchase from Agireddi, he cannot interfere with the land of the plaintiff. While considering the documents of the plaintiff to be establishing the possession over the suit land of himself and his mother, the defendants were said to have not proved their possession of the suit land or to be having land within the boundaries mentioned for the petition schedule property. The absence of any third party affidavit of any adjacent land owners or cultivators is also noted by the trial Court and consequently, an interim injunction was granted against the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. In C.M.A.No.23 of 2010 against the said order, the appellate Court decided on 7-7-2010 again with reference to the rival contentions and the documents that there is no reason to come to a different conclusion than the trial Court and still in the interests of justice, the trial Court is to be directed to dispose of the main suit within three months positively uninfluenced by the observations made in the appeal. The appellate Court noted that Exs.A.1 to A.6 record the plaintiff’s mother and then the plaintiff as the owner and enjoyer of Acs.5.26 guntas in Sy.No.801/Vu and the proceedings before the Mandal Legal Services Committee also corroborate the claims of the plaintiff. The appellate Court also referred to the private complaint of the plaintiff being referred to the police for investigation and having resulted in C.C.No.331 of 2007 alleging the simple sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant to be forged. The allegation against manipulation of revenue records in consequence is also noted apart from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory in this regard. The appellate Court also observed that the proceedings before the revenue officials appeared to have wrongly apportioned the individual extents in the survey number and further analyzed the other documents relied on by the 1st defendant as not inspiring confidence of the Court. The appellate Court ultimately concluded that even the pahanies- Exs.B.15 to B.22 do not specify the possession of the 1st defendant in Sy.No.801/Vu to an extent of Ac.5.26 guntas and the alleged possession and enjoyment of the land within the specific boundaries has to be determined only during the trial. The documents of the 1st defendant were noted to have not in any way prima facie established the possession of Sy.No.801/Vu whereas the plaintiff and his mother were prima facie shown to be in enjoyment of such land even prior to the issuance of Section 13-B certificate to the 1st defendant. Consequently, the failure of the defendants before the appellate Court also. The defendants challenged the said conclusions in this revision contending that the conclusions are against the documentary evidence on record and tend to disturb the possession of the 1st defendant, who raised crops in the land. The dispute about the description of the boundaries is not correctly appreciated and different and distinct land of the plaintiff to which he succeeded through his mother is not the property in the possession and enjoyment of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff could not have depended on the weakness of the version of the defendants and Exs.B.3 to B.5 and the plan attached to Ex.B.5 clearly identify the land of the 1st defendant and coupled with the proceedings before the revenue officials and the result of W.P.No.7700 of 2009, the Courts below should have upheld the claim of the 1st defendant. Sri Eranki Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri K. Govind, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The point for consideration is whether the conclusions of the Courts below in favour of the existence of a strong prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff are susceptible to any interference in this revision. Even at the outset, it should be noted that the orders of the trial Court and the appellate Court reflect a very careful and comprehensive consideration of all the questions in issue by the Courts below including the effect and contents of various documents marked before them and any interference with such reasoned concurrent conclusions can be only on very strong grounds. The original ownership of the land in Sy.No.801 is not in dispute and the plaintiff succeeding to the land allotted to his mother in the said survey number is also not in dispute, the controversy being only about the plaintiff allegedly claiming the possession of the land of the 1st defendant under the guise of the same being the land obtained from his mother. The basis for the claim of the 1st defendant is a simple sale deed said to have been obtained from Agireddi in 1977, which was subsequently regularized in 1991 through a Section 13-B certificate. But, it also cannot be in dispute that the very truth and genuineness of the said documents are at present in question in the criminal case pending before the competent criminal Court as a result of investigation by the statutory investigating agency on the private complaint of the plaintiff referred to them by the Court. The conclusions of the investigating agency are also based, among other things, on the independent opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory about the nature of the documents and though no opinion can be expressed on the genuineness of the documents in these proceedings, the fact that the documents cannot be considered to be free from doubt also cannot be ignored until the criminal proceedings may possibly end in favour of the 1st defendant. All the consequential proceedings before the revenue officials or in the writ petition in which the 1st defendant was involved are based only on the said title said to have been acquired by the 1st defendant under the said simple sale deed dated 10-04-1977 and those proceedings are also the subject matter of challenge from time to time from the family members of the original owner. In contrast, the allotment of Acs.5.26 guntas in Sy.No.801 to the mother of the plaintiff in the family division and the plaintiff succeeding to the same are not disputed even by the defendants and the consequential entries made in the revenue records in respect of the possession and enjoyment of such an extent, therefore, need not be suspected as the trial and appellate Courts have found that the documents of the 1st defendant cannot be considered as probablising his possession of the land in Sy.No.801/Vu within the boundaries specified in the plaint schedule. Though it is true that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the sketch appended to it dated 22-09-2000 are suggestive of the 1st defendant being in possession of Sy.No.801/1 more or less bounded by the same boundaries as specified in the plaint schedule, the said report of the Mandal Revenue Officer does not appear to have been finalized with notice to the plaintiff and any observations of the Mandal Revenue Officer cannot, therefore, bind the plaintiff and the proceedings of the revenue authorities including the said Ex.B.5 are not beyond controversy as discussed in detail by the trial and appellate Courts. The sketch appended to Ex.B.5 alone cannot outweigh the overwhelming documents of the plaintiff and the conclusions of the trial and appellate courts about the existence of the three essential ingredients for grant of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff cannot be deviated from. While the Civil Revision Petition should, therefore, fail, the appellate Court has already directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of its order uninfluenced by the observations made in the appeal and such a direction should take care of the interests of justice in preserving the rights and interests of both parties in their respective lands. The interim injunction in force since 9-6-2010 up to date, therefore, need not be interfered with. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 06-08-2010 Ksn